5087 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

botfly10 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

botfly10 wrote...

Well, sorry if my tone was overly confrontational. I just finished ME3 and came here to revel and discuss, only to find giant walls of hate.

To me, the end is all about the assumptions you bring with you and how you use them to fill in the narrative gaps.

I had no problems with merging my assumptions with the end I chose and the whole star child sequence. I had no issues with the associated suspension of belief.

Imo, the meaning of the choices and the ending itself were defined by your personal relationships with the game.

A cop out? Maybe, but I liked it.

Well, actually the ending all but abandons your personal relationships.  They don't matter much at all.  And one huge relationship is missing though it looms somewhere off in space.  Your antagonism for the reapers. 

Your friends are nowhere to be seen.  Things you worked for are rendered moot.  You don't have to thoroughly analyze the story to be feel left out of the ending.  But, Bioware considered it in terms of artistic integrity, indicated that players just didn't get it with further statements.  This means they viewed it as something esoteric and thoughty.  And for that reason alone a discussion of how a game built on a great story featured a broken story in the last 10 minutes of play, no the last 10 minutes of watching.

The content of the endings and the "substance" of the choices themselves break the meaning of any other relationships you forged.  If again you only take the Geth/Quarian conflict and choice to reunite them, picking Destroy not only obliterates the Geth, but will rock the foundation of inroads made with Tali and the Quarian.  I envision a ranking member of flotilla leadership saying, "we risked everything so you could promote the Geth, and you do this?"  It's a what the heck moment.  This is partly because the Quarian saw that the Geth would be a real help in getting them re-established on Rannoch.

Well, in my experience Shep sacrificed himself, so hard to have to many relashionships after that.

But the game must take into account all possible endings and in one Shepard survives.  And sorry but even if Shepard dies, before doing so s/he would be fully aware of the ramifications of his/her actions and would care.

[3DandBeyond]

botfly10 wrote...

Well, to me its about granting redemption to the reapers and in turn also the organics.

I guess the only bigotry I see is Shepard presuming to know what redemption looks like for anyone else or who should recieve it.  But at that point, you are so up in everyone's business as it is...  I just rolled with the idea that a decision had to be made and you were there, so it had to be you.

I'm sorry but I couldn't give two shakes about the reapers redemption.  They can't be redeemed unless that organic sludge they've been taking in means nothing.  It's not just that they killed, but in many ways it's how and if you believe the star kid's stupidity, why they did it.  But their killing wasn't that of just random billions or trillions (just), it was wholescale genocide.  Sorry to use this name, but it would be like sending Hitler to jail and thinking he could be or should be rehabilitated.  Nope, not for me.  They wiped out whole cultures, races, and did so for a stupid reason.  Yeah, I want them as next door neighbors.

Also, synthesis isn't just about Shepard deciding what gun or clothes or whatever someone should wear, it is determining for eternity what all life will be.  It is not trying to determine what the best course of action is for two warring cultures, it is determining what even peace-loving races will become.  It is godhood and Shepard never seemed to want godhood.  If Shepard rejects control, which leaves things intact why then would Shepard go with complete DNA altering control?  It's control on steroids.  It's another form of genocide because things do die in becoming something else.  It's also a surrender of the moral consciousness.  It is defeatist because it says Shepard believes the star kid's BS and thinks the only way to get along is to blend, not to work out differences and remain unique (even if only at the DNA level).

Synthesis is just abhorrent.  But I see all choices as equally so.  I'd rather let the fleets fight it out and take their chances than choose any of these.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 mai 2012 - 03:53 .

[M0keys]

Wanna know how the endings get better as your ems increases?

Red = genocide
Blue = slavery
Green = genocide & slavery

More EMS = Reapers becoming MORE powerful. GJ Shep!

[KitaSaturnyne]

I must admit that I've failed on any level, scientific or otherwise, to define what exactly "Synthesis" entails. All we are told is that everything will be re-written with some kind of new DNA, and afterwards, everyone has glowing circuit patterns integrated into their flesh.

Others have equated the idea of Synthesis with homogenization of all galactic species (including the plants), while yet others have likened it to rape (not exactly accurate, as we have no term for reconstructing someone's DNA without their consent, but the word probably would describe the emotional reaction to such a circumstance)

What is "synthesis" exactly, and how would it change how anyone lives? Could limbs be re-attached with a simple spot welding treatment? Could a Turian accept a replacement liver from a Human? Would a Krogan require firmware updates?

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I must admit that I've failed on any level, scientific or otherwise, to define what exactly "Synthesis" entails. All we are told is that everything will be re-written with some kind of new DNA, and afterwards, everyone has glowing circuit patterns integrated into their flesh.

Others have equated the idea of Synthesis with homogenization of all galactic species (including the plants), while yet others have likened it to rape (not exactly accurate, as we have no term for reconstructing someone's DNA without their consent, but the word probably would describe the emotional reaction to such a circumstance)

What is "synthesis" exactly, and how would it change how anyone lives? Could limbs be re-attached with a simple spot welding treatment? Could a Turian accept a replacement liver from a Human? Would a Krogan require firmware updates?

This is exactly the problem - we have such a paucity of information about what it entails that it's nigh-impossible to adjudge either as a player or as critics. Everyone brings their own intellectual framework and expectations, but there's nothing to let us pare down the multifarious options to a manageable level.

