204 réponses à ce sujet

[pistolols]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Oh, anyone curious as to why BioWare is giving us free MP DLC? Almost exactly the same time they announced the free EC DLC?

i don't know, but i know i'm happy about it!  i would have been picking up DLC either way, but i was worried it would split the MP players apart a bit... where some are playing on paid-for maps and other on the default ones.  Now i don't have to worry!

[Xandurpein]

One thing that really disturbs me about the ending choices is that it seems to indicate that Synthesis is the "good" choice, and yet almost all examples from the game shows us that merging organic with a AI produces abominations.
- Husks
- Reapers
- Saren
- TIM
- Overlord

Husks, Reapers and Overlord are all examples of how Synthesis is a violation of those organic beings subjected to it. Saren and TIM shows us that Synthesis is a trap, they are deluded into violating themsleves and losing their humanity in the process.

There is in fact plenty of foreshadowing that Synthesis is a very bad thing; a violation and a trap, especially if it's being forced upon those not able to chose for themselves. Why should I then at the last instant do a 180 and believe that it's a blessing?

Modifié par Xandurpein, 10 avril 2012 - 08:53 .

[Ieldra]

@OP:
Excellent post. I still think the star child comes out of nowhere where it shouldn't, but I agree the theme was foreshadowed. I've always had more problems with the side effects of the final choice (relays gone, dark age of the galaxy, that damned Garden Eden allusion with its "back to nature" bent) than with the main effects.

@Xandurpein:
The problem lies in that the ending scenario as such clashes with the cosmic horror story ME has been presented as until then. We are told, that no, Reapers aren't Space Cthulhus with inscrutable motivations beyond the human ken, but constructs made for a specific, well-understandable task. This is a major theme shift. For those like me, who always hoped for a resolution like that, it is rather obvious that the Synthesis is a good ending, while those who wholeheartedly bought the cosmic horror story have very understandable difficulties adjusting to the new paradigma. I'm going to devote a new thread to this difficulty...

[Rulid]

I get that the theme of Organics vs. Synthetics was foreshadowed.

I just suppose that I expected more than that to be the overarching premise of the Reapers.

... you know, since "incomprehensible" was thrown about in abandon by various Reapers.

... because that was so... comprehensible.

[Xandurpein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Xandurpein:
The problem lies in that the ending scenario as such clashes with the cosmic horror story ME has been presented as until then. We are told, that no, Reapers aren't Space Cthulhus with inscrutable motivations beyond the human ken, but constructs made for a specific, well-understandable task. This is a major theme shift. For those like me, who always hoped for a resolution like that, it is rather obvious that the Synthesis is a good ending, while those who wholeheartedly bought the cosmic horror story have very understandable difficulties adjusting to the new paradigma. I'm going to devote a new thread to this difficulty...

I think it's more than just a theme shift. It's an abandonement of several themes. To me Synthesis is a an awful ending, even taking out the "cosmic horror" it's been so far, for a number of reasons:

It's frankly gobbelydook. It represents a total abandon of anything approaching science, for pure fantasy. As such it's a huge break with the pseudo-science theme in the game so far. I've seen a number of theories for what this synthesis could be in reality, and none of them seem to resolve the technological singularity that Catalyst is so worried about or what Synthesis would do to an AI that is purely software, like the Geth. And that is NOT considering the absurdity of a green energy beam causing this Synthesis.

I can see that Synthesis might seem interesting as a purely intellectual exercise, despite it seems to fly in the face of reason, but it becomes a nightmare as soon as you step down to the human level. What will happen to me, personally, if I get tranformed into some kind of cyborg? Will I even be me anymore? Who can possibly have the right to force that kind of change on other beings without asking permission? It IS a gross violation of the free will of every sentient being in the Galaxy, no matter how you sugar coat it in intellectual theories.

