9089 réponses à ce sujet

[JPR1964]

@Jassu1979

Well said, and about synthesis ending, this is the disney magic ending vision of the writers.

A monstruous pile of nonsenses mixed with some deus-ex machinae, directly copy-paste from others...

A bit of originality was apparently to much asking for such "artists"...

Pun intended!

JPR out!

[Helios969]

Jassu1979 wrote...

People love the story, they love the characters, and while people had issues with the ending, many people have understood -- sometimes with the help of the Extended Cut -- where we were trying to go with that. But I still feel we delivered on the story that we always intended to and I'm very proud of the progress and all the work the team did to get there.

You know what REALLY annoys me about this comment and others like it?
They are still insinuating, however subtly, that people who criticized the ending and campaigned for a re-write did not UNDERSTAND what Walters and Hudson were aiming for.
The thing is, though: I understand perfectly what they were aiming for. I always did. Lack of understanding was NOT what prompted me to criticize the ending to begin with. Nor do I believe that that kind of ignorance and lack of insight is what drove most of the protests.

Walters et.al. refuse to acknowledge that. Perhaps deliberately, as they need that screen story in order to establish the EC as their generous "answer" to the fans' demands. Perhaps unwittingly, as they are truly out of the loop. But the fact that they have consistently refused to talk to the fans, and that *every* public statement they made sounds just like the excerpt quoted above suggests to me that it is a deliberate PR-strategy.
And I resent that. Deeply.

LOL...I still don't really understand what they were going for.  I guess I'm just a simpleton.  From my standpoint, understand it or simply find it lacking, the kind of visceral reaction we observed by a strong "majority" seems to indicate it failed to fully satisfy.  Such comments probably didn't help calm the mob either...and their were several along these lines.  Honestly I think EA/BW needs to take a hard look at their PR department.  I can understand Mac wanting to defend his "art" and the desire to respond, but he needs to understand he is part of large corporate conglomerate and such comments affect not only his own standing but a great many employees beneath him.  People in such positions need to have superior listening skills as well as be efficient diplomats.

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...
Should I scream "it's not plausible, not plausible"   Seriously though...it's real cause the writer(s) say it's real...and like it or not it is one of the final choices.

If I listed all things not plausible in the ME trilogy this post would pass the 64k limit, starting with interspecies sex and the outcome of the genophage cure for the krogan civilization. Still, nobody has any problems with that. I'm the last person to ignore that Synthesis has serious problems in the way it's brought about, but in the end I play the game for the story. I accept that asari reproduction somehow works as it claims to, that curing the genophage will result in a krogan cultural renaissance, and in the end, that the "green beam" brings about a change to all intelligent life (that's my personal interpretation) that eventually results in a hyper-advanced civilization driven in part by Reaper knowledge.

Would I prefer a harder rationalization of all that, and in some cases a removal (interspecies sex)? Hell yes. But given the alternatives of throwing the whole story away and overlooking implausibilities like this to make my story work, I choose the latter.


Edit:
I fully agree with you, however, about the PR strategy of Mac Walters & Co.. I consider that actually worse than the original endings themselves.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 mars 2013 - 02:13 .

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
Should I scream "it's not plausible, not plausible"   Seriously though...it's real cause the writer(s) say it's real...and like it or not it is one of the final choices.

If I listed all things not plausible in the ME trilogy this post would pass the 64k limit, starting with interspecies sex and the outcome of the genophage cure for the krogan civilization. Still, nobody has any problems with that. I'm the last person to ignore that Synthesis has serious problems in the way it's brought about, but in the end I play the game for the story. I accept that asari reproduction somehow works as it claims to, that curing the genophage will result in a krogan cultural renaissance, and in the end, that the "green beam" brings about a change to all intelligent life (that's my personal interpretation) that eventually results in a hyper-advanced civilization driven in part by Reaper knowledge.

Would I prefer a harder rationalization of all that, and in some cases a removal (interspecies sex)? Hell yes. But given the alternatives of throwing the whole story away and overlooking implausibilities like this to make my story work, I choose the latter.

