9089 réponses à ce sujet

[SimonTheFrog]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Can we please stop this IT nonsense from intruding everywhere? Also, one person's space magic is another's sufficiently advanced technology. People just call it space magic when they don't like it. And that's the end of it. Suggestive *terminology* like Mac Walters used in the description, that's a different matter altogether, but since this is an SF universe we come up with appropriate interpretations for the reality of it that make sense in in-world logic.

Which could have been made a lot more satisfying by BioWare if the end wouldn't contradict itself and the rest of the game as much.
I feel that trying to make sense out of synthesis is very challenging and very futile endeavor given the little information we have on it.
I noticed you enjoy the process, though, so "yeah" i guess.

[Ieldra]

I say: if things don't appear to make sense, make them make sense!

We even managed to make sense of Shepard's sacrifice - by saying that what Shepard thinks about it will influence what Synthesis will be, within the limits of other parts of the Catalyst's exposition. That way we avoid that suggestion of vitalism *and* we manage to give Shepard some agency back. I think that's a rather desirable outcome.

Of course, we need to presume that the Crucible's technology is too primitive to read what it needs from Shepard's mind without destroying his brain, but that's a much easier sell than having to throw away fundamental aspects of the whole ME universe just to accomodate Mac Walters' comic book-logic.

[Chashan]

Been a long while since I checked in here, but...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I say: if things don't appear to make sense, make them make sense!

We even managed to make sense of Shepard's sacrifice - by saying that what Shepard thinks about it will influence what Synthesis will be, within the limits of other parts of the Catalyst's exposition. That way we avoid that suggestion of vitalism *and* we manage to give Shepard some agency back. I think that's a rather desirable outcome.

Of course, we need to presume that the Crucible's technology is too primitive to read what it needs from Shepard's mind without destroying his brain, but that's a much easier sell than having to throw away fundamental aspects of the whole ME universe just to accomodate Mac Walters' comic book-logic.

You, and other proponents in this thread did oftentimes underline this, that the blunt implications of magicks, soul-energy voodoo and what-have-you EC-Green still throws at us is intolerable.
In that sense, what say you to editing Green to something that is agreeable for the consensus?

What I am alluding to is that actually modifying the ending is a feat that can actually be pulled off, as admirably demonstrated by another user of this forum, MrFob. I will not deny that the one version where the...say..."final debate" is completely cut is my current favorite.* Modifying that in a further, meaningful way - getting rid of the thing in favour of something, near-enough anything else would already go far - may happen eventually too, at that.
However, as that user said, possibilities are anything but limited far as modifying the end to be something more worthwhile is concerned, and were someone to step forth and pursue a similar project for Green, I for one would endorse that. As long as it would throw the circuitry-for-everyone-lotion out the window.

In short, if BW are not willing to, us, the users can

make them make sense!

Regardless of ending-flavour. And on screen to boot.


*PS: I also will not deny that this modification's existence has been the sole motivation for me to try another playthrough.

[Ieldra]

Chashan wrote...

Been a long while since I checked in here, but...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I say: if things don't appear to make sense, make them make sense!

We even managed to make sense of Shepard's sacrifice - by saying that what Shepard thinks about it will influence what Synthesis will be, within the limits of other parts of the Catalyst's exposition. That way we avoid that suggestion of vitalism *and* we manage to give Shepard some agency back. I think that's a rather desirable outcome.

Of course, we need to presume that the Crucible's technology is too primitive to read what it needs from Shepard's mind without destroying his brain, but that's a much easier sell than having to throw away fundamental aspects of the whole ME universe just to accomodate Mac Walters' comic book-logic.

You, and other proponents in this thread did oftentimes underline this, that the blunt implications of magicks, soul-energy voodoo and what-have-you EC-Green still throws at us is intolerable.
In that sense, what say you to editing Green to something that is agreeable for the consensus?

