9088 réponses à ce sujet

[mass perfection]

Oh ho ho it's magic

[N7recruit]

Seival wrote...

N7recruit wrote...

Seival wrote...

N7recruit wrote...

But the Shepard VI can only predict what the real Commander Shepard would say with 7% accuracy.

And can anyone predict what he would say with high enough accuracy? We can imagine the situation and make some assumptions about our reaction. But when it comes to practice - it most likely will be completely different story.

One of the most interesting things in case of Synthesis is that VIs become self-aware. And it's quite logical that each Synthesized VI's mind will be based on the original VI's personality programming.

My post was ment to be more of a joke than anything else:lol:. But as for your point that VI's become selfaware do you not find it to be kinda Cheesey? I Feel that each ending needed a bigger price tag to even each of them out.
With Synthesis in particular it needed a bigger price tag then Shepards Death.

But one thing I couldn't understand was how ALL synthetic life, Regardless of model or data storage now have Empathy & Emotions. What was sent out to alter them? If all they needed was a 20GB download on the "FEELS"
then that really de-flates my abality to take this conflict seriously

Each joke is only partially a joke. We all know that Synthesized Shepard VI is not the Shepard.

Synthesis as the ME3 choice has high enough price: Shepard and everyone on the Citadel die. So if you wanna make really perfect paragon choice, then you better choose Control and apply Synthesis later. In this case only the Shepard dies.

Eh, for me the EC endings were way too bright, I like darker stories (Like the The last of us:lol:) I personally would have made each ending darker, even Destroy, the one I chose.
+ I'm not that big a fan of the the Paragon or Renagade morality system when its applied to making choices, Your decesion should be right for you, made with your reasoning & to hell with whatever some Lightside Darkside Morality system says. We don't need it to tell us we did the "Right thing" for to use it as a tool for us to justify the choice.

+ that to be a "Paragon" you must Hug the Reapers. I wasn't a fan ot the Exposition dump the Catalyst provided as I had to go outside the MEU to get & Apply the necessary context in order to make an informed decesion, that (IMO) goes against what we are shown in ME1,ME2 & even in ME3. 

& whats bad about being a little Renagade every now and then:devil:

[CronoDragoon]

Seival wrote...

Considering the explosion scale and Citadel itself falling apart, they die. Just like in case of Destroy.

Synthesis price is quite high. That's why I prefer to assume direct control first. Synthesis can wait a bit.

The Citadel itself does not fall apart.



Even the pieces broken off aren't disintegrated and mostly intact. Some people probably died, sure, but there's no evidence to suggest most died let alone everyone.

[ruggly]

Wasn't there a tweet (yes yes, I know, twitter canon) that the majority of the people that were on the citadel survived?

[Ieldra]

ruggly wrote...
Wasn't there a tweet (yes yes, I know, twitter canon) that the majority of the people that were on the citadel survived?

There was also a tweet saying they're all dead. Anyway, I think there can be no doubt that in both Destroy and Synthesis, the Citadel is so heavily damaged that there's a death toll in the millions and its core functionality destroyed. Also, Control is the only scenario where the relay system is canonically rebuilt. As I see it, in Destroy and Synthesis the relays are so heavily damaged that exploring other avenues of long-range star travel becomes feasible, with Destroy carrying the theme "we do it on our own" and Synthesis "let's explore the new fantastic possibilities". 

[Ieldra]

ruggly wrote...

I ain't no artist, and I made this in GIMP in like 20 minutes, but had there been like a second tier of synthesis were I got something like this, I wouldn't have minded so much. The explanation would still need changing, and the whole moral conundrum could remain or something, but this would have been cool. I imagine some folks headcanon something like this anyways.  If you're wondering what the hell is going on, it's supposed to be the damaged armor rebuilding itself and Shepard walking out of that damn beam like the badass she is.


http://imgur.com/S4A5O7w

Cool picture, indeed.