Hey, now...don't go messy with the interspecies sex aspect...that's half the reason I play:)

So under the synthesis realm do we get to make babies with the various races?  If that's true, I may have to reconsider my stance on shooting the tube.

[Ieldra]

You see, if I started to complain about implausibilities in the ME universe, I'd start with interspecies sex and not with Synthesis.
You can easily avoid the latter, but the former is pushed into my face at every turn. And don't get me started about EDI.

Regarding reproduction post-Synthesis: as I see it, it will be mostly unchanged. Synthesis nanites will be passed from mother to child like mitochondrial DNA to enable tech integration at some later stage of life, but otherwise people will still have sex to produce children - if they want to do it the natural way. Likewise, I see no reason why asari reproduction should be affected.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 mars 2013 - 02:33 .

[Jassu1979]

My take on the synthesis ending can already be found somewhere in the 279 pages of this thread, but I guess it bears repeating:

In general, I like the idea of a post-singularity society that escapes the negative consequences of artificial intelligences surpassing their creators and becoming godlike entities. (Although I do not agree that such a premise would automatically result in the AI's attempt to eradicate all biological life. There are some inevitable repercussions, but not the ones you find in any cheap SciFi-Robocalypse.)

HOWEVER, I cannot take ME3 at face value when it tries to sell me its specific Synthesis ending as the best possible conclusion, for several reasons.

1. Right up until the ending, the Reapers were consistently portrayed as sadistic, genocidal monsters using terror to demoralize and break their victims. There are references to death camps where the inmates are encouraged to turn on each other, indoctrinated pseudo-governments helping the Reapers to herd the populace to their destruction while maintaining a calm facade, shock troops created from the dead, etc.
They tried to downplay/retcon that aspect by adding lines like "When fire burns, is it at war?" to the ending, but I find that line of reasoning utterly unconvincing. The Reapers are sapient, and they understand enough about basic psychology to know EXACTLY what they are doing. It IS a war, AND a most cruel genocide, and the Reapers ARE responsible.
With all of that in mind, I find unconditional peace with these entities to be unpalatable. The justification given by the Catalyst does not nullify all the injustices the Reapers inflicted upon the galaxy, nor does it redeem them.

2. The question of agency: this is a problem I have with *all* of the endings, and it's mostly a narrative issue. Basically, the game aborts Shepard's story the moment she collapses at the console, and then proceeds to tell the Catalyst's tale: Shepard becomes a mere accessory to a mostly new plot dealing with a post-singularity threat and the Catalyst's "solution".

3. "A new DNA" and green soul-magic (a.k.a. "I'm a real boy now"-conundrum):
While Mass Effect could never claim to qualify as "hard" SciFi, and contains quite a few aspects that necessitate a suspension of disbelief, I find that the synthesis ending in particular stretches the story beyond its breaking point. Sure, the Reapers are an incredibly advanced civilization. But the problem is that the Catalyst (or rather, Mac Walters et. al.) actually *do* provide a technical explanation of the process that basically amounts to: because Shepard is a cybernetic organism, her genetical code will imbue both synthetic and organic life with a "new DNA" if she jumps into the green beam. You don't need to be a biologist in order to realize just how ridiculous that sounds, even with nothing more than a rudimentary knowledge of genetics. And of course, the whole ending also implies that organics have some ephemeral, supernatural quality (shall we call it a "soul"?) that synthetics lack by default - a notion that stands in stark contrast to the story arcs of Legion and EDI, among others.

In short: the idea behind the ending was great, but its execution was beyond horrible - even in the EC.

Modifié par Jassu1979, 04 mars 2013 - 04:11 .

[Wayning_Star]

Jassu1979 wrote...

