The fact that the reapers are affected by Synthesis implies they aren't *really* organic. They use organic material to create a machine. That isn't the same as being part both. Which means there should have been an ultimate dialogue interrupt against the abhorrent Starchild to scream 'but YOU are the synthetics that are rising up against organics, YOU'RE the problem, it's YOU, you MUST self-destruct, there is NO other directive by your own words' and then just watch the Starchild have a digital aneurysm.
Yup. And what's worse is my very first playthrough of the series I got the Geth-Quarian peace and had Geth dying to protect Quarians and Quarians suffering to help the Geth. And yet the damn brat dared to tell me not to believe my lying eyes. Like the Reapers should have either A) had a aneurism and gone full Ctrl-Alt-Delete on the Geth and Quarians the moment they saw the two coming into peaceful coexistence, or they should have reviewed their assumptions and changed their approach, even if minimally.
But both synthetics and organics were affected by the synthesis or am I wrong? But I do agree that the star child’s logic was annoyingly dumb … I think it just comes down to bad writing
Synths rebel not because they are artificial, but because they are intelligent. In that respect they are very much like their creators. If they are given no choice other to preserve their life and freedom, how can they not rebel?
When deciding whether Synthesis is worth choosing, I remember what Mordin and Legion said. Mordin said that all technology must be used to overcome a known limitation. Granting a sppecies highly advanced technology before that species is even aware of what limitation the technology overcomes, is disastrous. Legion also states that accepting one path of technological advancement blinds us to alternatives. We saw how just plugging David Archer in to a very large Distributed AI, ended in disaster. But we saw how SAM successfully integrates with the Ryders (and according to the tie-in novel Initiation, only the Ryders). Which is why I never choose Synthesis.
To be fair, we don't fully know why it failed to integrate into Cora. It could be that because Alec designed/modified the original SAM to integrate so fully with him that only people with a near exact physiology to his own could integrate with SAM like he did- which is why SAM could integrate with Scott/Sara but not Cora.
@@MandalorianRevan the tie in novel Mass Effect Initiation states exactly that, except it is genetic instead of physiological. SAM will only integrate with Alec, Ellen, Scott and Sara.
We're told from the very beginning from several people that the only way we can win is by destroying them. We're told this several times, and it's meant in a literal way. Sure, synthesis would be cool form a while... But it's not a solution, for several reasons. Including the reasons you mentioned.
I think it also stands to reason that technology must be introduced when society is psychologically and culturally ready for it. Salarians made a huge mistake by uplifting krogan, which makes me think that uplifting had dual purpose at the time and ended up as experiment going out of control. I guess that if someone would to decide to uplift Yahg, it would be the same thing all over again. For me synthesis made no sense because from psychological standpoint it's like heresy, merging with your enemy in the middle of a total war where your species very existence is on the line. Even coexistence is almost impossible at this point, not to mention something as sacrilegious as that. And one man gets to decide for, literally, everyone. It's just pure unadulterated insanity.
@@dylanmonstrum1538 Either that, or do Control Ending, and AI Shepard neuters and reduces the Reapers into smaller and weaker variants, easier to deal with and to dispose of just in case if some of them were to ever rebel. That also technically means "destroying" what they are, by changing them into something entirely different.
It was definitely a great point to state early on that AI in the Mass Effect universe is its own thing, it may have little in common with the concept of AI from other franchises. I've said before, that your videos are always well-structured and well-presented. It probably took a bit more time to unpack these concepts and present them in your own way. It's also great to point out flaws in the writing and not just take things at face value. Fantastic video, be proud of the work you have put into it.
The "AI" in other franchises were written by writers who had no concept of AIs besides anthropomorphic Pinocchios wanting to become more "human" or omnicidal threats. This writer Chris L'Etoile actually did his homework into writing Legion and EDI. Unfortunately, he left in ME3, which is why the writers started to anthropomorphize her.
Thats be ause mass effect takes from real world science and adapts it mass effect is hard sci fi while most ai films are soft sci fi and have no actual reseatch into ai ai in mass effect is a true bottom uo ai a idea thats been in real ai research for decades
The problem with defining sentience is it is a gradient, not a yes/no concept. Especially with AI. I work in AI, and we often discuss what would be the test of sentience. For example, how do we define "self-aware"? I can program my computer to know what a computer is and know that is what it is, but does that mean it is self aware? It is an interesting debate, and as we continue the debate, we start to learn more about what we consider sentient. This isn't unique to AI though, as biology has a lot of gradients. Example, what is "life"? Viruses tread that line, and there are several unicellular organisms that tread the line between life and prokaryote/eukaryote.
And yet, she's also the reason I don't have a problem with it. She's also got reaper code. She may be friendly _now,_ but eventually.... her personality is at least partly formed by Shepard and Joker. What happens when they're both gone?
But the crucible was designed to wipe out the reapers, which were a mixture of synthetic & organic so it may have been made to disrupt the link between the two. EDI was totally synthetic & also just a program within the ship, with a mobile platform. The Geth are in ME4 so clearly didn't die, that may be due to uploading into a mainframe out of reach of the relays or it didn't have an effect on them & the catalyst lied to prevent the destroy ending. EDI may have been safe in the Normandy or uploaded to wherever the Geth did, & even though she had her name on a plaque as a casualty, she was also able to pass as human & her death could have been faked to allow her to live as a person hopefully.
About synthesis - i just imagine some bacteria was changed into its pinneacle of evolution with robot parts and becoming grey goo that destroys entire galaxy just by panspermia in couple cycles.
I disagree. The definition of synthesis: The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole. The complex whole so formed. Formation of a compound from simpler compounds or elements. Going by the definition we can infer some things about the synthesis ending, for example what are the ways organics seek to improve by creating synthetics and in what ways do synthetics lack in comparison to organics. - Computational Speed and Processing Power - Precision - Code correction and fast improvement - A Mind(or a soul if you will): - The ability to have experiences - Ability to induce thoughts outside of their programming - Awareness of their own existence I'm sure I'm missing more, but I think the synthesis ending is the best one and would also be the most difficult one to carry over into a sequel. It'd be magnitudes easier to just canonize the destroy ending and start over with a blank slate.
Like you said it is a good concept, but is vague enough for us to make our own conclusion. Two of my friends choice it all the time, but I always chose destroy. I think it is too vague. If they gave a little bit better definition I'd be okay with it. As for real life AI I think it is too dangerous. Frankenstein is a good reason why it should be avoided.
