75 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
It didn't really turn him into something more than human, just a slightly stronger human with tech replacing some Organic bits -- he still couldn't perform amazing physical feats. In ME3 he goes back to gaining strength the good 'ole fashion method of pumping iron. I don't think cybernetics are too impressive if the same results could be gained by going to the gym.

Doesn't he have synthetic brain implants? In my book that makes him more than human. Where's the line between human and cyborg? I'm not sure. But I think for the purposes of the topic - which is trying to separate the Synthesis storyline from Shepard - it's still a valid objection. There's much about who Shepard is that could be incorporated into a Synthesis narrative. Not for my Shepard, but I can easily see the thematic continuity there.

I believe EDI specifically mentions that Shepard does not have any brain implants in a off-hand conversation about trans-humans.

Shepard is special in the story, but I think those qualities about him (butt-kicking, charisma, yelling people into submission) don't have anything to do with him being a cyborg. I think new players to ME3 could go through the whole game without ever realizing he's a cyborg because it's never brought up, much less central to the story in any way -- at least until the end.

[von uber]

Yes, funnily enough I had that conversation last night. Shepard is expressly said by EDI to not be synthetic.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


It didn't really turn him into something more than human, just a slightly stronger human with tech replacing some Organic bits -- he still couldn't perform amazing physical feats. In ME3 he goes back to gaining strength the good 'ole fashion method of pumping iron. I don't think cybernetics are too impressive if the same results could be gained by going to the gym.

He wasn't expressly designed to be something more than what he was before, either.

But even then, there are some moments that make me think a little: Shepard's apparent immunity to lethal doses of poisons (Omega bartender); to sedatives (Arrival); and the ability to throw around large metal beams without too much difficulty (ME2 ending) despite being on the svelte side, or being the human rail that Femshep is. Whoever wrote EDI's dialogue denying Shepard being the transhuman he/she clearly is probably isn't the same writer who wrote the above material.


Another thing I thought of: Shepard was also successfully able to handle the connection to the geth-consensus as David Archer failed to do (Legion explicitly states that he borrowed the idea from Project Overlord). Now, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with Shepard's partial synthetic makeup or what, but what I'm getting at here is that it's really nothing "new" for Shepard to succeed in places where others have failed. Not sure why it's so hard for some to fathom.

[SwobyJ]