My take on the synthesis ending can already be found somewhere in the 279 pages of this thread, but I guess it bears repeating:


In short: the idea behind the ending was great, but its execution was beyond horrible - even in the EC.

woudn't of just been easier to just blurt out that you hate the choice of synthesis and would rather destroy the reaperships like they've always done for millions of years,because you want to live with the freedoms of that choice, forced upon you by some errant super race of organics?

but then its much more instructive to influence contemporary ideals and play politico in a VG forum..lol

That post was beyond horrible reitteration, but the execution is great? (your post is about destroy and not about syntehsis. And I doubt many can fully explain the merit of the message of the story, as if there is only one, although hidden, within the defense mechs of every evolved species within the BSN.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 04 mars 2013 - 05:06 .

[Jassu1979]

Wayning_star: As usual, I find your post to be almost surreal in its incomprehensibility.

[Plejadenwolf]

The Synthesis ending always reminds me of that ongoing debate about transhzmanism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) and those conspiracy theories saying that they want us to get used to enhance ourselves with technology and that movies (like Transformers for example) and video games (Deus Ex Machina: Human Revolution for example) deliver us the informations to make an all-day thing out of it and to glorify technology.

Believe or not, sometimes there are definite parallels and some interesting thoughts even if there is no conspiracy going on and it may be just the way of development... :happy:

Modifié par Plejadenwolf, 05 mars 2013 - 05:39 .

[Obadiah]

Well, that's that. New DLC has no new info on the ending

Real shame.

[Ieldra]

Plejadenwolf wrote...
The Synthesis ending always reminds me of that ongoing debate about transhzmanism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) and those conspiracy theories saying that they want us to get used to enhance ourselves with technology and that movies (like Transformers for example) and video games (Deus Ex Machina: Human Revolution for example) deliver us the informations to make an all-day thing out of it and to glorify technology.

Believe or not, sometimes there are definite parallels and some interesting thoughts even if there is no conspiracy going on and it may be just the way of development... :happy:

There are conspiracy theories about transhumanism? In RL, I mean? Very odd.

@Obadiah:
Yeah, it's a shame. I don't feel like joining the rejoicing throng around the Citadel DLC. Sure, it's nice enough for what it wants to be, but as opposed to most people, I don't think it can make up for ME3's flaws.  

[Plejadenwolf]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Plejadenwolf wrote...
The Synthesis ending always reminds me of that ongoing debate about transhzmanism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) and those conspiracy theories saying that they want us to get used to enhance ourselves with technology and that movies (like Transformers for example) and video games (Deus Ex Machina: Human Revolution for example) deliver us the informations to make an all-day thing out of it and to glorify technology.

Believe or not, sometimes there are definite parallels and some interesting thoughts even if there is no conspiracy going on and it may be just the way of development... :happy:

There are conspiracy theories about transhumanism? In RL, I mean? Very odd.

@Obadiah:
Yeah, it's a shame. I don't feel like joining the rejoicing throng around the Citadel DLC. Sure, it's nice enough for what it wants to be, but as opposed to most people, I don't think it can make up for ME3's flaws.  

Sometimes the question is, what topic does not have a conspiracy theory yet. :happy:
It was something about technology and that people get more and more dependent on it and that human life gets absolutely dependent from the technologies of some small, rich institutions at last where you get your technology from. Without this technology, you can't live in the society anymore and -given that brain enhancement belongs to it- can't communicate with others anymore. I don't have an english source for it, just what I kept in mind, so you have to search for yourself.

[Ieldra]

Plejadenwolf wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
There are conspiracy theories about transhumanism? In RL, I mean? Very odd.

Sometimes the question is, what topic does not have a conspiracy theory yet. :happy:
It was something about technology and that people get more and more dependent on it and that human life gets absolutely dependent from the technologies of some small, rich institutions at last where you get your technology from. Without this technology, you can't live in the society anymore and -given that brain enhancement belongs to it- can't communicate with others anymore. I don't have an english source for it, just what I kept in mind, so you have to search for yourself.