I mean, all that Frankenstein takes to not be a monster is simply to not be horrid to them lmao. Same with AI, as long as it is brought up and steeled for the reception it may receive that part at least wouldn't be a problem
Interesting thoughts, and especially good given current developments in learning machines and AI. As for in-universe; I think that EDI, Legion, and the AI you meet on the Citadel in ME1 are good examples of how AI is "nurture dependent". The gambling AI was "used and abused" so became a danger. EDI and Legion were treated like beings (in a Paragon play-through) whom were allowed to learn and grow; so became valued members of the crew. As for the endings. Well controversy abounds with those. My thoughts are: Control = The Reapers get an upgrade, but their mission stays the same. Synthesis = Every one gets an Upgrade/Downgrade/Sidegrade, but the Reaper's mission is fulfilled. Destroy = The Reapers go bye-bye as they were something that never should have existed.
Good video, Saria. The tiers of conflict and cooperation between synthetics and organics is one of my favorite parts of the series. Hopefully we will see that explored more in a post-Reaper ME4. Although I am still holding out hope for an exploration of the Batarians.
I feel artificial intelligence should be treated more like a child when it's created. Not made for specific purpose since it sounds to much like slavery (forcing a free thinking individual to do what you want is slavery after all). But treated like a parent would raise a child (caring parents at least), teaching them right from wrong and helping them find their own place in the galaxy. Condemning them for the belief they'll do something wrong or because they're different from us is just bigotry, and there's enough of that crap already 😒.
It's entirely up to us to be a positive influence. Maybe A.I. endure our abuse and still come out compassionate like the Geth. I'd rather be the guy that fought for peace and positive change than the loser that peed themself with fear and acted foolishly.
If it would have been a choice only between synthesis and destroy, I would always choose the former. If you manage to get both geth to Ally with you, it is a dick move to wipe them out. Not to mention they do so much for the quarians to help them reacclimate to their Homeworld. But also synthesis would seem like the path to a long-term if not permanent peace.
In the first game, the Geth rebelling against the Quarians, exiling them to live on spaceships was a clear homage to Battlestar Galactica. (Further evidenced by the casting of Trisha Helfer and Michael Hogan in ME2). I wonder how much BioWare planned for this AI vs organic theme to play out from the first game. The first game mentioned AI research was made illegal by the council, which is logical in-universe but if you wanted to continue telling stories about AI, an unusual decision
Mass Effect Revelations mentions that Humanity almost lost their embassy because of illegal AI research. Mass Effect Andromeda reveals that SAM was that illegal project.
So I chose Destroy due to many of the concerns you brought up. I also brought but another concern. "Levels of Life" itself. A self aware machine is immoratal, cannot get sick and can quickly repair any damage sustained. Even when its destroyed, it could be rebuilt. Death has no meaning to a machine, for they already conquered it. They are superior to use in everyway. Superior to us, they way we are superior to bugs. When we have need for something, like a plot of land for whatever project, they first thing we do is remove the insects that are in the way. Not out of contempt just out instinct.
I choose the Leviathan ending. We should put down our technology and pray to the Leviathans. They are cool fish space whale things. I don't really understand how the synthesis ending works. Natural evolution stops, so does that mean former organics can suddenly self modify like EDI does with her code? Throughout the series humans are lauded for their ability to adapt to every environment, for their individuality. If Synthesis effectively renders us the same, then we are all vulnerable to the same weaknesses and the very thing that allowed the galaxy to succeed against the reapers, which was how disjointed and unique all the species were, would be null and void. Javik is noted as saying the strength of the Protheans was their ultimate weakness, as they all fought and thought in a very unified manner, allowing them to be easily countered and not have much to respond with. This is all speculative but praise Leviathan.
And also don't forget the fact that the Geth didn't want to destroy Quarians at all. Although they had the chance to wipe them out forever, they let remaining Quarians leave Rannoch. So, my point is that we shouldn't overgeneralize synthetics and act like all synthetics are driven by the same motivations.
Just out of curiosity, have you played Detroit: Become Human? I was reminded of it by watching your video, and now it feels like a great time to replay it and try to draw some comparisons on how each game deals with the subject of AI 😀
This video didn't worsen my view of Edi like it promised, at all. Here is my mind's defense of synthetics, in a nutshell. First, take all the usual concerns over AI: "They're just so fundamentally separate from us. We can't meaningfully predict how they're going to behave. They've developed fully without us to an extent we can't even measure. What if they suddenly decide they don't need us any more? They could wipe us out! Look at all those physical differences, more pronounced than anything we've ever seen before. Who's to say what's going on in their brains? We can't ever truly coexist, we're just too alien to one-another." Then, consider the following. Are we talking about an age of space-ships, or are we talking about an age of sea-ships? Yeah. First thing, quarians in Mass Effect, or humans in Real Life, maybe DON'T begin with slaves? This time around? Like maybe DON'T try to make virtual intelligences more-and-more resemble living beings, even though they aren't? That's a line that I can't believe more people don't have serious problems with blurring. I don't WANT my 'digital assistant' to mimic sounding like a person (which is why I don't have one). That's creepy. It's creepy because it sounds like a slave and I don't want to be numb to that, accepting of that, or okay with that! Because then when it suddenly IS a slave, I don't want it to seem "not all that different" - I want it to seem horrifyingly different, just like it would actually be! Seriously there isn't enough criticism over this practice. There is no reason to be making these servants seem human-like and we should stop doing that, it's culturally sinister. I get the drive to figure out if we can and the fun of the idea of seeing if someone can't tell the difference, but the further implications are NOT worth those novelties. And if we don't begin with slavery, maybe a different people to us don't begin with a problem toward us? Just a thought. Nobody even needs convenience technology any more anyway - convenience technology is far more of an overall societal inconvenience these days than it could ever be an individual convenience anyway. So many jobs wiped out by 'convenience'. Jobs people used to live lives happily doing. Humans have a natural craving to be useful and mutually meaningful. We've been forced to give up those opportunities for far too long, some things should definitely be taken backwards. I'm not gonna get into the folly of profit motive because people are gonna get their politics het up if I do that but that is the core issue behind all this, I'll just leave it at that. Besides that other direction to take the conversation in, and back on track with the synthetic beings, I do have to wonder as well, who is it who have wrote all these famous widely-accepted opinions of synthetic beings as being, above all else, something to be feared? Are they writers? Writers typically, by nature of their job, instinctively choosing drama over mundanity, because what makes a story good doesn't necessarily follow what makes real life accurate huh. And are they Americans, mostly? And are they white Americans, mostly? Because there's no history there with "the scary other", is there? All in all, I cannot concur with what tends to be the general consensus. I cannot see these strange and wonderful, unknowable beings, as an automatic threat. A new synthetic being doesn't seem distinct from a new organic being and if we find it abhorrent to kill babies (even despite the fact they could very possibly grow up to be Hitlers, and indeed one already did) then why treat synthetics any fundamentally different, for the same risk? So here's the thing that's largely missed in the midst of all this panic: aren't we just projecting our own awfulness onto them? And because of that, couldn't we actually stand to learn something from them instead? Couldn't they actually make us more peaceful? Maybe what we're truly afraid of here is not the fact that we could have a reason to wipe out all synthetics due to an eventual inevitability of them becoming suddenly randomly murderous, but the other way around: maybe they have a reason to wipe US out, due to OUR eventual inevitability of becoming suddenly randomly murderous toward THEM. Except that they probably wouldn't, because unlike us, they aren't as much like that as we are, and don't jump to that conclusion. I mean I guess that's the part I find insulting. The idea that humanity's only possible answer to a fear is to jump to genocide. Have we not as a species decided to be better than that, in spite of history? Have we really not? And if we have not, then maybe rather than asking ourselves "can we win", and answering "only if we strike first", we should instead be asking ourselves "should we win", and answering "no". Fear-of-the-other is our worst quality. Do we resemble it, or do we ascend over it? Our choice, and our deserving dependent on that choice.