I don't mind the shift away from Cosmic horror story as such, even if I think that it was done in a very clumsy way, as the abandonment of the individual perspective (Shepard, the squad mates and the rest of the cast tha made up the Mass Effect universe) for a purely abstract story level. I don't really see how Bioware is going to be able to resolve this in the extended ending. I wanted to know what happened to my squad mates, but I don't see how they are going to give me that closure, without spoiling the only good part about the current ending - the debate about what the various endings actually mean.

[Costin_Razvan]

I do have to strongly agree OP. The major issues of the ending, or endings aren't so much the cinematics for me ( though I dislike the Normandy scene ) but rather the ****** poor writing once Shepard goes back to the Citadel.

I mean really we have two of the most interesting characters in the ME franchise both dying for no real reason except convenience to get rid of them so Shepard is alone with the Catalyst, talking of TIM and Anderson.

We have bad writing for the Catalyst. Walters said in the final hours that he only wanted to give the information players needed...well we did not get squat as to how Control or Synthesis work.

[Ieldra]

Xandurpein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Xandurpein:
The problem lies in that the ending scenario as such clashes with the cosmic horror story ME has been presented as until then. We are told, that no, Reapers aren't Space Cthulhus with inscrutable motivations beyond the human ken, but constructs made for a specific, well-understandable task. This is a major theme shift. For those like me, who always hoped for a resolution like that, it is rather obvious that the Synthesis is a good ending, while those who wholeheartedly bought the cosmic horror story have very understandable difficulties adjusting to the new paradigma. I'm going to devote a new thread to this difficulty...

I think it's more than just a theme shift. It's an abandonement of several themes. To me Synthesis is a an awful ending, even taking out the "cosmic horror" it's been so far, for a number of reasons:

It's frankly gobbelydook. It represents a total abandon of anything approaching science, for pure fantasy. As such it's a huge break with the pseudo-science theme in the game so far. I've seen a number of theories for what this synthesis could be in reality, and none of them seem to resolve the technological singularity that Catalyst is so worried about or what Synthesis would do to an AI that is purely software, like the Geth. And that is NOT considering the absurdity of a green energy beam causing this Synthesis.

Perhaps you might be interested in my Synthesis thread where I try to shed some light on the matter. The description is complete nonsense, yes, so you have to refer to the symbolism and the underlying themes to make sense of it. The bad writing is a major hindrance here.
As for the green energy beam, I don't like it but I can put that down to the "sufficiently advanced technology" which is, as everyone knowns, indistinguishable from magic. It's rather blatant though.

I can see that Synthesis might seem interesting as a purely intellectual exercise, despite it seems to fly in the face of reason, but it becomes a nightmare as soon as you step down to the human level. What will happen to me, personally, if I get tranformed into some kind of cyborg? Will I even be me anymore? Who can possibly have the right to force that kind of change on other beings without asking permission? It IS a gross violation of the free will of every sentient being in the Galaxy, no matter how you sugar coat it in intellectual theories.

If you have reason enough to believe the effects are beneficial, it comes down to something like this: Imagine you could press a button, and thereby increase the lifespan of all humans on Earth to 250 years and make them immune to most poisons and diseases, at the price of having some advanced nanotech in their bodies with no visible effect and no other side effects. The alternative would be that no one gets it. Now disregarding the practical considerations like a population explosion, viewed strictly from a moral point of view, would you do it?
Personally, I would feel justified in ignoring the protestations of some fundamentalists who might be opposed to such a change as a matter of principle. Only practical considerations might stay my hand.

I don't mind the shift away from Cosmic horror story as such, even if I think that it was done in a very clumsy way, as the abandonment of the individual perspective (Shepard, the squad mates and the rest of the cast tha made up the Mass Effect universe) for a purely abstract story level. I don't really see how Bioware is going to be able to resolve this in the extended ending. I wanted to know what happened to my squad mates, but I don't see how they are going to give me that closure, without spoiling the only good part about the current ending - the debate about what the various endings actually mean.