Going solely by the highly suggestive symbolic imagery and the option's place at the top of the ludological reward heap, I think's it's supposed to represent ascension and culmination rather than mindrape and homogeneity. The assumption on the authorial level, however, that we as the audience would be able to properly understand the intent with only the name ("synthesis") and a nonsensical shard of explanation ("a new DNA"), makes it difficult to believe that it's the studied, thoughtful answer (to the question we as players weren't asking, generally) we could accept.

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

Loved the post. It was very engaging and helped verbalize some of the issues I had with the ending.

As a side note, however, I would like to point out that there are many examples of pieces of art that were reviled when they were released, but later grew to be classics. Off the top of my head, I think the most appropriate example would be Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring. During it's premeire, the audience literally rioted.

I think Wikipedia says it best: "The evening's program began with a piece entitled “Les Sylphides.” This was followed by, “The Rite of Spring”. The complex music and violent dance steps depicting fertility rites first drew catcalls and whistles from the crowd. At the start, some members of the audience began to boo loudly. There were loud arguments in the audience between supporters and opponents of the work. These were soon followed by shouts and fistfights in the aisles. The unrest in the audience eventually degenerated into a riot. The Paris police arrived by intermission, but they restored only limited order. Chaos reigned for the remainder of the performance. Stravinsky had called for a bassoon to play higher in its range than anyone else had ever done. Fellow composer Camille Saint-Saëns famously stormed out of the première allegedly infuriated over the misuse of the bassoon in the ballet's opening bars (though Stravinsky later said "I do not know who invented the story that he was present at, but soon walked out of, the première.") Stravinsky ran backstage, where Diaghilev was turning the lights on and off in an attempt to try to calm the audience."

Hence the lyrics later added by frustrated Bassoonists: "I am not an English Horn. This part's too high for me".

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 06 mai 2012 - 09:39 .

[3DandBeyond]

delta_vee wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I must admit that I've failed on any level, scientific or otherwise, to define what exactly "Synthesis" entails. All we are told is that everything will be re-written with some kind of new DNA, and afterwards, everyone has glowing circuit patterns integrated into their flesh.

Others have equated the idea of Synthesis with homogenization of all galactic species (including the plants), while yet others have likened it to rape (not exactly accurate, as we have no term for reconstructing someone's DNA without their consent, but the word probably would describe the emotional reaction to such a circumstance)

What is "synthesis" exactly, and how would it change how anyone lives? Could limbs be re-attached with a simple spot welding treatment? Could a Turian accept a replacement liver from a Human? Would a Krogan require firmware updates?

This is exactly the problem - we have such a paucity of information about what it entails that it's nigh-impossible to adjudge either as a player or as critics. Everyone brings their own intellectual framework and expectations, but there's nothing to let us pare down the multifarious options to a manageable level.

Going solely by the highly suggestive symbolic imagery and the option's place at the top of the ludological reward heap, I think's it's supposed to represent ascension and culmination rather than mindrape and homogeneity. The assumption on the authorial level, however, that we as the audience would be able to properly understand the intent with only the name ("synthesis") and a nonsensical shard of explanation ("a new DNA"), makes it difficult to believe that it's the studied, thoughtful answer (to the question we as players weren't asking, generally) we could accept.

Very well put.  It's exactly the scarcity of any information in much of the ending, synthesis included, that makes it so hard to have a reasoned, rational discussion on what it all means.  Maybe this, maybe that.  Too many maybes,  leading to more maybes, not enough to base a good opinion or discussion on.  I don't mean you can't  discuss it, it's just that discussion of the content is speculation.  It's all vapor.  I could say synthesis is good, but have no basis to back it up.  Same with saying that it is categorically bad in implementation.  I can only say that in my opinion it advocates that Shepard must do something so beyond his/her character with no information to make any informed decision that on its face, it's ridiculous.  So, too are the other choices.  They lack context.  Shepard always asked about the impact of decisions.  That makes sense.  There's just enough information to make me despise any choice.

[delta_vee]

Warning: another of my Katamari textwalls follows.

@drayfish:

A wake's better than a war, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. And botfly10's experience, I believe, demonstrates the value of an oasis of civil discussion.

On a side note, your erstwhile student seems mysteriously absent. Did he go on a beer run and get stuck in traffic, or something?

@JustifiablyDefenestrated:

As a side note, however, I would like to point out that there are many examples of pieces of art that were reviled when they were released, but later grew to be classics. Off the top of my head, I think the most appropriate example would be Stravinsky's The Right of Spring. During it's premeire, the audience literally rioted.

"The Rite of Spring" was the first thing to come to mind when witnessing the irruption of disgust with the ending. The difference, of course, was the TRoS was intended to shake itself loose from the chains of convention from the first notes. Mass Effect, while perfectly happy to deconstruct, subvert, and then reconstruct various elements of the staid space opera, still followed a very conventional narrative structure (until Priority: Earth, of course). It wasn't the fact that it swerved into symbolic impressionism, it was that the move was so very late, after we had already invested ourselves and embraced the expected narrative arc. I doubt that sudden shift will be viewed any more favorably in the future than it is now.

Also, I rather like TRoS on its own merits.

On the redemption of the Reapers (@botfly10, @Sable Phoenix, @uwyz, @Hawk227, @MrFob):

botfly10 wrote...

Well, to me its about granting redemption to the reapers and in turn also the organics.

I guess the only bigotry I see is Shepard presuming to know what redemption looks like for anyone else or who should recieve it. But at that point, you are so up in everyone's business as it is... I just rolled with the idea that a decision had to be made and you were there, so it had to be you.

