9089 réponses à ce sujet

[PeterG1]

Does anyone think synthesis as explained in the EC was sort of creatively, via the EC script "forced" by BW to be the "best outcome" ending? Between the dialog with star child and the epilogue, I can't help but think that BW intends for us to accept synthesis as the best ending. The happiest despite the one where Shepard is actually dead. Sigh...

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

*Speculation warning

How did I miss this post?

Please expand on the bolded text "some way"

Do you really want me speculate on the existential nature of a gestalt mind composed of (or constructed from) billions of individual consciousnesses?

The reapers are serving as simply memory banks, "abstracts", exactly, like relics, and relics are not alive, life has been destroyed, and relics can be uncovered

How many times do I have to stress that I perceive synthetics as being alive?

Are you saying the Reapers are alive, or not alive?

Objectively speaking, isn't harbinger just a "weapon" and Shepard just an "animal"? Isn't that Catalyst's POV? Harbinger is a weapon that speaks, and Shepard is an "animal" that thinks

That's my point, if you accept Shepard as a sentient being and not just a collection of biological processes it makes as much sense to consider Harbinger a sentient being and not just a collection of technological processes.

Hmm, Geth concensus, unfortunately we did not see the reaper concenses in the ending, no proof, and I am not looking forward to seeing horrifying images of reapers slaughtering previous civilisations

No, memory is memory, it is not alive, it certainly cannot dictate what a harbinger does once the Catalyst releases its grip, also, this is a combination of minds, wouldn't there be conflict of minds? Its like having multiple personalities, the voices in your head will argue like non stop, and since the Catalyst is gone, who has the final say? A roaster? monday its A's say, tuesday B's say...etc?

The Geth manage to reach consensus despite being a gathering of minds, it is one of the major advantages Synthetics have over Organics - that ability to rapidly exchange information and opinions to form a consensus.

Again I must stress this, the consiousness gathered serves as memory only, it is no longer active, it has already occupied a space and time, if u make a new body for this structure of consciousness, it would be another person, thinks about some other things due to present environmental stimulation

The stored information exists within the hardware of the Reapers, this makes them as alive as the Geth at least.

EDIT: with regards to Shepard's resurrection, traces of Shepard's body tissue has been found, and this is useful to retain his / her identity, that most genuine foundation for tissue regeneration has survived, most importantly, the brain

Shepard had been brain-dead long enough to be far beyond any hope of full recovery using normal medical means. The fact they had to use Reaper tech, the Reapers methods of harvesting DNA and Prothean and Asari space-magics all point towards either genetic memory or psychic (Tabboo - read that as psionic) impressions being a thing in Mass Effect.

Modifié par Heeden, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:22 .

[PeterG1]

Personally I think we're all gonna volunteer to become cyborgs and get hooked into the matrix WELL BEFORE there's ever any conflicts between machines and organics. In a way we will all become self-conscious software and while I might be dead when it happens, I don't have a problem with it. So from a philosophical point synthesis isn't very effective to me. Nor is the whole machines vs organics debate. That said while I do think it's he most happy ending of the game, shepards sacrifice remains both depressing and unnecessary.

[Welsh Inferno]

PeterG1 wrote...

Does anyone think synthesis as explained in the EC was sort of creatively, via the EC script "forced" by BW to be the "best outcome" ending? Between the dialog with star child and the epilogue, I can't help but think that BW intends for us to accept synthesis as the best ending. The happiest despite the one where Shepard is actually dead. Sigh...

They're not forcing you to do anything. 

Not having a go at you but this line of thought seems to lead to people hating on Synthesis purely because its BW's "chosen" ending or something. Not saying you think like that but many around the BSN do it seems. There is no canon and if BW were to make a ME4 in a few years I imagine they would pick destroy, as it pretty much restores the status quo(minus Reapers).

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:54 .

[Vigilant111]

PeterG1 wrote...

Does anyone think synthesis as explained in the EC was sort of creatively, via the EC script "forced" by BW to be the "best outcome" ending? Between the dialog with star child and the epilogue, I can't help but think that BW intends for us to accept synthesis as the best ending. The happiest despite the one where Shepard is actually dead. Sigh...

