9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

clennon8 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

@dork: Shepard just needed "more data" from the most successful brainwasher and mass murder in galactic history.

ED:  Heh.  Right on queue, CG ninja'd me.

Well, when Michael Gamble implies that Synthesis is his favorite ending, something is going on. Either he's a moron who "didn't get it", or Synthesis is intended to be, at the very least, a good ending. Yeah, it's weird that the main villain presents the choices, but it appears that we aren't supposed to care about that. The whole thing should have been different. But this is what we have.

but the catalyst IS NOT THE MAIN VILLAIN. WE are..hence the chaos. The destroy crowd is trapped in the story, they cannot come above their greviences as to see the reality they face. The game tricks players into that and switches the flip with the catalyst revelation. The CRUCIBLE is proof of that as the Cat is removed by it, other than to 'serve' Shep up with the choices menu. The ONLY question, and even that is metagame, is who the heck divined the choices and THAT is a crop planted for speculation. The engineers of the crucible would be an interesting reveal, but not as much as the authors of the choices would be...
Leviathan was non contributory to most destroy optionizers as well. They're just hired guns..

With destroy there IS NO SPECULATION, set to ignore any and every clue in the game and go for what seems obvious. It appears that this game (ME3 anyways) was over designed for the previous installments, too much too fast with no direct control, well at least not enough. Starts out shooter,ends up no boss fight thinker tinker. imho

 

This needs to go up on a Wall of Shame somewhere as being one of the stupidest posts ever.  Seriously.  In a history of uncountable poorly-written, poorly-spelled, poorly-reasonsed posts, you have outdone yourself.  Congrats.

Let me just recap:  The billion-year old brainwashing mass murderer is not the villiain.  WE are.

Okay then.  Moving right along.

We aren't the villain, but I'm not sure the Catalyst is either. 

[His Name was HYR!!]

The catalyst is not a villain. It's a plot-device (info-dump).

[Ieldra]

@LineHolder:
I think various ideas that make up the Synthesis ending as explained in the EC did exist in the story before. Integration of technology (biotics, anyone, to say nothing of Shepard), organic/synthetic symbiosis (quarians and geth after Rannoch), various hints of "ascension" in good and bad ways throughout the trilogy.

The problems are twofold:

First, the utopian vibe they gave Synthesis is like nothing we see elsewhere in the trilogy. ME was always "realistic" with things like peace and war, conflict resolution etc.., sometimes even cynical. It is why I interpret Synthesis in a more realistic way, with new wonders and new horrors both, and with only the reason for the organic/synthetic extinction scenario removed.

Second, the way it comes about and parts of the exposition are downright ludicrous. Wilful invocation of the sacrifice theme with no grounding in in-world logic; the original notion of something like hybrid DNA; the nonsensical idea of a "final evolution", yet another wilful invocation of inappropriate eschatological themes; transferring allegorical meaning as literal into the fictional universe, and so on. It reads like a "don't do that" list for science fiction writers.

Still, in the end I find Synthesis results in the most interesting future if you temper the imagery in the epilogue with the realistic tone of the story that came before, and because of that I can overlook the flaws while playing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 08:52 .

[Ieldra]

Well, I refuse to let these flaws ruin my story and a future I like. That's the main reason why I started this thread. Create some sense from confusion. Treat the "final evoution" as hyperbole and the "new...DNA" as a bad metaphor, disregard the pseudo-mystical crap and speak of thoughts and memories and information instead of "essence" and "organic energy", and things become a lot more tolerable.

Doesn't mean that I don't want to slap the writer responsible at times.

[Ieldra]

LineHolder wrote...
Doesn't that take your concept of Synthesis and how it is implemented far away from the game's concept of the same?

The "new...DNA" was always a metaphor. It's very noticeable by the pause that the Catalyst makes, as if this expression was meant to convey something there's no fitting analogy for in the mind of a human of average intelligence. Turning someone into a cellular-level cyborg does not necessarily need any genetic change. You can have synthetic symbiotes that work similar to mitochondria, which have their own set of "genetic" information and transfer unchanged from mother to child, and make them create anything you might need for integration of technology etc..


