9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...
Just to clarify further, Mass Effect should have some role in the story that is not just incidental (such as "it's what gets you from point A to point B," which is what we have now). The absence of this type of thing is part of why the endings tend to provoke such a wtf? response.

Remember the scrapped dark energy plot? That would have provided such a connection. Not that I would've liked the trilogy to end that way. What we have, as flawed as it is, is more engaging.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I think the crucible concept should have been "bled" into ME2, through a mission or two, alluding to the possibility of such a device, or through a DLC like Arrival, so that its discovery isn't such a huge surprise. Also, the Sanctuary mission does a good job IMO, of placing a doubt in the player's mind whether control is really possible, whether TIM was right all along. I know it did for me. What we needed are more missions like those, both for control and more so, for synthesis.
Maybe a partially synthesized person/society, discussions on transhumanism; there was one with EDI but it was not sufficiently fleshed out.
Synthesis is literally dropped out of holy heavens on the player's head at the last moment, and being the reaper-god's favourite option doesn't help it either.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Remember the scrapped dark energy plot? That would have provided such a connection. Not that I would've liked the trilogy to end that way. What we have, as flawed as it is, is more engaging.

Yeah, I remember. Of course, that's why the story was originally outlined that way: Mass Effect has to be important to Mass Effect. This is basic stuff, really.

However, it should have been possible to provide a more diverse and engaging set of choices than originally outlined while maintaining the importance of Mass Effect.

Not at the last minute at the end of the development cycle, though. This type of thing cannot be the result of an ass-pull. It's just not possible.

Edit: One possibility would have been to keep the dark energy/mass effect problem as the original reason for the cycle's existence, rather than the idea of an age-old conflict between organics and synthetics. While adding the diversity of choice we have now. I think this could potentially have solved a lot of problems.

Modifié par flemm, 25 juillet 2012 - 06:27 .

[Taboo]

Actually...I thought I should let everyone know that the Crucible is technically foreshadowed in LotSB.

Liara states that in the Shadow Brokers information about the Protheans reveals that they were working on ways to stop the Reapers and then her eyes bulge and she looks off to the side.

From what I understand, they were working on the script for ME3 at that time.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Actually...I thought I should let everyone know that the Crucible is technically foreshadowed in LotSB.

Liara states that in the Shadow Brokers information about the Protheans reveals that they were working on ways to stop the Reapers and then her eyes bulge and she looks off to the side.

From what I understand, they were working on the script for ME3 at that time.

Yes, the Crucible, perhaps. I've never understood why people thought it's a deus ex machina. We got the plans at the start of the game, and as you say, it may even have been foreshadowed.

Not the Synthesis though. That came out of the blue. We had two instances of symbiotic relationships between organics and synthetics - the Zha'til and if you made peace, the geth and the quarians started one, but Synthesis does more, and with the EC it goes even weirder (not that I have an objection to that). The only aspect foreshadowed was making peace with the Reapers, in Garrus half-joking comment "You're a peacemaker, Shepard, Those are rare these days. Now, if you'll pacify the Reapers, we'll make you a saint."

Guess what happens in Synthesis

@flemm:
If I could make myself be heard with one recommendation for Bioware, it would probably be this: next time, write the damned ending first. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 juillet 2012 - 07:13 .

[Aurora313]

Well if you wanna go for a stretch, the Geth+Quarrian conflict kinda foreshadowed it without so many words. Legion's sacrifice = same sacrifice a Synthesis Shepard pulls off on larger scale. Tali even explains that Quarrian Volunteers are allowing the Geth into their suits to super-charge their immune systems.

Kind of a stretch, and would have liked it to become more obvious, but yeah - its there if you're looking very hard. (or its wishful thinking. Dismiss it as you will.)(\\

[Taboo]

I can see that, although Legion knows what he's doing.

The idea here is readiness. I don't think Organics are ready. If it wasn't for Shepard they would all be dead. They're still selfish, and some are only working because of great compromises.

