Choosing an Ending for Andromeda Canon

I would say Synthesis is Casey Hudson's ending.. and maybe quite a few devs. But I think they have a different perspective on the series. It's their baby.. so it's fitting that they'd want to salvage everything.

But players are under no obligation to do that. We're not the creators. We're just supposed to experience it. And that could mean a lot of things.

To further illustrate Hudson's attitude, his two main favorite characters are TIM and Anderson (and I think Liara and Jack, funnily). It's like he's thinking in "Synthesis" like terms even when it comes to characters. Very much down the middle. But why should we have to think that way? Hardly anyone does. We didn't create TIM and Anderson, and are more inclined to pick sides.

My understanding is that the canon ending to ME3 relative to Andromeda is that there is no known canon ending... but, hey, the above is actually the most "plot tight" theory I've seen here yet.  I like it.

There are, however, different definitions of the word "integration" - Here is one:  "The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association."  In order for organics to associate unrestrictedly with synthetics they would have to be able to process both language and ideas at much faster rates.  Enabling organics to do so does not make them inherently synthetic or inherently make us machines or Reapers.  A lot of people interpret that way... but some do not - and I would consider their interpetations to be equally valid... not "ridiculous."  Just because you don't like the idea of synthesis is no reason to "put down" people who do.

Everyone gets the glowing green eyes... even the Reapers so, I think it is represented, that something is changed with them as well.  The degree of changes and whether or not they are "objectionable" is what is left open to interpretation by the player.

I'm saying that there are definitions of "integration" that, in and of themselves, imply a level of equality to the situation.  So, even though the catalyst does not expressly say that the degree of change in each side is "equal" in principle, people can logical and reasonably still interpret the ending to involve an equal "coming together" of the parties.

Throughout the game, there is an implication that mere experience alters DNA (per Javik) and that ideas and memories can be shared in an instant through mere touch, so when the game describes a change to DNA, the game itself has opened up the idea that they may just be talking about a level of experience an means of giving organics an ability to absorb reams of data in an instant.  As I said, it is therefore up to the individual player to decide if the degree of change they "interpret" ('it'll probably be)" is objectionable to them... or Is a lasting peace with access to the knowledge of all these past civilizations worth it?

Interpretation is a personal choice... One that, as the game declares, "cannot be forced."  So, why is this website trying to force everyone into a singular belief by calling them out as "ridiculous" and "fooling themselves" etc.?  I'm not saying and have never said that your interpretation was baseless... I've repeatedly said that all interpretations are valid... including the ones that are alternate to yours, but also including yours.  It's also a game where people can intentionally seek out alternative interpretations for subsequent play throughs... With each new playthrough, I deliberately try to form different conclusions about whatever ending I select just as I try to construct Shepards of differing personalities.  I want to see just how far I can stretch my exploration of the game in different directions.  It makes the game vastly replayable... but it is still a game.  I'm not "fooling myself" because I'm not the one discounting your interpretation as being baseless nor am I forcing you to adopt this particular one as your own.  So, I'm merely saying you have no basis to tell me that I'm "fooling myself" or being "ridiculous."

I would point out, regarding your last line, that there are some examples of less than horrific "integration" with synthetics in the game.  The geth integrating fully into the Quarian's suits is shown as being beneficial to "kick start" their immune system.  EDI's full integration into the ship is described as allowing her to "take off her gloves" and fully touch the "world" of the Normandy itself.  Even Shepard's integration with cybernetics had the benefit of enabling him to live and walk around, etc.  These are extensions of the ideas of how people are using technology now to improve artificial limbs... we've come a long ways from "peg legs."  Fighter pilots "integrating" with their planes systems make them able to react faster.  The game does pose the question to us, IRL, of "where we should draw the line?"  It's a difficult question and it does have some significant downsides IRL and the game does show us those as well.  Still, on some levels - full integration of humans with technologies is common IRL - Pacemakers anyone?  Ever wonder just how "smart" they're making them these days?  Should we us them?  Of course, the game doesn't answer that question for us... just gives us some different POVs to think about... both good and bad.

Is the game perfectly unbiased... no, it's definitely not.  Is there enough there though to enable us to consider (and just to consider) possibly two different sides to some very real issues confronting this world.  I think, yes, it does.  I think that's why we here are all so fascinated by a mere video game.