I don't envision it exactly like you say, though. I have two possibilities for Shepard's return after Synthesis:

(1) Shepard stores their memories in the echo shard Javik gave them just before making the jump. Someone (Miranda in my case) finds it and uses it to rebuild them.

(2) Shepard's personality is caught by the Reapers (storing minds is, after all, what they do) to emerge from that state into a new Synthesized body after some time has passed.

In both cases, your picture would capture the spirit of what Shepard has become.

[Ieldra]

KaiserShep wrote...
Yeah that's what I don't get. Synthesis is supposed to be the "best" of the three choices, but the Citadel clearly starts to break apart, whereas in Control it simply closes back up.

It's a thematic consideration. The Citadel is the symbol of the old order. Destroy carries the theme that the old order must be destroyed in order for organic civilizations to find their own way, Synthesis the theme that the old order must be transcended. Both are built on the often hinted-at premise that the relay system binds you to the past.

Specifically for Synthesis, if the Citadel's core functionality is not destroyed then a Reaper-controlling instance would still exist. It is very plausible that it must be so heavily damaged that its core functionality is destroyed in order to free the Reapers from the purpose enforced on them. More about that in this thread.

[ruggly]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Cool picture, indeed.

I don't envision it exactly like you say, though. I have two possibilities for Shepard's return after Synthesis:

(1) Shepard stores their memories in the echo shard Javik gave them just before making the jump. Someone (Miranda in my case) finds it and uses it to rebuild them.

(2) Shepard's personality is caught by the Reapers (storing minds is, after all, what they do) to emerge from that state into a new Synthesized body after some time has passed.

In both cases, your picture would capture the spirit of what Shepard has become.

In the case of the picture, it would be like a 'high EMS synthesis'. Instead of the beam needing to dissolve Shepard to do it's thing, it would act more like a scanning device.  It sounds better in my mind that it probably will here, but the beam would just need to read the body composition/set up of the cybernetics, no destructive analysis involved.  That way I can get rid of the Space Martyr idea that irks me a lot, though it would still remain at lower EMS situations.  I think your ideas work perfectly for what's in the game now, this is just my idea for an addition to what's there, but it gets rid of the awful sacrifice if you prepared enough, AKA making a high amount of EMS mean something.  It would still force synthesis on everyone to keep moral ambiguitiy around, but I like the idea that Shepard has to come back and face the consequences of their actions.  That's a lot of what I like about high EMS destroy, that it's flawed and Shepard is now around to face the music.

I also came up with this since I finished my first playthrough with almost 7000 EMS, I figured if I got that much EMS, I would get a 'close-to-perfect-ending, which alas, I did/still do not.

[Philosophaster]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ruggly wrote...
Wasn't there a tweet (yes yes, I know, twitter canon) that the majority of the people that were on the citadel survived?

There was also a tweet saying they're all dead.

Here is the Mac Walters tweet.

http://twitter.com/#...930229329829888

"SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER (stop reading if u don't a SPOILER) : Some escaped before the arms were closed. But for many... Bad times."

That tweet was made days after release. Weekes made his comments later on (about a month later) and they were compiled here

http://social.biowar.../index/11154234

Whether you trust the source's ability to accurately paraphrase or not is up to you. The following is in response to a question asking if there were any Citadel survivors.

"Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive.  You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived. "

Modifié par inconsiderate rick, 16 août 2013 - 04:49 .

[Ironhandjustice]

Well Synthesis is fine if you don't want to destroy both Foundations, or if you want to mix yourself with Helios and became a better JC Denton.

The problem with the green ending, in this case seen on the citadel fate, is that the ending simply does not fit. Is the ending for (should I say "from"? not sure) another story.

[Seival]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Seival wrote...

Considering the explosion scale and Citadel itself falling apart, they die. Just like in case of Destroy.

Synthesis price is quite high. That's why I prefer to assume direct control first. Synthesis can wait a bit.

