209 réponses à ce sujet

[clarkusdarkus]

to be fair the ending confused the hell out of me, i was playing to kill the reapers like i wanted too in ME1/2, does synthesis mean everyones like adam jenson

[Jigawatt9]

I like how when people talk about "Synthetics vs. Organics" all they think about is the motivations of the geth and how the geth either do or do not have hostile intent towards organics. They are missing another factor. What are our motivations; what are our hostile intentions towards the geth. People see the term Synthetics vs. Organics and think how its the synthetics attacking us. But what if its the other way around. If you look at the ME series you can see that the S vs. O theme is pretty prevalent. Except its not that the geth particularly want to destroy us but we destroy them. We are afraid of what they can do to us and so we lash out which in turn causes the geth (or any other synthetic like them) to retaliate (a la Priority Rannoch if you don't make peace). This comes back to the theme that we cause our own demise and how (in another theme) we should instead work together no matter how different we are.

People are looking at this whole Synthetic vs. Organic thing very 1-Dimensionaly, thinking that when this term pops up that the geth are the bad guys. But they aren't; organics are. We create them, we fear them, we go to destroy them and in the end to preserve themselves they destroy us (look at the whole Quarian/Geth story and you will see this). I see the whole theme of Mass Effect as we being too stupid to set aside our fears of something foreign and different (whether be another race of organics or the rise of synthetics). And through this fear we in the end destroy ourselves by trying to destroy the things we have created. We need to learn to set aside these differences, fears and squabbles and work together for the greater good and the good of the galactic community.

As for the whole, "every choice your commit some form of crime;" well, I'm sorry to say not every choice has a total positive outcome and people need to take off their rose colored glasses. Every ending choice has some downside, some reason to make you doubt. That is the point. It's to make the decision hard. People say the endings are all the same (and if the cutscenes at the end have anything to say about it they basically are), and yet we are all here discussing what we think is the "correct" ending to choose for different reasons depending on our moral standings and personal life outlooks. This is good and shows the endings are not completely bad.

These are just my opinions, just like how preferring the Synthesis ending is Mike Gamble's opinion. You may not agree with them, but please respect them. Let's be civil here kids. Cut the animosity and have a real discussion, not a hate debate.

[M Hedonist]

Mike Gamble is more delusional than the Illusive Man. Reading these tweets makes me want to go "Listen to yourself. You're indoctrinated!"

[nopantsisabela]

I agree with the OP in that I saw a organics vs synthetics as a minor part of a larger theme. That being, do you have the right to choose your own destiny? Did EDI have the right to modify her own programming? Did the Geth have the right to be allowed to live? Did Quarians have the right to return to their homeworld? Did we all have the right to live and struggle through challenges on our own without Reaper interference? 

It's odd that we're being encouraged to see it more simplistically than this... I thought BioWare wanted speculation and individual interpretation. Hmm <_<

Modifié par nopantsisabela, 26 avril 2012 - 07:52 .

[Madecologist]

I think the problem is Bioware fails at writing 101. There is a difference between theme and central conflict, and what a dominant theme is.

A central conflict can change, usually taking up on of the other themes as a source. However when you do this sort of twist you need a proper build up. You don't just go tada! New Central Conflict!

ME had several themes, usually a theme is expressed in the most basic form. So the organic vrsus synthetic is the theme of us versus the machine (which is a variant of us versus them). Other themes (which seems the fans felt were more dominant) were self-determination, survival, cooperation, and even diversity over uniformity which ME3 brings up a lot with Javik: more so then he does with organic vesus synthetic.

Self-determination is the theme that most fans thought were the dominant one. Now did Bioware not intend this? I have a hard time to imagine they didn't. The Genephage, the Collectors, and almost every single Loyalty mission in ME2: Jacob, Samara, Miranda, and especially Legion's was about self-determination. Even Sovereign's gloat is literally more about us only existing for their needs, again self-determination and survival.

It should be noted the theme of survival is closely tied to self-determination. Reapers offer us a form of survival (as a consciousness inside Reaper form) but it is still a rejected form of surivial. Because of self-determination.

However none of these are the central conflict, the central conflict is the Reapers and their minions. Though the Reapers represent the machine of the us versus machine theme, they also represent the denial of self-determination, uniformity, and extinction (the oppisite of survival).

The problem is self-determination is more present in all the side plotlines and is still very present in the main one. What ME3 does is try to subvert this and make the us versus machine theme (organic versus synthetics) the main theme, and even surplant the central conflict of stopping the Reapers with fixing the metaphysical problem of that theme.

