9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

Not Ieldra but Destroy affirms the status quo. We shouldn't try for ascension. There are things man is really not meant to know. Normal is good.

Thats not what I got from it at all.  I took it as asserting that we don't need the Reapers to look out for us.  We make our own future.  We go into the future without the safety net that control or synthesis supplies.  

Modifié par Steelcan, 19 novembre 2012 - 04:33 .

[Ieldra]

Laforgus wrote...
I wont say the next millennial, but in couple of million of years Organic life will be reborn on the Milky Way, it can start with something as simple as a asteroid coming from another Galaxy into a planed of the Milky way.

In a couple of million years life intelligent life will be either gone to be reborn, or so advanced that it will take a completely unrecogizeable form. Anyway, no decision is for eternity.

by the current life forms,
That's basic Biology, and you know that Synthesis wont last forever. I suppose that your perfect Synthetic people will monitor and try to prevent this.

Destroying new-coming asteroids?
Killing Newborn Children who lack a full Synthesis?
Preventing new start and planets to be created?

Yeaa suree! Enjoy your Synthesis party while it last!

Just like any other civilization, post-Synthesis civilization will have no need to wipe out any other life forms as long as they won't constitute a threat big enough to warrant such measures. Newly-created organic life will most likely not pose a threat.

I have no idea why people assume post-Synthesis civlization to do any worse things than other civilation, or to take it as an argument against Synthesis if they do anything bad at all. People are still people, you know.

[atheelogos]

Laforgus wrote...

Destroying new-coming asteroids?
Killing Newborn Children who lack a full Synthesis?
Preventing new start and planets to be created?

What!? Where in the hell do you guys come up with this stuff?....

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Laforgus wrote...
I wont say the next millennial, but in couple of million of years Organic life will be reborn on the Milky Way, it can start with something as simple as a asteroid coming from another Galaxy into a planed of the Milky way.

In a couple of million years life intelligent life will be either gone to be reborn, or so advanced that it will take a completely unrecogizeable form. Anyway, no decision is for eternity.

by the current life forms,
That's basic Biology, and you know that Synthesis wont last forever. I suppose that your perfect Synthetic people will monitor and try to prevent this.

Destroying new-coming asteroids?
Killing Newborn Children who lack a full Synthesis?
Preventing new start and planets to be created?

Yeaa suree! Enjoy your Synthesis party while it last!

Just like any other civilization, post-Synthesis civilization will have no need to wipe out any other life forms as long as they won't constitute a threat big enough to warrant such measures. Newly-created organic life will most likely not pose a threat.

I have no idea why people assume post-Synthesis civlization to do any worse things than other civilation, or to take it as an argument against Synthesis if they do anything bad at all. People are still people, you know.

Yes, people are still people, they are jealous and selfish still, so unless synthesis rids these qualities, we are back to square one.

The situation could be worse though, since in post-synthesis world everyone will be enhanced to perfection, what are the chances of not developing ego similar to that of Sovereign and Harbinger?

BTW, I just completed the Virmire mission a few minutes ago, I realized that by the virtues of the ME3 ending, the antagonist of ME1 turns out to be an idealist

[Obadiah]

The catalyst spoke of a perfection that organics seek. If Synthesis had been achieved, uh, "naturally" I'd guess people would opt in to changes that affect emotions like jealousy, depression, and selfishness. Post Synthesis something similar is probably happening.

[CosmicGnosis]

jtav wrote...

Not Ieldra but Destroy affirms the status quo. We shouldn't try for ascension. There are things man is really not meant to know. Normal is good.

That's interesting. In the past, I've argued that Control maintains the status quo because the Reaper "regime" is still in place. They have a different leader, but the galaxy is still being manipulated by them.

Destroy and Synthesis always seemed to be the more radical choices to me. Destroy completely removes the regime. Synthesis is... well, ambiguous.

[Taboo]

jtav wrote...

Not Ieldra but Destroy affirms the status quo. We shouldn't try for ascension. There are things man is really not meant to know. Normal is good.