The Citadel itself does not fall apart.



Even the pieces broken off aren't disintegrated and mostly intact. Some people probably died, sure, but there's no evidence to suggest most died let alone everyone.

Let's say you are right, and majority survived.
Let's say only 10% died.

Citadel's population is 13.5 million people (not including the Keepers). So, 10% is 1.3 million people. Don't you feel any sadness about that? We can't even imagine how many good people were among those 1.3 million...

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Yeah that's what I don't get. Synthesis is supposed to be the "best" of the three choices, but the Citadel clearly starts to break apart, whereas in Control it simply closes back up.

It's a thematic consideration. The Citadel is the symbol of the old order. Destroy carries the theme that the old order must be destroyed in order for organic civilizations to find their own way, Synthesis the theme that the old order must be transcended. Both are built on the often hinted-at premise that the relay system binds you to the past.

Specifically for Synthesis, if the Citadel's core functionality is not destroyed then a Reaper-controlling instance would still exist. It is very plausible that it must be so heavily damaged that its core functionality is destroyed in order to free the Reapers from the purpose enforced on them. More about that in this thread.

Citadel is the symbol of the old order, and also the working mechanism that can be used to apply Synthesis at any time.

Modifié par Seival, 16 août 2013 - 10:02 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

inconsiderate rick wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ruggly wrote...
Wasn't there a tweet (yes yes, I know, twitter canon) that the majority of the people that were on the citadel survived?

There was also a tweet saying they're all dead.

Here is the Mac Walters tweet.

http://twitter.com/#...930229329829888

"SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER (stop reading if u don't a SPOILER) : Some escaped before the arms were closed. But for many... Bad times."

That tweet was made days after release. Weekes made his comments later on (about a month later) and they were compiled here

http://social.biowar.../index/11154234

HYR gets the inkling that Wonderboy Walters got a response from his colleagues shortly after making that tweet.

A response down the lines of: "Shut up, Mac!!"




@ruggly ... I've imagined an "improved Sync" would work like: Shepard's existing implants (Lazarus) are taken control of/repurposed to achieve the desired effect. It's not a new precedent, for that matter, given Overlord DLC.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 16 août 2013 - 11:56 .

[CronoDragoon]

Seival wrote...

Citadel's population is 13.5 million people (not including the Keepers). So, 10% is 1.3 million people. Don't you feel any sadness about that? We can't even imagine how many good people were among those 1.3 million...

Of course I do. Why wouldn't I? I just objected to something I felt was off about the characterization of the sacrifice. 1.3 million people is a terrible death toll...but a stark contrast to 13.5 million.

[Obadiah]

Question got raised in another thread: do you think any forms of life, including the Reapers, are able to resist Synthesis or escape the Synthesis wave, and if so, what kind of existence would they have in the new galactic community and how would they be treated?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I think people place a little more concern over the logistical aspect of the choice than is necessary.

At least, the way I understand Sync, I do not believe its relative successfulness hinges on a 100% conversion rate. It's my belief that organics are simply endowed with just a few (yet very impactful) new abilities, but they can choose not to utilize these abilities at all and -- if so -- they'll live life no differently than they had before. I do not believe those who utilize them and those who don't (whether by choice, or if they were somehow "missed" by the initial wave) will face serious problems between each other, though.

I also don't think it far-fetched to believe they'll come up with ways to apply it (if anyone was missed, somehow) or to remove it (for those that don't want so much as a trace of it).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 27 août 2013 - 11:05 .

[Ieldra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I think people place a little more concern over the logistical aspect of the choice than is necessary.

At least, the way I understand Sync, I do not believe its relative successfulness hinges on a 100% conversion rate. It's my belief that organics are simply endowed with just a few (yet very impactful) new abilities, but they can choose not to utilize these abilities at all and -- if so -- they'll live life no differently than they had before. I do not believe those who utilize them and those who don't (whether by choice, or if they were somehow "missed" by the initial wave) will face serious problems between each other, though.