I don't think that's possible, since the continued existence of the Reapers and making the legacy of past cycles available for the emergent post-Synthesis civilization is not something I would mod away. But other things may be open for changing, particularly the "logic" of Shepard's sacrifice.

What I am alluding to is that actually modifying the ending is a feat that can actually be pulled off, as admirably demonstrated by another user of this forum, MrFob. I will not deny that the one version where the...say..."final debate" is completely cut is my current favorite.* Modifying that in a further, meaningful way - getting rid of the thing in favour of something, near-enough anything else would already go far - may happen eventually too, at that.
However, as that user said, possibilities are anything but limited far as modifying the end to be something more worthwhile is concerned, and were someone to step forth and pursue a similar project for Green, I for one would endorse that. As long as it would throw the circuitry-for-everyone-lotion out the window.

I would be open to a scenario where the ending exposition is not presented by the Catalyst but by...hmmm...discovering information in a computer or suchlike. Then we'd have to create a scenario where basically the same kind of future results as in the EC, only that it's created in a different way, maybe with Shepard becoming the prototype for Synthesis and going on to convince the rest of the galaxy, with the epilogue implying it's largely successful. 

There are thematic difficulties in such a change, and the absence of the Catalyst would create some logic problems we'd have to deal with, but I think it could be done. Not sure if I'd actually like such a mod, which is after all, doomed to be less seamless than Bioware's ending, but it's certainly worth a try.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 novembre 2012 - 11:52 .

[Seival]

Just finished my new fan-art about Synthesis:

[Yesmar]

Seival is promoting anorexia in space, great job.
I wonder if Synthesis made her lips abnormal.

[Seival]

Yesmar wrote...

Seival is promoting anorexia in space, great job.
I wonder if Synthesis made her lips abnormal.

I'm not an artist, just know about how to create pictures a little. But I think that body proportions on that image are quite healthy.

[Yesmar]

Seival wrote...

Yesmar wrote...

Seival is promoting anorexia in space, great job.
I wonder if Synthesis made her lips abnormal.

I'm not an artist, just know about how to create pictures a little. But I think that body proportions on that image are quite healthy.

Yeah, real healthy looking.

[His Name was HYR!!]

 Harvard creates "cyborg" human tissue...

http://www.extremete...an-half-machine

[Seival]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Harvard creates "cyborg" human tissue...

http://www.extremete...an-half-machine

Welcome to the future

[Chashan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't think that's possible, since the continued existence of the Reapers and making the legacy of past cycles available for the emergent post-Synthesis civilization is not something I would mod away. But other things may be open for changing, particularly the "logic" of Shepard's sacrifice.

I would indeed be quite open if someone were to drop that particular bit altogether, yet, playing the game, there are several instances where BW actually managed to show poignant, well-done scenarios of life-and-death matters. The Batarian saboteur comes to mind, the argument about extending the life of the Huerta Memorial's sponsor...
Yes, I will admit that I have not quite dropped the idea that, "freed" of their directives, the Reapers would elect to put a close to their existence on their own. That, of course, in no way obstructs them passing on the data they may contain of past cycles, certain observations of astrological phenomena etc.
Even then, this requires the premise that Reapers do indeed have distinct collective consciousnesses. Something the game itself does not exactly show outright, but I could run with that.

I would be open to a scenario where the ending exposition is not presented by the Catalyst but by...hmmm...discovering information in a computer or suchlike. Then we'd have to create a scenario where basically the same kind of future results as in the EC, only that it's created in a different way, maybe with Shepard becoming the prototype for Synthesis and going on to convince the rest of the galaxy, with the epilogue implying it's largely successful. 

That would be something I could get aboard with as well, even though such would have to wait until such time that someone manages to fundamentally alter the "giant dialog-wheel"-room.
However, as I am sure you are aware of as well, keeping the Reapers' continued existence in would be somewhat...difficult, at any rate. Maybe have the Crucible create a Reaper-pacifying wave...?

Whatever the lay-out, it could be realised at any rate.