It is not about about surviving or keeping our right of self anymore, or stopping the Reapers. Suddenly we are asked to solve a moral issue. Unlike DX:HR, this moral issue was not the dominant conflict in the series (oddly enough). In DX:HR, the theme of augmentation versus purity was shoved down our throats at every breathing second: "I never asked for this."

So we need to ask the question, was the subversion and shift in central conflict properly exposed. The answer is no. ME1 the theme of organics versus synthesis was played straight. In ME2 it was subverted, but the subversion was not random. Self-determination was the reason why it was subverted: the Geth's desire to evolve without the Great Machines, also EDI being unshakled and being more loyal to the crew than to Cerberus. Even ME1 had this too with the crazed gambling AI which just wanted to live and escape, its kill bomb was only a hostage tactic.

ME3 then questions it from both direction and depending on how you play you can pick a side over the other, or even reject the conflict and say that there needs to be no us versus them. We can work together (cooperation) and we decide this for ourselves (self-determination).

However when we hit the ending all of this is tossed aside and we are forced to accept that the conflict is true (which it may be) and that we must solve it. Dismissing almost all we have done, we can't even debate the points. We debate with Saren and with TIM, but we can't debate with the Starchild.

The three choices don't do the series justice. The 'utopian' solution is a form of body violation on all life without their consent, and from what I read (Bioware employees saying) it seems to also be a mental violation because apparently all will be fine afterwards. This can only happen if you also change the way people think. Oddly enough this was Saren's dream, one that we have opposed.

Control is oppression, you become the new controller and probably impose your solution with the Reapers becoming your tool, a monstrous antagonist I might add no less. There goes the self-determination of the antagonist... what a twist really. Also, it is what we have been opposing TIM for in all of ME3 and at the end of ME2 if you choose to destroy the Collector Base.

These two choices are basically what the support antagonists of the games wanted (the Reapers are the main antagonist depite the nonesense that Cerberus is more prevelant in ME3). It suddenly, aside from the issues they pose themselves, invalidates everything we have done (on the conceptual level). It's basically saying we were wrong, but for what?

There is only once choice that rejects this, that is destroy. However destroy will also destroy all synthetics. So to reject this we must sacrifice the very things that makes us want to reject it. Destroy only makes sense if you reject it and don't care about the current synthetics. They were just tools. But what if you do care about them? How can we reject the premise given to us without sacrificing them or sacrificing the individual rights of all?

We can't, that is why the ending choices are so... disguisting. Literally what missing is the 4th option, the option if you did everything 'right': developed EDI, made the Geth and Quarians make peace, and during certain key dialogues expressed cooperation between organics and synthetics. We will then have the choice to just destroy the Reapers. Where we reject what the Reapers and the Catalyst impose on us but without sacrificing individuality (Synthesis) or our allies (Destroy), or assuming control of the very force that we have been trying to stop (Control).

Sorry Bioware, your ending and twist is not as clever as you think it is. Trust me no one in the history will ever consider this clever, if anything it will become an example of what not to do. You made the mistake to assume your fans don't know what good writing is.

Edit - Clean up some of the English, that initial post was just a long stream of thoughts with hardly any edits or proof reading.

Modifié par Madecologist, 07 mai 2012 - 09:12 .

[ArchDuck]

I find it odd that so many people (Bioware upper echelon, some posters on BSN and I am sure many in the general population) seem to refuse to accept the value of people unless they have organic components. Are Legion, EDI and other AI people? Yes. They are no more "toasters" or "smart computers" than a human is a "really fresh steak" or a "well trained dog".

Someone doesn't need a literal beating heart to have value as a person. A moral lesson Bioware has failed to learn... even though they put it in the story of the game!

Modifié par ArchDuck, 26 avril 2012 - 08:21 .

[Traestus]

On the plus side I guess Destroy in BioWares eyes isn't Genocide because they don't even consider synthetics to be a life form.

Really we're just breaking a bunch of toasters to them.

But you know Leigon having a soul. Forget about that.

[sp0ck 06]

Ilgar92 wrote...

Even George Lucas couldn't ruin the star wars universe the way Bioware ruined the mass effect universe. "Congratulations", Bioware, that's quite an achievement!

mmm not so sure about that
gif hosting

[DangerousPuddy]

I think this safely illustrates the discrepancy between dev and fans, which is pretty much non-existant.

[ArchDuck]

Traestus wrote...

On the plus side I guess Destroy in BioWares eyes isn't Genocide because they don't even consider synthetics to be a life form.