Also, there is no such thing as a "final evolution". This expression is based on the false notion of a "goal-oriented evolution". It is a concept often used in fiction, based on a wrong understanding of evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing. Unless a writer tells me explicitly that in his world, other than in the real world, there actually exists such a thing, I'm always going to assume that the writer either doesn't know what he's talking about or uses common tropes without thinking of the wider implications. So interpret this "final evolution" as "a great step forward on some scale of artificial evolution whose arbitrarily-set goal includes seamless tech integration and ascension to a higher cognitive awareness of the universe".


Regarding the utopian vibe, it has been observed that all endings gloss over possible negative side effects, possibly in an attempt to drive home to the players that these endings are meant to be good endings. Just like others, I apply a "realism filter" to the shown outcome.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 02:53 .

[Steelcan]

I'm going to have to disagree with that Ieldra. I don't think he's speaking in metaphor. It's SuperMac's comic book science, nothing more.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
I'm going to have to disagree with that Ieldra. I don't think he's speaking in metaphor. It's SuperMac's comic book science, nothing more.

I have no idea what the writer intended, but the way this line is delivered heavily hints that it should be interpreted as a metaphor. Anyway, it easily *can* be interpreted as a metaphor, so I do. Why? Because the idea of a "hybrid DNA analogue" makes no sense, but the more general idea of a cellular-level cyborg does.

Given the alternative of either having to believe in nonsense or having to interpret things as metaphorical - I don't know about others, but for me the choice is a foregone conclusion. Also, the writer's intention is irrelevant.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 03:03 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I'm going to have to disagree with that Ieldra. I don't think he's speaking in metaphor. It's SuperMac's comic book science, nothing more.

I have no idea what the writer intended, but the way this line is delivered heavily hints that it should be interpreted as a metaphor. Anyway, it easily *can* be interpreted as a metaphor, so I do. Why? Because the idea of a "hybrid DNA analogue" makes no sense, but the more general idea of a cellular-level cyborg does.

Given the alternative of either having to believe in nonsense or having to interpret things as metaphorical - I don't know about others, but for me the choice is a foregone conclusion. Also, the writer's intention is irrelevant.

. This is the same writing that produced Javik's sensory ability and asari reproduction.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I'm going to have to disagree with that Ieldra. I don't think he's speaking in metaphor. It's SuperMac's comic book science, nothing more.

I have no idea what the writer intended, but the way this line is delivered heavily hints that it should be interpreted as a metaphor.

I had the same impression. The way he says it sounds like he is is invoking a familiar concept to describe a vastly more complicated one.

[Ieldra]

LineHolder wrote...
@Ieldra2

If you being a human can come up with that analogy of symbiotes to what is happening in synthesis, why can't a hyper advanced AI come up with something similar or better rather than just calling it rewritten DNA?

The writers have shown the ability to make an AI explain stuff like the Quantum Communicators in ME2 and this should have been child's play, excuse the pun.

It should come as no surprise that viewers slam the logic of the brat because the sole reason of his sorry existence in the story is to be an info dump and he can't even do that without resorting to metaphorical crap.

By that point I am in no mood to indulge allegories or metaphors as cheap get out cards for the writers.

You might as well ask: why did the writers put that nonsense "essence of a species" into the ME2 SM dialogue, when they also had a technical explanation already written that made perfect sense and was supported by other parts of the lore, to the point that you can actually infer the content of the cut lines? I'd say it was because they wanted to make things appear more incomprehensible than they really are, but the result was just an epic fail.

I am blaming the writers. But I won't let it ruin my story. Thus, I aim to divest the writing of all attempts at intentional obfuscation. If that means my interpretation also divests it of any unintentional stupidity, so much the better.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 06:06 .

[clennon8]

LineHolder wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You might as well ask: why did the writers put that nonsense "essence of a species" into the ME2 SM dialogue, when they also had a technical explanation already written that made perfect sense and was supported by other parts of the lore, to the point that you can actually infer the content of the cut lines? I'd say it was because they wanted to make things appear more incomprehensible than they really are, but the result was just an epic fail.