I think the Extended Cut can do that - if the ME3 team wants to do it. After all it is the side effects people complain about - destruction of galactic civilization, stranding of the Normandy on some remote planet, and the lack of closure for the places affected by our choices in the game - not the main effects of the final choice. The Synthesis needs to be described in a less nonsensical way, but its basic ambiguity will remain. And the other endings don't need a more elaborate description of their main effects. Whether Shepard flies the Reapers into a black hole after he assumes control of them should or does something else should be left to the players' imagination.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 avril 2012 - 12:00 .

[Shepard Wins]

It's not foreshadowing when a certain theme used later on coincidentally appears at some point before. The Credits Funnelling AI quest did not foreshadow ME3's endings, and description for Klencory ("the beings of light") did not foreshadow the Bieber Reaper. Foreshadowing is only foreshadowing when it's intentional.

If indoc theory was like grasping at straws, then what could this be? No, sorry, the ending was just... bad. That's it.

Modifié par Shepard Wins, 10 avril 2012 - 12:03 .

[Xandurpein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Perhaps you might be interested in my Synthesis thread where I try to shed some light on the matter. The description is complete nonsense, yes, so you have to refer to the symbolism and the underlying themes to make sense of it. The bad writing is a major hindrance here.

Thanks for directing me to the thread. I'll reply to it later. Here I'll just restrict myself to quoting Robert Egbert "If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't."

If you have reason enough to believe the effects are beneficial, it comes down to something like this: Imagine you could press a button, and thereby increase the lifespan of all humans on Earth to 250 years and make them immune to most poisons and diseases, at the price of having some advanced nanotech in their bodies with no visible effect and no other side effects. The alternative would be that no one gets it. Now disregarding the practical considerations like a population explosion, viewed strictly from a moral point of view, would you do it?
Personally, I would feel justified in ignoring the protestations of some fundamentalists who might be opposed to such a change as a matter of principle. Only practical considerations might stay my hand.

But that's the whole problem in a nutshell. How can I have reason to believe that the effects are beneficial? I have no information about the actual effects at all. The possible permutations of the actual effects ranges from eternal life to everyone becoming husks. The only information I have is that the leader of our main adversary, the beings who have done their best to murder every human and other sentient being in the Galaxy thinks it's a good thing. How can this possibly inspire confidence?

I think the Extended Cut can do that - if the ME3 team wants to do it. After all it is the side effects people complain about - destruction of galactic civilization, stranding of the Normandy on some remote planet, and the lack of closure for the places affected by our choices in the game - not the main effects of the final choice. The Synthesis needs to be described in a less nonsensical way, but its basic ambiguity will remain. And the other endings don't need a more elaborate description of their main effects. Whether Shepard flies the Reapers into a black hole after he assumes control of them should or does something else should be left to the players' imagination.

But how can they give me any meaningful information about what happens to my squad mates if I chose Synthesis, without explaining the results of Synthesis too, at least indirectly? I would presume that an explanation of people's life as cyborgs, without mentioning what it means to be a cyborg would appear to virtually non-sensical, unless you assume that living as a cyborg is indistinguishable from living as an organic,but then you have already removed al lot the speculation about  how life in the Synthesis would differ from todays.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 10 avril 2012 - 12:48 .

[pistolols]

Xandurpein wrote...

What will happen to me, personally, if I get tranformed into some kind of cyborg? Will I even be me anymore?

This is exactly what the writers wanted us to be doing.  Asking ourselves these questions.  Agonizing over the potential benefits and consequences.  That is the huge focus in ME3 of Shepard being a product of synthesis and Ashley being skeptical about him.  Shepard wonders: "Am i even real?"  "maybe i'm just an AI that thinks he's Shepard."  This is a fundamental theme.  What constitutes being alive.. what does it mean to be alive?  Is EDI alive?  Are the geth?  The reapers?


--I really don't feel that anything about the end was done "badly" in terms of this stuff.  All of these themes, all of these philosophical questions over the morality of 'control' that we've been hammered with over and over through all 3 games.. it all culminates in the final moments of ME3.  I personally feel they did a brilliant job bringing everything together.  This stuff is heavily foreshadowed.  There is no "disconnect", in my opinion.