They'll be ready when they can reach it by themselves.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Well, that was definitely an interesting read, Ieldra. Even if I may not agree with the concept of Synthesis it’s still remarkable and well argued, and a lot of work has obviously put in it.

Disregarding the morality of selecting Synthesis, though that was a big part of why I simply cannot jump into that beam, one of the biggest gripes I have with Synthesis is the actual logistics of how it ultimately works. The EC slides show that it alters the genetic structure, it sort of combines with organic DNA, it has to alter every cell in an organism's body. There are an estimated 10 trillion cells in the human body alone, Ieldra, and Synthesis alters all organic life, from sentient species to plant to the tiniest microbe. Think of just the energy requirement for such a thing to be possible. The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time, the Milky Way galaxy is our isolated system in this case, since it's interaction with anything else is rather limited. Though I obviously don't have the numbers to back that up, I simply don't think there is enough energy available in our galaxy for such a thing to be possible. Even if the beam, as you've stated earlier in this thread, contained simply a lot of nanites, by the energy-mass equivalence that would still present the same problem.

Moving on, I have a problem with how fast synthesis takes hold. Gene mutations, though generally harmful, don't change our body instantly. If a mutation were to occur due to exposition to radiation, it would take month's for the tumor to form. Synthesis is instant. It would take at least a few days for the changes to occur.

Most of my problems with synthesis stem ftomhow it is presented, I have no quarrel with the concept of trans-humanism itself, but it is something that mustn't be forced. It all boils down to the consideration that my (or anyone's) Shepard's morals aren't the galaxy's, and that's a problem that Synthesis shares with control. Synthesis would have worked much better if it ended with Shepard being the first one to jump into the unknown, opening the path for many others, if they so desired. That would have fixed many of the "Space Magic" complaints, though not all of the moral ones. I still think that, if Synthesis is inevitable, we aren't yet ready for such a change, we must reach such a possibility by ourselves, and not rely on a flawed AI's opinion.

[Ieldra]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Well, that was definitely an interesting read, Ieldra. Even if I may not agree with the concept of Synthesis it’s still remarkable and well argued, and a lot of work has obviously put in it.

Thanks It all started way back in March, when I was devastated by the endings, as a way to create an interpretation I could take away from the game. Surprisingly, the EC Synthesis turned out almost exactly as I hoped, they even made it a little weirder which I like Only the contradictions in the description still bother me.

Disregarding the morality of selecting Synthesis, though that was a big part of why I simply cannot jump into that beam, one of the biggest gripes I have with Synthesis is the actual logistics of how it ultimately works. The EC slides show that it alters the genetic structure, it sort of combines with organic DNA, it has to alter every cell in an organism's body. There are an estimated 10 trillion cells in the human body alone, Ieldra, and Synthesis alters all organic life, from sentient species to plant to the tiniest microbe. Think of just the energy requirement for such a thing to be possible. The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time, the Milky Way galaxy is our isolated system in this case, since it's interaction with anything else is rather limited. Though I obviously don't have the numbers to back that up, I simply don't think there is enough energy available in our galaxy for such a thing to be possible. Even if the beam, as you've stated earlier in this thread, contained simply a lot of nanites, by the energy-mass equivalence that would still present the same problem.

You know which element of the ME universe also violates the conservation of energy principle: the mass effect. Perhaps it's not done on such a massive scale, but the problem is the same. Also, some people argue that you could power technology with zero-point energy - which is theoretically infinite - even today. It's a concept already used in some SF (IIRC some artifacts in Stargate are said to be based on it). I have no problem with suspending my disbelief for this aspect, though you have a point with the next one.... 

Moving on, I have a problem with how fast synthesis takes hold. Gene mutations, though generally harmful, don't change our body instantly. If a mutation were to occur due to exposition to radiation, it would take month's for the tumor to form. Synthesis is instant. It would take at least a few days for the changes to occur.