ME2-ME3's Shepard is very much transhuman from our perspective, but I doubt it would be from the perspective of the setting and EDI's knowledge base.

~~~

Going more off of that:
ME1 - Healthy human with gene therapy, Prothian Beacon data and Cypher (mind 'part Prothian' in a way)
ME2 - Technologically enhanced human, Prothian stuff seemingly still locked away
ME3 - Technologically enhanced human, Prothian stuff

(*I have ideas about other things, but this is all I can more confirm based on clear narrative)

I guess by Mass Effect's definition, Shepard isn't quite transhuman, mainly because he's not going anywhere. He's not 'in transition' to a post-human state, but instead just assisted in his organic state by technology. He's kinda 'larger than life' in ME2-3, but still of 'life' (organic life).

So being 'partly synthetic' isn't = transhuman here. At this point (pre ME3 ending), the Alliance could technically remove all synthetic parts and Shepard is healed enough that he could take that hit and survive. ME's defintion of transhuman seems to go that the person would no longer be 'themselves' without the synthetic parts.

I do think that by the end of ME3, Shepard may be (subconsciously) more identified with his synthetic parts than it may seem, and that he's more open to the concepts of Control and Synthesis than he otherwise would be.

In picking either, he has chosen to have greater acceptance to the idea of being transhuman or even post-human, by the more MEU seeming definition. Destroy is more of the same "I'm still organic human, but I'm being helped by some tech in me, like its a tool, not really what I am."

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


It didn't really turn him into something more than human, just a slightly stronger human with tech replacing some Organic bits -- he still couldn't perform amazing physical feats. In ME3 he goes back to gaining strength the good 'ole fashion method of pumping iron. I don't think cybernetics are too impressive if the same results could be gained by going to the gym.

He wasn't expressly designed to be something more than what he was before, either.

But even then, there are some moments that make me think a little: Shepard's apparent immunity to lethal doses of poisons (Omega bartender); to sedatives (Arrival); and the ability to throw around large metal beams without too much difficulty (ME2 ending) despite being on the svelte side, or being the human rail that Femshep is. Whoever wrote EDI's dialogue denying Shepard being the transhuman he/she clearly is probably isn't the same writer who wrote the above material.


Another thing I thought of: Shepard was also successfully able to handle the connection to the geth-consensus as David Archer failed to do (Legion explicitly states that he borrowed the idea from Project Overlord). Now, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with Shepard's partial synthetic makeup or what, but what I'm getting at here is that it's really nothing "new" for Shepard to succeed in places where others have failed. Not sure why it's so hard for some to fathom.

I get that Shepard is special, but the qualities that make him special aren't from his cybernetics, its his (or her's...) Shepard mojo.

[CronoDragoon]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I get that Shepard is special, but the qualities that make him special aren't from his cybernetics, its his (or her's...) Shepard mojo.

Well, it's got to be at least a bit of both, considering his "Shepard mojo" got him as far as ME2's intro.

[SwobyJ]

IM and CD, you both make good points

It's up to the player to decide.


EDIT: Personally, I err on the side of Shepard mojo, haha. As it is, it's who Shepard is (whether organic, synthetic, etc), rather than what he is, that matters. It's even who he originally was, that got TIM to bring him back. That's the most important thing, at least in my more core view of the trilogy.

As I've indicated in other posts though, I wouldn't be surprised or upset by a protagonist that's more on the other end of things; dictacted more by programming and memory, than a more organic anomaly.

And I hope I'd enjoy both kinds of stories. After all, Legion and EDI are a couple of my favorite characters

Modifié par SwobyJ, 12 février 2014 - 09:42 .

[fhs33721]

It's been a time since I played ME1 but I don't think Saren ever represented Synthesis.
He is more about submission to the reapers. He wants to help Sovereign to prove that he and other organics can be valuable servants to the reapers and therefore shouldn't be wiped out completely. He only makes one remark about having "the strenghts of both and the weaknessess of neither" and that mostly sounds like simple boasting.
Aditionally think it's possible to never get that dialoge at all if you press the "No more talking" option instead of one of the two left options.

So no. Two lines of optional dialogue that can vaguely be connected to Synthesis don't make Saren the spokesman of Synthesis in myopinion.

[SwobyJ]

Synthesis is absolutely "becoming one with the Reapers". Like Street said, that was what it was called in earlier drafts.
And in the code, it's called the 'Merge' option.

It's pretty evident. We don't just 'understand' each other. We ARE each other. In all the ways that count in the end; mentally, emotionally, logically.

~~~

Some speculation I have is that Saren was (or at least was retconned into) actually pursuing a peace, AND so was Sovereign. However, it was done, as with every cycle, from a position of total submission. That's what keeps screwing things up.
ME3 DLC seems to explain this as a sort of Leviathan arrogance that the Reapers picked up. There's a lot of guesswork with all of this.

But yeah, Saren was pursuing a 'Merge', but it was to be as a tool of the Reapers, and not what Synthesis (at least on the face of things) proposes - a partnership. It's up to us to:
a)Believe whether this description by the Catalyst is legit or not
b)Believe whether the whole situation is real or not (not even counting IT)
c)Believe this is the actual specific solution to our problems

Modifié par SwobyJ, 13 février 2014 - 12:08 .

[Sovereign330]

Control to Dominate = The Illusive Man
Control to Protect = Shepard
Merge to become slaves = Saren
Merge to become equals ushering in a new age of peace = Shepard
Destroying the reapers because they're "bad" = Anderson and Hackett
Destroying all synthetics because of their apparent threat to organic life = Shepard

[ImaginaryMatter]

Does Refuse get an avatar?

[SwobyJ]

Sovereign330 wrote...

Control to Dominate = The Illusive Man
Control to Protect = Shepard
Merge to become slaves = Saren
Merge to become equals ushering in a new age of peace = Shepard
Destroying the reapers because they're "bad" = Anderson and Hackett
Destroying all synthetics because of their apparent threat to organic life = Shepard

That's an interesting and good way to put it.

In the auto-story, yeah, Shepard has more affinity to Anderson and Hackett, person to person. Yet he doesn't NEED to follow them at the end, and he can base that on information gathered throughout the trilogy (I'll just say that for a DefaultNewShep in ME3 that killed the Geth and sabotaged the Cure... choosing Synthesis truly does look like indoctrination, lol).

But in the auto-story too, Renegade and Paragon, there is a respect from Shepard given to at least TIM's ideals and older-presented (ME2) goals.

It's Synthesis that is more 'out there', but I think that's intentional. We can take that leap of 'faith', or not.

[SwobyJ]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Does Refuse get an avatar?