The people who say that forget one thing: if technology didn't create possibilities as well as dependencies people wouldn't want it. The problem is not so much technology itself as who controls it, if anyone. One unsolved ethical problem of transhumanism is the question: "How can we ensure that everyone has the chance to benefit from the new possibilities". This is not, however, a problem unique to transhumanism. You just need to look at how unequal access to higher education creates permanently privileged dynasties today. Transhumanism just raises the significance of this problem.

@all:
If I may bring AtreiyaN7's blog to the attention of anyone interested, a very interesting reflection on the rationale for Synthesis and a few other things. I've put a link into the OP, but since few people follow those links I occasionally mention them in-thread.

[New Display Name]

Actually, I would argue that the collection of movie, shows, and games is oversaturated with negative portrayals of transhumanism. The cyborgs/transhumans are very often the enemy, as are the factions and people with the most advanced technology. Dystopias abound. This basically implies that technology is bad, evil, etc.
I cannot think of many movies or games that portray transhumanism positively and in a balanced way.   Deus Ex is obvious, but I can't think of much more than that.

Modifié par HJF4, 08 mars 2013 - 08:49 .

[Jassu1979]

Aye, the concept of the Cyborg is almost universally vilefied in fiction, usually associated with the loss of an ephemeral, supernatural "soul".
Heck, the game mechanics of some of the most well-known and influential cyberpunk-RPGs LITERALLY translate implants as "loss of humanity".

(Even the original Deus Ex did that, to an extent. It was strongly implied that JC Denton's original partner was a sociopath because of her implants.)

There are people who are scared to death of the notion that the human race might change on a fundamental level, never quite realizing that it is stagnation that marks the road to extinction.

Modifié par Jassu1979, 08 mars 2013 - 09:03 .

[CosmicGnosis]

"He's more machine now than man."

If humanity is going to evolve, even naturally, then that requires a "loss of humanity". "We" used to be fish. We are not fish anymore. We lost our fishiness. At some point, we will no longer be traditional humans.

[Jassu1979]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

"He's more machine now than man."

If humanity is going to evolve, even naturally, then that requires a "loss of humanity". "We" used to be fish. We are not fish anymore. We lost our fishiness. At some point, we will no longer be traditional humans.

Although I see your point, and agree with it actually, I have to point out that you are comparing apples and oranges here. Not because humans are supernaturally "extra-special" and fish are not (which is nonsense), but because most people do not mean our physical shape or even our natural drives and instincts when they use the term "humanity":

"Humanity" is usually applied to all the qualities that mark the best in us (even though mankind exhibits quite a few characteristics that are pretty horrible and disastrous):
For example, we consider genocide "inhuman" (even though it is a course of action pretty much exclusively engaged in by our own species, unless you count vicious territorial conflicts between chimpanzees), because it violates some of the core values that we tend to aspire to.

Compassion, understanding, solidarity: these and many more are qualities worth preserving and holding on to, no matter how much we might change.

[Ieldra]

Jassu1979 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

"He's more machine now than man."

If humanity is going to evolve, even naturally, then that requires a "loss of humanity". "We" used to be fish. We are not fish anymore. We lost our fishiness. At some point, we will no longer be traditional humans.

Although I see your point, and agree with it actually, I have to point out that you are comparing apples and oranges here. Not because humans are supernaturally "extra-special" and fish are not (which is nonsense), but because most people do not mean our physical shape or even our natural drives and instincts when they use the term "humanity":

"Humanity" is usually applied to all the qualities that mark the best in us (even though mankind exhibits quite a few characteristics that are pretty horrible and disastrous):
For example, we consider genocide "inhuman" (even though it is a course of action pretty much exclusively engaged in by our own species, unless you count vicious territorial conflicts between chimpanzees), because it violates some of the core values that we tend to aspire to.

Compassion, understanding, solidarity: these and many more are qualities worth preserving and holding on to, no matter how much we might change.

Yes....and isn't it ironic that Synthesis emphasizes all that, while being reviled by many for making people "less than human"? To a certain extent, Synthesis works on the principle that understanding brings wisdom. I am reminded of Samara's line in ME2: "If I must kill a man because he has done wrong, do I really wish to know he is a devoted father?" My answer would be: yes, you are morally obliged to take full measure of any being before any killing can be justified." 