I put that off as an artifact of the presentation. It's clear Bioware didn't care about the technological aspects at all when they made this ending, and because of that I feel free to re-interpret using artistic principles as well as scientific ones. That's why I think nobody really has these glowing green eyes we see in the slides, and neither the circuit patterns. Such patterns, were they real, would be so small that you couldn't see them anyway. Thus, I say they're an artistic representation of mostly invisible changes. I have included some loosely-related visible changes in my so far only post-Synthesis fan fiction, but that's more because I like the idea.
Having said that, I postulate that the actual change is done by nanite clusters. That might still take a few days, and in most cases the presentation does not contradict the hypothesis that it does take days. The only problematic scene is the one with the Husk on Earth.

Most of my problems with synthesis stem ftomhow it is presented, I have no quarrel with the concept of trans-humanism itself, but it is something that mustn't be forced. It all boils down to the consideration that my (or anyone's) Shepard's morals aren't the galaxy's, and that's a problem that Synthesis shares with control. Synthesis would have worked much better if it ended with Shepard being the first one to jump into the unknown, opening the path for many others, if they so desired. That would have fixed many of the "Space Magic" complaints, though not all of the moral ones. I still think that, if Synthesis is inevitable, we aren't yet ready for such a change, we must reach such a possibility by ourselves, and not rely on a flawed AI's opinion.

I, too, would have preferred a scenario with Shepard as the forerunner, as I've said earlier in this thread, but I can live with what we have. As I see it, everyone gets the ability to seamlessly integrate technology, and maybe one additional ability like that mental networking, but nobody's forced to use it or to integrate more technology. I won't say I don't feel uncomfortable with choosing Synthesis, but I think it results in the best future, and the other endings have their own problems. 

As for being ready, it's ultimately Shepard who makes the call. The Catalyst says organics are ready, but Shepard doesn't have to believe that. If you made peace between the quarians and the geth and talk to Tali afterwards, hearing that both "species" are already integrating with each other in a less fundamental way, you might take this as an indication that the galaxy is ready for Synthesis. You might also take it an indication that we don't need the Crucible's Synthesis and choose Control as the only other ending where both sides survive, but I have a serious problem with Control, since it thematically treats the species of the galaxy as children who can't manage their own affairs, and I can't see that state of things ending soon. In Control, I feel advancement of the species of the galaxy is artificially hampered, which I don't like even though the intent is benign. So, Synthesis-after-Control doesn't work for me. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Fair enough. I guess have no problem with eezo since it's there since the beggining, and actually has some sort of techno-babble explanation. Honestly Synthesis would have benefited much more if the concept had been slowly introduced and explained throughout the game.

Also, while the space-faring races might be ready for synthesis, I can't help but think of thousands of pre-industrial civilizations who don't even know what synthetics are. But if the changes are mostly invisible and you can't make use of them unless you know you have them (as you've said, by integrating new technology) it might work.

Here's a question. After millions or billions of years, on a currently lifeless planet the simplest forms of life might form, these life forms, having formed after the crucible was fired, would be devoid of the benefits of Synthesis. After billions of years and countless cycles of evolution have passed they will eventually reach the stars. Synthesis seems dependent on the crucible, would they be left out? Or will organics by then have found a way to spread it without the crucible? If so, would they be willing to share it?

[DirtyPhoenix]

Aurora313 wrote...

Well if you wanna go for a stretch, the Geth+Quarrian conflict kinda foreshadowed it without so many words. Legion's sacrifice = same sacrifice a Synthesis Shepard pulls off on larger scale. Tali even explains that Quarrian Volunteers are allowing the Geth into their suits to super-charge their immune systems.