I hadn't thought of it in terms of redemption, but that would fit well with what I believe was the authorial intent of the green choice. Nice catch.

uwyz wrote...

My point is that in a way, synthesis is saying that civilized life forms cannot be trusted to keep the peace by themselves.

But like I said, I believe the true reason behind synthesis is to solve technical singularity. I can hardly see the authors of the ME series deliberately passing a message that "bigotry will always win over tolerance" without a making spirited defence for it.

Which, of course, is informed by the ill-defined nature of synthesis and the suddenly-sprung emphasis on synthetics vs organics. I agree with your suspicion of the option entirely.

MrFob wrote...

So again, never mind the scientific bollocks do you think the reapers are wrong? Which choice is the right one here? I think this ending, if executed correctly leads to a much stronger set of choices, a far more questionable course of action either way.
And this is only one possibility, I think there would have been ways to make the reapers morally grey. All it takes is to have a real and tangible scenario instead of essentially fear of the future for a reason.

I think the "dark energy" ending originally considered would have been utter nonsense as well, for the chief reason Sable Phoenix and Hawk227 mention:

Sable Phoenix wrote...

The Reapers cannot be redeemed. They have been presented throughout three games as the worst monsters in all of history. They have slaughtered uncountable hundreds of trillions of beings over the course of millions of years, and are utterly lacking in hesitation or remorse. They are genicodes a billion times over. The scale of slaughter that they have perpetrated on sentient beings is completely beyond our grasp. No matter what their reasons, from our perspective, there can be no justification for what they have done.

Hawk227 wrote...

I felt that the Reapers were the perfect Lovecraftian horror, come back to extinguish life simply because it could, and I was very happy with that interpretation. There is no justification for what they do.

And I agree fully. Attempting to backpedal on the Reapers' ultimate evil is like trying to take a plushie Cthulhu seriously.

RollaWarden wrote...

But perhaps my obsession with the organics/synthetics theme also has someting to do with the idea of pluralism, of multiculturalism, of my great desire to be a "citizen of the world," and not just of my country. The notion of self-identity through a collective has also thorned through me. The two characteristics seem at once so necessary, and yet dichotomous as well. The geth/quarians, and their story arcs, were the most deeply effective for me of the trilogy. And thus, as I've posted too many times, my revulsion (yes, I think that's the right word) at the "destroy" option. And my revulsion at the "synthesis" option. Can I not celebrate/love/appreciate the diversity of my species without having to amalgamize it? Or--good heavens, no--"control it"? What binds the races in Mass Effect is their developing acceptance of harmony through diversity. Not in spite of diversity. BECAUSE of it. Now that's a world-shaking concept.

Here be dragons.

Mass Effect, taken as a series, is rather schizoid about this issue. Both the first two games allow for the player to not only express, but pursue a human-centric, human-dominated galaxy. The choices which supported that aim never bit the player in the proverbial ass in the third to any important degree. But as someone far, far upthread mentioned, there is no such human-first path available in the third game, no option to have humanity alone save the galaxy from the Reapers and ensure human dominance as a consequence, no way to escape the need for the fleets of other races and no facility to threaten them into compliance. The game literally mocks the very idea, through Javik's recounting of how the Protheans' fundamental xenocentrism led to their undoing. Thus I believe we can safely say the text supports the same idea of pluralism you do - at least until the Infamous Ten Minutes.

There is, however, an overriding impulse towards a homogeneity of cognition. The presentation of both the geth and EDI in ME2 revealed a race which did not think like us, in contrast to the other alien species which were so very cognitively human. This distinction was actively eroded in ME3, though, with the geth adding Reaper code to achieve "true individuality" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and EDI going down Cliche Road with her use of Eva's body to not only understand organic thought, but begin to think in an organic fashion (which, to my mind, was something of a step backwards in her development).

Thus, I think the tension you're feeling with regards to the game about the organic/synthetic divide is, frankly, inherent to the text and inextricable from it. If it were more coherent in its own approach, perhaps we could arrive at some conclusion - but notwithstanding any additional, er, clarity from the Extended Cut, I think we're at something of an impasse, the text unwilling to give us a straight answer.

Modifié par delta_vee, 06 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[delta_vee]

Gah. Double post gremlins.

Modifié par delta_vee, 06 mai 2012 - 08:35 .

[Sable Phoenix]

3DandBeyond wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I must admit that I've failed on any level, scientific or otherwise, to define what exactly "Synthesis" entails. All we are told is that everything will be re-written with some kind of new DNA, and afterwards, everyone has glowing circuit patterns integrated into their flesh.

Others have equated the idea of Synthesis with homogenization of all galactic species (including the plants), while yet others have likened it to rape (not exactly accurate, as we have no term for reconstructing someone's
DNA without their consent, but the word probably would describe the emotional reaction to such a circumstance)

What is "synthesis" exactly, and how would it change how anyone lives? Could limbs be re-attached with a simple spot welding treatment? Could a Turian accept a replacement liver from a Human? Would a Krogan require firmware updates?

This is exactly the problem - we have such a paucity of information about what it entails that it's nigh-impossible
to adjudge either as a player or as critics. Everyone brings their own intellectual framework and expectations, but there's nothing to let us pare down the multifarious options to a manageable level.