I also don't think it far-fetched to believe they'll come up with ways to apply it (if anyone was missed, somehow) or to remove it (for those that don't want so much as a trace of it).

While I agree with you that too much importance shouldn't be placed on this, I think that the failure to present us with *any* convincing logistics of the implementation is a valid complaint about Synthesis. I still maintain that literally transforming all life is nonsensical, and here is why:

As established in the OP, the main defining characteristic of synthetic life is that it is built instead of grown. Which means that it is necessary for synthetic life to understand itself fully - at least its own construction process - in order to reproduce. I can construct some highly artificial scenarios were this isn't needed, but in general, were it not so, there wouldn't be any trait left that differentiates synthetic life from organic life. That, in turn, means that there can be no meaningful distinction between the two domains of life on a level where life is intrinsically unable to understand itself. On that level, any distinction is nothing more than biochemistry, and the story makes it a point again and again that differences in biochemistry alone do not necessarily lead to conflict.

To illustrate the point: we can speculate about synthetic nanomachines playing a role in the typical post-Synthesis individual. The thing is: there is no functional difference between such nanomachines and organelles which have evolved to be a natural part of every human cell. We can also speculate on "DNA wrapping" synthetic elements, but the problem is the same: it's nothing more than biochemistry.

I don't agree with Javik's conclusions, but he raises the point that the defining difference between the two domains of life is perspective, arisen out of certain knowledge - or lack thereof - about their own nature. Which means: there can be no defining difference between the two domains of life which can exist without the potential to reflect on one's own existence.

Synthesis is only meaningful for intelligent life. Add the problems with the logistics, and I feel confident to conclude: Synthesis does only apply to intelligent life. The Catalyst's "all life" implicitly excludes non-intelligent life because that was never part of the problem.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 août 2013 - 10:17 .

[Wayning_Star]

why not have a mini version of the big bang? Nature did it, why not a gargantuan super organic computer server? Given enough juice, anything is possible, even the mass effect.

edit: the catalyst did state that everything is altered during synthesis. The story depicts plant life becoming electronic at the basis of existence. Just say'n (everyone is in such a hurry to "fix" stuff, even a broken record like mother nature vs intellect via the body/physical being'n such. Running scared has it's.. risks.)

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 28 août 2013 - 11:27 .

[Ieldra]

All I'm saying is at the subcellular level, no meaningful distinction exists between "electronic" and "electrochemical" which could be used as the basis for the Catalyst's assertions. And the Catalyst would know that, and know that there is no organic/synthetic divide without self-reflexion. Thus, what the epilogue shows with regard to non-intelligent life makes no sense. Add the problems with implementation, and I feel justified to dispense with it and claim that Synthesis only affects intelligent life.

Yeah, I know what's shown on the screen is supposed to be canon. But seriously, the implementation and the rationale for Synthesis is so riddled with contradictions and unresolved problems that it's enough to make you deny what's shown on the screen.

Of course, there's also the totally unimportant fact that I like my version better... I only didn't put it into the OP because it's too close to "mere" headcanon. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 août 2013 - 01:06 .

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ruggly wrote...
Wasn't there a tweet (yes yes, I know, twitter canon) that the majority of the people that were on the citadel survived?

There was also a tweet saying they're all dead. Anyway, I think there can be no doubt that in both Destroy and Synthesis, the Citadel is so heavily damaged that there's a death toll in the millions and its core functionality destroyed. Also, Control is the only scenario where the relay system is canonically rebuilt. As I see it, in Destroy and Synthesis the relays are so heavily damaged that exploring other avenues of long-range star travel becomes feasible, with Destroy carrying the theme "we do it on our own" and Synthesis "let's explore the new fantastic possibilities". 

That's... I'm sorry, but it strikes me as just being silly to not use technology that's worked so well in the past. The mass relays were only a weakness until the end of ME1. Having to reinvent the wheel is not a "new fantastic possibility," especially since FTL travel difficulties have nothing at all to do with Synthesis' themes.