I am blaming the writers. But I won't let it ruin my story. Thus, I aim to divest the writing of all attempts at intentional obfuscation. If that means my interpretation also divests it of any unintentional stupidity, so much the better.

Then aren't you re-interpreting synthesis/ascension from its meaning in-game to one you personally see plausible or prefer? I don't see anything wrong with that but at that point, you are talking about synthesis as a concept and not as a story event in the game.

I actually like the concept of 'ascension' but not in the context of ME. The game needed to stand on its own and explain the ideas it was putting forward at the end. It fails hard at that and that's why i don't generally like to discuss the ending choices themselves. They are already standing on thin ice (or thin air).

Your post should seem very familiar to Ieldra2.  I've been riding him about his decontextualization of Synthesis for months now.  It's like he got to the end of the book, threw the book away, and then someone gave him a pop quiz where the only question was: "Do you like the idea of humans transcending their purely organic roots?"

Modifié par clennon8, 20 février 2013 - 06:50 .

[Ieldra]

LineHolder wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You might as well ask: why did the writers put that nonsense "essence of a species" into the ME2 SM dialogue, when they also had a technical explanation already written that made perfect sense and was supported by other parts of the lore, to the point that you can actually infer the content of the cut lines? I'd say it was because they wanted to make things appear more incomprehensible than they really are, but the result was just an epic fail.

I am blaming the writers. But I won't let it ruin my story. Thus, I aim to divest the writing of all attempts at intentional obfuscation. If that means my interpretation also divests it of any unintentional stupidity, so much the better.

Then aren't you re-interpreting synthesis/ascension from its meaning in-game to one you personally see plausible or prefer? I don't see anything wrong with that but at that point, you are talking about synthesis as a concept and not as a story event in the game.

If a part of the given exposition is nonsense, it has no in-game meaning. If a part of the given exposition is the result of intentional obfuscation, I see it as my task as the player/viewer/reader to find the sense in the nonsense. It may not be as easy as with the Reaper origin, but I think I have done that.

As for the ascension theme, listen to the last part of the Synthesis epilogue. That's the prospect of an ascension. I'm not pulling this idea out of my ass.

Otherwise, I admit to one premise: All endings are good endings from some reasonable point of view. If you see that as "twisting the meaning", I'm guilty as charged.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 07:05 .

[CronoDragoon]

clennon8 wrote...
Your post should seem very familiar to Ieldra2.  I've been riding him about his decontextualization of Synthesis for months now.  It's like he got to the end of the book, threw the book away, and then someone gave him a pop quiz where the only question was: "Do you like the idea of humans transcending their purely organic roots?"

Suggesting this implies he does not recognize the faults with the current Synthesis ending, which is simply not true.

[Ieldra]

Oh, I admit to one additional premise: this is a science fiction story, and mystical explanations are not literally true. If they seem to be, then it's either bad writing or intentional obfuscation. And if *that* goes against the writers' intention, then I am absolutely unrepentant should I "twist the meaning", because I think this premise fits with the tone of the MEU.

[Auld Wulf]

The sad part about the situation with the Catalyst is that people are so stuck with outdated modes of thinking, such as binary opposition, that they cannot realise that everything isn't so black and white, and over-simplified. In the world wars of the past, did we ever truly have a binary us versus them, good versus evil scenario? I know propaganda would like us to think so, either way, but historians know better than that, as do students of anthropological science.

It's like suggesting that in past world wars, there was true polarisation, and there was no one against the war, or no one helping 'the other side' of it. Except that reality shows us that that's not the case at all. War is a messy thing, and we rarely know what we're doing when it happens, it's a big, disorganised fustercluck. And often people with simplistic perception tend to over-simplify the situation by painting an entire ethnic race of peoples as evil, despite most of them having no involvement (and perhaps even most of them being against war).