Going solely by the highly suggestive symbolic imagery and the option's place at the top of the ludological reward heap, I think's it's supposed to represent ascension and culmination rather than mindrape and homogeneity. The assumption on the authorial level, however, that we as the audience would be able to properly understand the intent with only the name ("synthesis") and a nonsensical shard of explanation ("a new DNA"), makes it difficult to believe that it's the studied, thoughtful answer (to the question we as players weren't asking, generally) we
could accept.

Very well put.  It's exactly the scarcity of any information in much of the ending, synthesis included, that makes it so hard to have a reasoned, rational discussion on what it all means.  Maybe this, maybe that.  Too many maybes,  leading to more maybes, not enough to base a good opinion or discussion on.  I don't mean you can't  discuss it, it's just that discussion of the content is speculation.  It's all vapor.  I could say synthesis is good, but have
no basis to back it up.  Same with saying that it is categorically bad in implementation.  I can only say that in my opinion it advocates that Shepard must do something so beyond his/her character with no information to make any informed decision that on its face, it's ridiculous.  So, too are the other choices.  They lack context.  Shepard
always asked about the impact of decisions.  That makes sense.  There's just enough information to make me despise any choice.

This excellent entry on the Zakera Ward blog seems relevant to this discussion.  Although it's specifically referring to the Indoctrination Theory, it makes the point that the exact paucity of information we're talking about makes that theory just as valid as the literalist approach.  I'll post an excerpt here, but I'd highly recommend checking out the blog as a whole anyway.

One, falsifiability is a standard in scientific thinking, not literary critical analysis.  It's a standard for verifying or disproving the results of scientific experiments based on tests and observations.  Wikipedia's example: Postulate that "all swans are white."  If you find a black swan, boom.  Falsified.  Indoctrination Theory is more akin to,
say, writing an essay trying to explain what the painting on the wall in Gregor Samsa's room means in The Metamorphosis. (*) At its basic level, yes, there's something of the ass-pull to it.  Congratulations: you've
just discovered basic critical writing as it's practiced by every working critic in non-video-gaming fields, every school kid who's had to read Of Mice and Men in tenth-grade English class, and people who hang
at forums to shoot the **** over random parts of the video games.  Ask a question.  So long as the answer you provide is founded on evidence in the text and is readily supportable, voila.  You have interpreted the
work critically.  You get a gold star.  You're really, really, really smart.
 
(*) A Venus in Furs, if memory serves.

The sarcasm is thick enough to slice off and bake, I know, but I can't believe people aren't getting this very easy point.  Indoctrination Theory looks at the game's disastrously muddled ending, finds something weird in it
(well, a lot of somethings weird in a very brief period of time), forms an idea about why that might be weird -- the way Shepard yelling at the (Indoctrinated) Illusive Man about Control is juxtaposed with Shepard
seriously considering the Catalyst's offer of Control as a serious option is less a subtle insinuation and more like an open-fisted punch to the balls, interpretively speaking -- and then flips backwards through the rest of the game/trilogy to see what might support it.  Whereupon a dozen warning signs with big red letters pop out of the
material.  (In about three cases in this game alone, we are talking literal warning signs.)  After we find these things, we string them together into a theory.  We Call Upon the Author to Explain, and the Author in this case simply says "lots of speculation from everyone," and then "artistic integrity," and says nothing else.  He's taken himself out of the discussion entirely, leaving us to come with whatever we want.  He's useless.  His intentions are so unstated that the Author might as well just be Dead for the sake of analyzing Mass Effect 3.

So if you don't like Indoctrination Theory, or you think it's an ass-pull, or whatever, that's fine.  It kind of is.  That's how this sort of analysis works.  It's certainly how I was taught it through long years of public school, community college, and big-boy college; and I doubt your experiences are really any different from mine in this regard.  But you cannot claim the theory is awful solely because it is not falsifiable, because it is not a scientific theory subject to that standard of proof.  And as it's not technically a factual assertion -- it's "this is what we think is happening," rather than "this is what's happening," although you will find some people who get those two confused -- you can't disprove it the way you can (say) disprove a claim that 2 + 2 = 5.  You can disprove it as some kind of evil-genius masterplan on BioWare's behalf, or will soon be able to, because that would be completely ****ing insane despite BioWare apparently being very comfortable leading people to believe it's true.  Many people believe IT and evil-genius theory, but they're not automatically connected.  You can think BioWare are lazy ****s who cut every corner at the end dueto time crunch and/or we-don't-have-a-****ing-clue syndrome -- yo -- but still see a game that pretty much reads as long-term indoctrination due to a long string of mostly really goddamn obvious contextual clues. These are not mutually exclusive.  It's literary analysis, people.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 06 mai 2012 - 09:03 .

[delta_vee]

Misreaction to mispost. See below.

Modifié par delta_vee, 06 mai 2012 - 08:59 .

[delta_vee]

Ah, caught the edit. Objection retracted.

Still, this other part of the article is problematic:

Two, just to be clear: Indoctrination Theory is eminently falsifiable. We should not be talking about this idea in these terms, but some folks already tried to. Monkey's out of the bottle now, and that little bastard does not want to get back in. Byne's original "Was the ending a hallucination?" thread at the forums has been there for eighteen days. In that time, BioWare has played coy about the prospects of more story to come, talked about providing "clarity" in the endings, doubled down on "artistic integrity," trolled the fanbase on countless occasions, and now they're back to playing coy as PAX approaches. This thing's become entrenched enough in the discussion of this game that many later-comers now cite it as a reason they like the ending -- and don't know why people are whining about it. Of course Shepard's being Indoctrinated. Didn't you get the memo?! All BioWare has to do is deny it in public officially, once. Take about two seconds on Twitter, and boom. Falsified. Have they done this? Uh... no, actually. Are they just ignoring that the theory exists and refusing to dignify it with a response? Uh... no, actually. They did put a brief video extolling Indoctrination Theory on their Best of the Citadel YouTube playlist, thus tacitly acknowledging that it's become a major part of the discussion of their game.