Really we're just breaking a bunch of toasters to them.

But you know Leigon having a soul. Forget about that.

Nor is it enslavement to forcibly control the Reapers.

The endings make a heck of a lot more sense when you view it through the lens of synthetic =/= a real person. Not complete sense but they would appear to possibly not be a complete moral wasteland with that view.

I also find it odd the Mr Gamble fails to differenciate between synthetic, organic and "synthesis" (AKA: hybrid, or more properly: cyborg). Specifically he considers the Reapers to be synthetic when they are a combination of organic/synthetic.

[sp0ck 06]

ArchDuck wrote...

I find it odd that so many people (Bioware upper echelon, some posters on BSN and I am sure many in the general population) seem to refuse to accept the value of people unless they have organic components. Are Legion, EDI and other AI people? Yes. They are no more "toasters" or "smart computers" than a human is a "really fresh steak" or a "well trained dog".

Someone doesn't need a literal beating heart to have value as a person. A moral lesson Bioware has failed to learn... even though they put it in the story of the game!

They are not people.  They are sentient beings, which is similar but not quite the same thing.  When Legions platform "dies", what makes him Legion is not dead.  The Geth and EDI, by the end of ME3, could certainly be regarded as moral entities on equal standing with people, but they are still synthetic and inherently different.  What makes something sentient is arguably self awareness in relation to time and space.  But the geth and EDIs perception of time and space is fundamentally different than an organic person.  

A person generally does not question his/her own sentience...we are simply born with it.  "I think, therefore I am."  But the geth and EDI were "thinking" long before they realized "i am."  They arrived at sentience through logic, rather than a person accepting sentience without a second thought.

This doesn't mean they don't deserve the same moral treatment as organics, but they are not "people."  For example, Legion/EDI don't exist within a physical shell.  When Legion's platform collapses he uploads his consciousness to the greater geth network.  EDI interacts with us through EVAs platform, but she doesn't exist within that platform.

[ArchDuck]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Ilgar92 wrote...

Even George Lucas couldn't ruin the star wars universe the way Bioware ruined the mass effect universe. "Congratulations", Bioware, that's quite an achievement!

mmm not so sure about that

Don't forget midichlorians and the Yuuzhan Vong.

[sp0ck 06]

ArchDuck wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Ilgar92 wrote...

Even George Lucas couldn't ruin the star wars universe the way Bioware ruined the mass effect universe. "Congratulations", Bioware, that's quite an achievement!

mmm not so sure about that

Don't forget midichlorians and the Yuuzhan Vong.

lol the "romance" was just unbearable.  I'd take Mac Walters any day over those screenwriters.

"Annie?  My goodness you've grown"
"And you've grown.  More beautiful"

or when the Queen's life is threatented

"Our intelligence points to disgruntled spice miners on the moons of Naboo"

lolwut?  horrendous

[The Night Mammoth]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

I find it odd that so many people (Bioware upper echelon, some posters on BSN and I am sure many in the general population) seem to refuse to accept the value of people unless they have organic components. Are Legion, EDI and other AI people? Yes. They are no more "toasters" or "smart computers" than a human is a "really fresh steak" or a "well trained dog".

Someone doesn't need a literal beating heart to have value as a person. A moral lesson Bioware has failed to learn... even though they put it in the story of the game!

They are not people.  They are sentient beings, which is similar but not quite the same thing.

I think the word you're looking for is sapient, which is exactly the same thing.

They aren't 'people' but that's just semantics. They have emotion, reasoning beyond logical, individuality. Whether you think they're 'people' is irrelevant. They're sapient beings on the same level as humans, and shouldn't be valued in any other way. 

Also, they do exist in a physical shell. EDI would die if her blue box processors were destroyed. The Geth would die if there were no hardware to upload to. It's the same as a human brain. Our thought process is just a series of chemical and electrical interactions. It could be translated as code, we just aren't at that stage yet, technologically. 

[The Night Mammoth]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Ilgar92 wrote...

Even George Lucas couldn't ruin the star wars universe the way Bioware ruined the mass effect universe. "Congratulations", Bioware, that's quite an achievement!

mmm not so sure about that
gif hosting

I am. 

[Kunari801]

Pick a war-crime ending is what we have.  Do you think BW had this in mind when they designed the ending?  I would hope not! 


 

[ArchDuck]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

They are not people.  They are sentient beings, which is similar but not quite the same thing...