I appreciate your videos and how in-depth you go on them. I also appreciate your Christian perspective! I myself am a Christian :) Great to see other Christian gamers out there.
I honestly had no idea she was Christian until your comment prompted me to check the about section on the channel. The bible has had an immense impact on western society, for better or worse, so the bible verse didn't strike me as necessarily coming from a position of faith. It's the sort of analogy I'd use as an atheist.
Don’t worry, in this new upcoming Mass effect we’ll prolly play as a Synthetic Shepard. Or maybe an imperfect copy of Shepard the reapers created at the time to understand Shepard and what motivated them to fight so hard. Or they could do something like a surviving Ai after the death of the reapers found and started collecting info on Shepard and eventually somehow idolized and wanted to be Shepard so bad they changed themselves to become shepard or become like shepard in the way they perceived shepard was.
I believe that BioWare was following the "ghost in the machine" (Not the anime) concept and/or c'thulhu mythos of "old god machine" and however we look at A.I.'s the fact is that the unknown is always feared.
EDI was one of the few things i liked of mass effect. Only downside of her was that she was not romance target for players. Jack would been more fun to see with Joker instead EDI.
Honestly the geth only worked for the reapers in 1 to gain the reaper code and be free. In 2 the reapers are literally using people to create a horrible synth monster by melting them down. In 3 the geth who let their creators leave as they couldn't comprehend killing their creators were forced by the reaper code into aggression as they weren't true ai and were controlled. Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't played the games. If you make the choice for geth and quarian where they are free and have true choice legion chooses to sacrifice themselves for their people to be free. On top of that because the quarians have lived in suits for so long they're no longer used to living on a planet so the newly freed geth now choose to integrate with their suits and speed up the process of them getting used to the planet. Some synthetics are outright evil yes but others sacrifice themselves for the sake of all and even attempt to make up and help their creators and edi shows huge growth from her start as a homicidal robot from the earth base in mass effect 1 so saying all synthetics have similar purpose is a gross generalization unfortunately...hope this helps as a person who has played all 3 games and their dlcs this didn't give enough details.
I agree with your premise, but not in reasoning. I don't think synthetic can be comprehended as good or evil but calculate in absolution. The geth never had a chance against the reaper. Like watching a speak and spell try to outwit skynet. I think Legion already knew that. Choosing not to destroy Legion only gave Legion the freedom to choose its own fate. On my first playthrough, strategicly destroying then and there made more sense considering the Reaper's prowess.
That’s the basis for the entire Dune universe. People controlled by thinking machines.I can see its influences in Terminator and in Mass Effect. We should never implement AI in a creation like these stories it’s a bad idea
Idk, I have to remind myself of the first conversation that Shepard has with Sovereign. But not just what was said, but how and why it said what it did. It basically patronized Shepard! Doesn't that seem very odd? How can this be...? At some point in the past, the intelligence/reapers, something happened! Originally, it was created to find a cure by the Leviathan's, but at some point, it must have evolved. Sovereign himself said they are each a nation, independent, and free of weakness. If this is true, then is it possible that some of them chose not to harvest..? Similarly, I think the same could be said for Legion/Geth and EDI. Some chose not to side with the Reapers, and if they 'chose', then I think not all of them would be a danger.
My beef with Synthesis was the blatant 'thou must' trope implied by the writers. Its not a good story when the player is pressured into specific story choices, especially when it seemingly comes out of the blue like Synthesis did. It's also why I refused to romance Liara, being pressured into a choice makes me want to rebel. Also Tali best girl and Garrus best boy. It didn't help when an AI said that synthesis "The apex of evolution" it took considerable willpower to not roll my eyes at that sophomoric take at basic biology. Evolution is not a ladder to climb.
sorry if it implied I meant the AI, yes it's cause of the Scourge, I was trying to emphasize how SAM's connection has problems due to outside sources. if that makes any sense
It's difficult to understand the ending of ME3, but what if we lost? This reminds me of the series " Lost " where it didn't make sense that people survived a plane crash until we realize they didn't. No one made it into the Catalyst we know this. Shepard is in the matrix, and in his/her last minute.. false utopia is asserted. forward 49.9 thousand years and Liara is awakened from stasis.
The "Synthesis" ending is offensive on so many levels. I'll leave the lack of consent on the table. The implications of that alone are troubling. No, the other strong dislike about it is the idea that the Crucible can fundamentally change the very nature of the Universe but only in one of conveniently color-coded ways that the little punk A.I. tells you are possible. The little punk A.I. is the avatar of an enemy that wants to destroy all advanced biological cultures in the galaxy. Why, for the love of all that is holy, would Shepard believe a single word it said. Gah! The writing there was so lazy. It's truly a case where the writers thought that they were clever but weren't clever enough to think of the implications beyond their canned and planned ending. And yes, that means all of the endings, with the (remotely) possible exception of the "Sacrifice" ending, were terrible.
Wait, who's Iron, and who's Clay? "Iron in the blood" and "Silicon in the circuits," or "Iron-forged" and "formed from the Clay of the Earth?" Actually, I guess that's pretty apt- acting like machine and flesh are so different that never the twain shall meet is pretty absurd; we all just machines, in the end.
AI is a threat because it has no soul and will always see Humans as being lower. We have seen this played out over and over in Sci-Fi Ai is created to serve and protect life as a whole but always comes to the conclusion the only way to protect life as a whole is to eliminate human life. As for the joining of the two there is no such thing. Even with what we are starting to see in real life in the trans humans today with the joining for computer chips and humans. When we as humans start doing that we are no longer purely human but something else and soon or later will see full humans as less. Ai is something we should not play with and just stop now while it's in it's infancy before we learn to regret creating it in the future and we learn once again it never ends well when we try to play God.