In regard to the reapers, taking everything we've been shown about control and subjugation, it only makes sense that they too are utimately victims of it.  In fact, it makes the whole story more interesting to me by creating such a massive parallel.  In the end, everyone was the victim of this AI, of the citadel.  Everyone.

Modifié par pistolols, 10 avril 2012 - 01:17 .

[DarkShadow]

Well, my respond to this is this post.
Link

As I said there, the organics vs. synthetics theme is important, but it's just one theme of many. That the geth don't really count as synthetics is very, very far stretched. And in an ending, NOTHING should be far stretched.

Any problems with the endings are addressed in this video. I could answer almost anything concerning the ending discussion by linking that video again...

Modifié par DarkShadow, 10 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[Xandurpein]

pistolols wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

What will happen to me, personally, if I get tranformed into some kind of cyborg? Will I even be me anymore?

This is exactly what the writers wanted us to be doing.  Asking ourselves these questions.  Agonizing over the potential benefits and consequences.  That is the huge focus in ME3 of Shepard being a product of synthesis and Ashley being skeptical about him.  Shepard wonders: "Am i even real?"  "maybe i'm just an AI that thinks he's Shepard."  This is a fundamental theme.  What constitutes being alive.. what does it mean to be alive?  Is EDI alive?  Are the geth?  The reapers?

I really don't feel that anything about the end was done "badly" in terms of this stuff.  All of these themes, all of these philosophical questions over the morality of 'control' that we've been hammered with over and over through all 3 games.. it all culminates in the final moments of ME3.  I personally feel they did a brilliant job bringing everything together.  This stuff is heavily foreshadowed.  There is no "disconnect", in my opinion.

In regard to the reapers, taking everything we've been shown about control and subjugation, it only makes sense that they too are utimately victims of it.  In fact, it makes the whole story more interesting to me by creating such a massive parrallel.  In the end, everyone was the victim of this AI, of the citadel.  Everyone.

I agree, and if there had been a more dystopian theme throughout the series, and the ending had been better written, then it might have been a brilliant ending. As it now stands, the ending manages to turn the whole mood of the game TWICE in the span of five minutes. First we are forced to go from bittersweet triumph to a dystopian realisation that we've all been the victims of a mad god. Then minutes later we are supposed to switch back to a uplifting cheer as Joker and friends happily views their new Eden. It's jarring, disconnecting and just plain bad writing.

[pistolols]

Xandurpein wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

What will happen to me, personally, if I get tranformed into some kind of cyborg? Will I even be me anymore?

This is exactly what the writers wanted us to be doing.  Asking ourselves these questions.  Agonizing over the potential benefits and consequences.  That is the huge focus in ME3 of Shepard being a product of synthesis and Ashley being skeptical about him.  Shepard wonders: "Am i even real?"  "maybe i'm just an AI that thinks he's Shepard."  This is a fundamental theme.  What constitutes being alive.. what does it mean to be alive?  Is EDI alive?  Are the geth?  The reapers?

I really don't feel that anything about the end was done "badly" in terms of this stuff.  All of these themes, all of these philosophical questions over the morality of 'control' that we've been hammered with over and over through all 3 games.. it all culminates in the final moments of ME3.  I personally feel they did a brilliant job bringing everything together.  This stuff is heavily foreshadowed.  There is no "disconnect", in my opinion.

In regard to the reapers, taking everything we've been shown about control and subjugation, it only makes sense that they too are utimately victims of it.  In fact, it makes the whole story more interesting to me by creating such a massive parrallel.  In the end, everyone was the victim of this AI, of the citadel.  Everyone.

I agree, and if there had been a more dystopian theme throughout the series, and the ending had been better written, then it might have been a brilliant ending. As it now stands, the ending manages to turn the whole mood of the game TWICE in the span of five minutes. First we are forced to go from bittersweet triumph to a dystopian realisation that we've all been the victims of a mad god. Then minutes later we are supposed to switch back to a uplifting cheer as Joker and friends happily views their new Eden. It's jarring, disconnecting and just plain bad writing.