No it really doesn't. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you you need to paint it poorly. What it does do is reaffirm that people can do things on their own, free from overbearance of control and the Reapers.

If I might be frank I think you take this topic a bit too seriously. Normality is not a crime nor is it a bad thing. Becoming better is not a bad thing either. In Destroy you can make that future on your own terms and quite frankly that's just what happens. People will earn their advancements. Mordin would be proud.

From an aesthetic standpoint I'm not sure why this ending suprises you as it fits thematically, as does Control. Synthesis is the odd duck here.

[Ieldra]

Yes, Taboo, Destroy *does* thematically affirm the Lovecraftian stance that there are things we aren't meant to know and that we shouldn't try to ascend beyond what our nature is now. Just because you like one aspect of it doesn't mean others aren't present as well.

It's not really "normal is good" as jtav claims, but rather "the human condition as it is is good". Destroy affirms the traditional. Don't tell me it doesn't, you've been saying something similar about Miranda based on the realization that ME3 as a whole does it for months. It's the reason why so many people think that Destroy is the only ending that fits the story, instead of recognizing that the other endings try to subvert that theme, clumsily as they go about doing it, and unsuccessful as they are doomed to be in it as long as most people don't actively seek for the minuscule amount of supporting evidence in the story that came before.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 novembre 2012 - 03:15 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, Taboo, Destroy *does* thematically affirm the Lovecraftian stance that there are things we aren't meant to know and that we shouldn't try to ascend beyond what our nature is now. Just because you like one aspect of it doesn't mean others aren't present as well.

I've never disapproved of the benefits simply the method. I can't think of the method of activation without laughing.

It's not really "normal is good" as jtav claims, but rather "the human condition as it is is good". Destroy affirms the traditional. Don't tell me it doesn't, you've been saying something similar about Miranda based on the realization that ME3 as a whole does it for months. It's the reason why so many people think that Destroy is the only ending that fits the story, instead of recognizing that the other endings try to subvert that theme, clumsily as they go about doing it, and unsuccessful as they are doomed to be in it as long as most people don't actively seek for the minuscule amount of supporting evidence in the story that came before.

The human condition is terrible and any sane person knows that. But it's what we have and what it's going to be for a long time. Synthesis will not stop conflict nor will it stop any other problems. Rape, murder, theft and all that fun stuff is still there.

From a thematic standpoint this is where you and I differ though. I never expected many of these traits to manifest thematically. Miranda is the way she is and that's fine, I wasn't expecting what you were nor was I expecting anything substantial in the "progress" department.

I'll again be frank and say you're using what I like to call the "Freudian Knife". Just because someone kills with a knife in a form of media does not make them sexually frustrated.

Just as having an ending where everything returns to normal does not reaffirm traditionalism.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Sigmund Freud

And we all know Freud was nuts. 

I have however always been suspicious of Dirty Harry's gun...

[Steelcan]

I think there is a difference between maintains the status quo as destroy does, and saying there are things we shouldn't know. It's not that we shouldn't know them, it's that we have to get there on our own.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, Taboo, Destroy *does* thematically affirm the Lovecraftian stance that there are things we aren't meant to know and that we shouldn't try to ascend beyond what our nature is now. Just because you like one aspect of it doesn't mean others aren't present as well.

I've never disapproved of the benefits simply the method. I can't think of the method of activation without laughing.

I can't exactly fault you for that, I admit...

I'll again be frank and say you're using what I like to call the "Freudian Knife". Just because someone kills with a knife in a form of media does not make them sexually frustrated.

Just as having an ending where everything returns to normal does not reaffirm traditionalism.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Sigmund Freud

Ah, but we're dealing with a work of fiction here. As long as it isn't outright stated, nobody will ever be able to prove, in any reasonably objective sense, that some theme is present in the writing. But that's not how fiction works, no? Perception shapes the story as much, perhaps even more, than any merely denotative meaning of the words.

Thus, if you put on a Lovecraftian lens, then the theme of affirming the human condition is clearly visible in Destroy, and if you use a different lens, it may become invisible. The only question is how appropriate it is to view the story through the Lovecraftian lens. I'd say given the presentation of the Reapers throughout the trilogy, it's rather more appropriate than less.