In my patented crazy ideas, the avatar of Refuse is Shepard himself. As in, the Shepard of earlier stages of ME1. He's changed since then, but Destroy is at least the closest to his overall trilogy base journey. Control is at least somewhat reflective of the more optional secondary journey. Synthesis is more exclusive to ME3 (but some ME2 themes).

[Sovereign330]

SwobyJ wrote...

Sovereign330 wrote...

Control to Dominate = The Illusive Man
Control to Protect = Shepard
Merge to become slaves = Saren
Merge to become equals ushering in a new age of peace = Shepard
Destroying the reapers because they're "bad" = Anderson and Hackett
Destroying all synthetics because of their apparent threat to organic life = Shepard

That's an interesting and good way to put it.

In the auto-story, yeah, Shepard has more affinity to Anderson and Hackett, person to person. Yet he doesn't NEED to follow them at the end, and he can base that on information gathered throughout the trilogy (I'll just say that for a DefaultNewShep in ME3 that killed the Geth and sabotaged the Cure... choosing Synthesis truly does look like indoctrination, lol).

But in the auto-story too, Renegade and Paragon, there is a respect from Shepard given to at least TIM's ideals and older-presented (ME2) goals.

It's Synthesis that is more 'out there', but I think that's intentional. We can take that leap of 'faith', or not.

Precisely. The writers specifically said a leap of faith was required to  take that option....im an atheist so while synthesis sounds pretty, im unwilling to take the leap so i choose control...tht is...no destruction of valuable resources and no leap of faith.

[SwobyJ]

Well I also view all 3 endings to be Shepard's destiny which involves indoctrination (but also several other things).

Destroy = I'll use Reaper weapons (if not Reaper weapons, then the facilitation of a weapon by Reaper Intelligence guidance). Lowest level.

Control = I'll incorporate Reaper technology into my intentions

Synthesis = I'll become one with the Reapers

I think there's a lot more context that confirms that not all is lost (in fact, all choices will kick ass in their own way), but the common thread is an advancement of technology, and brute force ('assembly line science') by the Reapers until now, to have their technology 'meet' with organics (all fails).

[ImaginaryMatter]

Sovereign330 wrote...

Precisely. The writers specifically said a leap of faith was required to  take that option....im an atheist so while synthesis sounds pretty, im unwilling to take the leap so i choose control...tht is...no destruction of valuable resources and no leap of faith.

Hmm, I never saw Synthesis as a leap of faith, afterall the Catalyst says it is the best solution and all the other choices, bar Refusal, depend on the words of the Catalyst. I always saw it instead as simply an option of how to deal with AI tech (destroy it, control it, remove the differences) with, like the other endings, some moral/ethical/something consequence attached to it.

[Farangbaa]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Does Refuse get an avatar?

Javik, though he probably disagrees.

But given his personality, the Catalyst would be dead long before it could reveal the options

"Wake up"
"Ugh... what? Where am I? Where is the airlock"
"I am the Cata..."
"Damn Synthetic!" *Discharges gun*

[shodiswe]

Destroy is Anderson, not Shepard.

If it's what your shepard is then so be it. But it's not a cannon Shepard chice.

[nallepuh86]

shodiswe wrote...

Destroy is Anderson, not Shepard.

If it's what your shepard is then so be it. But it's not a cannon Shepard chice.

Nothing is canon choice in mass effect 3 yet.

But facts proves that they will canon the happy ending.

Whole trilogy directs towards that destroy is best choice and others will backfire badly, even i realized that in the first gameplay and nice to see that somebody else has noticed this too(topic starter).

Another fact is the stargazer.

[SwobyJ]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Sovereign330 wrote...

Precisely. The writers specifically said a leap of faith was required to  take that option....im an atheist so while synthesis sounds pretty, im unwilling to take the leap so i choose control...tht is...no destruction of valuable resources and no leap of faith.

Hmm, I never saw Synthesis as a leap of faith, afterall the Catalyst says it is the best solution and all the other choices, bar Refusal, depend on the words of the Catalyst. I always saw it instead as simply an option of how to deal with AI tech (destroy it, control it, remove the differences) with, like the other endings, some moral/ethical/something consequence attached to it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

SwobyJ wrote...

Err... figurative leap of faith. I've never actually chosen Synthesis in any play through.

[SwobyJ]

It's both IM. That's the point.

[Sovereign330]

They take possibilities and put positive spins and show how what the past said can be done right, if the right person enacts the choice