[Ieldra]

Jassu1979 wrote...
Aye, the concept of the Cyborg is almost universally vilefied in fiction, usually associated with the loss of an ephemeral, supernatural "soul".
Heck, the game mechanics of some of the most well-known and influential cyberpunk-RPGs LITERALLY translate implants as "loss of humanity".

(Even the original Deus Ex did that, to an extent. It was strongly implied that JC Denton's original partner was a sociopath because of her implants.)

There are people who are scared to death of the notion that the human race might change on a fundamental level, never quite realizing that it is stagnation that marks the road to extinction.

I've called this the "sacred nature" intuition, the idea that our inherited traits are sacrosanct and should remain inaccessible to human artifice. Many elements of storytelling in the ME trilogy can be explained by subconscious acceptance of that idea, even while on the surface, the game doesn't take a side.

All the passionate hate for Synthesis - as opposed to the more well-considered criticism based on the question of autonomy - and the dogmatic insistence of some people that in spite of the presentation, Synthesis absolutely must include something fundamentally inacceptable like brainwashing or removal of diversity can be fully explained by subconscious acceptance of that idea. Of course, that the ubiquitous abomination aesthetic and the idea that the Reaper minions are "corrupted" support the "sacred nature" intuition is no help at all.

In the face of all that, the fact that the Reapers, albeit unwittingly, are also the source of a fundamental good - the rise of the geth to full self-awareness - and the corresponding message that they aren't "abominations" but simply transcend normal human concepts of good or evil, is all too easy to forget. Add all the unnecessary cruelty, and it'as all to easy to see how the story shoots itself in the foot.

[Zered]

I find this topic very interesting to read but there is one thing I don't get.


Sheppard is standing there, probably bleeding to death. And now he is presented with choices. He is wounded and at the same time Reapers are decimating his allies. He doesn't have all the time in the world to think about singularity, unity, autonomy and all that philosophical stuff(which I find interesting). In character he has no idea that the choices he gets will have the results that the Catalyst presented(this concerns also destroy).

Why in space would he risk anything that would involve keeping the reapers? He is to trust the Catalyst? The same one that believed for hundred of thousand of years that killing all civilizations is a form of preserving them? RLY?

Putting that aside I see why the idea of synthesis would appeal to some people. I don't trust in utopias so I'll pass.

Modifié par michalooo, 08 mars 2013 - 12:44 .

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

"He's more machine now than man."

If humanity is going to evolve, even naturally, then that requires a "loss of humanity". "We" used to be fish. We are not fish anymore. We lost our fishiness. At some point, we will no longer be traditional humans.

Although I see your point, and agree with it actually, I have to point out that you are comparing apples and oranges here. Not because humans are supernaturally "extra-special" and fish are not (which is nonsense), but because most people do not mean our physical shape or even our natural drives and instincts when they use the term "humanity":

"Humanity" is usually applied to all the qualities that mark the best in us (even though mankind exhibits quite a few characteristics that are pretty horrible and disastrous):
For example, we consider genocide "inhuman" (even though it is a course of action pretty much exclusively engaged in by our own species, unless you count vicious territorial conflicts between chimpanzees), because it violates some of the core values that we tend to aspire to.

Compassion, understanding, solidarity: these and many more are qualities worth preserving and holding on to, no matter how much we might change.

Yes....and isn't it ironic that Synthesis emphasizes all that, while being reviled by many for making people "less than human"? To a certain extent, Synthesis works on the principle that understanding brings wisdom. I am reminded of Samara's line in ME2: "If I must kill a man because he has done wrong, do I really wish to know he is a devoted father?" My answer would be: yes, you are morally obliged to take full measure of any being before any killing can be justified." 

It's a nice idea in concept, but killing - ie...life or death situation...rarely provides "enemies" with a bio.  In war, should enemies hold a ceasefire in order to get to know one another?  And could you believe anything said in such an exchange.  A slick talker might deserve death and a stutterer might deserve life.