It's not bad writing and i'm fairly certain you would not be capable of doing better.  But i agree jungle planet scene felt cheap, cheesy, whatever you want to say.  Jungle planet scene is really my only complaint about the ending.

[goofyomnivore]

It's not bad writing

It is questionable at the very least. I'm mostly okay with the concept behind the endings, but the presentation of them is really poor. And Synthesis suffers the most from the copy/paste and slap a color on it endings. Something with that many variables needs to be given more clarity. It seems like they did the endings for Destroy and ran out of time, so they just changed the color of it for Synthesis and Control.

Modifié par strive, 10 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Xandurpein]

pistolols wrote...

It's not bad writing and i'm fairly certain you would not be capable of doing better.  But i agree jungle planet scene felt cheap, cheesy, whatever you want to say.  Jungle planet scene is really my only complaint about the ending.

I'm fairly certain that if I had to write the actual conversation dialogue myself, no one would be impressed, as I'm not a professional writer. That is just a cheap shot and you know it. I do feel I'm capable of articulating what I feel needs changed in the ending to help a writer get things better, but then again, I think there are probably even more qualified people in Bioware too.

Good writing is about communication, and when the writing obviously didn't manage to communicate the meaning of the ending to a huge segment of the players, when there were huge plot holes the player had to try and fill themselves to make sense of things and when this understanding was further complicated by jarring shifts in the tone during the ending, then yes, I maintain that this was poorly written, regardless of what I think about what the writers tried to say.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 10 avril 2012 - 01:40 .

[Sepharih]

I haven't been able to read through the entirety of the thread, but can anyone explain this to me:

The reason I find synthesis to be a reversal of the core themes of the series is that while there has been a running subplot of a conflict between organic and synthetic life, I thought ME2 and ME3 made did a job demonstrating that it wasn't that different than most of the conflicts which existed between the various forms of organic life.
Diversity with unity and the ability to put aside and respect our differences is held up as being the greatest strength of this cycle.....but in the end synthesis seems to suggest that the only way to resolve the tension between organic and synthetic life is to merge the two together, thus replacing diversity with homogeneity.

Now it's just plain ****** poor storytelling to show us that organics and synthetics can co-exist and then tell us through a previously unseen character in the final moments of the story that they cannot.  Even worse when this vision of the future lines up very closely with the first antagonist in the series.  Even putting that aside, it's still a reversal of one of the core themes.  Imagine, for example, if it was shown that the only way for Krogan's and the Turians to resolve their differences was through genetic splicing.  

Modifié par Sepharih, 10 avril 2012 - 01:45 .

[Jayleia]

Isichar wrote...

I think key themes were largely foreshadowed, the act of playing god, the loss of the relays, shepards sacrifice. That been said theres alot of key themes in the mass effect series that are ultimately not focused on such as having no real dialogue control and the dark energy issue.
The catalyst was in no way shape or form really foreshadowed to me, infact i feel i was led to believe that the reapers were the pinnacle of evolution and not simply a tool to be controlled.

There was some foreshadowing of the themes (mich of it in skippable side-missions), but the God-kid and everything related to him came completely out of blue.  And on top of nothing to indicate his presence, plan, or anything, it was also delivered badly on top of that

[ThaddeusPL]

Xandurpein wrote...

One thing that really disturbs me about the ending choices is that it seems to indicate that Synthesis is the "good" choice, and yet almost all examples from the game shows us that merging organic with a AI produces abominations.
- Husks
- Reapers
- Saren
- TIM
- Overlord

Husks, Reapers and Overlord are all examples of how Synthesis is a violation of those organic beings subjected to it. Saren and TIM shows us that Synthesis is a trap, they are deluded into violating themsleves and losing their humanity in the process. 

