9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Aurora313]

I would rather have Javik become a reclusive, whose location is only known to a few then become a terrorist figure, but I can imagine that he will have trouble adjusting to Synthesis. I saw a pic on DA that seemed to encapsulate Javik's potential feelings towards Synthesis. Can't get it now because @ Uni, but it's in Deviantart or tumblr (on both) if you're willing to sift through the crap to find it.

That being said, the idea of him becoming an extremist lobbying for the Reaper's total destruction post-Synthesis is not without merit. I would just like to see him not have to die over it.

Modifié par Aurora313, 22 juillet 2012 - 11:19 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

So are you trolling now? Or just suffering a giant disconnect between fantasy and reality?  Heck, even if you rp Mass Effect, they set it up so you could be rping a storyteller.  Nothing wrong with killing a character off in a story because of their beliefs, look at Rosharch in Watchmen.

You complain about people not being responsible for their actions, but you have no problems not being responsible for yours.

I never killed the Council, although the middle option (which was to give priority to firing at Sovereign) interpreted it as such. I could not have known that. I play as a Spectre of the Council and as such my own views are limited.

You go as far as saying it wasn't you that killed the council even though your choice lead to their deaths, that sounds like someone who is dodging responsibilty to me.

Well, if you think I am trolling then why even respond to me?

Yes. In that example I show that I made a mistake. Just as the Miranda one I meantioned before that one. Why didn't you point that one out as well? Obviously I forgot to visit her on purpose, not?

[Shaigunjoe]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

So are you trolling now? Or just suffering a giant disconnect between fantasy and reality?  Heck, even if you rp Mass Effect, they set it up so you could be rping a storyteller.  Nothing wrong with killing a character off in a story because of their beliefs, look at Rosharch in Watchmen.

You complain about people not being responsible for their actions, but you have no problems not being responsible for yours.

I never killed the Council, although the middle option (which was to give priority to firing at Sovereign) interpreted it as such. I could not have known that. I play as a Spectre of the Council and as such my own views are limited.

You go as far as saying it wasn't you that killed the council even though your choice lead to their deaths, that sounds like someone who is dodging responsibilty to me.

Well, if you think I am trolling then why even respond to me?

Yes. In that example I show that I made a mistake. Just as the Miranda one I meantioned before that one. Why didn't you point that one out as well? Obviously I forgot to visit her on purpose, not?

Well, thanks for confirming my suspicions, I did present two options though, so I wasn't 100% about the troll thing.

[Taboo]

To be fair, I thought Ieldra was trolling and he me.

As it turns out we truly have no idea what the hell the other one is talking about half of the time.

And I want him to know that.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:22 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

@AngryFrozenWater:

1. If you go through the posts in this thread, you'll know none of us hopes, expects and some (me included) don't even want utopia. There's a difference between peace and utopia. Don't know where you got this idea that synthesis supporters want utopia. Your personal views of it maybe?

2. Old enemies can cooperate. There are plenty of examples of it both in real-life and MEU. Would you cooperate with someone who neutered your entire species? The epilogue is set in the near future, not immediately after the war ends. Regardless, you sure there is no brainwashing going on in control and destroy endings? Because I fail to see how someone who was refusing to leave his beloved commander behind is now smiling like an idiot, and your love interest is joining him him as if they've never seen the sky before. Even Hackett forgets to mention Shepard. That seems serious brainwashing to me. Dead reapers can also indoctrinate you know.
Same with control, no one seems to be having any problem with reapers walking down London streets or .flying around earth? This problem, if you'd like to call it one, exists in every ending. Its your personal bias that makes you attach it to synthesis only.

3. the initial question was not that we should let Javik die because he disagrees with synthesis. The question was whether letting him die could lead to the resurrection of Shepard. And mind you, we were discussing fanfiction not facts about the game or even our interpretation of synthesis.

In future please try to read up what we are discussing before enlightening us with your words of wisdom. thankyouverymuch

Modifié par pirate1802, 23 juillet 2012 - 05:16 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

pirate1802 wrote...

In future please try to read up what we are discussing before enlightening us with your words of wisdom headcanon. thankyouverymuch

Fixed, this is AngryFrozenWater we're talking about.

It's not a headcanon argument if it's *my* argument!

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
As it turns out we truly have no idea what the hell the other one is talking about half of the time..

:/
I'm certainly saying few things more often than "I didn't say that." People make all sorts of weird associations with Synthesis and defend them to the point that they ignore both what's said in the game what the supporters say. Well, Synthesis *is* somewhat weird, and I think it also being somewhat creepy is the point. It's totally unsurprising that it's a hard sell. Still, the level of unsubstantiated associations is strange.

