9088 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Not to me.

Ieldra, the fact that the Extended Cut significantly and quickly altered the tone of the endings to basically handwave the destruction should be a massive clue to how very silly it is to think there was somehow an series-wide agenda to justify the original tone. It's ridiculous on so many levels. You somehow believe that Hudson is hell-bent on wanting all technology gone to the point of supposedly filling the series with Luddism and yet practically removes all those themes from the ending because fans whined? (While not addressing many of the other issues fans were and are angry with.)

Absurd.

I am arguing that someone influential on the team wanted to avoid any association with transhuman themes. Why else would Codex entries and scenes with references to those themes be cut and replaced with religious ones? I am also arguing that the ME trilogy had an increasingly traditionalist vibe, starting with the end of ME2. I think that's pretty obvious. Also, please note that the Synthesis had its religious aspect strengthened by the EC, not weakened, even while it backed away from the luddism.

As for the reasons, I can only speculate.

TBH I see both avid pro and anti transhumanists to be fairly 'religious' or at least spiritual in their tones IRL. It doesn't feel odd to me to see ME3 especially head into that territory more and more, even as I know a lot of people (sometimes myself included) dislike what that happens. Hello new-BSG

But imo that's really because it's all about faith. Do you have enough faith in current-humanity to do the right thing? Do you think we should turn back the clock somehow, even? Do you have enough faith in a leadership to accept, yet regulate tech advancement? Do you have faith that lack of regulation and full steam on tech advancement for all is not going to lead to disaster?

We can't really see the future here. Only create projections, guesses, theories on what it'll be. As such, many people seem to set themselves up 'seers' of the future.
Some are avid in their statements that technology will be our undoing (these people are often naturists or harbor an already existing fear of advancements that they don't understand, leaving other people to do the hard work to actually move society progressively).
Some are avid in their statements that technology is good but only if restricted and controlled (these people are often related to the State and authoritarian bodies, but also a fearful populace that doesn't reject tech but still doesn't understand it).
Some are avid in their statements that technology, regardless of unfortunate side effects, is always ultimately good, and advancements are always needed if we want to solve our problems and limitations (these people are often more detached from common concerns, allowing their minds to explore larger pictures at the expense of more intimate empathy for specific others).


Mass Effect just puts us in the role of someone who doesn't understand, but can just barely get himself to understand enough to choose various paths. That's his deal, and its ok. Maybe give Bioware a chance, and see if the next protagonist isn't as limited as Shepard the Soldier? Maybe someone who doesn't have to deal with the Reaper overlords? I wouldn't be surprised if the greater enemies are the organics in the next game... we'll see.

[Xamufam]

If Bioware wanted synthesis to be the next evolution from the
beginning they should have handled the reaper plot a lot better &
not make the reapers **** evil in 2,99 games of the trilogy.
they
create a plague that wipes out all races but humans, they make harbinger
threaten, building him up, transforming races into mutated monsters,
indoctrinates & more.

i don't believe the ending the team
wanted come into the game i believe it was changed before the leak
because they did not have time just look at leak of priority earth

Listen
to Javik he has 2 stories about zhatil that contradicts himself, one
story where the reapers take them over & creates on a genetic level
synthetic slaves of the of-springs blew them up after the reapers
arrived & the other they blew them up before the reapers arrived,
another thing in the ending that the game came with shepard is just
accepting it thats a symptom of indoctrination just go back to rana in
me1,how legion describes them, I also believe synthesis was originally
low ems reapers win scenario (it's the only one that does not have a
platfor that comes up from nowhere
Mike gamble reapers can win
http://www.nowgamer...._interview.html

also
believe in the end shepard would be taken over by the reapers & go
into the beam finalhourapp something like this was scrapped.

but what I believe is things I have analyzed in the trilogy, the leaks, finalhour hour app, my own conclusion & datamining
http://social.biowar.../index/17471574
http://www.holdtheli...e-16#post-90958

The major problem with synthesis is how bioware handled the reapers not space magic

Edit it also makes edi's development pointless. she hates the reapers
watch this & you will understand where im comming from
Xellith's Mass Effect 3 Ending Interpretation

"During
the course of the war with the Reapers, EDI struggles to reconcile the
observed behavior of organics with her own understanding of life,
particularly in the face of the actions of another synthetic
race,
the Reapers. Through conversations with Shepard, EDI can be convinced
that life is not simply the pursuit of self-preservation, causing her to
alter her own programming accordingly. After the investigation into
Cerberus activities on Horizon, EDI will state to Commander Shepard that
she is repulsed by the Reapers and their goal of destroying all organic
life in the galaxy and even more dedicated to stopping them. At this
point, EDI vows that she would
willingly give her life to protect
Joker because he risked his life to unshackle her when she was disabled
by the Reaper IFF integration in 2185, which she claims was similar to
being freed from slavery."

Modifié par Troxa, 29 décembre 2013 - 02:25 .

[SwobyJ]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I did find it odd that Shepard voiced no curiosity at all about how they brought her/him back to life throughout ME2 and ME3 and then acted all surprised about it when they raided Cerberus headquarters. Then suddenly she's concerned: "Am I just some kind of VI who thinks she's Shepard?" Especially after finding out they were nothing but meat and tubes. I think I would be a bit curious. Or was Shepard simply in a very large river running through Egypt? Or was that a theme that was too deep for the story?