Another lens you can use is the trope Romanticism versus Enlightenment, and you'll come to the same conclusion. Romanticism tropes are clearly visibly associated with Destroy (and with all original endings btw). 

I'd say that as long as a reasonably well-known lens exists through which a theme becomes visible, and there is no reason to see the use of that lens as inappropriate, you have a good claim saying that the themes that become visible through that lens exist in the story. Thus, you may not approve of the message, and it may play no part in your personal experience of the story, but you cannot deny it exists.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
I think there is a difference between maintains the status quo as destroy does, and saying there are things we shouldn't know. It's not that we shouldn't know them, it's that we have to get there on our own.

And here come the Protestant ethics again - what we haven't "earned" isn't worth having or even bad to have. That's a cultural lens I always found flabbergasting, considering that most of the knowledge of any given culture is stolen, bought or inherited.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I think there is a difference between maintains the status quo as destroy does, and saying there are things we shouldn't know. It's not that we shouldn't know them, it's that we have to get there on our own.

And here come the Protestant ethics again - what we haven't "earned" isn't worth having or even bad to have. That's a cultural lens I always found flabbergasting, considering that most of the knowledge of any given culture is stolen, bought or inherited.

Gotta love Protestants.  But I don't see why you bring that up?  I wasn't saying that.  Technology is not inherently biased, it is not good or bad to know things.  But in order to reach the technology we have to advance as society, learn how to use it responsibly, see Mordin on the uplifting of the Krogan or Collectors.  

[His Name was HYR!!]

Asari uplifted the Elcor, nothing bad came of that.

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Asari uplifted the Elcor, nothing bad came of that.

. The Elcor didn't nuke their planet 20X over.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Steelcan wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Asari uplifted the Elcor, nothing bad came of that.

. The Elcor didn't nuke their planet 20X over.

But were not even advanced enough to find the nearest mass-relay, either. Besides, if the krogan had nukes, they had to have had a scientist as smart as Einstein.

[jtav]

The real problem isn't uplift. It's using people as tools. The salarians didn't give a whit about the krogan except as rachni-killers. And it bit them in the tail.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
Technology is not inherently biased, it is not good or bad to know things.  But in order to reach the technology we have to advance as society, learn how to use it responsibly, see Mordin on the uplifting of the Krogan or Collectors.

This argument is flawed. Yes, even if Mordin uses it. You cannot learn to use a technology responsibly if you don't have it. The adaptation of a society to a new technology always comes after it already exists. Gift human civilization the ability to turn our sun into a nova, and we will adapt to its presence. If we develop the ability ourselves, we will adapt to its presence as well. People may foresee future problems, but the cultural mainstream will not pre-emptively adapt to speculative technologies.

Also, what jtav said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 novembre 2012 - 06:10 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Technology is not inherently biased, it is not good or bad to know things.  But in order to reach the technology we have to advance as society, learn how to use it responsibly, see Mordin on the uplifting of the Krogan or Collectors.

This argument is flawed. Yes, even if Mordin uses it. You cannot learn to use a technology responsibly if you don't have it. The adaptation of a society to a new technology always comes after it already exists. Gift human civilization the ability to turn our sun into a nova, and we will adapt to its presence. If we develop the ability ourselves, we will adapt to its presence as well. People may foresee future problems, but the cultural mainstream will not pre-emptively adapt to speculative technologies.

Also, what jtav said.

. That's what I was trying to get at we will adapt to the technology at our own pace.  To use your example, give humanity the ability to cause supernovas and we will adapt to it, but it still would be prudent to try and limit the acess to this kind of technology.  But my wording is atrocious I admit. 

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Asari uplifted the Elcor, nothing bad came of that.

. The Elcor didn't nuke their planet 20X over.

But were not even advanced enough to find the nearest mass-relay, either. Besides, if the krogan had nukes, they had to have had a scientist as smart as Einstein.

. They were the most advanced species for a time, the codex details their early civilization, but evantually they sunk into nuclear war.  That and the two cultures are entirely different.  The Elcor appear to be very very conservative and slow to act.