DevSin suggested to me last night that they made control and destroy 2 polarising options, and synthesis is ultimately the "right" option

To me, choosing destroy becomes a consolation price

I don't like to be TOLD what the "best" option is

[PeterG1]

Vigilant111 wrote...

DevSin suggested to me last night that they made control and destroy 2 polarising options, and synthesis is ultimately the "right" option

To me, choosing destroy becomes a consolation price

I don't like to be TOLD what the "best" option is

No clearly I don't think any of us do. I certainly don't like it either. And I'm talking purely from a script-perspective. Removing myself from the diegesis of the game and just looking at the creative writing, it seems to me that BioWare thinks, and wrote, synthesis to be the "biggest sacrifice (after all Shepard dies) with the best results for the rest of the galaxy."

Of course it's all open to interpretation by the gamer and we can clearly make our choice and decide for ourselves. But all that additional dialog between Starkid and Shepard...it certainly felt clear to me what they were thinking.

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...

Also, I'm not basing a decision for Synthesis on whether it may be good. Once again, that is an examination of the consequences. Which we were planning on avoiding.

So…you’re not even assuming that the result is beneficial, but decide to go for it anyway? What?

That is correct. I was planning on a negative objective, prohibiting and discouraging moral harm or evil instead of maximizing the good or benefits. Since the morality of acts such genocide and subjugation are known quantities we don't need to know the future consequences of these actions to know they are morally wrong...see where I was going...

Off the record, Synthesis is my favorite choice because I found it narratively interesting and the green glowy eyes are hella cool. But I found killing the crap out of the Reapers very satisfying as well.

[Heeden]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As I see it, it's communication with the potential to become more. Since it's realized through integrated technology, I'm tempted to call it "mechanical telepathy" or "mental networking". I definitely don't see a joint mind at all at the time of Synthesis, but I see the possibility of cultural movements towards one arising here or there in the galaxy in future.     

The EC has pulled me away from the idea of a truly self-aware super-organism (although I still maintain the term can be used to describe any large organisation such as a society) but psychic wi-fi seems to retain some merit (in everything but name at least).

When I first saw the EC Synthesis epilogue I thought Bioware had gone for a literal DNA manipulation. Then, when the wireframe models started appearing I thought they were using DNA as a blue-print for nanites. As the nanites networked together I realised they were making a copy of the whole person. That's a very interesting development, imagine a software version of yourself who can interact with technology exactly as you would, who would give proof that a synthetic life-form can be just as alive as an organic and who would be able to interface with Synthetics on their own level to give them a greater appreciation of what being an organic is like.

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

*Speculation warning

How did I miss this post?

Please expand on the bolded text "some way"

Do you really want me speculate on the existential nature of a gestalt mind composed of (or constructed from) billions of individual consciousnesses?

The reapers are serving as simply memory banks, "abstracts", exactly, like relics, and relics are not alive, life has been destroyed, and relics can be uncovered

How many times do I have to stress that I perceive synthetics as being alive?

Are you saying the Reapers are alive, or not alive?

Objectively speaking, isn't harbinger just a "weapon" and Shepard just an "animal"? Isn't that Catalyst's POV? Harbinger is a weapon that speaks, and Shepard is an "animal" that thinks

That's my point, if you accept Shepard as a sentient being and not just a collection of biological processes it makes as much sense to consider Harbinger a sentient being and not just a collection of technological processes.

Hmm, Geth concensus, unfortunately we did not see the reaper concenses in the ending, no proof, and I am not looking forward to seeing horrifying images of reapers slaughtering previous civilisations

No, memory is memory, it is not alive, it certainly cannot dictate what a harbinger does once the Catalyst releases its grip, also, this is a combination of minds, wouldn't there be conflict of minds? Its like having multiple personalities, the voices in your head will argue like non stop, and since the Catalyst is gone, who has the final say? A roaster? monday its A's say, tuesday B's say...etc?