Kind of a stretch, and would have liked it to become more obvious, but yeah - its there if you're looking very hard. (or its wishful thinking. Dismiss it as you will.)(

Yes thats, as you said, a stretch. We wanted something which would immediately come to our mind on hearing about synthesis, like how on hearing about control Shepard immediately remembers TIM and his methods. And its only in retrospect that we are thinking of Legion's sacrifice as analogous. But many wouldn't see it that way because what Legion achieved was not exactly (though similar to) happened in synthesis. I hope I'm making myself clear here. Something like Overlord you know, the real melding of man and machine. But Overlord portrayed it in the exact opposite way, throwing players further off the synthesis option. Add to it the space magicky stuff and I can see why it is (almost) the most hated ending.

[Ieldra]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Also, while the space-faring races might be ready for synthesis, I can't help but think of thousands of pre-industrial civilizations who don't even know what synthetics are. But if the changes are mostly invisible and you can't make use of them unless you know you have them (as you've said, by integrating new technology) it might work.

It's undefined enough that we can make our own version. Honestly, I think the writers didn't think Synthesis through very much. The original description (which annoyingly is still in the game after the EC) is pretty good evidence of that. As well as Mike Gamble's tweet "There's no organic or synthetic any more, just life". I think they were thinking in themes and symbolism too much without grounding it in in-world logic. That might work in fantasy stories, but in SF stories it's a no-go.  

Here's a question. After millions or billions of years, on a currently lifeless planet the simplest forms of life might form, these life forms, having formed after the crucible was fired, would be devoid of the benefits of Synthesis. After billions of years and countless cycles of evolution have passed they will eventually reach the stars. Synthesis seems dependent on the crucible, would they be left out? Or will organics by then have found a way to spread it without the crucible? If so, would they be willing to share it?

I think that people will find out what exactly was done rather soon, and eventually take control of their own biology. A scenario like yours would make an excellent far-future story I must say. What exactly the synthesized people would do depends on many factors, entirely too complex to make a prediction. Culture comes in, politics, interstellar laws, the kind of people who make the first contact, the attitude of the discovered, etc.. etc..

[DirtyPhoenix]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Honestly Synthesis would have benefited much more if the concept had been slowly introduced and explained throughout the game.

*In Anderson's voice* Exactly!
*In TIM's voice* My point exactly.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I guess Synthesis seems so out of place because the new organic-synthetics storyline was introduced at the 11th hour, and synthesis is a direct consequence of that. Therefore synthetic-organic storyline feels out of place and so does synthesis. Control was always foreshadowed, it was just the possibility of successfully control the reapers that we didn't know. Synthesis on the other hand, the whole concept and the possibility of its success, is alien. I guess thats what you get by rushing a game and changing the story at the last moment.

I was watching Fringe last night, in that episode it depicted an ancient cult intent on speeding human evolution in an artificial way. Guided evolution they called it. Something like this could have been shown in ME3. Guided evolution through implants, resulting in a perfectly sane squad mate perhaps? He/She could have changed our view on synthesis in the same way Legion changed our view on the Geth and synthetics in general back in ME2.

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...
I guess Synthesis seems so out of place because the new organic-synthetics storyline was introduced at the 11th hour, and synthesis is a direct consequence of that. Therefore synthetic-organic storyline feels out of place and so does synthesis. Control was always foreshadowed, it was just the possibility of successfully control the reapers that we didn't know. Synthesis on the other hand, the whole concept and the possibility of its success, is alien. I guess thats what you get by rushing a game and changing the story at the last moment.

I think it may also be because different writers had different visions. There are also two different aspects to it: the organic/synthetic divide and the role of the Reapers. As for the former, the first hint that something loosely pointing at Synthesis could be achieved was the aftermath of the geth/quarian peace. However, that the Reapers might be more than Lovecraftian horrors was obvious to anyone who cared to look and to make conclusions untainted by the visual imagery, right at the end of ME2. I wasn't sure if the writers would follow up on that in ME3, since so much else was left at the wayside, but they did.  

I was watching Fringe last night, in that episode it depicted an ancient cult intent on speeding human evolution in an artificial way. Guided evolution they called it. Something like this could have been shown in ME3. Guided evolution through implants, resulting in a perfectly sane squad mate perhaps? He/She could have changed our view on synthesis in the same way Legion changed our view on the Geth and synthetics in general back in ME2.