There is in fact plenty of foreshadowing that Synthesis is a very bad thing; a violation and a trap, especially if it's being forced upon those not able to chose for themselves. Why should I then at the last instant do a 180 and believe that it's a blessing?

You forgot about the most "evil" synthesis - Collectors. Reapers always want to build next reapers, to prevent organics killed by synthetics etc... - look at my signature ;-)
So that "synthesis theory" is like "indoctrination theory". A lot of speculation.
Like D.K. wrote the main concept from ME1 was Dark Energy.


@ChildOfEden:

ME1:
Casino AI was deactivated/destroyed/- no more words about it in ME2 or 3.
Heretic geths - like said Legion - have something like virus, planted by Sovereign and in ME2 was overwritten/destroyed.
Rough VI from Moon becomes EDI with Cerberus help.
Sovereign destroyed too.
Saren - indoctrinated and implanted - at end changed into husk (?)

ME2:
Shepard's cybernetic implants, I saw only some on spine at the beggining on ME2, no more.
Overlord is a project about "hack/communicate" geth, nothin more than interface.
Joker - he never talk about implants only that cerberus help him walk - can be done with cure/genetic treatment.
All about Legion - If you dont activate him, rest not happen.
EDI vs Shepard - you cant trust EDI, like Joker said without help Normandy was lost.
Collector base - how the hell Cerberus go there without IFF module? No matter if u destroy base or not, only one working IFF module is on Normandy.

ME3:
Quarians vs. Geth - Geth are Quarrian "operating system with learning module" for platforms. Nothing more so no reaper tech here.
EDI and Legion - both are learning about organics.
EDI "want to know how to be" because her program have this routine and can learn.
Legion sacrifice himself for greater good - he want to be like creators - Quarrians. Remember his question abou soul?
Salarians and Thurians (not only Garrus) - different culture. Salarians works in shadow, Thurians are warriors.
Not only Chakwas and Adams talk about AI, also Adams and Donnely talk about EDI in engineering room.
TIM - hard to say someting about him, but in ME2 he have implants - look at his eyes.
Biotic or biotics implants - Asari, Salarians, Thurians and Krogans, even Volus, have biotics a lot earlier than Humans (lookin at galactic timeline). Human first biotics apperaded after discovering eezo.
Haptic technology implants (to use with holographic UI) and omnitools - technological advanced "gadgets" (in very simple explanation) like smartphones.
Quarians suits - highly advanced enviromental suits.

This is my opinion about this theory, You may not agree with that explanation, but like I wrote this is my opinion  

Modifié par ThaddeusPL, 10 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[ChildOfEden]

Shepard Wins wrote...

It's not foreshadowing when a certain theme used later on coincidentally appears at some point before. The Credits Funnelling AI quest did not foreshadow ME3's endings, and description for Klencory ("the beings of light") did not foreshadow the Bieber Reaper. Foreshadowing is only foreshadowing when it's intentional.

If indoc theory was like grasping at straws, then what could this be? No, sorry, the ending was just... bad. That's it.

Not saying the ending wasn't bad, actually what I am trying to argue is that had BioWare chosen to use the same reasoning for the reapers I wouldn't have minded, but that I would liked to have had an epilogue, something I assumed was going to be in-game. It wasn't, instead the Normandy scene blew that away regardless of the "choice" you made, reasoning was indeed foreshadowed as suggested by the list, it is just that the hate on BioWare would be reduced SIGNIFICANTLY if they included epilogues. And it wouldn't have been that hard, just make cutscenes and have the same device for the save importer read when you did something and viola you unlocked a cutscene.
And foreshadowing doesn't have to be intentional, at least to us the viewers, players, readers, whatever. A writer can write a mystery novel or make a videogame with distinct but accepted themes (like in our discussion except we are having a hard time understanding what foreshadowed means, something I'm going to clear up right now.) If that said writer was making a novel series along his or her way he or she will have to eventually create a resolved and critical theme, but with several accepted themes proposes the problem (or intended result if for example the writer had writer's block.) He or she then chooses one, regardless of whether or not that theme was chosen as the original, central theme. As long as the evidence of such foreshadowing was there he or she may confirm it as such. BioWare created such a story, in a sense of a mystery, that we were never in our own in guiding the story per se, but rather being fed themes that could've been assumed or concluded (as our situation lay now) by anyone as acceptable.
Organics vs. Sythetics was a well placed theme, so was Dark Energy, however they're both plus or minus acceptable in a objective manner because of the evidences for each.
For example: Dark energy on Haestrom, Tali: she expresses on board the liveship that Haestrom's condition could just be an isolated event, with this particular point of the presented story it had all the deniability to be just that of Tali's thoughts: an isolated case. Thusly, you cannot just conclude that Dark Energy had anything to do with the theme the Mass Effect universe was riding on.