The Geth manage to reach consensus despite being a gathering of minds, it is one of the major advantages Synthetics have over Organics - that ability to rapidly exchange information and opinions to form a consensus.

Again I must stress this, the consiousness gathered serves as memory only, it is no longer active, it has already occupied a space and time, if u make a new body for this structure of consciousness, it would be another person, thinks about some other things due to present environmental stimulation

The stored information exists within the hardware of the Reapers, this makes them as alive as the Geth at least.

EDIT: with regards to Shepard's resurrection, traces of Shepard's body tissue has been found, and this is useful to retain his / her identity, that most genuine foundation for tissue regeneration has survived, most importantly, the brain

Shepard had been brain-dead long enough to be far beyond any hope of full recovery using normal medical means. The fact they had to use Reaper tech, the Reapers methods of harvesting DNA and Prothean and Asari space-magics all point towards either genetic memory or psychic (Tabbo - read that as psionic) impressions being a thing in Mass Effect.

Whether the reapers are alive or not is not something that we can know, my view is that if ... frak it

No they are not, full stop

I feel like u are implying that there is a dilemma for me when destroying the reapers, the reapers, at its core, are synthetics, they added this organic qualities onto themselves as if they are protection: "if you shoot me, u will kill them.", but I am sorry they are already dead, and so will you

Harbinger is much more complicated than that, it is no longer the orginal form of life, it is a body of "souls" which belonged to people who are long dead, taking an organic's soul and put it in another body is magic, it is fantasy, a person is not alive without a body

Vendetta is long dead, what we have is a living memory

The dead from harvested civilisations are not alive until they are resurrected in their original form and have free-will, even if the reapers are freed, the collection of consciousness is still trapped within reapers' hardware

If life could be preserved in this way, organic scientists would have been on the subject in no time, uploading a person's consciousness into an USB and plug it into a new body once the person is dead, no one would fear death again

EDIT: I just realised that u could argue that because the reapers are incomprehensible to organics and possess the ability to harvest and ascend lives that way, and organics are a long way off, unfortunately, individuals are not alive this way while sharing a single body

Modifié par Vigilant111, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:37 .

[Ieldra]

PeterG1 wrote...
Does anyone think synthesis as explained in the EC was sort of creatively, via the EC script "forced" by BW to be the "best outcome" ending? Between the dialog with star child and the epilogue, I can't help but think that BW intends for us to accept synthesis as the best ending. The happiest despite the one where Shepard is actually dead. Sigh...

That was always the idea: Shepard sacrificing all that (s)he is to get the best outcome for the galaxy. You didn't need the EC to tell you that. All the important indicators were there. Most people were just in denial about it.

[Ieldra]

PeterG1 wrote...
Personally I think we're all gonna volunteer to become cyborgs and get hooked into the matrix WELL BEFORE there's ever any conflicts between machines and organics. In a way we will all become self-conscious software and while I might be dead when it happens, I don't have a problem with it. So from a philosophical point synthesis isn't very effective to me. Nor is the whole machines vs organics debate. That said while I do think it's he most happy ending of the game, shepards sacrifice remains both depressing and unnecessary.

Of course it was necessary. It's Shepard in messiah mode, and don't tell me you didn't see that option coming from a long way back. Not that I exactly like it, but it's thematically fitting. If I want him to come back, I can headcanon my way out of it, but I don't think it would've been appropriate in the story as written.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

PeterG1 wrote...
Does anyone think synthesis as explained in the EC was sort of creatively, via the EC script "forced" by BW to be the "best outcome" ending? Between the dialog with star child and the epilogue, I can't help but think that BW intends for us to accept synthesis as the best ending. The happiest despite the one where Shepard is actually dead. Sigh...

That was always the idea: Shepard sacrificing all that (s)he is to get the best outcome for the galaxy. You didn't need the EC to tell you that. All the important indicators were there. Most people were just in denial about it.