I have no idea what "Fringe" is, so I can't comment on that, but the idea of an artificially advanced team member is interesting. Still, that would make the question "Why use the Crucible to forcibly do this to everyone if we can do it ourselves to only those who want it?" even more virulent.

[Xandurpein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It's undefined enough that we can make our own version. Honestly, I think the writers didn't think Synthesis through very much. The original description (which annoyingly is still in the game after the EC) is pretty good evidence of that. As well as Mike Gamble's tweet "There's no organic or synthetic any more, just life". I think they were thinking in themes and symbolism too much without grounding it in in-world logic. That might work in fantasy stories, but in SF stories it's a no-go.

I agree. It's sad really, because there will never be possible to have much of a rational debate between those who like the Synthesis ending and those who abhorr it. What little facts we have about it, is so vague that it's impossible to base a rational discussion about it. To be able to discuss it, you pretty much have to do what you do, pick an assumtpion and than base your entire reason around that assumption. There's just nothing solid to use as an argument in a debate between those who feel differently.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 27 juillet 2012 - 12:06 .

[Xellith]

Ill debate with anyone about synthesis as long as they can tell me exactly how it occurs in the first place >.> The whole "your esccence - the thing that makes you who and what you are - will be broken down. And then sent out" makes no sense whatsoever to my brain. I just cant take synthesis seriously without it being given at least some science whether its factual or pseudo.

[Xandurpein]

Xellith wrote...

Ill debate with anyone about synthesis as long as they can tell me exactly how it occurs in the first place >.> The whole "your esccence - the thing that makes you who and what you are - will be broken down. And then sent out" makes no sense whatsoever to my brain. I just cant take synthesis seriously without it being given at least some science whether its factual or pseudo.

To be fair, the OP has written a head canon that makes about as much sense as you can get out Synthesis. It still involves ignoring a lot of what Catalyst actually says, but as head canon go, it's a commendable effort.

[Ieldra]

Xandurpein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

It's undefined enough that we can make our own version. Honestly, I think the writers didn't think Synthesis through very much. The original description (which annoyingly is still in the game after the EC) is pretty good evidence of that. As well as Mike Gamble's tweet "There's no organic or synthetic any more, just life". I think they were thinking in themes and symbolism too much without grounding it in in-world logic. That might work in fantasy stories, but in SF stories it's a no-go.

I agree. It's sad really, because there will never be possible to have much of a rational debate between those who like the Synthesis ending and those who abhorr it. What little facts we have about it, is so vague that it's impossible to base a rational discussion about it. To be able to discuss it, you pretty much have to do what you do, pick an assumtpion and than base your entire reason around that assumption. There's just nothing solid to use as an argument in a debate between those who feel differently.

Indeed. The problem is that with the EC, they've replaced a description that makes no sense with a description that has contradictions. If you want to create a coherent picture, you need to be selective.

BTW, I haven't ignored all that much. I've chosen to ignore the "final evolution of life" because it makes no sense in the first place, and to interpret the "new...DNA" as a metaphor because otherwise I'd have to explain the ridiculous notion of an organic/synthetic hybrid DNA. I feel justified to deal in that way with descriptions that make no sense. Why they didn't do away with that part in the EC I'll never understand. Perhaps it was to keep the fiction up that the EC is "clarification" rather than a retcon.

The big one is Shepard's sacrifice though. You can't ignore that, and fitting it in escapes me so far. Grr....I hate it if writers dismiss the science in the fiction as casually as here.

In the it comes down to this: I like the ideas that went into Synthesis, else I wouldn't have made this thread. I also like the results the EC presents us with. But the execution? The process? I can only shake my head. I wish I had the opportunity to speak with Casey Hudson and Mac Walters about why they wrote the original Synthesis as they did - it's still the original description that creates the problem. Had we only got the parts added by the EC, everything but Shepard's sacrifice would make sense.