I think the article's author misreads the metatextual implications of Bioware's response, both of Indoc and of discussion around Synthesis. Since the EC is in production, we know that the Author will rise from their grave, and the text will be appended. Much of the momentum of IT was centered around the idea that Bioware would at some point in the future resume the narrative, after some period of reflection by the players at large - this was the expectation implicit in many peoples' acceptance of the theory. With it comes an inherent test of falsifiability only possible to conduct at some future time, but this neither precludes a falsifiable test nor does it require Bioware to falsify it themselves prematurely.

[3DandBeyond]

delta_vee wrote...

Um, again not trying to be a dick, but we weren't talking about Indoc, Sable. We were talking about the impossibility of deriving substantive analysis of the synthesis option on its own merits from textual sources. Nothing to do with IT.

Sable Phoenix's quoting a blog that points out that IT is just as relevant and plausible as anything else we can come up with because the ending lacks those textual sources.  None of the choices are relevant to anything else within the game.  They've all been rejected one way or another by Shepard in even weaker forms. 

IT is compelling because it takes what little is there and can make as much or more sense of it than anything else.  Synthesis is one choice, but not the only one and certainly not the only topic being discussed in this thread.

It's about thematic relevance and all ending choices fall flat, but so too does almost everything that happens I'd assert once Shepard hits London.  Team members are lined up to say goodbye, get going.  You're on your own.  Or they phone in to say goodbye. 

But, you get even further removed from the themes within the greater story once Shepard gets hit.  And then a really flimsy story follows.  At this point the player tries to grab onto something to explain what the heck is going on.  IT can make sense of it.  I don't want and wouldn't like IT to be something Shepard falls into and the story ends on, but I can see where it stems from.  And it's the only thing that can make sense of what little we are given and how Shepard could hobble off and make a choice based upon that little, synthesis included.

But to your point, delta_vee Synthesis is the least explained and therefore least coherent.  We don't know all that we don't know.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 mai 2012 - 09:06 .

[delta_vee]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Sable Phoenix's quoting a blog that points out that IT is just as relevant and plausible as anything else we can come up with because the ending lacks those textual sources.  None of the choices are relevant to anything else within the game.  They've all been rejected one way or another by Shepard in even weaker forms. 

IT is compelling because it takes what little is there and can make as much or more sense of it than anything else.  Synthesis is one choice, but not the only one and certainly not the only topic being discussed in this thread.

It's about thematic relevance and all ending choices fall flat, but so too does almost everything that happens I'd assert once Shepard hits London.  Team members are lined up to say goodbye, get going.  You're on your own.  Or they phone in to say goodbye. 

But, you get even further removed from the themes within the greater story once Shepard gets hit.  And then a really flimsy story follows.  At this point the player tries to grab onto something to explain what the heck is going on.  IT can make sense of it.  I don't want and wouldn't like IT to be something Shepard falls into and the story ends on, but I can see where it stems from.  And it's the only thing that can make sense of what little we are given and how Shepard could hobble off and make a choice based upon that little, synthesis included.

But to your point, delta_vee Synthesis is the least explained and therefore least coherent.  We don't know all that we don't know.

Yeah, I saw the post without Sable's comments (presumably due to the forum eating the formatting). My response was amended accordingly.

And I've said before that in literary terms, IT is fascinating for what it manages to do with the meager textual sources available. But as I've argued before, I think the gameplay deviations underlying IT are even larger than the thematic ones we're given.

As far as the textual issues go, I'll reiterate that ME is a literalist text, quite fundamentally. Until the end, everything we need to discern what is actually going on, as opposed to what we think is going on, is either given to us directly or promised at some future time. The lack of explanation of the ending choices is directly at odds with that design philosophy.

[delta_vee]

And gah, because I've found myself repeating someone else. Again.

There's a post by Strange Aeons all the way back on p.11 which is relevant.
http://social.biowar...886/11#11465948

Excerpt:

That’s not a simple choice at all; it’s a bewildering mess. There is no way to make an educated guess because it arrives with no buildup, justification, or legitimate information to guide us. For all that we have any real ability to evaluate the consequences of this utterly baffling development, we might as well just pick the result out of a hat. That sort of sloppy, careless contrivance would be bad enough for a side quest; it’s downright disastrous when it occurs at the most pivotal moment of the entire trilogy.

[RollaWarden]

delta_vee wrote...

There is, however, an overriding impulse towards a homogeneity of cognition. The presentation of both the geth and EDI in ME2 revealed a race which did not think like us, in contrast to the other alien species which were so very cognitively human. This distinction was actively eroded in ME3, though, with the geth adding Reaper code to achieve "true individuality" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and EDI going down Cliche Road with her use of Eva's body to not only understand organic thought, but begin to think in an organic fashion (which, to my mind, was something of a step backwards in her development).

Thus, I think the tension you're feeling with regards to the game about the organic/synthetic divide is, frankly, inherent to the text and inextricable from it. If it were more coherent in its own approach, perhaps we could arrive at some conclusion - but notwithstanding any additional, er, clarity from the Extended Cut, I think we're at something of an impasse, the text unwilling to give us a straight answer.