ETA:  When thinking about synthesis and changes to DNA without consent... consider also that this topic was introduced in ME1 with the little Family Matters issue on the Citadel.  The uncle and the mother were debating "gene therapy" as a means to ensure that the baby she was having wasn't going to develop a heart condition.  The baby had no means to give it's consent to the DNA alterations being considered... predominantly by the uncle (so even a step away from an individual with parental authority to give consent on behalf of a child).  Also, in that the child was still in utero; there are those IRL who still debate whether or not it has any rights apart from those of the mother... and at the time ME1 was being written, this sort of debate was more at the forefront of the news than it is today... although, I did hear a story somewhat recently that the British Parliament has OK'd combining DNA from 3 individuals/parents to enable to avoid a couple from passing on certain genetic diseases to their offspring... shades of Miranda in our future IRL, perhaps?

True - and synthetics are not portrayed as becoming partly organic in their DNA.  However, that doesn't mean that they'll be dominant over organics or that their "understanding" of organics would be used in an "evil" way.  In Javik's cycle, it was, yes - but it was not the same because the Protheans did not complete the Crucible.  In all those cycles, this is the first time the Crucible has made it to the Citadel and the Catalyst acknowledges that Shepard was the first organic to be standing where he/she was standing.  How "different" the circumstance are from that of the Protheans is, again, a matter of interpretation by the player(s)... so how "objectionable" the whole situation becomes is also a matter of interpretation by the player. 

There are elements of the story presented on both sides of the argument and which one's you attach the most importance to will determine your interpretation of the ending.  The "good" side of synthesis is presented by the Quarians benefiting from the geth, by Joker's being able to forge a relationship with EDI and he and she are both "happier," the Shepard can have a mobile synthetic on his crew who is a very able fighter, the those parents in ME1 can "choose" to have a healtier baby.  The drawbacks are also presented... the decision of which way to go is left up to the player... and neither decision is "baseless" or "ridiculous."  The IRL question on which this situation is based is more complex even... Would you rather a "smart" pacemaker or insulin pump or go back to the early models?  Where do we draw the line with our own technologies?  I'm old, so it's not a question I'm likely to have to answer (although at the pace of technology who knows.  I've seen a lot of things drastically change in my lifetime).  Younger people, however, are almost certainly going to have to face this question for real.

I'm not trying to convince you to like synthesis nor am I trying to convince those who do like it to dislike it (unlike you who seems intent on convincing me to dislike it)... because the game is not written to provide a singular "canon" experience where these choices are involved.  That's what makes it an RPG.  There are different personalities of Shepard's I have created who have rejected synthesis for the reasons you've cited... I've also played other personalities of Shepard who have selected it for the very reasons I've cited.  My conclusion is that the game provides sufficient "room" in their foreshadow-ings and dialogue on the issue to logically reach either conclusion.  Is it completely unbiased - no, it is not.  It does have an overall "leaning."  The perfect RPG would be perfectly unbiased... but that's very unlikely to ever be achieved... the writers are only human after all.  What it has done well is at least bring some aware to some of the issues surroundings these sorts of moral dilemmas IRL.

Ditto ... and you're the one who said
So, I've come back to point out... again... that there are examples in the game that are "less than horrific." (quoting myself in an earlier post now).

You came back implying (if not directly stating) that the example of the geth uploading into Quarian suits would result in the geth taking them over just like what happened with the Zha'til.  THAT IS an interpretation based on your personal prediction of events future to the ending of the game.  In any ending slide, regardless of choices, we are not shown Quarians under the control of the geth who uploaded into their suits.  It is one possibility of what could happen... yes, as suggested by the game.  The "positive" future outcome is also suggested by Tali earlier in the game - that of the Quarians being able to discard their suits (and the geth uploaded into them) and be reliant on a healthier immune system... and that outcome can possibly be seen in the EC ending slide (depending on choices made, with the Quarians without their masks talking casually with geth.

The game ALSO suggests that the situation was different with the Protheans in that they never completed the crucible; Shepard is the FIRST organic to be in the position to make a "synthesis" happen.  So, the player can logically interpret that due to the Crucible changing the game, it is NOT inevitable that synthesis would result in organics being "taken over" by synthetics.

It's not that "some players don't listen" etc.  They attach a "different level of importance" to different aspects presented in the game.  With your Javik example, he says "So they resorted to implants to enhance their intelligence." Tali indicates that the geth were uploading into their environmental suits and behaving like viruses so the Quarians immune systems were responding much like our own immune system responds to vaccines. The player can either attach importance to this difference in the situations being described or not.  The game, because it is offering a choice in either direction, presents the situation BOTH ways.  You simply cannot say that "We've seen no other examples than horrific ones."  I just object to concluding things that aren't being said.