[ChildOfEden]

Sepharih wrote...

I haven't been able to read through the entirety of the thread, but can anyone explain this to me:

The reason I find synthesis to be a reversal of the core themes of the series is that while there has been a running subplot of a conflict between organic and synthetic life, I thought ME2 and ME3 made did a job demonstrating that it wasn't that different than most of the conflicts which existed between the various forms of organic life.
Diversity with unity and the ability to put aside and respect our differences is held up as being the greatest strength of this cycle.....but in the end synthesis seems to suggest that the only way to resolve the tension between organic and synthetic life is to merge the two together, thus replacing diversity with homogeneity.

Now it's just plain ****** poor storytelling to show us that organics and synthetics can co-exist and then tell us through a previously unseen character in the final moments of the story that they cannot.  Even worse when this vision of the future lines up very closely with the first antagonist in the series.  Even putting that aside, it's still a reversal of one of the core themes.  Imagine, for example, if it was shown that the only way for Krogan's and the Turians to resolve their differences was through genetic splicing.  

To answer your question about synthesis.
Synthesis was foreshadowed in the very beginning, okay maybe the end of the beginning, of Mass Effect 1. Saren was the choice of synthesis, "flesh and steel, the strength of both, the weaknesses of neither." This was a set up of the overall, central and critical themes of the story. I believe undoubtfully that this foreshadowed synthesis as proven by my next point: ME2: the choice between keeping the Collector Base or destroying it. This foreshadowed the other two ME3 choices in a moral dilemnia way. ME3 was just the collection of these points and choices of ME1 and 2.
However, I believe that they were just ****** poorly written in a way it disregards the things you do in ME3, ala Geth, Turian and Krogan, etc.
The Deus Ex Machina was lacking, and should be retconned, however, I see the point of trying to explain the point of the Reapers. (Again I think it could've been delivered better.)

[ChildOfEden]

I've updated my OP!

[Sepharih]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

I haven't been able to read through the entirety of the thread, but can anyone explain this to me:

The reason I find synthesis to be a reversal of the core themes of the series is that while there has been a running subplot of a conflict between organic and synthetic life, I thought ME2 and ME3 made did a job demonstrating that it wasn't that different than most of the conflicts which existed between the various forms of organic life.
Diversity with unity and the ability to put aside and respect our differences is held up as being the greatest strength of this cycle.....but in the end synthesis seems to suggest that the only way to resolve the tension between organic and synthetic life is to merge the two together, thus replacing diversity with homogeneity.

Now it's just plain ****** poor storytelling to show us that organics and synthetics can co-exist and then tell us through a previously unseen character in the final moments of the story that they cannot.  Even worse when this vision of the future lines up very closely with the first antagonist in the series.  Even putting that aside, it's still a reversal of one of the core themes.  Imagine, for example, if it was shown that the only way for Krogan's and the Turians to resolve their differences was through genetic splicing.  