There are thematic difficulties in such a change, and the absence of the Catalyst would create some logic problems we'd have to deal with, but I think it could be done. Not sure if I'd actually like such a mod, which is after all, doomed to be less seamless than Bioware's ending, but it's certainly worth a try.

Pardon my saying so, but I think the thing itself is a logical problem. So, I cannot say that I would mind its absence for an altered Green end.

The fact that whatever is done would be fan-made and of a different quality than what BW's development-studio could come up with isn't a bother for me either. Already enjoy montages and videos by fans as alternatives to the vanilla-endings quite a bit, all the more now that I can have such right on screen within the game too.

[Ieldra]

Seival wrote...

Just finished my new fan-art about Synthesis:

Nice. I like it. If you dont mind some minor criticism - the green lips are a bit much, a darker tone would look better. As for the proportions: maybe not completely realistic, but your style isn't meant to be realistic. It's more reminiscent of comic book art - which have done worse in the past.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 novembre 2012 - 08:22 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

I thought of a possible scenario where Victory (From ..From Ashes) replaces the starbrat. His VA is quite imposing too.

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Just finished my new fan-art about Synthesis:

Nice. I like it. If you dont mind some minor criticism - the green lips are a bit much, a darker tone would look better. As for the proportions: maybe not completely realistic, but your style isn't meant to be realistic. It's more reminiscent of comic book art - which have done worse in the past.

Thanks

My next picture will also be about Synthesis, and I'll try to do it better.

[Obadiah]

I'm reading Retribution now, and just got to the Greyson-transformation section. Ok, now I see the whole "genetic rape" parallel that people have been complaining about.

While obviously Synthesis is not the same as Reaper Indoctrination or Husk transformation, the parallels are disturbing. I am surprised that Bioware has these separate non-consensual transformations in the Mass Effect lore, but does not address the disparity.

I can also understand why some will never select this option.

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...
I thought of a possible scenario where Victory (From ..From Ashes) replaces the starbrat. His VA is quite imposing too.

Care to elaborate? How would you make it possible that he appears in the Citadel/Crucible scene?

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
I'm reading Retribution now, and just got to the Greyson-transformation section. Ok, now I see the whole "genetic rape" parallel that people have been complaining about.

While obviously Synthesis is not the same as Reaper Indoctrination or Husk transformation, the parallels are disturbing. I am surprised that Bioware has these separate non-consensual transformations in the Mass Effect lore, but does not address the disparity.

I can also understand why some will never select this option.

For me, it was always clear that what came to be called "Synthesis" (in the leaked script it didn't have a name) was meant to be a good thing overall, gained at the price of the biochemical purity which is held sacrosanct by some, and only meant to be rejected by those. It's obvious in hindsight that this reaction wasn't universal. Maybe the writers were too deep into their own ideas to see that it's as easy to connect Synthesis with the less palatable aspects of their story.

Also, I understand several reasons why people don't choose Synthesis. I just don't understand why they expect me to make them my own. The debates about the CB in ME2 were as passionate, but in the end most of us could agree to disagree peacefully.

[Yesmar]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, I understand several reasons why people don't choose Synthesis. I just don't understand why they expect me to make them my own. The debates about the CB in ME2 were as passionate, but in the end most of us could agree to disagree peacefully.

I am glad I was not taking part in those, looking back.
It seems like a great waste of time, the ME1 ending choice is more meaningful than the irrelevant choices at the end of it's two sequels.


I would blame Bioware for you not agreeing to disagree.

Modifié par Yesmar, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:43 .

[Obadiah]

Yeah... I think the game writers bit off a tad more than they could chew with Synthesis. The lack of insight about their own lore is a little sad when you think about it.

People are really resilient, and whereas I think most members of the Council races would come to accept Synthesis as beneficial and something they can't change, some will have an ,"OMG, GET THIS OUT OF ME!!!!" reaction for various reasons. That should have been addressed in the EC epilogue somewhere.