I wonder how it would have gone down had the third option still been "Shepard becomes one with the Reapers", like in the older leaked script. I recall when I read that I thought: "I can tell you that won't work". But I found it interesting, because it appears to me that the writers expected players to look beyond the horrific presentation to the Reapers' nature and see that there's something worth preserving in them much more easily than they were capable of.

Now in Synthesis, Shepard becomes one with all life in the galaxy, including the Reapers... and that kind of "space magic" doesn't help at all. Symbolism and SF are far harder to mix than symbolism and fantasy, because SF places harder restrictions on in-world logic and usually doesn't allow non-physical explanations like this. I like the outcome of Synthesis, and the new explanations make some sense. But Shepard's sacrifice - that's allowing thematic considerations to ignore any in-world logic. That should really be a no-go in SF.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:50 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@Ieldra2: If you want to continue the analogy, which I have dropped after our private conversation, then it was not me who brought it back.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
As it turns out we truly have no idea what the hell the other one is talking about half of the time..

:/
I'm certainly saying few things more often than "I didn't say that." People make all sorts of weird associations with Synthesis and defend them to the point that they ignore both what's said in the game what the supporters say. Well, Synthesis *is* somewhat weird, and I think it also being somewhat creepy is the point. It's totally unsurprising that it's a hard sell. Still, the level of unsubstantiated associations is strange.

I wonder how it would have gone down had the third option still been "Shepard becomes one with the Reapers", like in the older leaked script. I recall when I read that I thought: "I can tell you that won't work". But I found it interesting, because it appears to me that the writers expected players to look beyond the horrific presentation to the Reapers' nature and see that there's something worth preserving in them much more easily than they were capable of.

Now in Synthesis, Shepard becomes one with all life in the galaxy, including the Reapers... and that kind of "space magic" doesn't help at all. Symbolism and SF are far harder to mix than symbolism and fantasy, because SF places harder restrictions on in-world logic and usually doesn't allow non-physical explanations like this. I like the outcome of Synthesis, and the new explanations make some sense. But Shepard's sacrifice - that's allowing thematic considerations to ignore any in-world logic. That should really be a no-go in SF.

I think symbolism and what not is a harder sale to the rpg crowd, because when people are roleplaying they don't care about symbolism, themes, etc.  I think in novels and films, the audience is a bit more receptive of it.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm certainly saying few things more often than "I didn't say that." People make all sorts of weird associations with Synthesis and defend them to the point that they ignore both what's said in the game what the supporters say. Well, Synthesis *is* somewhat weird, and I think it also being somewhat creepy is the point. It's totally unsurprising that it's a hard sell. Still, the level of unsubstantiated associations is strange.

Well, I think that's largely because the story does such a poor job of setting up the endings, both thematically and from the standpoint of information provided to the player about the Reapers along the way.
 
This actually affects all the endings, but probably synthesis the most because it is the one that requires the biggest imaginative leap in the first place/is the most radical and so on.

The Mass Effect endings are in fact so badly handled from that point of view that I almost don't know where to start in terms of talking about how improvements could have been made along the way. What it boils down to is that the possibility of synthesis would have to be explored prior to the endings for people to be inclined to accept it as potentially good when it happens.

Quite a few of the strong reactions to synthesis (and probably other things) can be attributed, I think, to the simple fact that the story is badly told. No doubt it would always be a controversial idea, but the presentation is clumsy, to say the least, so that makes it worse. Personally, I like the concept a lot and am willing to just overlook some of the issues with how it's presented. But... a radical concept like this really needs to be presented and explained better for most people to embrace it, I think.

Modifié par flemm, 23 juillet 2012 - 03:30 .

[Ieldra]

@flemm:
The handling of the ending certainly didn't help. But what really gets to me are things like "Synthesis turns everyone into abominations". I wonder if people are even aware of what kind of mindset they're projecting when using such a term. As if a life form is only valid if it conforms to some arbitrary standard of "natural".

As for how it could have been handled better: They could've made Shepard the first example for Synthesis earlier in the games, and that would've gone a long way to make the idea more acceptable, but then they'd have to place the "Synthesis magic" on Shepard earlier. What happens in "Overlord" could be seen as a hint that something like that happened, but where did it come from? It could've been the Reaper tech Cerberus used when bringing him back, but there's no indication at all that any change in Shepard was on the same level as in Synthesis. Argh....

@Shaigunjoe:
I think the SF/fantasy divide still plays a role. Recall DAO? Why must it be a Grey Warden who kills the Archdemon, and why will that Warden always die? I don't recall the explanation exactly, but it was something completely nonphysical, a reasoning taken from metaphysics. Such things have no place in SF, even if you interpret the term broadly. I sense something thematically similar in Shepard's sacrifice in Synthesis, but because this is SF, any metaphysical in-world logic will be deservedly rejected.