[Obadiah]

I think the whole point of the Krogan ruins in ME3 was to show that the Krogans Shepard meets don't fully understand their own nature or past.

[Bill Casey]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

jtav wrote...

Not Ieldra but Destroy affirms the status quo. We shouldn't try for ascension. There are things man is really not meant to know. Normal is good.

That's interesting. In the past, I've argued that Control maintains the status quo because the Reaper "regime" is still in place. They have a different leader, but the galaxy is still being manipulated by them.

Destroy and Synthesis always seemed to be the more radical choices to me. Destroy completely removes the regime. Synthesis is... well, ambiguous.

Synthesis is equivolent to human experimentation...
Except the universe is the test subject, it's always failed and you can't test it on rats first...
Also, you just found out about it a minute ago from the reapers, who also engage in unethical experimentation on sapient life forms. And people are still arguing over what the experiment actually did...

There's a lot of unethical experimentation in the Mass Effect universe...
Dr. Saleon, Maelon, Okeer, Cerberus, Henry Lawson, etc...

Hell, in Mass Effect 2, there's a sidequest where a now green Shiala wants you to help get the people of Feros out of medical contracts because the fine print allows the company to perform invasive procedures without their consent...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 21 novembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Thus, if you put on a Lovecraftian lens, then the theme of affirming the human condition is clearly visible in Destroy, and if you use a different lens, it may become invisible. The only question is how appropriate it is to view the story through the Lovecraftian lens. I'd say given the presentation of the Reapers throughout the trilogy, it's rather more appropriate than less.

The human condition is one of suffering and torment. What I saw was an ass grab so large it makes tacked on happy endings to European imports look good.

Another lens you can use is the trope Romanticism versus Enlightenment, and you'll come to the same conclusion. Romanticism tropes are clearly visibly associated with Destroy (and with all original endings btw).

They're all romaticized. I explained this months ago when I said they'd make the endings more palatable. They're all exceedingly pleasent with no side effects.

The only thing missing from the Synthesis epilouge is John Lennon's Imagine.

And What A Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong in Destroy.

R-O-M-A-N-T-I-C-I-Z-E-D.

I'd say that as long as a reasonably well-known lens exists through which a theme becomes visible, and there is no reason to see the use of that lens as inappropriate, you have a good claim saying that the themes that become visible through that lens exist in the story. Thus, you may not approve of the message, and it may play no part in your personal experience of the story, but you cannot deny it exists.

From a thematic standpoint Shepard has no idea what the hell is going to happen. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say MOST people here wouldn't jump into a beam because an AI told them too. Not only is the sequence hilarious it makes no goddamn sense.

Realism vs. Mysticism.

^ Realism is far more important to me than Mysticism in fiction. Big deal if it leads to enlightenment. It violates suspension of disbelief on all fronts. I'd much rather have a story be consistent than have an ending literally come out of the ass end of the lore.

Also the Omega Trailer should be out today. I think. I hope. Pepper your angus.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 novembre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
You don't understand the meaning of "romanticized". The term refers to classic Romanticism, as described in the trope picture I linked. It has nothing to do with making things appear good, but rather in enshrining the "natural" as good in spite of all the bad. Romanticism facilitates an anti-advancement viewpoint.

Also, playing with themes has nothing mystical about it. We don't ever forget we're in a story anyway. Otherwise we would play games iron-man style.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo:
You don't understand the meaning of "romanticized". The term refers to classic Romanticism, as described in the trope picture I linked. It has nothing to do with making things appear good, but rather in enshrining the "natural" as good in spite of all the bad. Romanticism facilitates an anti-advancement viewpoint.

Also, playing with themes has nothing mystical about it. We don't ever forget we're in a story anyway. Otherwise we would play games iron-man style.

I've already talked about this. There is no such thematic material in there. It's a load of bollocks. Just because something isn't there doesn't mean it re-enforces anything. 

ALL OF THE ENDINGS LOOK GOOD. THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT.

It's a marketing technique, not a thematic jab at things you don't like. There is no plot here.