In before David says those are stupid questions.

They're not stupid questions. It's part of the character. Is it something we should give a damn about? How does it affect the character other than act as a morality guide (red eyes & scars -- Dr. Chakwas tells Shepard to stop being a realist and to be an optimist.)?

Then Shepard gets further augmentations like skin, muscle and bone weaves. How does this affect her/his well being? Or is this simply for "hit points" and game mechanics?

All of this simply gets hand waved by the writers like going to Macy's and buying a pair of socks.

I love that little bit with Chakwas!

I think the handwaves are intentional and reflect Shepard himself not thinking too hard about these things.

Optimist - Paragon - Concerned with being human but also priority on reaching out to others, even enemies.
Realist - Renegade - Concerned with the goal but also priority on exacting revenge to enemies.

Some aspects are flipped in ME3. I have opinions on why that is, but that's another thing

In terms of Shepard's 'well being', imo its probably (forget about the surgery upgrades) better to be more Paragon in ME2 (you heal and immediately help and save others), but more Renegade in ME3 (you stay alive and end the immediate giant threat).
It's our choice though, and Bioware makes almost all choices 'valid' enough to form a good narrative, or at least good enough for general enjoyment! Being Renegade in ME2 has its good aspects. Being Paragon in ME3 has its good aspects. All fit the form of this guy, Shepard, trying to do what he considers to be the right thing.

[SwobyJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, there is also the cybernetic immortality of the collective Reaper minds, as per Legion's explanation in ME2, Saren's statement about "the strength of both, the weaknesses of neither, biotics, etc.. etc.. "Merging man and machine" is a transhumanist theme, with all the good and the bad stuff attached. And then ME3 swept the good stuff under the rug and kept the bad, which is why Synthesis comes across as so odd to many.

The main beats of ME3 does keep the 'transhuman = probably bad' of ME2.

But as I did a 'full Green' run of ME3 originally, it opens up a different story, at least to me personally. I made friends with a species that once terrorized the galaxy. I actively put the Quarians into a state where they integrated Geth programs into their suits - Geth programs that now can be individualized with their own opinions and upgrades. In my first playthrough, I even trusted the Reapers enough to give me the choice to change the nature of life in the entire galaxy.

ME3 was the most transhuman-positive game of the series. JUST AS LONG as you picked that certain path - one that requires a save from ME2. If you deviate from that one narrative path, ME2 is actually the most positive, just not about the Reapers (but it IS positive about the Geth synthetics which were once enemies, and the concept of cyborging, and AI being allies and friends).

ME1 introduces concepts but keeps you on the single path (even as Paragon really).
ME2 elaborates concepts but keeps you on that path still.
ME3 challenges that path, while keeping you on it for most of the game still, yet suddenly tells you to make your move. Two of the choices (Control and Synth) requiring a fair bit of rebellion against the core narrative in order to choose them. But, if you do a lot of Paragon + AI-friendly + Synthesis-friendly things throughout the series, it won't FEEL like a rebellion, but instead Shepard's destiny and/or sacrificial choice.

[SwobyJ]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
So where exactly are the themes of 'transhumanism is important and significant' in ME 1 and ME 2?

By making Shepard transhuman. In ME1 they got the Cipher and in ME2 they were heavily augmented. As for the significance - they are, after all, the protagonist. What could be more signficant?

So Bio should have run with that early ME2 idea of bringing Shepard back as an android, maybe?

That was jumping too fast. I'm glad they didn't do that.

Next game however, as I've said before, I wouldn't mind playing a being that either contains elements of Shepard inside their thoughts/brain, or the transmigration of whatever Shepard becomes, or anything related to that. Shepard him/herself can be gone, I'm largely OK with that, but I don't think that we're done with whatever he/she becomes. And I do think they becomes something else. Even in a literal view of the story, Shepard either takes their breath (and according to devs, appearently does reunite), becomes a Reaper and/or a sort of Reaper Intelligence, or speads whatever they are throughout the galaxy.
I don't just take that view, but whatever. My point is that I think that Mass Effect will increasingly challenge us on what 'life' and 'humanity' and 'organic' and 'thoughts' actually are, and that's a VERY transhumanist thing to do. Just because Bioware is CAREFUL with the concept instead of overtly enthusiastic, doesn't mean they don't enjoy playing with the idea and making it more and more appealing with each game.

Fact is, if the Synthesis choice appeared in ME2, almost no one would have picked it. With experiences from ME3, a good (though still smallish) chunk picked Synthesis. If a related choice is in the next game (assuming sequal-ish game), then I expect even more people to go for it.
In that sense, it'll reflect real life. More and more people have to get 'coaxed' into understanding and eventually embracing transhumanist ideas. Personally, I don't think I'll ever jump right into it like my Shepard did on my first run. But I'm still interested and find it as 'inevitable' as many transhumanists do. Still, shot the tube. lol

[Redbelle]

SwobyJ wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, there is also the cybernetic immortality of the collective Reaper minds, as per Legion's explanation in ME2, Saren's statement about "the strength of both, the weaknesses of neither, biotics, etc.. etc.. "Merging man and machine" is a transhumanist theme, with all the good and the bad stuff attached. And then ME3 swept the good stuff under the rug and kept the bad, which is why Synthesis comes across as so odd to many.