And if it keeps everyone on the Citadel alive, I'll stick with Control certainly.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I'm not so sure about the plant thing. Sure, in the Normandy crash scene, it's true. In the EC slides, the green effect stands out even more conspicuously than it does in the regular cutscenes, but you do not see it on plants. Compare them to the same slides from Destroy and Control -- there is no difference.

I suppose it can be reasoned that the effect wears off when not actively used by the host (one less thing critics can rail on).

[LixiLane]

I think everybody on the Citadel was dead already. Just waiting to be reaper juice.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ruggly wrote...
Wasn't there a tweet (yes yes, I know, twitter canon) that the majority of the people that were on the citadel survived?

There was also a tweet saying they're all dead. Anyway, I think there can be no doubt that in both Destroy and Synthesis, the Citadel is so heavily damaged that there's a death toll in the millions and its core functionality destroyed. Also, Control is the only scenario where the relay system is canonically rebuilt. As I see it, in Destroy and Synthesis the relays are so heavily damaged that exploring other avenues of long-range star travel becomes feasible, with Destroy carrying the theme "we do it on our own" and Synthesis "let's explore the new fantastic possibilities". 

That's... I'm sorry, but it strikes me as just being silly to not use technology that's worked so well in the past. The mass relays were only a weakness until the end of ME1. Having to reinvent the wheel is not a "new fantastic possibility," especially since FTL travel difficulties have nothing at all to do with Synthesis' themes.

And if it keeps everyone on the Citadel alive, I'll stick with Control certainly.

It's not a matter of simply "not using technology available". That would be silly indeed. The problem is the feasibility of repairing the relays. Recall that the energy of a supernova is bound up in a relay. Which means that repairing relays is likely to require stellar scale technology, like the geth's Dyson sphere. In a Destroy scenario, it will take a very long time to repair the relays since there is no Reaper assistance, and I cannot imagine that the civilizations of the galaxy will waste all that time it takes not investigating other means of stellar travel which may not require such energy.

For a Synthesis scenario, recall that the relays weren't made to give civilizations the capability of star travel. That was an accidental benefit. They were made to centralize civilization at the Citadel so that it could be better monitored - and destroyed when the time came. So while it's easier to rebuild the relays in Synthesis since there are the Reapers to assist, the question is: in all the collected knowledge of past cycles, is there, perhaps, some knowledge that might make star travel not require construction on a stellar scale? 

Of course all of that is speculation, but I think it's in line with the themes explored in the different endings. I simply find it not very interesting if in every scenario, things stay the same with regard to star travel. I've outlined my vision of post-Event starfaring in my pre-EC thread Out of the dark age: relays, FTL and rebuilding civilization. I've dropped the Control scenario since it's superseded by the EC, but the other two I don't see anything in the EC epilogues that contradicts it. For reference I'll quote the relevant stuff below:

Mid-term effects of the final choice on star travel and rebuilding galactic civilization:

Here I'm going into full speculation mode:

Destroy:
I don't think it is in the spirit of the Destroy ending to posit that they'll just rebuild the relays at some point. Instead, I'd propose that the existing technology for FTL travel will be refined to increase its speed by increments, gradually increasing the size of a possible cohesive civilization throughout the centuries. The same will happen with most surviving developed worlds of the pre-Disaster civilization, like Sur'kesh. Contact between the different spheres will exist, since there will always be people who'd risk decade-long travels if they can be reasonably certain there's a habitable place at the other end. Eventually, the different spheres will reconnect to have common "borders". What happens then is anyone's guess. 