Absolutely.  The Mass Effect trods creatively--though we certainly can't say originally--through the "meaning of synthetic life" idea.  That one's as old as scifi; we can trace it through Shelley and say, 100 years or so later, through Capek.  And a motif/theme/characterization wavering unsteadily on the foalish legs of a first effort (aka ME1) is no crime; writers work through their creative hiccups all the time when just out of the gates. 

And agree that ME1 is dedicedly humanocentric, the aura manifests itself again at ME2's climactic moment.  I remember wondering at the end of ME2 just where the "upstart humans" idea was going.  Therefore, staring up at the human Reaper in ME2, my concern with the story's (un?) self-conscious humanocentrism became a choice-consequence.  Preference (I like other species as squadmates/I like human squadmates/I like a mix) moved into choice/consequence throughout the trilogy.  Intentionality of the writers?  Irrelevant.  There it all is.  Choice-consequence derived from what began as preference.  I left ME2, and proceeded through ME3 (except for the now-infamously and near-universally-dubbed Ten Minutes) in near-euphoric awe of developer/writer genius.  My choice-consequences had created a pattern of humanocentrism or pluralism.  Then, of course, the Ten Minutes began with the White Beam.

Regarding EDI, I also felt mildly deja-vu-ish due to her sub-story.  That Cliche' Road's well-paved/potholed, but EDI--perhaps in large part because of Trisha Helfer's outstanding phrasing--remains a compelling story for me.  I know Hal 9000 and Data well, but a good story's always worth re-telling, yes?  But if I understand you correctly, delta_vee, I gently bemoaned the lost opportunity to move beyond humanocentrism.

Sable Phoenix wrote...

This excellent entry on the Zakera Ward blog seems
relevant to this discussion.  Although it's specifically referring to
the Indoctrination Theory, it makes the point that the exact paucity of
information we're talking about makes that theory just as valid as the
literalist approach.  I'll post an excerpt here, but I'd highly
recommend checking out the blog as a whole anyway.

Zakera Ward (ZW hereafter), as I'll call him, nearly lost me with the profanity.  Now, I'm a fan of the well-placed naughty word; they're instinctive favorites when I'm angry and/or adrenaline causes vocabnesia, but Zakera Ward's (not my favorite pseudonym) use is of the ilk I too often find on blogs.  In other words, an obscenity serves as an elliptical absence of vocabulary precision.  Still, I slogged on, because a few *****'s shouldn't invalidate an entire argument.

Instead, my increasing dissatisfaction of ZW's blog really began with the explanation of literary criticism.  The argument that any old idea, if a reader can "find it in the text," is therefore valid, IS IN FACT adding 2+2 and getting 5.  Cherry-picking bits from a text to support a premise creates a kind of Jenga criticism; one piece pulled out of the tower causes it to collapse.  There's also a thinly-veiled contempt for criticism, which we might trace to an experience in what ZW calls "Big Boy college" (I'm guessing he's male--enlightened women writers rarely employ King James chauvinism) at the root of his micro-rant.  Actually, criticism's a lot more complicated than that, and a good deal of it has some pretty important rules that move far beyond ZW's simplistic assessment.  "You can't refute my opinion 'cause my opinion's in the text" isn't criticism.  It's an arrested state of intellectual development, somewhere along Perry's Relativism scale--early in Stage II of cognitive growth.

Indoc Theory is interesting, but it's problematic on several levels that we've discussed, and will likely continue to discuss, as the theory has intrigue and a few (maybe jagged/green) teeth.  My suspicious hackles are raised, though, with IT; we may never know if the tail's wagging the dog. 

Modifié par RollaWarden, 06 mai 2012 - 11:21 .

[edisnooM]

RollaWarden wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

There is, however, an overriding impulse towards a homogeneity of cognition. The presentation of both the geth and EDI in ME2 revealed a race which did not think like us, in contrast to the other alien species which were so very cognitively human. This distinction was actively eroded in ME3, though, with the geth adding Reaper code to achieve "true individuality" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and EDI going down Cliche Road with her use of Eva's body to not only understand organic thought, but begin to think in an organic fashion (which, to my mind, was something of a step backwards in her development).

Thus, I think the tension you're feeling with regards to the game about the organic/synthetic divide is, frankly, inherent to the text and inextricable from it. If it were more coherent in its own approach, perhaps we could arrive at some conclusion - but notwithstanding any additional, er, clarity from the Extended Cut, I think we're at something of an impasse, the text unwilling to give us a straight answer.

Absolutely.  The Mass Effect trods creatively--though we certainly can't say originally--through the "meaning of synthetic life" idea.  That one's as old as scifi; we can trace it through Shelley and say, 100 years or so later, through Capek.  And a motif/theme/characterization wavering unsteadily on the foalish legs of a first effort (aka ME1) is no crime; writers work through their creative hiccups all the time when just out of the gates. 

And agree that ME1 is dedicedly humanocentric, the aura manifests itself again at ME2's climactic moment.  I remember wondering at the end of ME2 just where the "upstart humans" idea was going.  Therefore, staring up at the human Reaper in ME2, my concern with the story's (un?) self-conscious humanocentrism became a choice-consequence.  Preference (I like other species as squadmates/I like human squadmates/I like a mix) moved into choice/consequence throughout the trilogy.  Intentionality of the writers?  Irrelevant.  There it all is.  Choice-consequence derived from what began as preference.  I left ME2, and proceeded through ME3 (except for the now-infamously and near-universally-dubbed Ten Minutes) in near-euphoric awe of developer/writer genius.  My choice-consequences had created a pattern of humanocentrism or pluralism.  Then, of course, the Ten Minutes began with the White Beam.