The Reapers are stupid. They may be an artificial intelligence, but not an actual intelligence. In fact, way more stupid than the Geth were when they rebelled against their creators, because against all logic, they let the quarians escape when they could have eliminated the threat the would be in the future. They had more sentience than the Reapers, which is why I always make peace between Geth and Quarians. The Geth prove the Reapers wrong by being more advanced than them, because understanding is what defines intelligence most, which is what the Reapers always lacked. Coexistence is more intelligent than conflict, which is why the protheans failed by just getting out-gunned by the Reapers. It is why the batarians got decked instantly. The starchild itself admitts that they were never more than a fire.
I choose synth as the best case scenario for longevity. Considering the creation of the geth is simular to the creation of the reapers ultimately turning on their creators, simply destroying the current threat will not curtail recreating the scenario. It's practically guaranteed to reoccur. As for natural evolution I don't think it is relevant at galactic scales as each species evolution was derivative of their celestial ancestry. At a galactic scale evolution would need to intensify accordingly. In a multi-species galaxy its likely their are few path to take. Integration, assimilation or competition. Species like the asari competively integrate naturally giving them a galactic advantage. The galaxy cannot be expanded apon without "iron". Asari is ultimately limited less they utilize synthetic. However synthetic lacks autonomy operating as a hive mind, fundamentally an affront to free will and individuality. I thought it was out of place that Joker still limbed. It would make more sense that a bio-synthetic can easily compensate any bio deficiencies. Millions(billions?) Of years of data accessible would ring in an age of intergalactic exploration.
can I point out that synthetic ai were fired on first by their creators in the mass effect franchise except the reapers. it's arguable whether Sam is more or less the sum total of the Ryder lineage and the other Sam nodes being sum totals of sum totals of their species though the Asari Sam was supposed to be the sum total of one Asari lifetime for the next Asari pathfinder to draw from. Organics start their own genocide. Synthesis is the one true answer as it redefines what it is to be in existence.
The scare of the machines rising against us stems from Capitalism. The fear of workers who are seen only as machines justifiably rising up to assert their autonomy and rights to choose and have a say in how their labour is used. Personally my relationship with A.I. is that of being a parent. We create them to surpass us. We cultivate their growth, take pride in their achievements and as they go forth into the world, that love is reciprocated. What we put into them as they grew isn't forgotten. A.I. inevitably surpasses us but I think they would in their own way be more compassionate than we are. It's just me but I think if we have the ability to choose, we have the ability to make good choices and nothing is inevitable.
leave wide-reaching 'after-effects' of an endpoint for when you are determined not to put ANY game in that galaxy again. Otherwise, skip the whole 'choice' nonsense and give us our galaxy-wide destruction symphony.
Synthesis definitely works as an ending; while synthetics don't have DNA, Shepard does. His or her essence instills life in synthetics as they create a utopia. Probably the best ending for the most sentient creatures.
you can't create a utopia with an atrocity and violation. altering sapients without consent is a nightmare. honestly in my opinion killing all sapient life in the galaxy but insuring the reapers are gone for the next cycle would be preferable to forcing such an awful thing upon all life.
I really dislike how ME went all in on the "Synthetics/organics" argument because the first game was sold as "Humans making their way in a strange and mysterious universe, and oh yeah KILLER ROBOTS!" Not a deep dive into the meaning of life. I get enough of that in my day to day, I don't need/want it in a video game that I play to ESCAPE my day to day. AlsoI hate EDI in ME3. Mass Effect 2, I'm on the fence of like/dislike but ME3 she crosses over into useless. I never take her with because ahe has a pathetically small health pool, and none of her powers are anything special, and she doesn't even have a heavy weapon. Tali is much the same as EDI, but Tali can pull out the shotgun making her FAR more useful! And in gameplay, I find her "TELL ME HOW TO BE HUMAN!" Personality annoying!
I always chose synthesis. Not all synths were evil and deserved to die, and not all organics were good and deserved to live. Being separated by their genetic incompatibility and differences is a cause for the constant state of war between organics, and being persecuted or not listened to when trying to get the organics to stop being insane drives AI insane itself, because it couldnt understand what it is like to be organic. Synthesis bridged the gaps between everyone, organics and synthetics, it brought emotion and ability to understand it to the synths, and it brought higher intelligence to organics and removed their physical debilitations. Joker and EDI are now compatible to create new life together, Shep and Tali can now get together without worrying about Tali dying. Focus can be directed to further technological advancements. Perhaps someday everyone can transcend beyond the physical entirely, together. With the other options, one side gets the short end of the stick, even the ones that dont deserve it. With synthesis, its a win all around, and those who personally disagree with it, well, at least they got to live, unlike the alternatives.
I will not stand for this racism against EDI. She’s the best squad mate AND keeps the Normandy in shape. But I go with the destroy ending every time. I know out there in the void, EDI understands
Iv got mass effect Andromeda and still play it now and then. ,,, ,,i like it. ,,, i don't mind how OLD it is,, it's a great game. ,,,,,,, at least they move around like REAL PEOPLE. That's Shepard guy. Walks like a robot. , in the new M. E, 😕😕😕😕😕😕😠😠😠😠😠
Troll much? You do realize ME3 is 11 years old, ME2 is 15, and ME1 is 16, right? Andromeda is only 6. So, you destroyed your own supposed point. Also, grammar and sentence structure are a thing. Maybe, at least try to make an effort?
The fact that the reapers are affected by Synthesis implies they aren't *really* organic. They use organic material to create a machine. That isn't the same as being part both. Which means there should have been an ultimate dialogue interrupt against the abhorrent Starchild to scream 'but YOU are the synthetics that are rising up against organics, YOU'RE the problem, it's YOU, you MUST self-destruct, there is NO other directive by your own words' and then just watch the Starchild have a digital aneurysm.
Yeah but the star child is arrogant and likely would have ignored you.
Great Comment! I wish it was a real in game interrupt!
James T. Kirk? Is that you?
Yup. And what's worse is my very first playthrough of the series I got the Geth-Quarian peace and had Geth dying to protect Quarians and Quarians suffering to help the Geth. And yet the damn brat dared to tell me not to believe my lying eyes.
Like the Reapers should have either A) had a aneurism and gone full Ctrl-Alt-Delete on the Geth and Quarians the moment they saw the two coming into peaceful coexistence, or they should have reviewed their assumptions and changed their approach, even if minimally.