Synthesis:
This is something of a wild card. I'd say it would be in the spirit of this ending to have things go into new and totally unexpected, even exotic directions. In my thread on the Synthesis ending, I have proposed some effects on individuals, but the big picture has largely been ignored. How would a galactic civilization emerge from the Synthesis which is still recognizably "Mass Effect" but radically different from those emerging from the other two scenarios? The legacy of the Old Machines (who aren't Reapers anymore in this scenario) might come into play in unexpected ways. Whatever they left behind may still be "live", but not hostile any more.

Here's what I've come up with regarding new methods of FTL travel that are still noticeably "Mass Effect":

"Mass Effect-initiated self-affecting FTL jump technology":

Principles and limitations:
The general principle for technology within my Synthesis scenario was "decentralized technology, small is more effective". No more should long-range FTL depend on giant structures that would take a century to build. It was also my goal to provide a plausible incentive towards smaller ships and miniaturization of ship components.. Fortunately, the ME lore provides me with just the right tools (see below).
So that means no more mass-relay-like structures. Ships will have their own built-in long-range FTL capability. But since unlimited long-range FTL is as boring as no long-range FTL is depressing, there need to be limitations.
As a third principle, the new technology should be based on eezo and the "mass effect" because otherwise it wouldn't be Mass Effect, right?

Why not rebuild mass relays?
My proposal uses relay-like technology, so you could ask why not rebuild relays in the first place? I think that the primary problem with rebuilding relays is not knowledge but resources. The energy equivalent of a star's is bound up in a large mass relay. Such a thing would take centuries to build - the expenditure of resources is so immense that there is a big pressure to find alternative solutions.

How it works:
Relay-like functionality in starships:
I propose that it is possible to construct ME core variants for starships that let them create their own "mass-free corridors" (I'm using the lore in full acknowledgement of the fact that this makes no scientific sense). This would effectly be like carrying your own mass relay with you. Miniaturized relay functionality is known since the discovery of the Conduit, and the principles of relay construction are likely well-known as well, or Aethyta couldn't have proposed building new ones in ME2.

Limitation: endpoint only near stars of a minimum size
No artificial structures are needed at the endpoint of an FTL jump, but still you can't just go anywhere. The endpoint of your jump must be at a gravity gradient of a certain minimum steepness. I.e. near a star of a certain minimum mass. In addition, the star must be dense enough because otherwise you'd end up in the star rather than around it. 
Above that minimum mass, any increase in the target's mass will make it reachable from further away. Pulsars and neutron stars make great long-distance targets (i.e. strategic choke points) but also pose some danger to ships because of their tidal effects.
This will create regions of the galaxy which are easier to travel to than others. Regions with mostly old stars (which are small) will be hard to reach, the dense regions of the spiral arms with many hot young stars will be easy to reach. As an example, if the minimum size is the mass of an A1 main sequence star, there will be one star in the solar neighbourhood which can be reached with a long-range jump. The remaining 8ly from Sirius to Sol would have to be traveled using "standard" FTL.

Limitation: ship size
According to the Codex, the required mass for the mass effect core of a ship increases exponentially to its size and its speed. This has a consequence I don't think anyone has thought through yet: There is a theoretical maximum to the size of an FTL-capable starship. Why? Well, because the exponential formula means that if you increase the ships's mass further and further, you inevitably reach a point where the mass of the ME core required to put the ship into FTL becomes greater than the ship's mass!
WIth "standard" FTL, this obviously isn't much of a limitation, otherwise ships like the Destiny Ascension couldn't exist. But suppose that using the new FTL jump technology, the requirements for the ME core are far more restrictive. Just by increasing the basis of the exponential formula, you could arrive at a scenario where the ME cores of a fighter-sized craft must have the mass of the fully loaded ship. Ships even slightly bigger just couldn't be built with long-range FTL capability. I propose that the theoretical maximum for the mass of a FTL jump-capable starship lies around the mass of a fully loaded fighter craft.