But why exactly does Shepard have to die in this way? I mean God didn't kill Adam to create Eve, why is Shepard's death necessary at all? because the the Crucible requires that many cells? that much consciousness? Why is the Crucible sacrificing the only beacon of hope left? I don't understand

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant:
The Reaper are alive. The minds of the organics that made up the Reaper had been uploaded but they still exist and live in a different form than before. Legion could perceive them as a conjoined minds and talk about how it was to contact a Reaper mind. That Reapers are physically synthetic makes no difference at all.
So yeah.....destroying a Reaper is a consideration. Destroying a Reaper is killing a living remnant of a whole civilization. Claiming they're dead is just an easy way out.

As for the means, upload technology is an established SF concept even present in the ME universe, if you recall that man who uploaded himself into a starship newly discovered where an uploaded species lived on in digital form. So don't tell me it's "magic". I have no idea what's possible in the real world, but in the ME universe this works.

Edit:
Shepard's sacrifice is thematically fitting. In-world, things are a little more sketchy but apparently this works like Legion's "personality dissemination", which was required to upgrade the geth, only on a bigger scale.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:52 .

[jtav]

Because, as Ieldra said, Shepard is in messiah mode. Shepard dies to heal the breach between organic and synthetics and redeem the irredeemable Reapers. He creates a "new covenant" between organics and synthetics by his death. It's blatant Christ imagery.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Vigilant:
The Reaper are alive. The minds of the organics that made up the Reaper had been uploaded but they still exist and live in a different form than before. Legion could perceive them as a conjoined minds and talk about how it was to contact a Reaper mind. That Reapers are physically synthetic makes no difference at all.
So yeah.....destroying a Reaper is a consideration. Destroying a Reaper is killing a living remnant of a whole civilization. Claiming they're dead is just an easy way out.

As for the means, upload technology is an established SF concept even present in the ME universe, if you recall that man who uploaded himself into a starship newly discovered where an uploaded species lived on in digital form. So don't tell me it's "magic". I have no idea what's possible in the real world, but in the ME universe this works.

Edit:
Shepard's sacrifice is thematically fitting. In-world, things are a little more sketchy but apparently this works like Legion's "personality dissemination", which was required to upgrade the geth, only on a bigger scale.

Oh? so destroy doesn't destroy the reapers then, since they are organic, and the main targets for destroy are the Geth and EDI

Personality dissemination is because Legion is the "better" one, like genetically engineered that has good quality to spread out, perfection can be achieved with high percision with synthetic lives, but not a human, Shepard is not perfect, there may be too much of one quality or too less of another

[Ieldra]

*sigh*
Reapers are physically synthetic but inhabited by conjoined organic minds. The Crucible isn't some telepathic mind attack machine, it attacks synthetic technology.

Also if you want to overanalyze the Synthesis process, be my guest, but the Synthesis process is ruled by thematic considerations at the expense of a comprehensible exposition. It's no use trying to analyze the why and how of it. I don't exactly like that, but I can't unmake it. Shepard's physical and mental self gets dispersed over the galaxy in some way, and that is needed to achieve Synthesis. We can guess that Shepard is bio-synthetic has something to do with it, but more than that we'll not be able to analyze.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

*sigh*
Reapers are physically synthetic but inhabited by conjoined organic minds. The Crucible isn't some telepathic mind attack machine, it attacks synthetic technology.

Also if you want to overanalyze the Synthesis process, be my guest, but the Synthesis process is ruled by thematic considerations at the expense of a comprehensible exposition. It's no use trying to analyze the why and how of it. I don't exactly like that, but I can't unmake it. Shepard's physical and mental self gets dispersed over the galaxy in some way, and that is needed to achieve Synthesis. We can guess that Shepard is bio-synthetic has something to do with it, but more than that we'll not be able to analyze.