The main beats of ME3 does keep the 'transhuman = probably bad' of ME2.

But as I did a 'full Green' run of ME3 originally, it opens up a different story, at least to me personally. I made friends with a species that once terrorized the galaxy. I actively put the Quarians into a state where they integrated Geth programs into their suits - Geth programs that now can be individualized with their own opinions and upgrades. In my first playthrough, I even trusted the Reapers enough to give me the choice to change the nature of life in the entire galaxy.

ME3 was the most transhuman-positive game of the series. JUST AS LONG as you picked that certain path - one that requires a save from ME2. If you deviate from that one narrative path, ME2 is actually the most positive, just not about the Reapers (but it IS positive about the Geth synthetics which were once enemies, and the concept of cyborging, and AI being allies and friends).

ME1 introduces concepts but keeps you on the single path (even as Paragon really).
ME2 elaborates concepts but keeps you on that path still.
ME3 challenges that path, while keeping you on it for most of the game still, yet suddenly tells you to make your move. Two of the choices (Control and Synth) requiring a fair bit of rebellion against the core narrative in order to choose them. But, if you do a lot of Paragon + AI-friendly + Synthesis-friendly things throughout the series, it won't FEEL like a rebellion, but instead Shepard's destiny and/or sacrificial choice.

So what your saying is that if you play a certain way the game makes sense?

That's kinda an own goal for a multi pathed computer game . And the player's aim is too 'rebel against the core narrative?'

And all that AI friendly action's being put to Synthesis friendly actions?

To include synthesis rationale in action's before the ending requires that the gamer metagames the game. And because no one could meta game the game on their first playthough, the game fails tha test as the narrative does not give a repeat playthrough a different perspective. It just leads to a futile groan in hoping that their is some way to play the game from the perspective it was designed to be from day one. A human soldier fighting as a military operative against an enemy whose presensce and objectives are a mystery.

To put the above in context......

I saved Quarian and Geth. Brought thoes two together. Brought EDI and Joker into a relationship through advice........... I had the potential to bring AI life into the galaxy.

And then the Catalyst tells me I can't destroy the Reapers, who I want stopped and gone, without destroying the synthetic life I'd invested in.........

Reapers, as it turns out, are not scary. You just have to flip a switch and they are no longer a boogieman, or an unstopplable force. They are like US hunter drones that have had their targetting data wiped. They are like the Terminator when their harddrives are wiped, reprogrammed and cut off from skynet. They have no will because their will is transient when you have the mechanism needed to change their programming....

..... I don't want to say 'mind' because the Reapers minds are made for them through their controller.

Modifié par Redbelle, 28 décembre 2013 - 09:27 .

[SwobyJ]

Troxa wrote...

If Bioware wanted synthesis to be the next evolution from the beginning they should have handled the reaper plot a lot better & not make the reapers **** evil in 2,99 games of the trilogy.
they create a plague that wipes out all races but humans, they make harbinger threaten, building him up, transforming races into mutated monsters, indoctrinates & more.

i don't believe the ending the team wanted come into the game i believe it was changed before the leak because they did not have time just look at leak of priority earth

Listen to Javik he has 2 stories about zhatil that contradicts himself, one story where the reapers take them over & creates on a genetic level synthetic slaves of the of-springs blew them up after the reapers arrived & the other they blew them up before the reapers arrived, another thing in the ending that the game came with shepard is just accepting it thats a symptom of indoctrination just go back to rana in me1,how legion describes them, I also believe synthesis was originally low ems reapers win scenario (it's the only one that does not have a platfor that comes up from nowhere
Mike gamble reapers can win
http://www.nowgamer...._interview.html

also believe in the end shepard would be taken over by the reapers & go into the beam finalhourapp something like this was scrapped.

but what I believe is things I have analyzed in the trilogy, the leaks, finalhour hour app, my own conclusion & datamining
http://social.biowar.../index/17471574
http://www.holdtheli...e-16#post-90958

The major problem with synthesis is how bioware handled the reapers not space magic

Edit it also makes edi's development pointless. she hates the reapers
watch this & you will understand where im comming from
Xellith's Mass Effect 3 Ending Interpretation

"During the course of the war with the Reapers, EDI struggles to reconcile the observed behavior of organics with her own understanding of life, particularly in the face of the actions of another synthetic
race, the Reapers. Through conversations with Shepard, EDI can be convinced that life is not simply the pursuit of self-preservation, causing her to alter her own programming accordingly. After the investigation into Cerberus activities on Horizon, EDI will state to Commander Shepard that she is repulsed by the Reapers and their goal of destroying all organic life in the galaxy and even more dedicated to stopping them. At this point, EDI vows that she would
willingly give her life to protect Joker because he risked his life to unshackle her when she was disabled by the Reaper IFF integration in 2185, which she claims was similar to being freed from slavery."

Saren said it was the evolution of life.

Shepard just didn't believe him + Indoctrination.. aka communication with the Reapers was what lead Saren to his opinion.