To answer your question about synthesis.
Synthesis was foreshadowed in the very beginning, okay maybe the end of the beginning, of Mass Effect 1. Saren was the choice of synthesis, "flesh and steel, the strength of both, the weaknesses of neither." This was a set up of the overall, central and critical themes of the story. I believe undoubtfully that this foreshadowed synthesis as proven by my next point: ME2: the choice between keeping the Collector Base or destroying it. This foreshadowed the other two ME3 choices in a moral dilemnia way. ME3 was just the collection of these points and choices of ME1 and 2.
However, I believe that they were just ****** poorly written in a way it disregards the things you do in ME3, ala Geth, Turian and Krogan, etc.
The Deus Ex Machina was lacking, and should be retconned, however, I see the point of trying to explain the point of the Reapers. (Again I think it could've been delivered better.)

....that isn't really an answer to my challenge.

[ChildOfEden]

Sepharih wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

I haven't been able to read through the entirety of the thread, but can anyone explain this to me:

The reason I find synthesis to be a reversal of the core themes of the series is that while there has been a running subplot of a conflict between organic and synthetic life, I thought ME2 and ME3 made did a job demonstrating that it wasn't that different than most of the conflicts which existed between the various forms of organic life.
Diversity with unity and the ability to put aside and respect our differences is held up as being the greatest strength of this cycle.....but in the end synthesis seems to suggest that the only way to resolve the tension between organic and synthetic life is to merge the two together, thus replacing diversity with homogeneity.

Now it's just plain ****** poor storytelling to show us that organics and synthetics can co-exist and then tell us through a previously unseen character in the final moments of the story that they cannot.  Even worse when this vision of the future lines up very closely with the first antagonist in the series.  Even putting that aside, it's still a reversal of one of the core themes.  Imagine, for example, if it was shown that the only way for Krogan's and the Turians to resolve their differences was through genetic splicing.  

To answer your question about synthesis.
Synthesis was foreshadowed in the very beginning, okay maybe the end of the beginning, of Mass Effect 1. Saren was the choice of synthesis, "flesh and steel, the strength of both, the weaknesses of neither." This was a set up of the overall, central and critical themes of the story. I believe undoubtfully that this foreshadowed synthesis as proven by my next point: ME2: the choice between keeping the Collector Base or destroying it. This foreshadowed the other two ME3 choices in a moral dilemnia way. ME3 was just the collection of these points and choices of ME1 and 2.
However, I believe that they were just ****** poorly written in a way it disregards the things you do in ME3, ala Geth, Turian and Krogan, etc.
The Deus Ex Machina was lacking, and should be retconned, however, I see the point of trying to explain the point of the Reapers. (Again I think it could've been delivered better.)

....that isn't really an answer to my challenge.

Well, if you want restate your imposition clearly then I'll reply back to you again
I was trying to grasp your statement and question but you hadn't really asked a question so I just took what you said and made my own conclusion objectively, of course.

[Sepharih]

ChildOfEden wrote...
Well, if you want restate your imposition clearly then I'll reply back to you again
I was trying to grasp your statement and question but you hadn't really asked a question so I just took what you said and made my own conclusion objectively, of course.

Well it was more an observation than a question.  I'm pointing out that putting forth synthesis as the only solution to a proposed conflict between synthetic and organic life is thematically insonsistent with the series, because the series is about the beauty and strength of diverse species and peoples coming together and learning to respect their differences, yes?
Now...if the only way to resolve this newly established central conflict is to merge synthetics and organics together.....it stands in direct contrast to those themes.  
Homogenization between these two forms of life is not the solution within the mass effect universe anymore than it was the solution to resolve Turian and Krogan tensions by gene splicing them.
The solution is co-existance.

The fact that Saren discussed synthesis and it had been mentioned before isn't really a point in it's favor anymore than the Illusive man is a point in favor of control.  In both these cases, the only times synthesis or the idea of controlling the reapers are talked about at all it's almost always shown in a negative light......often by someone who is indoctrinated.

Modifié par Sepharih, 11 avril 2012 - 03:24 .

[ThaddeusPL]

All theories was easily knocked down by EA/BW, because of "artistic integrity".