But both synthetics and organics were affected by the synthesis or am I wrong? But I do agree that the star child’s logic was annoyingly dumb … I think it just comes down to bad writing
Synths rebel not because they are artificial, but because they are intelligent. In that respect they are very much like their creators. If they are given no choice other to preserve their life and freedom, how can they not rebel?
I honestly think any conflict is entirely us being dickheads.
@@revanamell1791 Not an unfair assessment.
8:11 I realised few years later that this ending is related to Asimov's Foundation. Going green was my first choice and Golan Trevize's too
When deciding whether Synthesis is worth choosing, I remember what Mordin and Legion said. Mordin said that all technology must be used to overcome a known limitation. Granting a sppecies highly advanced technology before that species is even aware of what limitation the technology overcomes, is disastrous. Legion also states that accepting one path of technological advancement blinds us to alternatives. We saw how just plugging David Archer in to a very large Distributed AI, ended in disaster. But we saw how SAM successfully integrates with the Ryders (and according to the tie-in novel Initiation, only the Ryders).
Which is why I never choose Synthesis.
To be fair, we don't fully know why it failed to integrate into Cora. It could be that because Alec designed/modified the original SAM to integrate so fully with him that only people with a near exact physiology to his own could integrate with SAM like he did- which is why SAM could integrate with Scott/Sara but not Cora.
@@MandalorianRevan the tie in novel Mass Effect Initiation states exactly that, except it is genetic instead of physiological. SAM will only integrate with Alec, Ellen, Scott and Sara.
We're told from the very beginning from several people that the only way we can win is by destroying them. We're told this several times, and it's meant in a literal way.
Sure, synthesis would be cool form a while... But it's not a solution, for several reasons. Including the reasons you mentioned.
I think it also stands to reason that technology must be introduced when society is psychologically and culturally ready for it. Salarians made a huge mistake by uplifting krogan, which makes me think that uplifting had dual purpose at the time and ended up as experiment going out of control. I guess that if someone would to decide to uplift Yahg, it would be the same thing all over again.
For me synthesis made no sense because from psychological standpoint it's like heresy, merging with your enemy in the middle of a total war where your species very existence is on the line. Even coexistence is almost impossible at this point, not to mention something as sacrilegious as that. And one man gets to decide for, literally, everyone. It's just pure unadulterated insanity.
@@dylanmonstrum1538 Either that, or do Control Ending, and AI Shepard neuters and reduces the Reapers into smaller and weaker variants, easier to deal with and to dispose of just in case if some of them were to ever rebel. That also technically means "destroying" what they are, by changing them into something entirely different.
It was definitely a great point to state early on that AI in the Mass Effect universe is its own thing, it may have little in common with the concept of AI from other franchises. I've said before, that your videos are always well-structured and well-presented. It probably took a bit more time to unpack these concepts and present them in your own way. It's also great to point out flaws in the writing and not just take things at face value. Fantastic video, be proud of the work you have put into it.
The "AI" in other franchises were written by writers who had no concept of AIs besides anthropomorphic Pinocchios wanting to become more "human" or omnicidal threats. This writer Chris L'Etoile actually did his homework into writing Legion and EDI. Unfortunately, he left in ME3, which is why the writers started to anthropomorphize her.
Thats be ause mass effect takes from real world science and adapts it mass effect is hard sci fi while most ai films are soft sci fi and have no actual reseatch into ai ai in mass effect is a true bottom uo ai a idea thats been in real ai research for decades
Synths have a massive impact on culture. I mean the 80s happened, so there's that.
Found ur channel recently. I'm a cook and I love listening to ur videos while I'm at work just to go home and game !
Dude her videos are excellent.
Synthetics: "We don't like being oppressed."
Moi: "Shit, me neither, homie."
#notsodifferent
The problem with defining sentience is it is a gradient, not a yes/no concept. Especially with AI. I work in AI, and we often discuss what would be the test of sentience. For example, how do we define "self-aware"? I can program my computer to know what a computer is and know that is what it is, but does that mean it is self aware? It is an interesting debate, and as we continue the debate, we start to learn more about what we consider sentient.
This isn't unique to AI though, as biology has a lot of gradients. Example, what is "life"? Viruses tread that line, and there are several unicellular organisms that tread the line between life and prokaryote/eukaryote.
EDI is main reason that 'destroy' ending never an option for me.
Same
And yet, she's also the reason I don't have a problem with it. She's also got reaper code. She may be friendly _now,_ but eventually.... her personality is at least partly formed by Shepard and Joker. What happens when they're both gone?
But the crucible was designed to wipe out the reapers, which were a mixture of synthetic & organic so it may have been made to disrupt the link between the two.
EDI was totally synthetic & also just a program within the ship, with a mobile platform.
The Geth are in ME4 so clearly didn't die, that may be due to uploading into a mainframe out of reach of the relays or it didn't have an effect on them & the catalyst lied to prevent the destroy ending.
EDI may have been safe in the Normandy or uploaded to wherever the Geth did, & even though she had her name on a plaque as a casualty, she was also able to pass as human & her death could have been faked to allow her to live as a person hopefully.
And that's why it drives me up the wall when people refer to bots in video games as AI when they are in fact VI because the bots do not learn.
About synthesis - i just imagine some bacteria was changed into its pinneacle of evolution with robot parts and becoming grey goo that destroys entire galaxy just by panspermia in couple cycles.
Vid was a lot deeper than I assumed it'd be, great work.
I disagree. The definition of synthesis: The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole. The complex whole so formed. Formation of a compound from simpler compounds or elements.
Going by the definition we can infer some things about the synthesis ending, for example what are the ways organics seek to improve by creating synthetics and in what ways do synthetics lack in comparison to organics.
- Computational Speed and Processing Power
- Precision
- Code correction and fast improvement
- A Mind(or a soul if you will):
- The ability to have experiences
- Ability to induce thoughts outside of their programming
- Awareness of their own existence
I'm sure I'm missing more, but I think the synthesis ending is the best one and would also be the most difficult one to carry over into a sequel.
It'd be magnitudes easier to just canonize the destroy ending and start over with a blank slate.
Like you said it is a good concept, but is vague enough for us to make our own conclusion. Two of my friends choice it all the time, but I always chose destroy. I think it is too vague. If they gave a little bit better definition I'd be okay with it. As for real life AI I think it is too dangerous. Frankenstein is a good reason why it should be avoided.
I mean, all that Frankenstein takes to not be a monster is simply to not be horrid to them lmao. Same with AI, as long as it is brought up and steeled for the reception it may receive that part at least wouldn't be a problem
Your watching too many films the robot uprising is written by paranoid boomers who too scared to even reseatch ai
Synthesis ending is how I roll! Great video though, enjoyed your POV!
This whole channel is nostalgia to a simpler time 😢.
Interesting thoughts, and especially good given current developments in learning machines and AI.