Modifié par Obadiah, 12 novembre 2012 - 03:23 .

[AshenShug4r]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Can we please stop this IT nonsense from intruding everywhere? Also, one person's space magic is another's sufficiently advanced technology. People just call it space magic when they don't like it. And that's the end of it. Suggestive *terminology* like Mac Walters used in the description, that's a different matter altogether, but since this is an SF universe we come up with appropriate interpretations for the reality of it that make sense in in-world logic.

There was nothing to suggest we had such sufficiently advanced technology. It just doesn't make any sense. Not making sense is bad.

[Taboo]

Not to bring up more lolz but even TIM points out how stupid Clark's Third Law is IN the ME Comic he's in.

I just had to get that off my chest.

[Chashan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...
I thought of a possible scenario where Victory (From ..From Ashes) replaces the starbrat. His VA is quite imposing too.

Care to elaborate? How would you make it possible that he appears in the Citadel/Crucible scene?

I reckon in a similar manner to what MrFob tried to do in his other, previous modification, MEEM: replace the model, dialogue and - of course - voice of the creature with a VI left behind by the Prothean scientist-team. He got as far as dissecting the thing to a point it is not clearly a child any longer, sorta similar to Vigil's look.

And yes, while incomplete, his take on that already worked wonders to make that exchange bearable.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Not to bring up more lolz but even TIM points out how stupid Clark's Third Law is IN the ME Comic he's in.

I just had to get that off my chest.

No, he doesn't point that out. Clarke's Third Law states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (implication: from the low-tech POV). It says nothing about the real nature of things, only the apparent nature. TIM asserts that whatever may appear like magic due to being sufficiently advanced technology, actually is not magic but technology which we'll be able to decipher once we're sufficiently advanced, or in the course of advancement. The two statements are perfectly compatible, and I subscribe to both of them.

Also, yes, it is perfectly clear from early in the game that the Crucible is something we may be able to build, but not fully understand, that its working are the kind of advanced technology which may appear like magic to us "primitives". It's actually rather implausible that we can build it at all, but the writers didn't want a DEM device so they made the plot center around its building (that they introduced a literal DEM with the Catalyst is a different matter):

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 novembre 2012 - 12:40 .

[Ieldra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, I understand several reasons why people don't choose Synthesis. I just don't understand why they expect me to make them my own. The debates about the CB in ME2 were as passionate, but in the end most of us could agree to disagree peacefully.

I think that people object to you and your fellow syn-pathisers ignoring the explicit propositions of synthesis in an attempt to duck the moral and ethical responsibilities of making that particular choice.

And I object to you and your fellow detractors claiming the outcomes of synthetics are "explicit" or "obvious" when your ideas about it are anything but and clearly made up to discredit the choice.

Does Synthesis make a global biochemical change to all organics? Yes, it does. It may even be genetic (the EC contradicts itself here, or it may be meant metaphorically), but whether or not it is doesn't matter because it's clearly meant to be fundamental - and thus highly morally significant - in some way. Yes, making such a global change is very problematic and In normal circumstances I would never think of doing such a thing. That's the only obviously morally significant aspect, and no, I am not "ducking" it, I don't like it and I say so. We don't ignore it, we justify our decision in spite of it. Also, please note that my meta-ethics are part consequentialist, so we may be talking past each other when debating such things.

Anyway, beyond that, there is absolutely no indication that Synthesis does anything bad to people. Any anti-Synthesis argument that goes beyond the objection "You're making a global change to people without their consent" is irrelevant. You think that objection trumps all other considerations? Fine. I understand that Synthesis is not for you. That's how it should be. Different choices for people with different ideological stances and different value hierarchies. Just don't try to justify your antipathy by claiming the outcome is bad. Because ever since the EC, it clearly, obviously isn't. Not unless you see that "integration of technology" as bad or think in terms of "the Reapers shouldn't get away with this".  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 novembre 2012 - 10:35 .