[AngryFrozenWater]

flemm wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm certainly saying few things more often than "I didn't say that." People make all sorts of weird associations with Synthesis and defend them to the point that they ignore both what's said in the game what the supporters say. Well, Synthesis *is* somewhat weird, and I think it also being somewhat creepy is the point. It's totally unsurprising that it's a hard sell. Still, the level of unsubstantiated associations is strange.

Well, I think that's largely because the story does such a poor job of setting up the endings, both thematically and from the standpoint of information provided to the player about the Reapers along the way.
 
This actually affects all the endings, but probably synthesis the most because it is the one that requires the biggest imaginative leap in the first place/is the most radical and so on.

The Mass Effect endings are in fact so badly handled from that point of view that I almost don't know where to start in terms of talking about how improvements could have been made along the way. What it boils down to is that the possibility of synthesis would have to be explored prior to the endings for people to be inclined to accept it as potentially good when it happens.

Quite a few of the strong reactions to synthesis (and probably other things) can be attributed, I think, to the simple fact that the story is badly told. I'm not sure it's really the concept.

Bad writing is a copout. It is used as an argument whenever it becomes handy to avoid an issue. Space magic is another. So is the end justifies the means. The same goes for the brat does not care about ethics, as if it was too stupid to reason. VI and AI features are systematically switched whenever it comes in handy. Everyone is untouchable here and no one is guilty of anything. It is role playing with fear at its basics. And that fear doesn't drop from thin air when the themes of the game involve genocide, atrocities, lies, deceit, violations of rights on a galactic scale, etc. To most these things are not important and they play the game for fun and select whatever they feel like. As it should be. However, when one claims that reason comes into play then reason should be used. Especially in a thread that claims to be a compendium. But of course it is not. The urge to win a discussion caused some kind of weird logic to prevail, instead of examining what the content exactly means. And "I didn't say that" more often than not is used when one feels uneasy about the ethical implications of the statement.

[Taboo]

The only way I can really explain things in that scene with the Catalyst IS symbolism. It's entirely too...devoid of level headedness to be taken in another manner. At least to me.

Even the end choices could be interpreted as symbolic.

Synthesis - Jumping into the Unknown.
Control- Grabbing the Reigns.
Destroy- Walking right into potential Danger.
Refuse - Going full retard.

Also, I found a REALLY interesting article yesterday Ieldra, about synthetic life. Would you like a link?

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The only way I can really explain things in that scene with the Catalyst IS symbolism. It's entirely too...devoid of level headedness to be taken in another manner. At least to me.

Yea, thats one of the reasons I like to consider the catalyst scene as the story being told by the stargazer, because then it fits much better for me, and also, at least to me, makes synthesis a no brainer (though i think a seperate topic should be created on the relevance of the choices as told by an unreliable narrator)

Even the end choices could be interpreted as symbolic.

Synthesis - Jumping into the Unknown.
Control- Grabbing the Reigns.
Destroy- Walking right into potential Danger.
Refuse - Going full retard.

Going full retard is an important step in the path of an actor, sure, nobody has won the oscar yet for it, but what will that say about the person that finally does?

[Taboo]

The Oscars are a bit of a joke. Don't trust Americans to judge art ever. We're terrible. We have a tendency to award people who seem to be going out there. Dustin Hoffman is wonderful in Rain Main, but it isn't the only thing he should have won the Oscar for. People like...controversy.

Like Meryl Streep winning for playing Margret Thatcher. **** no.

I would however, pay upwards of twenty dollars to have the EC epilogues narrated by Werner Herzog. Ieldra would probably agree with me.

Certain things just have to be accepted as part of the narrative. It just happens. Somehow, Shepard survives Destroy. Somehow, Synthesis works. Somehow an entire ship ends up in a tree in Aguirre, Wrath of God.

Ieldra needs to watch Stalker and Solaris too.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ah, I wasn't trying to comment on the oscars really, I just thought the full retard thing was a reference to Paradise Thunder's don't go full retard schtick.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 23 juillet 2012 - 08:07 .

[flemm]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Bad writing is a copout. It is
used as an argument whenever it becomes handy to avoid an issue. Space
magic is another. So is the end justifies the means.

The game is a piece of fiction. Therefore, it must be understood from that point of view first and foremost. Speaking of why the writing is effective or ineffective is the opposite of a "copout": it's the equivalent of choosing the red pill and attempting to understand the fiction *as* fiction, rather than analysing the fiction as if it were reality.

Talking about the writing is not avoiding the issue. The writing *is* the issue.

Modifié par flemm, 23 juillet 2012 - 05:35 .

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Ah, I wasn't trying to comment on the oscars really, I just though the full retard thing was a reference to Paradise Thunder's don't go full retard schtick.

"What do you mean you people?"

I know what you meant.

[AngryFrozenWater]

flemm wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Bad writing is a copout. It is used as an argument whenever it becomes handy to avoid an issue. Space magic is another. So is the end justifies the means.