Regarding EDI, I also felt mildly deja-vu-ish due to her sub-story.  That Cliche' Road's well-paved/potholed, but EDI--perhaps in large part because of Trisha Helfer's outstanding phrasing--remains a compelling story for me.  I know Hal 9000 and Data well, but a good story's always worth re-telling, yes?  But if I understand you correctly, delta_vee, I gently bemoaned the lost opportunity to move beyond humanocentrism.

Sable Phoenix wrote...

This excellent entry on the Zakera Ward blog seems
relevant to this discussion.  Although it's specifically referring to
the Indoctrination Theory, it makes the point that the exact paucity of
information we're talking about makes that theory just as valid as the
literalist approach.  I'll post an excerpt here, but I'd highly
recommend checking out the blog as a whole anyway.

Zakera Ward (ZW hereafter), as I'll call him, nearly lost me with the profanity.  Now, I'm a fan of the well-placed naughty word; they're instinctive favorites when I'm angry and/or adrenaline causes vocabnesia, but Zakera Ward's (not my favorite pseudonym) use is of the ilk I too often find on blogs.  In other words, an obscenity serves as an elliptical absence of vocabulary precision.  Still, I slogged on, because a few *****'s shouldn't invalidate an entire argument.

Instead, my increasing dissatisfaction of ZW's blog really began with the explanation of literary criticism.  The argument that any old idea, if a reader can "find it in the text," is therefore valid, IS IN FACT adding 2+2 and getting 5.  Cherry-picking bits from a text to support a premise creates a kind of Jenga criticism; one piece pulled out of the tower causes it to collapse.  There's also a thinly-veiled contempt for criticism, which we might trace to an experience in what ZW calls "Big Boy college" (I'm guessing he's male--enlightened women writers rarely employ King James chauvinism) at the root of his micro-rant.  Actually, criticism's a lot more complicated than that, and a good deal of it has some pretty important rules that move far beyond ZW's simplistic assessment.  "You can't refute my opinion 'cause my opinion's in the text" isn't criticism.  It's an arrested state of intellectual development, somewhere along Perry's Relativism scale--early in Stage II of cognitive growth.

Indoc Theory is interesting, but it's problematic on several levels that we've discussed, and will likely continue to discuss, as the theory has intrigue and a few (maybe jagged/green) teeth.  My suspicious hackles are raised, though, with IT; we may never know if the tail's wagging the dog. 

It is entirely possible that I am wrong (It's certainly happened often enough before), but I rather liked EDI and the Geth's journey and growth.

With Legion it first started back in ME2 where at first glance he is all logic and fact, rather like Data from TNG, but then through talking we discover he's not acting entirely consistant with logic. He states that he used Shepards armour because "There was a hole" but when pressed further as to why he used it specifically he replies with a quiet "No data available". This would seem to be his first step along the path to understanding organics and what it means to "feel" for lack of a better word.

Then later when in the Consensus he mentions that the sniper rifle used by the Agricultural Unit in the flashback is "An efficient model", which indicates additional sentimentality. 
Sidenote: if that unit was Legion, he was the cliched farmer rising up to be a hero.  

He also states that hope sustains organics through times of difficulty and that the Geth "Admire the concept". And finally when he sacrifices himself with "I must go to them", he has finally become an individual and I certainly felt like I had something in my eye there. 

Similarly EDI follows a path from a shipborn Artificial Intelligence with a penchant for somewhat macabre jokes, to a walking and feeling individual. Through talking with her throughout ME3 we can see her grow, contemplate her mortality, begin a relationship, declare her humanity and her willingness to fight and die for it, and at the end express fear. All of which I found quite compelling as a narrative.

Thats my opinion anyway.

Also on the topic of taking pieces from a story to support opinions and views, I'm reminded of Tolkien and his rather well known dislike of people looking for deeper meaning in his stories.

Edited format somewhat.

Modifié par edisnooM, 06 mai 2012 - 11:56 .

[RollaWarden]

Oh, I agree, edisnooM.  I also enjoyed EDI's story.  The fact that I've traveled that thematic road often doesn't mean it isn't a great thematic road, and worthy of retelling.  There's much to EDI that's fresh and interesting.  Very sorry if my thoughts on EDI's story lacked clarity.

edisnooM wrote...

Also on the topic of taking pieces from a story to support opinions and views, I'm reminded of Tolkien and his rather well known dislike of people looking for deeper meaning in his stories.

Edited format somewhat.

I think I might be familiar with Tolkien's dislike that you mention. Though he created the seminal criticism of Beowulf, ("Beowulf, the Monsters, and the Critics"), the foundational monograph on fantasy literature ("On Fairy Stories") and a masterful edition of Gawain and the Green Knight, Tolkien nonetheless was not a fan of all literary devices.  He disliked allegory; he thought his close friend Jack Lewis' (note one of my previous references to Tollers and Jack) Chronicles of Narnia seriously flawed because of (among other criticism Tollers leveled at Jack) Lewis' overt Christian allegory throughout the Narnia tales.  Instead, Tolkien preferred the term "applicability."  In his introduction to the collected LOTR Tokien wrote:

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.  I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.  An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."