The Reapers are scary. Transhumanism is scary.
The Reapers cause uncountable deaths. Transhumanism could cause more deaths than anything we have so far.

What we are NOT shown is:
1)The 'salvation' part. How do the Reapers save us? What are they saving us from, exactly? How do they 'save' us while seemingly warping or destroying our physical bodies?
2)Is the protagonist already transhuman? How is he so resistant to indoctination or mental influence? Is he on the road to transhumanism? All of this seems to be deliberately ignored by most of the narrative, while the story and characters keep insisting, almost urgently, that "You're human you're human you're Shepard you're the real Shepard you're organic you're HUMAN!!"

These questions might be the topics of the next game IMO. Like a lot of my ideas, we'll see if I'm right or wrong.

[Xamufam]

Modifié par Troxa, 28 décembre 2013 - 10:14 .

[SwobyJ]

Redbelle wrote...

So what your saying is that if you play a certain way the game amkes sense?
That's kinda an own goal. And the player's aim is too 'rebel against the core narrative?'
And all that AI friendly action's being put to Synthesis friendly actions?
To include synthesis rationale in action's before the ending requires that the gamer metagames the game.
To put the above in context......
I saved Quarian and Geth. Brought thoes two together. Brought EDI and Joker into a relationship through advice........... I had the potential to bring AI life into the galaxy.
And then the Catalyst tells me I can't destroy the Reapers, who I want stopped and gone, without destroying the synthetic life I'd invested in.........
Reapers, as it turns out, are not scary. You just have to flip a switch and they are no longer a boogieman, or an unstopplable force. They are like US hunter drones that have had their targetting data wiped. They are like the Terminator when their harddrives are wiped, reprogrammed and cut off from skynet. They have no will because their will is transient when you have the mechanism needed to change their programming....
..... I don't want to say 'mind' because the Reapers minds are made for them through their controller.

Well we have our paths.

We can follow the core narrative and rebel against the Reapers. In fact, this is securely there for even new players to the series starting with ME3.
If we take Action Mode (with fresh ME3, no import) with Interrupts, we're rebelling to some degree, even.
If we take Action Mode with no Interrupts, we're drifting entirely into the Reapers arms.

This is all the background design.

We can, alternatively, follow the 'lessons' of the story and decide to rebel against the core narrative. Control and Synthesis are, in their own ways, forms of this. Forget TIM, I'll control the Reapers! Forget Saren, I'll merge with the Reapers! Why? Because, like many on this thread, we may decide we've learned enough about this 'Reaper' thing to understand that they're not the TRUE threat.

Or maybe they are.
Alternatively-alternatively (haha) we can view this whole deal as a massive misdirection. We can take ALL the info throughout the series, and all the supporting content (comics, films, etc), and end up with the belief that the Crucible is one big red herring. That the info we're given is largely legit, but most of it doesn't REALLY matter, because it's still Indoctrination and/or a deception. And we shouldn't appreciate that.
So that just rounds back to Destroy. Or not. Maybe we can understand that its just their way of dealing with us puny organics, and we still decide to see the bigger, more utilitarian picture.

The EMS levels and requirements say it all folks. All endings are fine, but some more fine than others, and some more dangerous than others, and it all depends on how much you've experienced, how many games you've played, what media you've consumed, what DLC you've completed, and how you personally view what Bioware has shown you.

"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"
"In as much as you are just an animal."

Both statements are true. Make your stand.

[SwobyJ]

Troxa wrote...

@SwobyJ
edi already told us shep is not transhuman & how can he resist indoctrination saren could not
sheps indoctrination was dropped

EDI said the former. I know. She's right. Shepard is still human enough to be human, according to more strict parameters. Any other subjective parameters... "that would be telling".

I don't recall her, or anyone else in-game, saying anything like the latter.

I don't recall Bioware saying anywhere that they dropped indoctrination either. Final Hours only spoke of a specific gameplay mechanic. People somehow translate that to being a whole larger story concept. Which is weird, but there you go, this is BSN.

(BTW Saren resisted Sovereign for years, even though that was only due to Sovereign fine-tuning the indoc. Originally, Saren was of the opinion of instantly destroying Reaper tech. Then, he was all about utilizing it. Then, he was all about subverting it. Then, he was all about joining with it. He's an interesting model to work off of.)

In any case, Indoc is not THAT important. The moral choice is what matters, as PLAYERS.


EDIT: Ugh, forgot I was talking to Troxa. Whatever.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 28 décembre 2013 - 09:57 .

[Ieldra]

You're working with mixed-up definitions, SwobyJ: The state you speak of is usually called "post-human", while "transhuman" is the transitional state, anything that's beyond normal human parameters but has not yet completely surpassed certain defining limitations of the human condition.

Synthesis puts everyone on the path, but where civilization as a whole will go is still unclear. After all, it says "we can now live the lives we have wished for", which should mean that some will aim for a state I would call "transapient" (thanks to orionsarm.com for coining the term) while others will not.

As for the creators of the story at Bioware, I don't know if there is an "agenda". I can only observe that there are certain thematic messages carried by the story, and starting with the ending of ME2, those largely paint a picture which is traditionalist to the point of being reactionary. Less so after the Extended Cut, and it's completely countered in Synthesis, but still very noticeable, and this is the main reason why Synthesis comes across as odd to many players.