After the EC, I got the ending I wanted, and that's really, really nice, but ME will forever be marred as an SF story in my mind because of this. And I am the one whose favorite ending this is. Don't think I can't understand those who dismiss it because of the symbolism which comes at the expense of in-world logic.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juillet 2012 - 02:50 .

[Xandurpein]

@Ieldra2 (I'm writing on an iPhone and can't be bothered to quote). The execution is indeed horrible. I'm not at all as averse to Trans-humanism as I may seem and I totally agree with you that the main flaw in Synthesis is the execution. As you say, it's pretty obvious that while Bioware have talented writers, Science Fiction seems out of their league, unless they get outside help.

I think our main difference is that you chose to assume that the result of the Synthesis ending will be something very positive, while I can't make that assumption based on the scant evidence we get. I'm just too sceptic to take EDI's words at face value.

[Ieldra]

Xandurpein wrote...
I think our main difference is that you chose to assume that the result of the Synthesis ending will be something very positive, while I can't make that assumption based on the scant evidence we get. I'm just too sceptic to take EDI's words at face value.

Fair enough, but I don't see it as that big of an assumption. Why should I be suspicious of EDI's words? I've trusted her with my life for two games. I have more reason to be suspicious of Hackett in Destroy when he says everything will be rebuilt in a fairly short time (which would include the relays). But here you are - it's rather too obvious that all high-EMS endings are meant to be good endings, though not to everyone's taste. I see the frequent attempts to make the post-Synthesis galaxy into a dystopia as attempts to disparage an ending that's not to people's tastes or offends their morality rather than a legitimate concern. Because you know, reason is the slave of the passions.

There are any numbers of ways things can go post-Synthesis. It's even possible the golden age will be short, civilization will fragment and war will break out between factions with radically different attitudes to the Synthesis, as in Aurora313's scenario. That's everyone's headcanon. But to deny the EC's imagery and the epilogue told by EDI and undermine it with conspiracy theories about indoctrination and such, that's all too obviously distaste running away with logic.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juillet 2012 - 03:12 .

[Xandurpein]

Oh I give you that with Metagaming it's obvious that Synthesis is meant to be a good ending. I just dislike using the fact that something is meant to be good as proof that it is. To be honest I think Synthesis isn't the worst ending in that respect.

Control is also meant to be a good ending, at least with high EMS, and here you have enough evidence to say with pretty convincing certainty that unless you interpret this ending only symbolically, it will not be anything near like the happy end the game wants us to believe.

[saracen16]

pirate1802 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Honestly Synthesis would have benefited much more if the concept had been slowly introduced and explained throughout the game.

*In Anderson's voice* Exactly!
*In TIM's voice* My point exactly.

"I am the evolution of organic life."
- Saren

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
 Why should I be suspicious of EDI's words?

Well, I'm not saying you should, but people tend to be (understandably) suspicious of utopian scenarios because they know utopias, by definition, do not exist.

Synthesis also has a big "show, don't tell" problem in the sense that the voiceover asks you to accept a bunch of ideas that the game hasn't sufficiently prepared the player to accept. This is not true of destroy, and less true of control than synthesis (I think).

Basically this all boils down to execution/implementation, which everybody agrees is not great. But I don't think it's surprising that people would be reluctant to accept the voiceover at face value.

[Xandurpein]

When the main argument is that something was meant to be good, but get little or no real facts, you invariably run into the problem of second guessing the writer. Even the Destroy ending had huge problems with that prior to the EC. I thought the writer intended the High EMS Destroy ending was intended to be as bleak as it first seemed. I thought it was meant to be a true renegade ending where Shepard lives happily ever after with his LI and didn't bother about that the rest of the Galaxy was in ruins. I still wonder about the possibility of Synthesis leading to some kind of Galactic hive mind. I don't like that idea, but I don't know if the weiters thought it was a cool idea.