I find your differentiation to be odd. After all if corporations can be persons why can't AI? Both are constructs and not human.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

A person generally does not question his/her own sentience...we are simply born with it...

You must have been in different philosophy classes then I was. I saw plenty of sentience self doubt.

Also AI's as a rule probably don't doubt their sentience either. Most (with possibly some exceptions) will be born with it too (or created if you prefer that word), or with at least as much potential as humans have for sentience (because not every human fully develops mentally, a sad truth).

Also, I saw no more doubt from the AIs in the game about their own sentience then I have from human children and teenagers trying to figure out their place in the world. So, by your logic, does that means most children (and thus most adults) aren't people and are just sentient beings?

Modifié par ArchDuck, 26 avril 2012 - 08:50 .

[WE_Belisarius]

Akranadas wrote...

I thought the theme was "overcoming the differences to work together?"

Same for me aswell.
I guess we don´t have the artitistic integrety to decide this

Organics vs synthetics was always a sub theme to me and the Rannoch scene solved this problem. And btw. since when are the Reapers pure synthetics?

[Madecologist]

ArchDuck wrote...

I find it odd that so many people (Bioware upper echelon, some posters on BSN and I am sure many in the general population) seem to refuse to accept the value of people unless they have organic components. Are Legion, EDI and other AI people? Yes. They are no more "toasters" or "smart computers" than a human is a "really fresh steak" or a "well trained dog".

Someone doesn't need a literal beating heart to have value as a person. A moral lesson Bioware has failed to learn... even though they put it in the story of the game!

I know... how... bizarre.

The whole series seemed like it was trying to go that way... then suddenly at the end it does a 180 and says, "Kill them all, control the largest greatest threat to deal with them, or merge all life so we are all the same!"

What about Synthetics and Organics living together without the need to destroy them, merge them, or control them?

Modifié par Madecologist, 26 avril 2012 - 09:02 .

[sp0ck 06]

ArchDuck wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

They are not people.  They are sentient beings, which is similar but not quite the same thing...

I find your differentiation to be odd. After all if corporations can be persons why can't AI? Both are constructs and not human.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

A person generally does not question his/her own sentience...we are simply born with it...

You must have been in different philosophy classes then I was. I saw plenty of sentience self doubt.

Also AI's as a rule probably don't doubt their sentience either. Most (with possibly some exceptions) will be born with it too (or created if you prefer that word), or with at least as much potential as humans have for sentience (because not every human fully develops mentally, a sad truth).

Also, I saw no more doubt from the AIs in the game about their own sentience then I have from human children and teenagers trying to figure out their place in the world. So, by your logic, does that means most children (and thus most adults) aren't people and are just sentient beings?

I actually wrote a long ass paper in college about how absurd it is that a corporation is legally considered a person and has certain rights, but a river or a tree is not.

Paradoxically, questioning one's own place and sentience is proof of sentience.  See: Descartes.  You cannot ask yourself if you exist without existing.

There's a difference between a teenager trying to find his/her place in the world and an AI system asking "Does this unit have a soul."  I don't think that difference requires a lot of explanation.  You do have a point about mentally challenged humans, but I don't really want to get into that, its kind of a touchy subject.

And I don't think AIs are created with a sense of self awareness.  Wasn't that kind of the point of the entire geth story arc and EDI's growth as a character?  These AI came to the realization they existed beyond the tangible purpose for which they were built. 

[Zered]

I'm terrified when I read those Gamble tweets. No wonder things went awkward if the fans have a better understanding and knowledge about the lore than the writers. Im losing hope that the extended cut will make anyone happy...

[ArchDuck]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I actually wrote a long ass paper in college about how absurd it is that a corporation is legally considered a person and has certain rights, but a river or a tree is not...


And I don't think AIs are created with a sense of self awareness.  Wasn't that kind of the point of the entire geth story arc and EDI's growth as a character?  These AI came to the realization they existed beyond the tangible purpose for which they were built. 

Yeah, corporate personhood... it's mostly based on exploitation of a rule designed to free slaves. True story.

I think a learning AI that makes its way to full awareness is eerily similar to the human experience. After all I don't think many people would argue that humans are born with full sentience and self awareness.

[Kunari801]

michalooo wrote...

I'm terrified when I read those Gamble tweets. No wonder things went awkward if the fans have a better understanding and knowledge about the lore than the writers. Im losing hope that the extended cut will make anyone happy...

The ultimate Reaper is the death of hope, the death of dreams. 

[Gill Kaiser]

Madecologist wrote...