[Ieldra]

SwobyJ wrote...
Maybe give Bioware a chance, and see if the next protagonist isn't as limited as Shepard the Soldier? Maybe someone who doesn't have to deal with the Reaper overlords? I wouldn't be surprised if the greater enemies are the organics in the next game... we'll see.

For me, the next ME game starts with significant debit, and indeed one of the things I consider critical is a protagonist who isn't as canonically stupid as Shepard. Synthesis is a hard concept to explore in a future ME game though, and I don't think they'll do it.

[SwobyJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're working with mixed-up definitions, SwobyJ: The state you speak of is usually called "post-human", while "transhuman" is the transitional state, anything that's beyond normal human parameters but has not yet completely surpassed certain defining limitations of the human condition.

Thank you. I knew I was missing a term, and that was 'post-human'. I knew the term, but forgot it... making my posts harder to write

However, I disagree. Transhuman as an adjective, sure. Transhuman as a noun, nah. For to be 'a transhuman', you'd have to pretty much leave the confines of the organic brain. It's when we leave human identification itself that we become post-human. Some visions of that is post-humanity flying through the datastreams of a virtual universe, without even a physical body/brain (synthetic or organic) to be tethered to.

Synthesis puts everyone on the path, but where civilization as a whole will go is still unclear. After all, it says "we can now live the lives we have wished for", which should mean that some will aim for a state I would call "transapient" (thanks to orionsarm.com for coining the term) while others will not.

Agreed with that. It does send that message. Everyone has changed, but they move forward into what at least some part of them wanted. The whole purpose of technology is to take us into greater and greater states, and to leave the rule of nature, one way or another. That would include the rules of sapiancy and the organic/artificial divide.

As for the creators of the story at Bioware, I don't know if there is an "agenda". I can only observe that there are certain thematic messages carried by the story, and starting with the ending of ME2, those largely paint a picture which is traditionalist to the point of being reactionary. Less so after the Extended Cut, and it's completely countered in Synthesis, but still very noticeable, and this is the main reason why Synthesis comes across as odd to many players.

I see it less reactionary and more thematic. We're dealing with the Reapers, and since ME1 came out, they were always monsturous.

So Bioware is dealing with a playerbase that outright expects the Reapers to be bad. And so they are.

At the same time, we're introduced to... this friendly AI... and this friendly cyborg concept... and this friendly mind-merging event... and this friendly virtual world.. and and and.

And increasingly, it becomes a matter of the Reapers being the problem, and not what they represent with technology. Something went wrong, or at least ethically disastrous in their creation and process. We can then take the lessons we've learned to apply towards the final decision. This is the personal moral choice.
Many advocates of Synthesis disregard the dangers of the Reapers being around and changing everyone at their genetic core.
Many advocates of Destroy disregard the dangers of not learning from technology in order to address future threats more appropriately.
Many advocates of Control disregard the dangers of ethical corruption and authoritarian rule by technocracy (which is what makes up much of the Cycle system in the first place).

We all put our priorities on the table and go 'this is what I value over ___ and ___'.

It just so happens that with dealing with the Reapers, specifically and in themselves, it is more *immediately* appropriate, at the Crucible, to go "you guys are too dangerous and should really be taken out of the picture". Even before the Crucible, its about fighting the Reapers, not understanding them. And really, they don't want anyone except their chosen agents to understand them anyway! This was all since ME1. They don't trust organics, so they don't give us the chance to see what they're doing anyway, and that leads to worse and worse body counts. Only Shepard is the real salvation through destruction (of Sovereign, Human Reaper, Destroyers), leading to what appears to be a parlay between sides and Shepard given the key to the future.

It's like if we're at the brink of the Citadel being taken over by the Krogan during the Rebellions, and had the chance to unleash the genophage, its probably more appropriate to do it, even if the Krogan handed the key.
Or if we're a the brink of Rannoch being lost to the Geth (as a Quarian), and had the chance to kill off all Geth programs, its probably more appropriate to do it, even if the Geth handed the key.

What we have in ME3 is the Reaper INVASION. Not the Reaper negotations. Not the Reaper espionage-ish Cold War. Not the Reaper political simulator. But the invasion. As such, our backs are to the wall, and it was probably a feat to get players, any players, convinced to pick Control or Synthesis and to provide info and arguements to support those choises.


What we have to see is the post-Reaper, or at least post-ME3 galaxy, in order to understand more fully the context of our decisions. Still no sign of this happening or not happening.
However, if a game like that does happen, I think we can expect people to regret Destroy (while still seeing it as more approriate at the time, like how most people and characters justify the Genophage) and find Control or Synthesis more appealing.

We just don't have the longer view that some of the devs have. (that's not to say everything is planned out - just that they have a larger main story view that they tweak aspects of and then fill in all of the many, many blanks)


I guess what I'm saying is that maybe you should give them a chance in the next game. They didn't even have to offer Synthesis in ME3, but instead just go 'control or destroy the Reapers'.

Once the Reapers as an overwhelming invading force is gone from the main narrative, you might be surprised how technology and singularity-friendly Bioware is.

I mean, they're called Bioware! Bio. Ware.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 28 décembre 2013 - 10:24 .