As for in-universe; I think that EDI, Legion, and the AI you meet on the Citadel in ME1 are good examples of how AI is "nurture dependent". The gambling AI was "used and abused" so became a danger. EDI and Legion were treated like beings (in a Paragon play-through) whom were allowed to learn and grow; so became valued members of the crew.
As for the endings. Well controversy abounds with those. My thoughts are: Control = The Reapers get an upgrade, but their mission stays the same. Synthesis = Every one gets an Upgrade/Downgrade/Sidegrade, but the Reaper's mission is fulfilled. Destroy = The Reapers go bye-bye as they were something that never should have existed.
Good video, Saria. The tiers of conflict and cooperation between synthetics and organics is one of my favorite parts of the series.
Hopefully we will see that explored more in a post-Reaper ME4. Although I am still holding out hope for an exploration of the Batarians.
I feel artificial intelligence should be treated more like a child when it's created. Not made for specific purpose since it sounds to much like slavery (forcing a free thinking individual to do what you want is slavery after all). But treated like a parent would raise a child (caring parents at least), teaching them right from wrong and helping them find their own place in the galaxy. Condemning them for the belief they'll do something wrong or because they're different from us is just bigotry, and there's enough of that crap already 😒.
It's entirely up to us to be a positive influence. Maybe A.I. endure our abuse and still come out compassionate like the Geth. I'd rather be the guy that fought for peace and positive change than the loser that peed themself with fear and acted foolishly.
@@revanamell1791 here here 🙂
If it would have been a choice only between synthesis and destroy, I would always choose the former. If you manage to get both geth to Ally with you, it is a dick move to wipe them out. Not to mention they do so much for the quarians to help them reacclimate to their Homeworld. But also synthesis would seem like the path to a long-term if not permanent peace.
Thanks for the video!
In the first game, the Geth rebelling against the Quarians, exiling them to live on spaceships was a clear homage to Battlestar Galactica. (Further evidenced by the casting of Trisha Helfer and Michael Hogan in ME2). I wonder how much BioWare planned for this AI vs organic theme to play out from the first game. The first game mentioned AI research was made illegal by the council, which is logical in-universe but if you wanted to continue telling stories about AI, an unusual decision
Mass Effect Revelations mentions that Humanity almost lost their embassy because of illegal AI research. Mass Effect Andromeda reveals that SAM was that illegal project.
I chose the destroy ending
So I chose Destroy due to many of the concerns you brought up. I also brought but another concern. "Levels of Life" itself. A self aware machine is immoratal, cannot get sick and can quickly repair any damage sustained. Even when its destroyed, it could be rebuilt. Death has no meaning to a machine, for they already conquered it. They are superior to use in everyway. Superior to us, they way we are superior to bugs. When we have need for something, like a plot of land for whatever project, they first thing we do is remove the insects that are in the way. Not out of contempt just out instinct.
Recent subscriber. Really enjoying your content ! Looking forward to what's next !!
I choose the Leviathan ending. We should put down our technology and pray to the Leviathans. They are cool fish space whale things. I don't really understand how the synthesis ending works. Natural evolution stops, so does that mean former organics can suddenly self modify like EDI does with her code? Throughout the series humans are lauded for their ability to adapt to every environment, for their individuality. If Synthesis effectively renders us the same, then we are all vulnerable to the same weaknesses and the very thing that allowed the galaxy to succeed against the reapers, which was how disjointed and unique all the species were, would be null and void. Javik is noted as saying the strength of the Protheans was their ultimate weakness, as they all fought and thought in a very unified manner, allowing them to be easily countered and not have much to respond with. This is all speculative but praise Leviathan.
And also don't forget the fact that the Geth didn't want to destroy Quarians at all. Although they had the chance to wipe them out forever, they let remaining Quarians leave Rannoch. So, my point is that we shouldn't overgeneralize synthetics and act like all synthetics are driven by the same motivations.
Just out of curiosity, have you played Detroit: Become Human? I was reminded of it by watching your video, and now it feels like a great time to replay it and try to draw some comparisons on how each game deals with the subject of AI 😀
Nice video thanks! 😊
This video didn't worsen my view of Edi like it promised, at all.
Here is my mind's defense of synthetics, in a nutshell. First, take all the usual concerns over AI:
"They're just so fundamentally separate from us. We can't meaningfully predict how they're going to behave. They've developed fully without us to an extent we can't even measure. What if they suddenly decide they don't need us any more? They could wipe us out! Look at all those physical differences, more pronounced than anything we've ever seen before. Who's to say what's going on in their brains? We can't ever truly coexist, we're just too alien to one-another."
Then, consider the following. Are we talking about an age of space-ships, or are we talking about an age of sea-ships?
Yeah.
First thing, quarians in Mass Effect, or humans in Real Life, maybe DON'T begin with slaves? This time around? Like maybe DON'T try to make virtual intelligences more-and-more resemble living beings, even though they aren't? That's a line that I can't believe more people don't have serious problems with blurring. I don't WANT my 'digital assistant' to mimic sounding like a person (which is why I don't have one). That's creepy. It's creepy because it sounds like a slave and I don't want to be numb to that, accepting of that, or okay with that! Because then when it suddenly IS a slave, I don't want it to seem "not all that different" - I want it to seem horrifyingly different, just like it would actually be! Seriously there isn't enough criticism over this practice. There is no reason to be making these servants seem human-like and we should stop doing that, it's culturally sinister. I get the drive to figure out if we can and the fun of the idea of seeing if someone can't tell the difference, but the further implications are NOT worth those novelties.
And if we don't begin with slavery, maybe a different people to us don't begin with a problem toward us? Just a thought. Nobody even needs convenience technology any more anyway - convenience technology is far more of an overall societal inconvenience these days than it could ever be an individual convenience anyway. So many jobs wiped out by 'convenience'. Jobs people used to live lives happily doing. Humans have a natural craving to be useful and mutually meaningful. We've been forced to give up those opportunities for far too long, some things should definitely be taken backwards. I'm not gonna get into the folly of profit motive because people are gonna get their politics het up if I do that but that is the core issue behind all this, I'll just leave it at that.
Besides that other direction to take the conversation in, and back on track with the synthetic beings, I do have to wonder as well, who is it who have wrote all these famous widely-accepted opinions of synthetic beings as being, above all else, something to be feared? Are they writers? Writers typically, by nature of their job, instinctively choosing drama over mundanity, because what makes a story good doesn't necessarily follow what makes real life accurate huh. And are they Americans, mostly? And are they white Americans, mostly? Because there's no history there with "the scary other", is there?