The Catalyst is representative of that dilemma. There is no evidence that the Catalyst hasn't been fighting the reapers (to the contrary, I believe the ending scenes shows that it has), and there is no evidence that the Catalyst has any evil plans whatsoever. The original 'solution' that the Catalyst came up with was harvest-to-preserve. Basically, the leviathans who were mind controlling were being kinda evil, and people were finding ways to kill each other anyway. The time of the leviathans very much represented the darkest of times.

At that time, the Catalyst believed that the quickest and easiest solution would be to take control of everyone by putting them in virtual, utopian playpens, and then sorting it out from there. It had to make that decision on the spur of the moment, but given time and more peaceful cycles, it came to realise that there were other solutions that could work just as well. (It basically came to realise that the initial solution was rather foolhardy.) This is why the Catalyst presents those choices to Shepard. There's absolutely no evidence to prove that the Catalyst is evil, just that the Catalyst did what it believed was necessary at the time to end the oppression and killing, and has been powerless to change it since.

I believe that due to the way the reapers were programmed, the reapers themselves are locked into a slavish cycle, and one that only the leviathans could override. But without any leviathans around, there was no one left to allow for a new solution. I see the Crucible as--in part--a security hack because of that. Something that would allow the Catalyst to initiate a different solution.

Furthermore, the Catalyst brought Shepard to it, it didn't have to do that. If the Catalyst truly believed in the harvest, it would have kept going with it and let Shepard die. If the Catalyst truly believed in the harvest, the only time we ever heard it sound angry wouldn't have been when Shepard refused to stop the harvesting. Food for thought.

(Edited for clarity and to clear up typos.)

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 20 février 2013 - 07:58 .

[clennon8]

First of all, I challange anyone to prove that the Catalyst "brought" Shepard to the Crucible.

Second, I think all this talk of whether or not the Reapers and/or Starchild are "evil" is a distraction. It doesn't matter. Although I think the ever-present brainwashing aspect of the Reapers leans toward an "evil" interpretation.

[Solaxe]

clennon8 wrote...

First of all, I challange anyone to prove that the Catalyst "brought" Shepard to the Crucible.

Why TIM or Anderson weren't brought by an "elevator" then? They were standing on it.

[CronoDragoon]

Auld Wulf wrote...
 There's absolutely no evidence to prove that the Catalyst is evil, just that the Catalyst did what it believed was necessary at the time to end the oppression and killing, and has been powerless to change it since.

Whether or not it is evil, its actions are evil. Of course, that means nothing to its directive. I agree that he is not dead set on the Reaper cycle; it was just the best possible solution given what he could accomplish. Of course, this raises the question of why, once he learned of the Crucible, did he not utilize it for Synthesis? He claims that it cannot be forced...but I fail to see the difference between presenting Synthesis to a cycle up front as an alternate to destruction, and presenting it during the cycle as he ends up doing.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 février 2013 - 09:17 .

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
First of all, I challange anyone to prove that the Catalyst "brought" Shepard to the Crucible.

You can't really prove anything in a story unless it's told by a narrator established as reliable, but who else could it have been? Shepard was out, nobody else was there. I think this scene heavily suggests that the Catalyst was responsible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 09:21 .

[BirdsallSa]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...
 There's absolutely no evidence to prove that the Catalyst is evil, just that the Catalyst did what it believed was necessary at the time to end the oppression and killing, and has been powerless to change it since.

Whether or not it is evil, its actions are evil. Of course, that means nothing to its directive. I agree that he is not dead set on the Reaper cycle; it was just the best possible solution given what he could accomplish. Of course, this raises the question of why, once he learned of the Crucible, did he not utilize it for Synthesis? He claims that it cannot be forced...but I fail to see the difference between presenting Synthesis to a cycle up front as an alternate to destruction, and presenting it during the cycle as he ends up doing.

In order to finish the game, the player is forced to resolve the central theme "organics vs synthetics" in the quarians v geth arc. The only way the Crucible (a new solution) could be constructed is through completion of this arc and a resolution to the conflict. Through achieving this, the player earned the choice of Synthesis. It could not be forced by the Intelligence, because the conflict would not be fixed in any other way.