[Ieldra]

@SwobyJ:
When I criticize the religious element in ME3's ending, I am criticizing the following:

(1) That we need the MEU's god-analogue to find a solution for the Reaper problem.
(2) That the ending appears to posit there is some mysterious non-physical "essence" to a person.
(3) That this "essence" can somehow transform a galaxy.

That has absolutely nothing in common with any version of transhumanism I'm aware of. The only thing that the dominant western religions have in common with it is that they promise a transcendent state.

Edit:
I consider the probability that the developers have been working with a "longer view" as zero. The ME team has consistently made things up as needed with no evidence of advance planning beyond the current game.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 décembre 2013 - 10:33 .

[SwobyJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...
Maybe give Bioware a chance, and see if the next protagonist isn't as limited as Shepard the Soldier? Maybe someone who doesn't have to deal with the Reaper overlords? I wouldn't be surprised if the greater enemies are the organics in the next game... we'll see.

For me, the next ME game starts with significant debit, and indeed one of the things I consider critical is a protagonist who isn't as canonically stupid as Shepard. Synthesis is a hard concept to explore in a future ME game though, and I don't think they'll do it.

Shepard is pretty dense, yes. He is actually in over his head, and only his experiences make him who he is. If it wasn't for the Military History, he wouldn't be much. If it then wasn't for the Eden Prime events, he and everyone else would have been harvested. He doesn't really 'understand' much. THAT, is the role of other characters and the players themselves. He kinda 'fumbles in ignorance' , but he at least does understand enough to keep himself going, surviving, fighting, and resisting others who seek to harm the galaxy.

But a genius, he is not.

I'd really like to play a 'smarter' protagonist in the next game. It should be a test of Bioware to attempt this for once. I shouldn't have to ask dozens of questions to NPCs for my character to 'get' something. It should already be happening in his/her thoughts and they should be proactive in their analysis and critical thinking. Avoiding the military story would be a good start (not to disparage the military, and I typically respect military service and organizations, but even my friends in it share how well known it is of the low IQs of their fellows; N7 in Mass is clearly different, I know, but still).


~~~

I do think they'll explore more and more transhumanist (and yes, post-human) concepts in the future though. However, I hope its done with a more careful approach while still not shying as much away from it as much of the ME1-3 games (except the ending).

I think they'll be more about transhumanism itself and a galaxy unrestrained by the limits the Reapers imposed on civilizations, one way or another. A galaxy that will integrate tech into itself more and more, and how that tech/synthetics will respond to this. All the while, other factions/characters have their own schemes. All three 'color' groups will be represented (red being less so than in ME1-3...), and in fact several more 'colors' will get more focus than before (yellow, cyan, magenta). I have my crazy theories about it all, so I'll stop there.

It's just a guess though.

[SwobyJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@SwobyJ:
When I criticize the religious element in ME3's ending, I am criticizing the following:

(1) That we need the MEU's god-analogue to find a solution for the Reaper problem.
(2) That the ending appears to posit there is some mysterious non-physical "essence" to a person.
(3) That this "essence" can somehow transform a galaxy.

That has absolutely nothing in common with any version of transhumanism I'm aware of. The only thing that the dominant western religions have in common with it is that they promise a transcendent state.

Edit:
I consider the probability that the developers have been working with a "longer view" as zero. The ME team has consistently made things up as needed with no evidence of advance planning beyond the current game.

It's not so much that transhumanism is religious in itself. It's that many that I even know personally who promote transhumanism seem to treat it less like a mode of thought, or technological philosophy, but more a religion to convert others to. It's very easy for writers especially to draw connections between concepts of technological eternal life, and religious teachings and divine concepts.

Is it right to do? Sometimes, and sometimes not. It can get annoying. For some reason, I guess we need to inject some 'soul' into transhumanism, and that 'requires' spirituality to seep in - whether its in writing fiction or describing it to others.

To address your list:
(1) - I expected this since having a protagonist called Shepard, visiting a Citadel, to face the Reapers, who use Indoctrination. Too many religious-oriented terms to NOT have god analogue, either I like it or not (and I kinda dislike it).
(2) - Yes. The 'essence' stuff is some of the most annoying stuff of the whole series to me. If they can't explain it properly, it shouldn't be in the main plot, but instead given time to develop and have more details until it CAN be explained. Putting it in end of ME3, whether its a literal ending or some theory or whatever, feels like a a**-pull regardless.
(3) - Agreed to this too. It's weirdness like this that leads me to create personal theories like 'Mass Effect is in a virtual universe realm, eventually inside a new Reaper being constructed'... because to take it literally, means that Bioware is not just willing to break their universal rules, but even outright stomp on them and give them to a dog to eat and digest.



~~~

I simply have to disagree about the last part, but I can't properly explain myself without revealing my sources (I know, I know), and I'm not close enough to you to PM it either.

What I will say is that I'm not saying that Bioware was like "There will be a child that is major to ME3" while making ME1, but instead "Shepard will face the leadership or hive mind of the Reapers in the end and choose to work with or against them." From then on, it becomes about having Shepard become closer or farther away from the Reapers, depending on our decisions and perspective. Turning Shepard into a ('covert') cyborg and making friends with a Geth in ME2 would be part of this, but still, its 'filler at the time'.