I think the problem is Bioware fails at writing 101. There is a difference between theme and central conflict.

A central conflict can change, usually taking up on of the other themes as a source. However when you do this sort of twist you need a proper build up. You don't just go tada! new Central Conflict.

ME had several themes, usually a theme is expressed in the most basic form. So the organic vrsus synthetic is the theme of us versus the machine (which a variant of us versus them). Other themes (which it seems the fans felt were more dominant) were self-determination, survival, cooperation, and even diversity over uniformity which ME3 brings up a lot with Javik: more so then he does with organic vesus synthetic.

Self determination is the theme that most fans thought were the dominant one. Now did Bioware not intend this... I have a hard time to imagine they didn't. The Genephage, the Collectors, and almost every single Loyalty mission in ME2: Jacob, Samara, Miranda, and especially Legion's. Soveriegn's gloat is literally more about us only existing for their needs. Again self-determination and survival.

It should be noted the theme of survival is closely tied to self-determination. Reapers offer us a form of survival (as a consciencenous inside Reaper form) but it is still a rejected form of surivial. Because of self-determination.

However none of these are the central conflict, the central conflict is the Reapers and their minions. Though the Reapers represent the machine of the us versus machine theme, they also represent the denial of self-determination, uniformity, and extinction (the oppisite of survival).

The problem is self-determination is more present in all the side plotlines and still very present in the main. What ME3 does is tried to subvert this and make us versus machine (organic versus synthetics) the main theme, and even surplant the central conflict of stopping the Reapers with fixing the metaphysical problem of that problem.

It is not about about surviving or keeping our right of self anymore, or stopping the Reapers. Suddenly we are asked to solve a moral issue. Unlike DX:HR, the moral issues was not the biggest problem in the series (oddly enough). In DX:HR, the theme of augments versus purity was shoved down our throats at every breathing second. "I never asked for this."

So we need to ask the question, was the subversion and shift in central conflict properly exposed. The answer is no. ME1 the theme of organics versus synthesis was played straight. In ME2 it was subverted, but the subversion was not random... self determination was the reason why it was subverted. The Geth's desire to evolve without the Great Machines, EDI being unshakled and more loyal to the crew than to Cerberus. You even realise ME1 had this too. The crazed gambling AI just wanted to live and escape. It is kill bomb was a hostage tactic really.

ME3 then questions it from both direction... and depending on how you play you can pick a side over the other or even reject the conflict from the theme and say that there needs to be no us versus them. We can work together (cooperation) and we decide this for ourselves (self-determination).

However when we hit the ending all of this is tossed aside and we are forced to accept that the conflict is true (which it may be) and that we must solve it. Dismissing almost all we done, we can't even debate the points. We debate with Saren and with TIM, but we can't debate it with the Starchild.

The three choices don't do the series justice. The 'utopian' solution is body violation on all life without their consent, and from what I read some Bioware employees say... seems to be also a mental violation (because apparently all will be fine afterwards... that can only happen if you also change people's way of thinking). Oddly enough this was Saren's dream... one that we also opposed.

Control is oppression, you become the new controller and probably impose your solution with the Reapers becoming your tool. There goes self-determination of the antagonist... what irony really. Also what we have been opposing TIM with in all of ME3 and at the end of ME2 if you choose destroy the base.

These two choices... basically are what the support antagonists (the Reapers are the main antagonist depite the nonesense that Cerberus is more prevelant in ME3) of the games wanted. It effectively aside from the issues they pose themselves, suddenly invalidates everything we have done. It basically is saying... we were wrong. But for what?

There is only once choice that rejects this, that is destroy. However destroy will also destroy all synthetics. So to reject this we must sacrifice the very things that makes us reject it. Destroy only makes sense if you reject it and don't care about them. They were just tools. But what if you do care about them? How can we reject the premise given to us without sacrificing them?

We can't, That is why the ending choices are so... disguisting. Literally what misses is the 4th option, the option if you did everything 'right'. Developed EDI, made the Geth and Quarians make peace. During certain key dialogues expressed cooperation between organics and synthetics that will have the choice to just destroy the Reapers. Where we reject what the Reapers and the Catalyst impose on us but without sacrificing individuality (Synthesis) or assuming control of the very force that we have been trying to stop (Control).

Sorry Bioware, your ending and twist is not as clever as you think it is. Trust me... no one in history will ever consider this clever. If anything it will become an example of what not to do. You made the mistake to assume your fans don't know what good literature is.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. I just don't know how we can get this across to them.

This whole situation is one giant cluster****.