To "trust" or to "not trust" what the Catalyst says is yet another INTERPRETATION of what is presented in the game.  There is nothing presented in the course of the game that expressly says that the Catalyst is not telling the truth.  People, therefore, CAN (i.e. are able to logically) make their own choice in that regard.  Seeing the examples given as "horrific" when the "horror" of them is something not presented within the time frame of the game is also an INTERPRETATION.  People can just as easily imagine that the geth are good to their noble intentions and only boost the Quarian immune systems and then leave them and return to their platforms.  This is not a horrific example... unless you personally believe that vaccinations are "horrific" (... and IRL some people do, most people do not).  You may, of course, THINK what you like... that's what interpretation is all about.  What I "think" about the situation changes because I'm role playing different Shepards who think differently from each other.  As I've clearly said before, sometimes I select an ending because that suits the sort of Shepard personality I'm building and other times I don't select that ending because it doesn't suit the Shepard personality I'm building on that different playthrough.

If you're asking what I think about the real life problem of where to draw the line in "inserting" smart medical tech into people, I won't answer that because I'm old... and it's not a   decision I'm likely ever going to have to make beyond whether or not to have pacemaker... which I don't think currently is at risk of overtaking my intelligence or becoming self-aware.  What that same decision might hold for generations in the future, I have no idea.

I think the problem here is discussing from different perspectives.  On the one hand, "what did the devs intend" is talked about.  On the other, it's RPing Shepard in the moment.  So, yeah, in the moment there's no reason to assume Shepard should trust anything the Intelligence has to say.  (I'm not a fan of using Catalyst because that's in terms of making the Crucible work - an energy source, basically - while the Intelligence is the thing created by the Leviathans.)  If I were talking to the thing that had been committing constant genocide over the course of the past billion years or so - and which had even created the mass relays to speed up the process - I'd be suspicious of anything it had to say.  The horrors the Reapers created are, to me, evidence that it's not just doing a job, but making it far worse than it has to be.  They could just kill us, but instead they make us suffer.  Why would I trust a being who thinks that's a good idea?

We also generally fight wars to a point of "surrender" or "negotiation" of a cease fire agreement.  To do this and end a war does require a level of trust between the leaders of the warring parties as well as a level of trust between the people and the leader representing them.  The writing is such that the player can also interpret the completion of the Crucible as being a sufficient enough threat to effectively invoke a "surrender" from the Reaper leader (i.e. the Catalyst)... and then proceed to negotiate that "cease fire" treaty with it.  So, the in moment reason to perhaps trust the Catalyst is if Shepard believes the Crucible is enough of an intimidation to invoke a "surrender" rather than an elaborate con job.  I would expect even a surrendering leader to at least try to negotiate a way to save his/her people from extinction.

I'm not trying to convince you that it's a good idea... In some IRL circumstances, negotiating a trust between warring parties has been a better idea than subjugating the "losing" party to the point of where an even worse regime rises up in rebellion a few years later (e.g. Germany WW1 to WWII).  All I've been saying is that the game is written with some open ground here for different people playing Shepards of different personalities to logically interpret the situation differently by assigning different levels of importance to the variety of little details present in the game.

The only "intention" I'm giving the developers is the intention to write a game that can be interpreted in more than one way.  Was it done completely without their personal biases showing through?... No, it was not.  They are only human after all.  Were they intentionally trying to lead and mislead people into believing what they personally might believe about the situation?  I don't think so.  If that was their intention, the game would have been written with far stronger messages overall... without all the vague language and innuendoes tearing people in bi-polar directions.

Should I trust or believe that people here are writing their posts in an unbiased way?  No... not when they frame in comments like ""We've seen no other examples than horrific ones." when, quite clearly, that is not what was presented within the time frame the game covered.

Green? And throw life's chance to evolve into something wonderful ON ITS OWN for the first time since the Intelligence was created? I think not. That's just continuing on a path they created. That is, my Shepard's see things that way.

It's a side of the Krogan that was largely abandoned though. That was Okeer's schtick.. but it kinda sunk in the background after his writer left. Leaving Weekes to just emphasize the genophage angle. Same goes for what happened to Legion, but in a slightly different way.