The most basic, yet large-scale stuff is what is mostly decided years in advance. Nearly everything else, 90%+, is decided more on-the-spot.
It's annoying, but its more like how TV series and movie series are decided, instead of how really good book series are. I'd appreciate more 'book' mentality from Bioware than 'TV show' mentality, but there you go.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 28 décembre 2013 - 10:53 .

[Daemul]

SwobyJ wrote...

Daemul wrote...

Ieldra, your post has just reminded me of EDI's stupid definition of Transhuman in ME3. According to her, every inch of your body can be robotic but as long as your brain is organic you don't count as a Transhuman. Which writer in the Bioware team came up with that crap? It's like they were pushing an agenda.

Don't agree. Even transhumanists believe this. That we won't be truly transhuman until we are able to upload ourselves into a cybernetic/synthetic body/virtual space and stay there. Everything else is simply on the 'path' to transhumanism.

DAMNIT! Ninja'd! I'll delete my post but I'll keep the last part.

We do have Posthumans, or more accurately Post(unknown race) in the MEU though, the Virtual Aliens. A billion of them uploaded their minds into a computer and can move their conciousnesses into different bodies at will. How they do is is unknown, but they are far and away the most advanced race in this cycle if they can do this so easily. 

Modifié par Daemul, 28 décembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[SwobyJ]

I think you're right by current real life standards, but by projective sci-fi standards, it doesn't work.

The bar will keep being raised. "Oh, ___ is still human, as long as we don't do ____."

That's why futurists in fact don't declare transhumanism until we can change/transfer our minds into a synthetic one. It'll be a process, and it'll be 'transhumanistic'. Actively pursiing this path is being a 'transhuman'. When its eventually done, yes, we're 'post-human'.

Control just keeps transhuman *aspects* because the ReaperShep still connects itself to what Shepard was. It's not truly transhuman, and it *is* post-human - you're right! - but its much more transhuman than Synthesis.

I guess what I'm saying is that in ME2-3, Shepard is not quite Transhuman, but he's outright on the VERY EDGE of being one, and in many views, he is, yes, actually one. But because he's not 'moving anywhere' (not getting any more implants as far as he knows, still considers himself human, keeps an organic, even if synthetically maintained, brain), he's human as long as he considers himself so.

I admit this is subjective. To some people's definitions, a person using a prosthetic leg 100 years ago would be transhuman. I, and apparently EDI, don't use this definition.
(I also wouldn't be surprised if EDI withheld information in order to keep Shepard's morale up. "That would be telling." One can be 'fully human' while still being on the transhumanistic path.)


Shepard has transhuman qualities but as a noun, I really don't think it'd be appropriate to call him *a* transhuman until he *actively chooses* Control or Synthesis. (And then, in the aftermath, he is post-human) This is in accordance to the story we're being shown, at least. And I don't think this story biased against transhumanism btw. I just think its biased towards Shepard, the character's, perspective.
I think if we were dealing with a different character that was gradually implanting himself and changing whole parts of his brain to become synthetic, yes, I'd say we were dealing with a more concretely transhuman character. But because Shepard and others keep insisting on his humanity, he's kept human enough to only touch upon transhumanism, without clearly becoming one. Just barely.