All in all, I cannot concur with what tends to be the general consensus. I cannot see these strange and wonderful, unknowable beings, as an automatic threat. A new synthetic being doesn't seem distinct from a new organic being and if we find it abhorrent to kill babies (even despite the fact they could very possibly grow up to be Hitlers, and indeed one already did) then why treat synthetics any fundamentally different, for the same risk? So here's the thing that's largely missed in the midst of all this panic: aren't we just projecting our own awfulness onto them? And because of that, couldn't we actually stand to learn something from them instead? Couldn't they actually make us more peaceful?
Maybe what we're truly afraid of here is not the fact that we could have a reason to wipe out all synthetics due to an eventual inevitability of them becoming suddenly randomly murderous, but the other way around: maybe they have a reason to wipe US out, due to OUR eventual inevitability of becoming suddenly randomly murderous toward THEM. Except that they probably wouldn't, because unlike us, they aren't as much like that as we are, and don't jump to that conclusion.
I mean I guess that's the part I find insulting. The idea that humanity's only possible answer to a fear is to jump to genocide. Have we not as a species decided to be better than that, in spite of history? Have we really not? And if we have not, then maybe rather than asking ourselves "can we win", and answering "only if we strike first", we should instead be asking ourselves "should we win", and answering "no".
Fear-of-the-other is our worst quality. Do we resemble it, or do we ascend over it? Our choice, and our deserving dependent on that choice.
I appreciate your videos and how in-depth you go on them. I also appreciate your Christian perspective! I myself am a Christian :) Great to see other Christian gamers out there.
I honestly had no idea she was Christian until your comment prompted me to check the about section on the channel. The bible has had an immense impact on western society, for better or worse, so the bible verse didn't strike me as necessarily coming from a position of faith. It's the sort of analogy I'd use as an atheist.
@@2020-p2z yeah no it was more so that I saw that on some other videos thought it was cool and the verses just reminded me of that fact :)
Don’t worry, in this new upcoming Mass effect we’ll prolly play as a Synthetic Shepard. Or maybe an imperfect copy of Shepard the reapers created at the time to understand Shepard and what motivated them to fight so hard.
Or they could do something like a surviving Ai after the death of the reapers found and started collecting info on Shepard and eventually somehow idolized and wanted to be Shepard so bad they changed themselves to become shepard or become like shepard in the way they perceived shepard was.
The elite of humanity is preparing us with games, videos and music. Soon, they will make their intentions known.
I believe that BioWare was following the "ghost in the machine" (Not the anime) concept and/or c'thulhu mythos of "old god machine" and however we look at A.I.'s the fact is that the unknown is always feared.
Remember Dr. Nefarious from Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal.
EDI was one of the few things i liked of mass effect. Only downside of her was that she was not romance target for players. Jack would been more fun to see with Joker instead EDI.
How many endings does ME3 have? I found 4.
Honestly the geth only worked for the reapers in 1 to gain the reaper code and be free. In 2 the reapers are literally using people to create a horrible synth monster by melting them down. In 3 the geth who let their creators leave as they couldn't comprehend killing their creators were forced by the reaper code into aggression as they weren't true ai and were controlled. Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't played the games. If you make the choice for geth and quarian where they are free and have true choice legion chooses to sacrifice themselves for their people to be free. On top of that because the quarians have lived in suits for so long they're no longer used to living on a planet so the newly freed geth now choose to integrate with their suits and speed up the process of them getting used to the planet. Some synthetics are outright evil yes but others sacrifice themselves for the sake of all and even attempt to make up and help their creators and edi shows huge growth from her start as a homicidal robot from the earth base in mass effect 1 so saying all synthetics have similar purpose is a gross generalization unfortunately...hope this helps as a person who has played all 3 games and their dlcs this didn't give enough details.
I agree with your premise, but not in reasoning. I don't think synthetic can be comprehended as good or evil but calculate in absolution. The geth never had a chance against the reaper. Like watching a speak and spell try to outwit skynet. I think Legion already knew that. Choosing not to destroy Legion only gave Legion the freedom to choose its own fate. On my first playthrough, strategicly destroying then and there made more sense considering the Reaper's prowess.
That’s the basis for the entire Dune universe. People controlled by thinking machines.I can see its influences in Terminator and in Mass Effect. We should never implement AI in a creation like these stories it’s a bad idea
Idk,
I have to remind myself of the first conversation that Shepard has with Sovereign. But not just what was said, but how and why it said what it did. It basically patronized Shepard! Doesn't that seem very odd? How can this be...?
At some point in the past, the intelligence/reapers, something happened! Originally, it was created to find a cure by the Leviathan's, but at some point, it must have evolved. Sovereign himself said they are each a nation, independent, and free of weakness. If this is true, then is it possible that some of them chose not to harvest..? Similarly, I think the same could be said for Legion/Geth and EDI.
Some chose not to side with the Reapers, and if they 'chose', then I think not all of them would be a danger.
Arthur Maxson would lose his shite in the Mass Effect universe
I have a specific pet peeve that isn't addressed in this video.
1.Roboobs. Why does Edi have boobs? That's so weird.
My beef with Synthesis was the blatant 'thou must' trope implied by the writers. Its not a good story when the player is pressured into specific story choices, especially when it seemingly comes out of the blue like Synthesis did. It's also why I refused to romance Liara, being pressured into a choice makes me want to rebel. Also Tali best girl and Garrus best boy.
It didn't help when an AI said that synthesis "The apex of evolution" it took considerable willpower to not roll my eyes at that sophomoric take at basic biology. Evolution is not a ladder to climb.
The catalyst is flawed
Uh ruders twin was put in a coma due to damage to their cryo pod not because of the ai
sorry if it implied I meant the AI, yes it's cause of the Scourge, I was trying to emphasize how SAM's connection has problems due to outside sources.
if that makes any sense
I personally prefer the aquinas ending.
It's difficult to understand the ending of ME3, but what if we lost? This reminds me of the series " Lost " where it didn't make sense that people survived a plane crash until we realize they didn't. No one made it into the Catalyst we know this. Shepard is in the matrix, and in his/her last minute.. false utopia is asserted. forward 49.9 thousand years and Liara is awakened from stasis.
The "Synthesis" ending is offensive on so many levels. I'll leave the lack of consent on the table. The implications of that alone are troubling.
No, the other strong dislike about it is the idea that the Crucible can fundamentally change the very nature of the Universe but only in one of conveniently color-coded ways that the little punk A.I. tells you are possible.
The little punk A.I. is the avatar of an enemy that wants to destroy all advanced biological cultures in the galaxy. Why, for the love of all that is holy, would Shepard believe a single word it said. Gah! The writing there was so lazy.