The game is a piece of fiction. Therefore, it must be understood from that point of view first and foremost. Speaking of why the writing is effective or ineffective is the opposite of a "copout": it's the equivalent of choosing the red pill and attempting to understand the fiction *as* fiction, rather than analysing the fiction as if it were reality.

Talking about the writing is not avoiding the issue. The writing *is* the issue.

I don't think that the ending is State Of The Art writing. However, it is often conveniently used in discussions to avoid whatever issue people feel like they should avoid. That's my point.

[Versus Omnibus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The only way I can really explain things in that scene with the Catalyst IS symbolism. It's entirely too...devoid of level headedness to be taken in another manner. At least to me.

Even the end choices could be interpreted as symbolic.

Synthesis - Jumping into the Unknown.
Control- Grabbing the Reigns.
Destroy- Walking right into potential Danger.
Refuse - Going full retard.

Also, I found a REALLY interesting article yesterday Ieldra, about synthetic life. Would you like a link?

Yes, please.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for how it could have been handled better: They could've made Shepard the first example for Synthesis earlier in the games, and that would've gone a long way to make the idea more acceptable, but then they'd have to place the "Synthesis magic" on Shepard earlier. What happens in "Overlord" could be seen as a hint that something like that happened, but where did it come from? It could've been the Reaper tech Cerberus used when bringing him back, but there's no indication at all that any change in Shepard was on the same level as in Synthesis. Argh....

Well, I believe the Catalyst at one point says that synthesis wasn't possible in previous cycles because organics weren't ready yet. I guess that's there to try to account for the fact that the events in this cycle really don't support the idea, asserted to be the reason for the cycle's existence, that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics if the situation is left unchecked.

So, I guess, for it to really work, you'd have to develop that idea more fully throughout the game by showing how organics have already begun to embrace some aspects of synthesis (some form of transhumanism or other interaction with synthetic life along those lines).

As you say, the Lazarus project would likely be a lynchpin and perhaps might explain why Shepard's sacrifice is necessary.

But... a lot of rewriting would need to be done. Unfortunately the game spends most of its time doing the opposite of what it should be doing, as far as building toward the endings is concerned.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think that the ending is
State Of The Art writing. However, it is often conveniently used in
discussions to avoid whatever issue people feel like they should avoid.
That's my point.

Well, from what I gather, you're mostly interested in condemning the idea (at least as currently implemented in the game) as bad or wrong, is that correct?

But I think the danger is that, to achieve that goal, you may feel the need to impose a certain (negative) interpretation of synthesis as absolute.

Whereas most fans of synthesis seem to take another approach. Basically: the idea is good and interesting, whatever the flaws in its implementation and whatever moral quandries it poses (possibly even because of those quandries).

Modifié par flemm, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:47 .

[I Am Robot]

@AngryFrozenWater

People are in no way defined by their actions in video games. Mass Effect is my favorite video game, I have spent more than 200 hours playing the Mass Effect 1/2/3 campaigns, and many more playing the multiplayer, reading the books and reading the comics; however it is a video game and this is a video game developer forum not a court room. I would never intentionally let people die either, and all of my play throughs are full paragon, but people have the right to make their own story in mass effect.

You seem to be accusing people of having ideas/beliefs they don't actually have. For example you are saying that it is absolutely wrong to consider people with different ideas your enemy. I agree with you, and I'd like to think everyone else does too. But nobody here said anything that opposes that statement, so why are you using it as an argument against other people? 

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 24 juillet 2012 - 01:25 .

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
The only way I can really explain things in that scene with the Catalyst IS symbolism. It's entirely too...devoid of level headedness to be taken in another manner. At least to me.

Even the end choices could be interpreted as symbolic.

Synthesis - Jumping into the Unknown.
Control- Grabbing the Reigns.
Destroy- Walking right into potential Danger.
Refuse - Going full retard.

There's more to it than that. I'll post my take on it some time, but I'm in a bit of a hurry.

Also, I found a REALLY interesting article yesterday Ieldra, about synthetic life. Would you like a link?

Yes. Why didn't you post it already

[Taboo]

^ Of course there is more to it Ieldra. I don't have time to espouse theories on forced symbolism.

Anyway, they managed to construct a Synthetic Jellyfish...from Rat Hearts and Plastic.

And it functions as one.

It's genetically a rat...but it's a jellyfish.

Here.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Taboo-XX wrote...

^ Of course there is more to it Ieldra. I don't have time to espouse theories on forced symbolism.

Anyway, they managed to construct a Synthetic Jellyfish...from Rat Hearts and Plastic.

And it functions as one.

It's genetically a rat...but it's a jellyfish.

Here.

So George Carlin was right again. Our purpose on earth is to create plastic, which will be incorporated into the next lifeforms.

Interesting article.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:18 .