You and I might concur, edisnooM, on our qualms regarding "deeper meaning."  Perhaps Tolkien might agree.  Indoc Theory should be (and has been in this thread) viewed through several critical lenses.  It might hold up.  Might not.  Can't deny its intrigue.

Modifié par RollaWarden, 07 mai 2012 - 02:51 .

[botfly10]

Hemingway is wagging his finger at this thread....

lol

[edisnooM]

RollaWarden wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

Also on the topic of taking pieces from a story to support opinions and views, I'm reminded of Tolkien and his rather well known dislike of people looking for deeper meaning in his stories.

Edited format somewhat.

I think I might be familiar with Tolkien's dislike that you mention. Though he created the seminal criticism of Beowulf, ("Beowulf, the Monsters, and the Critics"), the foundational monograph on fantasy literature ("On Fairy Stories") and a masterful edition of Gawain and the Green Knight, Tolkien nonetheless was not a fan of all literary devices.  He disliked allegory; he thought his close friend Jack Lewis' (note one of my previous references to Tollers and Jack) Chronicles of Narnia seriously flawed because of (among other criticism Tollers leveled at Jack) Lewis' overt Christian allegory throughout the Narnia tales.  Instead, Tolkien preferred the term "applicability."  In his introduction to the collected LOTR Tokien wrote:

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.  I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.  An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."

You and I might concur, edisnooM, on our qualms regarding "deeper meaning."  Perhaps Tolkien might agree.  Indoc Theory should be (and has been in this thread) viewed through several critical lenses.  It might hold up.  Might not.  Can't deny its intrigue.

That was actually the Tolkien quote I was thinking of, so thanks for typing that up. 

Interestingly enough, one could consider Gandalfs "death" and return as much a Christian allegory as that which Lewis put into Narnia, or at least The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, but it probably wouldn't do to say that to his face (figuratively speaking).

I agree about IT, and Bioware certainly hasn't gone out of their way to dampen enthusiasm about it. Also if it was unintentional there is a surprising number of things that lend to its allure. I honestly think it's too late for BioWare to use it now if it was their idea, but it will be interesting to see what the EC has in store for us

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

It is entirely possible that I am wrong (It's certainly happened often enough before), but I rather liked EDI and the Geth's journey and growth.

No, you're absolutely correct. You did like those things.

So did many others.

[KitaSaturnyne]

On the subject of elucidating me (I ask questions better than I answer them), I wanted to ask you all about the purpose of the little boy in Shepard's nightmares, both in terms of his purpose in the narrative and his importance to Shepard as a character.

I remember reading that the little boy dies as a narrative reminder of the innocence Shepard is fighting to preserve, so I imagine I'm missing something.

Character-wise, Shepard's made hard choices where his own friends, Ashley or Kaiden, have died. People he knew personally, just snuffed out like their lives were made of nothing. No indication of survivor's guilt. As I recall, whether you choose the Paragon or Renegade conversation options, Shepard chooses not to dwell on the tragedy of the matter, and instead decides to use it to fuel his determination to defeat his enemy.

And then I'm confused by the narrative meaning behind Shepard's final nightmare before the endgame - He chases the boy through the forest, only to see the boy run into the arms of another person, who turns out to be another Shepard. Then, this second Shepard and the boy start to burn together while our Shepard watches helplessly. What is the narrative meaning behind this dream? I'm really having trouble with this one.

[edisnooM]

Paulomedi wrote...

Since this is a thread with a higer level of discussion I will leave this here:

www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html

Enjoy!

That was very interesting and certainly explains the opinion that ME3 was completely ruined by the final bit.

[edisnooM]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

On the subject of elucidating me (I ask questions better than I answer them), I wanted to ask you all about the purpose of the little boy in Shepard's nightmares, both in terms of his purpose in the narrative and his importance to Shepard as a character.

I remember reading that the little boy dies as a narrative reminder of the innocence Shepard is fighting to preserve, so I imagine I'm missing something.

Character-wise, Shepard's made hard choices where his own friends, Ashley or Kaiden, have died. People he knew personally, just snuffed out like their lives were made of nothing. No indication of survivor's guilt. As I recall, whether you choose the Paragon or Renegade conversation options, Shepard chooses not to dwell on the tragedy of the matter, and instead decides to use it to fuel his determination to defeat his enemy.

And then I'm confused by the narrative meaning behind Shepard's final nightmare before the endgame - He chases the boy through the forest, only to see the boy run into the arms of another person, who turns out to be another Shepard. Then, this second Shepard and the boy start to burn together while our Shepard watches helplessly. What is the narrative meaning behind this dream? I'm really having trouble with this one.

I know in the artbook that came with the N7 edition it says that the boy was supposed to be the face of all the people on Earth that Shepard could not save.

However it has been postulated previously that a pure Renegade would not care about one child. For myself Shepard was a Paragon, Earthborn, Sole-Survivor, who was no stranger to the horrors of war and life in general, so while the loss was tragic, I found myself wondering if it would really affect him as much as it was shown to. In fact when asked by Ashley back in ME1 after Virmire about how he got over losing his squad on Akuze I'm pretty sure he said that you don't forget but you move on and you swear to do better for it.

It has been mentioned by others previously that it was an attempt to shoehorn in emotional impact into the narrative, though I question its effectiveness as its reception is hardly universal to all Shepards.

As to the last part, it could have been an attempt to foreshadow that you cannot escape fate, that Shepard would not escape this war "unburned", that try though he might to save everyone there would be cost. I'm really not sure, and I'm positive there are better minds than I to tackle this issue.