Well played, I killed someone cos I destroyed the oxygen tank, guess what, that person is already dead, this isn't genie the bottle

Yes, just like in the old days people could not explain lightning and thunder, that is a cheap argument, its like I am doing an exam paper, one of the question is "What is synthesis? please explain in length with evidence and quote relevant sources", BW's response will be "I don't know, it is whatever you want it to be", 0 marks awarded

[Ieldra]

Well, can *you* explain it? How a green beam routed through the mass relays makes complex changes to all life in the galaxy? I can't. Not in any terms I can use with confidence. So...I'm willing to let it stand as it is. The results are another matter, there we have a little ground to stand on and some exposition to use as evidence.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:33 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@saracen16: I have decided not to respond to our last conversation. The reason is that your the-end-justifies-the-means attitude makes reasonable conversation impossible. Thanks for your time.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:18 .

[SpectreVeldt]

lillitheris wrote...

SITHDUKE wrote...
You state, "it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications."  But you also diminish the significance of conjecture based on an analytical process, through which we may actually gain a "firm understanding of the implications."

"Mapping those possibilities out" is how we further educate ourselves regarding the implications.  You are telling everyone here that we need a "firm understanding of the implications," but we shouldn't even TRY to reach that understanding by any means.

You cannot know those implications.

You can, actually.  You are not only told about certain implications, but by elaborating upon given details, via the empirical process, you can form hypotheses and theories (the actual scientific definition of a theory).  So, every time someone surmises that you can further analyze the ending, even going so far as to SHOW (with evidence) possible implications, you can't just repeat yourself like you do with every argument on here.
Me: You can actually know some implications.  Here are some examples--
You:  No, you can't!

. . . You’ve had four months on this thread, now, and there’s still nothing resembling a coherent explanation of how the stated goals of of Synthesis are achieved, or how the goals themselves even make sense. I know, because I’ve been here pointing out the problems on the scientific side of things until I got bored with that.
Shepard’s got 5 minutes to succeed in what you’ve failed at for 4 months.
Furthermore, even if you could come up with an explanation that could possibly work . . .

And this is funny because you go off on this tangent, doing what you've not only been doing to others in this thread (discussing pretty much what you want to discuss, oftentimes employing the strawman fallacy in order to continue, in your mind, the 'debate'), but I actually figured out that you've been doing this for quite awhile.  Stumbled on an old thread the other day where I briefly mentioned social influence, and you managed to make that about Jennifer Hale's acting ability, and then tried to debate with me about it, as if I was debating something with you in the first place.  What did another user call it?  "Moving goalposts."  Your attempt to use language to pretty up what you're saying (and in essence, just repeat yourself) is additionally obvious.  Your syntax is awkward and you repeatedly use words in the wrong sense, as if you're using a thesaurus or saw someone else use a certain word, and tried to employ it with the understanding of its google definition.

lillitheris wrote...
The consequences of Control are merely unknown beyond the initial delineated paths.

 Much like saying: "The driver advanced the car, trying to reach the light before it turned red."
'Advance' can mean 'accelerate,' but the context and usage is awkward and incorrect.  And that is a very awkward use of the word 'delineate.'

You're trying to validate yourself and your opinions.  I get it; everyone does that.  But you can't have your cake and eat it, too.  The difference between a religious zealot and a religious grad student is that one realizes the importance of the scientific method, analytical thought, and peer-review.  In order for any APA (or intellectual journal) research to be taken seriously, it must also be subjected to rigorous peer-review.  You keep repeating the importance of understanding the implications while also telling everyone that they cannot reach understanding (meanwhile I make an entire topic about this very thing), as if it's not allowed or something.

Much like saying, "The Bible is correct because the Bible says it's correct, which is why the Bible is correct.  So don't go trying to show me otherwise because you can't."

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:25 .

[PeterG1]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, can *you* explain it? How a green beam routed through the mass relays makes complex changes to all life in the galaxy? I can't. Not in any terms I can use with confidence. So...I'm willing to let it stand as it is. The results are another matter, there we have a little ground to stand on and some exposition to use as evidence.

Technically and literally, yes, I understand where you're coming from and agree that, in a literary sense, it's not something that can or really needs to be explained in any great detail.