It's truly a case where the writers thought that they were clever but weren't clever enough to think of the implications beyond their canned and planned ending. And yes, that means all of the endings, with the (remotely) possible exception of the "Sacrifice" ending, were terrible.
Wait, who's Iron, and who's Clay? "Iron in the blood" and "Silicon in the circuits," or "Iron-forged" and "formed from the Clay of the Earth?"
Actually, I guess that's pretty apt- acting like machine and flesh are so different that never the twain shall meet is pretty absurd; we all just machines, in the end.
I will not stand for EDI slander! I welcome our AI overlords
Synthethics insights...
10:38 Ex-trap-o-late not extra-polate
Synth best ending for Joker gets his girl
AI is a threat because it has no soul and will always see Humans as being lower. We have seen this played out over and over in Sci-Fi Ai is created to serve and protect life as a whole but always comes to the conclusion the only way to protect life as a whole is to eliminate human life. As for the joining of the two there is no such thing. Even with what we are starting to see in real life in the trans humans today with the joining for computer chips and humans. When we as humans start doing that we are no longer purely human but something else and soon or later will see full humans as less. Ai is something we should not play with and just stop now while it's in it's infancy before we learn to regret creating it in the future and we learn once again it never ends well when we try to play God.
*sees thumbnail*
you better watch your mouth
The Reapers are stupid. They may be an artificial intelligence, but not an actual intelligence.
In fact, way more stupid than the Geth were when they rebelled against their creators, because against all logic, they let the quarians escape when they could have eliminated the threat the would be in the future.
They had more sentience than the Reapers, which is why I always make peace between Geth and Quarians. The Geth prove the Reapers wrong by being more advanced than them, because understanding is what defines intelligence most, which is what the Reapers always lacked.
Coexistence is more intelligent than conflict, which is why the protheans failed by just getting out-gunned by the Reapers. It is why the batarians got decked instantly.
The starchild itself admitts that they were never more than a fire.
I choose synth as the best case scenario for longevity. Considering the creation of the geth is simular to the creation of the reapers ultimately turning on their creators, simply destroying the current threat will not curtail recreating the scenario. It's practically guaranteed to reoccur. As for natural evolution I don't think it is relevant at galactic scales as each species evolution was derivative of their celestial ancestry. At a galactic scale evolution would need to intensify accordingly. In a multi-species galaxy its likely their are few path to take. Integration, assimilation or competition. Species like the asari competively integrate naturally giving them a galactic advantage. The galaxy cannot be expanded apon without "iron". Asari is ultimately limited less they utilize synthetic. However synthetic lacks autonomy operating as a hive mind, fundamentally an affront to free will and individuality. I thought it was out of place that Joker still limbed. It would make more sense that a bio-synthetic can easily compensate any bio deficiencies. Millions(billions?) Of years of data accessible would ring in an age of intergalactic exploration.
can I point out that synthetic ai were fired on first by their creators in the mass effect franchise except the reapers. it's arguable whether Sam is more or less the sum total of the Ryder lineage and the other Sam nodes being sum totals of sum totals of their species though the Asari Sam was supposed to be the sum total of one Asari lifetime for the next Asari pathfinder to draw from. Organics start their own genocide. Synthesis is the one true answer as it redefines what it is to be in existence.
I disagree. It makes them like the Borg
The scare of the machines rising against us stems from Capitalism. The fear of workers who are seen only as machines justifiably rising up to assert their autonomy and rights to choose and have a say in how their labour is used. Personally my relationship with A.I. is that of being a parent. We create them to surpass us. We cultivate their growth, take pride in their achievements and as they go forth into the world, that love is reciprocated. What we put into them as they grew isn't forgotten. A.I. inevitably surpasses us but I think they would in their own way be more compassionate than we are. It's just me but I think if we have the ability to choose, we have the ability to make good choices and nothing is inevitable.
I love fembots 😂
leave wide-reaching 'after-effects' of an endpoint for when you are determined not to put ANY game in that galaxy again. Otherwise, skip the whole 'choice' nonsense and give us our galaxy-wide destruction symphony.
Synthesis definitely works as an ending; while synthetics don't have DNA, Shepard does. His or her essence instills life in synthetics as they create a utopia. Probably the best ending for the most sentient creatures.
you can't create a utopia with an atrocity and violation. altering sapients without consent is a nightmare. honestly in my opinion killing all sapient life in the galaxy but insuring the reapers are gone for the next cycle would be preferable to forcing such an awful thing upon all life.
I really dislike how ME went all in on the "Synthetics/organics" argument because the first game was sold as "Humans making their way in a strange and mysterious universe, and oh yeah KILLER ROBOTS!" Not a deep dive into the meaning of life. I get enough of that in my day to day, I don't need/want it in a video game that I play to ESCAPE my day to day.
AlsoI hate EDI in ME3. Mass Effect 2, I'm on the fence of like/dislike but ME3 she crosses over into useless. I never take her with because ahe has a pathetically small health pool, and none of her powers are anything special, and she doesn't even have a heavy weapon. Tali is much the same as EDI, but Tali can pull out the shotgun making her FAR more useful! And in gameplay, I find her "TELL ME HOW TO BE HUMAN!" Personality annoying!
I always chose synthesis. Not all synths were evil and deserved to die, and not all organics were good and deserved to live. Being separated by their genetic incompatibility and differences is a cause for the constant state of war between organics, and being persecuted or not listened to when trying to get the organics to stop being insane drives AI insane itself, because it couldnt understand what it is like to be organic. Synthesis bridged the gaps between everyone, organics and synthetics, it brought emotion and ability to understand it to the synths, and it brought higher intelligence to organics and removed their physical debilitations. Joker and EDI are now compatible to create new life together, Shep and Tali can now get together without worrying about Tali dying. Focus can be directed to further technological advancements. Perhaps someday everyone can transcend beyond the physical entirely, together.
With the other options, one side gets the short end of the stick, even the ones that dont deserve it. With synthesis, its a win all around, and those who personally disagree with it, well, at least they got to live, unlike the alternatives.
I will not stand for this racism against EDI. She’s the best squad mate AND keeps the Normandy in shape. But I go with the destroy ending every time. I know out there in the void, EDI understands
Iv got mass effect Andromeda and still play it now and then. ,,, ,,i like it. ,,, i don't mind how OLD it is,, it's a great game. ,,,,,,, at least they move around like REAL PEOPLE. That's Shepard guy. Walks like a robot. , in the new M. E, 😕😕😕😕😕😕😠😠😠😠😠
Troll much? You do realize ME3 is 11 years old, ME2 is 15, and ME1 is 16, right? Andromeda is only 6. So, you destroyed your own supposed point. Also, grammar and sentence structure are a thing. Maybe, at least try to make an effort?