Like I said: nice idea, but an academic concept with no application in reality.

[saracen16]

[quote]michalooo wrote...

I find this topic very interesting to read but there is one thing I don't get.

Sheppard is standing there, probably bleeding to death. And now he is presented with choices. He is wounded and at the same time Reapers are decimating his allies. He doesn't have all the time in the world to think about singularity, unity, autonomy and all that philosophical stuff(which I find interesting). In character he has no idea that the choices he gets will have the results that the Catalyst presented(this concerns also destroy).[/quote]

Well, you can also say the same about Shepard in ME1 at the Citadel Tower after killing Saren: how much time does he really have to think about all the consequences of his actions, i.e. whether to save the Council or to kill them? The idea is that Shepard is always presented with a choice. At the same time, Shepard, wounded and broken, allies being nuked all over, doesn't have the time to think about whether synthetics deserve to live (Control) or die (Destroy).

[quote]Why in space would he risk anything that would involve keeping the reapers? He is to trust the Catalyst? The same one that believed for hundred of thousand of years that killing all civilizations is a form of preserving them? RLY?[/quote]

This argument again? The Catalyst is a machine, and issues of trust barely equate here: the Catalyst, as a machine, can only carry out its programming, and has no ambition beyond preserving all life. Shepard is helping the Catalyst fulfill that programming, and at the same time ending the threat of the Reapers. Their destruction is just one facet of several.

[quote]Putting that aside I see why the idea of synthesis would appeal to some people. I don't trust in utopias so I'll pass.[/quote]

That's your prerogative, though I don't believe that Synthesis is a "utopia" more than it is a different form of existence.
[/quote]

[Obadiah]

michalooo wrote...
...
Why in space would he risk anything that would involve keeping the reapers? He is to trust the Catalyst? The same one that believed for hundred of thousand of years that killing all civilizations is a form of preserving them? RLY?
...

The short answer is that Shep may not want to see the Reapers destroyed badly enough to sacrifice his allies.

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
In the face of all that, the fact that the Reapers, albeit unwittingly, are also the source of a fundamental good - the rise of the geth to full self-awareness
...

A standard trope in stories of a common threat is that it can bring people together, or split them apart. The only reason the Turians are willing to countenace a cure to the Genophage is the Reaper threat. The only reason the Geth still exist to be saved after the Quarian attack is their Reaper support.

Why is humanity part of the Council? Defense during the Reaper attack in ME1.

Why do the races all come together at the end of the ME3? Desperation at the losses during the Reaper invasion.

Other strange Reaper side-effects:
Why is this cycle even free to attempt a kind of unifying galactic government? Reapers wiped out the last totalitarian cycle.

Mass Effect's plot just drips with irony.

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
- and the corresponding message that they aren't "abominations" but simply transcend normal human concepts of good or evil, is all too easy to forget. Add all the unnecessary cruelty, and it'as all to easy to see how the story shoots itself in the foot.

I don't know if it so much shot itself in the foot, as much as it presents an opposing view of the Catalyst's ethical worldview. I don't see how the Reapers could be legitimately described as "not evil". What they have done is horrendous. Can fire be evil? If fire is self-aware.

Modifié par Obadiah, 08 mars 2013 - 02:13 .

[Zered]

saracen16 wrote...


This argument again? The Catalyst is a machine, and issues of trust barely equate here: the Catalyst, as a machine, can only carry out its programming, and has no ambition beyond preserving all life. Shepard is helping the Catalyst fulfill that programming, and at the same time ending the threat of the Reapers. Their destruction is just one facet of several.

How would Shepp know that is the nature of the Catalyst? Is it an AI? A collective reaper mind? How can he know that? How can he believe that he is helping the Catalyst fulfill that programming?

The short answer is that Shep may not want to see the Reapers destroyed badly enough to sacrifice his allies.

Assuming Shepp trusts in the choices he is given. Still to some extent your point is valid. It's just that I can't see in character he would trust in all this.