But this whole messiah thing doesn't make much sense to me at all. And I'm not just saying that because I have some sort of personal connection in "not wanting Shepard to die" (which i admit: I don't want Shepard to die). From a creative sense, it feels both a bit forced and preachy and largely unnecessary to both the entertainment value of the franchise and BioWare's attempts at creating a meaningful and, dare I say, emotionally powerful ending. Because I find that, again in a creative sense, it satisfies neither. 

In other words, we don't really know and we're not really told to question why Shepard has to sacrifice in order to save the galaxy in this way. I think synthesis is a noble and admirable choice (in other words, I do disagree with people that it's selfish and forcing something not many people want although I do see why one would make that conclusion) but there's no real reason that I can tell, both within the diegesis of the story, and in a more literary/poetic/philisophical point of view, what makes the story, creatively, any beter by having Shepard sacrifice.

Modifié par PeterG1, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:14 .

[PeterG1]

Sorry to double post, but I also defend my argument from earlier too. I believe that the larger philosophical implications of synthesis are moot as, while discussion is obviously healthy, we are not in fact, in reality, going to fight with our machines over intelligence or understanding. We will gradually merge with our machines (we already are) and will peacefully join software intelligence and thought.

I think synthesis is a good ending to the game, but the poetic important and philosophical implications I think BioWare thought we were going to receive by choosing this ending gets lost on many gamers for many reasons. Some of them are not BioWare's fault, but the biggest reason they get lost is essentially the same reason so many of us are upset by the game's endings in the first place. And that is that the game is made by blockbuster game writers for blockbuster game consumers and to try to get academic, preachy, philosophical or smart simply doesn't fit given the franchise and situation. Transhumanism and the singularity is just one thing, one small facet about the wider entertainment mission of the franchise and how it ultimately falls short.

[lillitheris]

You cannot know those implications.

You can, actually.  You are not only told about certain implications, but by elaborating upon given details, via the empirical process, you can form hypotheses and theories (the actual scientific definition of a theory). !

Explain “new DNA”, and how a fundamental biological change can leave the organism’s mental functionality unchanged. Or a machine’s for that matter. Explain how the “new level of consciousness” exists while retaining our current level of consciousness.

I’d love to hear your scientific theory on this.

…

I also really hope you one day learn how public online discussion threads work. The basic premise is that everyone can read your posts, and if they so choose, respond to them. If this is not suitable for you, you can employ private messages instead.

Modifié par lillitheris, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:30 .

[Ieldra]

PeterG1 wrote...
I think synthesis is a good ending to the game, but the poetic important and philosophical implications I think BioWare thought we were going to receive by choosing this ending gets lost on many gamers for many reasons. Some of them are not BioWare's fault, but the biggest reason they get lost is essentially the same reason so many of us are upset by the game's endings in the first place. And that is that the game is made by blockbuster game writers for blockbuster game consumers and to try to get academic, preachy, philosophical or smart simply doesn't fit given the franchise and situation. Transhumanism and the singularity is just one thing, one small facet about the wider entertainment mission of the franchise and how it ultimately falls short.

So....you think the game should've ended like "evil destroyed. mission accomplished. live happily forever after?" I've heard that said by people, and it would have been an epic disappointment after all that buildup. Because those implications, the themes they were building on, were always present in the games. You just had to dig a little, and more importantly, look at things without prejudice, without being blinded by the presentation. I think they were trying to make the story a blockbuster on the surface, and something with a little more depth if you dig a little. In some way they succeeded. The final choice options are interesting in many ways, considering all the hidden information about the Reapers and the background we could get by talking to people and reading Codex entries and planet descriptions. The flaws were somewhere else.

[Xilizhra]

I'm curious, Ieldra: what's your opinion on the issue of consent in Synthesis? I'm willing to overlook it by reason of it being better than genocide or the possibility of Shepard-as-Catalyst becoming corrupt, but since you have the most brilliant views on Synthesis that I've seen so far, I'm interested in your opinion.

I'll also say that I can at least understand why some people might think Synthesis wandered in from a different game; ideally, I believe that more musing on Saren's goals and how they compare/contrast with the possibility of Synthesis would have been interesting.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:36 .