Consequences for economics and logistics:
The obvious consequences of such a scenario as easy to see: large ships will be restricted to non-jump "standard" FTL and take a very long time - months or years - to reach distant destinations. This will limit colonization and trade of bulk goods. Colonies will have to be more self-sufficient. On the other hand, trade of valuable low-weight goods will flourish, and communication is easy. Dedicated courier ships, perhaps even in the form of automated drones, will carry news and mail easily over long distances, QE devices can be refueled easily to that galactic civilization is held together. Something like a galaxy-wide extranet will take some time to create because of the expense of QE devices which are the only available way for long-distance instant communcation, but it's by no means impossible.
Individuals and small groups of people will be comparatively mobile, depending on how expensive the ME cores for small starships are. There will be an extreme pressure towards miniaturization of starship components, since the exponential formula means that very small ships are significantly cheaper to build and to operate.

[sveners]

I wish I had your mind Ieldra. Honestly. The amount of extrapolation and imagination required to reach some of your conclusions, is simply staggering. And awesome. Not to mention the time you've taken to write all this down. How long did it take you to get this all down in a comprehensible way?

Unfortunately for me, my head only allows me to see the negatives.

I guess, it you felt some amount of satisfaction or joy at the end, EC or original, then it would be easier to create positive/promising headcanons. On the opposite side, seeing only negative consequences if you ended the game feeling like ****.

[Ieldra]

Thank you very much, sveners

Actually, the roots of this thread, which started before the EC came out, lie in suffering rather than joy. The original ending delivered a shock that I will remember for quite some time, I needed a conclusion of my ME story I could live with, I was completely unwilling to accept the luddite's dream delivered by the original ending, and was willing to put a lot of work into creating a different interpretation.

Why Synthesis? Well, because I don't like Destroy for some of its thematic implications, and like Control less than Synthesis for other thematic implications, and I was convinced that Synthesis was always intended to be seen as a good ending by those for whom the idea of the melding of man and machine wasn't repulsive in the first place, and by those who didn't subscribe to Lovecraftian cosmicism and were willing to see the Reapers as other than "abomination" but just another form of life. Against the negative image suggested by other parts of the MEU lore, I saw the possiblity for a positive transhumanism-themed outcome which only needed to be fleshed out. The original ending would put such an outcome into the far future, creating the much-despised dark age, but Synthesis was, so I still believe, always intended to be seen as a positive foundation for future advancement. I've seen that from the start, but the big problem was that it almost required meta-reasoning, the awareness of the events as story events, to reach that conclusion.

When the EC came out, it not only retconned the dark age but featured some elements which I had speculated about before, making some of my earlier speculation canon. Of course I found that extremely delightful. I recall another forumite's exclamation in a PM that "Synthesis is everything we hoped for", and it was that, at least in terms of the outcome.

However, the EC set off another round of interpretation since it failed miserably to rephrase Synthesis in terms of believable fictional science, using life-science-related terms in nonsensical ways and topping it all off with a rationale rooted in mysticism. This is something I still can't forgive the writers for, and I doubled my effort at an interpretation in terms of believable fictional science. In the end, the implementation cannot be reconciled, but the outcome still stands as desirable.

Interestingly, coming up with all that stuff wasn't too hard. I've read a lot of SF over the years, and I'm familiar with many concepts implicitly present in the Synthesis exposition. As opposed to that, writing it down took quite some time, since I had to explain the concepts I could not expect others to be familiar with. The hardest part, though, was reconciling my Synthesis interpretation with the tone of ME3. Throughout ME1 and until the very end of ME2 (minus the CB sequence, Arrival and LotSB), a transhumanism-themed outcome could still easily be seen as positive, but then someone went berserk and delivered a story full of rampant traditionalism where the abomination aesthetic dominated to a degree never seen before. People have said Synthesis doesn't fit the ME trilogy. That is not true, it only doesn't fit ME3 - but part of my "programme", so to speak, was to work against that traditionalist and reactionary vibe and restore the less one-sided mood of ME1 and ME2. I believe I have been somewhat successful in that.   

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 août 2013 - 01:38 .