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that one isn't transhuman until they consciously endeavor to move outside and beyond humanity. At that point, they're in 'transition'. As Shepard's implants were largely beyond his will and choice, and he had (until the ME3 ending) no way of expressing a want to add any more to it, or especially to do anything to his brain, he really isn't much of a transhuman, even if he exhibits some starting qualities of it. Add to that the supposed contemporary debates in-lore at the time of ME3, and its probably less speculative on 'what' a transhuman IS. And in Mass Effect, they decided its when the brain is synthetic, at least for the most part. I'm sure they would have their own debates.

~~~

BTW this is all in a literal view of the story. If I'm right that Shepard's been interfaced with the Reaper minds this whole time (lol), then he's been a post-human for a long time , and its really just his choice on what he wants to identify himself as. With Destroy, he 'crashes down from Purgatory to Earth'. With Control, he 'rules Heaven and Earth'. With Synthesis, he transcends into a 'new Paradise'. Paradise and Heaven and partially Purgatory are all in virtual realms though, so that's how canon would be established in the next game (the virtual realms don't need to matter as much as the 'real world' results). */tinfoilhat*

Modifié par SwobyJ, 28 décembre 2013 - 11:15 .

[CosmicGnosis]

SwobyJ wrote...

"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"
"In as much as you are just an animal."

Brilliant pairing of these two quotes.

[David7204]

I want to talk a bit about supposedly 'smart' protagonists.

There have been countless posts on this forum suggesting that Shepard or one of her allies solve problems by 'doing research.' Kill the Reapers by 'doing research.' Control them by 'doing research.' Develop some super-duper weapons by 'doing research.' Cure Thane by 'doing research.' When I ask people what Shepard should have been doing when they complain about incarceration, pretty much the only answer I hear is Shepard 'doing research' on the Reapers. The list goes on.

There's a reason why conflicts with great enemies are solved by violence, not by 'doing research.' And a reason why people need to give up this idea of protagonists solving problems by 'doing research' or whatever it is they imagine smart people do. It's poor writing.

All the things the audiences associate with science -beakers of bubbling chemicals, equations on whiteboards, lasers and lab coats - those are all just props. The real science is the thought. And the thought is invisible. The audience can't see it. Can't perceive it. Can't appreciate it.

Technology begins with an idea. An applied principle or series of principles. And once the ideas are in place...it's just a matter of work - the tremendous and often difficult process of building and refining that applied principle. But work is work. There's no interesting themes in a villain being defeated with work.

So when a problem is solved by 'science' and science alone...it's really nothing more than a Deus Ex Machina. One moment a person has no idea how to solve a problem. The next they do. One moment the galaxy is helpless as the Reapers are on the cusp of invading. The next moment Shepard comes up with an idea for a super-weapon. Or super-technology. Or super-whatever. After which, it's just a process of refining the idea and building the thing. And even if the weapon is actually somehow scientifically and logistically possible against the Reapers, it would be ridiculous. Because where's the conflict in that premise? Where's the drama? Where are the themes? There are none.

So allthrough scientific work requires intelligence and experience, it's thematically no different than other work. And conflicts solved by work and nothing else are boring and narratively pointless. How thematically ridiculous would it be to have the Reapers defeated and conflict lasting millions of years solved because factories produced a certain amount of weapons? Because shipyards built a certain number of ships? Incredibly ridiculous and incredibly lame. Scientific work is ultimately no different. There's no meaning in a great villain being defeated because a bunch of scientists spent X number of hours in the lab.

Which brings us back to what seems to be the general BSN sneering at violence in stories as immature and mindless and praising science as the supposedly smart and mature writer's way to solve conflicts.

Stories have protagonists confront conflicts with violence because violence does carry themes. Themes of courage. Themes of unity, friendship, and love as characters see their friends and lovers at risk. Themes of loyalty and sacrifice. Themes of strength and honor. Of despair, of loss, of hope, and of triumph. And these themes simply don't apply to the labors and invisible thoughts of a scientist 'researching.'

I think of Gandalf speaking to Pippen in Minas Tirith about 'a far green country' as a troll and their death hammers on the door a few feet away. I think about Aragorn speaking to his men before the Black Gates. (Lord of the Rings is very good with this sort of thing.) I think of Shepard kissing Liara after the battle in Lair of the Shadow Broker. Incredibly strong moments, and all heavily and directly associated with violence.

You know how many such moments I've seen taking place in a laboratory? Taking place as characters sit and type at computers? Zero.

Watch Breaking Bad? A protagonist hailed as someone who solves their problems with science. But look carefully. When the audience knows about the plan beforehand, Walter never comes up with the idea himself. Every time the plan is known ahead of time to the viewer, the original idea comes from somewhere else.

Walter builds a battery in the desert...after Jesse suggests it. Walter breaks into the evidence room using a magnet...after Jesse suggests a magnet. Robs the train using a clever weight idea...after Jesse suggests the method how. Why? Because the writers understand that a person just coming up with an idea and successfully applying it is off the table. Because it's boring. Because it carries no themes.

Science always exists on the periphery in these kinds of stories. There's science in the weapons and defences the characters use, science in the ships and other vehicles they travel on. Science in AIs and electronic warfare. Science in the characters overriding locks and hacking drones and disrupting shields. But thinking science to be some sort of glorious arrow of rationality of intelligence that pierces through the muck of mysticism and immaturity to solve whatever conflict the story focuses on conveys a failure to understand both stories and science.

I feel I should cap things off by reminding the BSN that even if this sort of thing wasn't a huge problem from a narrative standpoint, the chances of anyone coming up with a plausible scientific solution to a very difficult problem faced by people with lots of resources (which is going to be any epic story, including Mass Effect) might as well be zero. It can be done with a small group of people facing a relatively small challenge (such as breaking into a vault), but it's next to impossible for large-scale conflicts. Either the science itself is going to be fabricated, or it's going to be so effective and obvious that everyone else looks like a complete and total idiot for not using the solution beforehand. I'm reminded of science fiction stories where the good guys defeat the enemy ship by scanning and then 'matching their shield frequency' to the enemy's 'weapon frequency,' upon which the enemy's weapons apparently bounce off and blow up their own ship. Pretty much every 'Reaper killing' suggestion I've seen on the BSN has fit these two problems like a glove.

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 08:30 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I want to talk a bit about supposedly 'smart' protagonists.

There have been countless posts on this forum suggesting that Shepard or one of her allies solve problems by 'doing research.' Kill the Reapers by 'doing research.' Control them by 'doing research.' Develop some super-duper weapons by 'doing research.' Cure Thane by 'doing research.' When I ask people what Shepard should have been doing when they complain about incarceration, pretty much the only answer I hear is Shepard 'doing research' on the Reapers. The list goes on.

There's a reason why conflicts with great enemies are solved by violence, not by 'doing research.' And a reason why people need to give up this idea of protagonists solving problems by 'doing research' or whatever it is they imagine smart people do. It's poor writing.

All the things the audiences associate with science -beakers of bubbling chemicals, equations on whiteboards, lasers and lab coats - those are all just props. The real science is the thought. And the thought is invisible. The audience can't see it. Can't perceive it. Can't appreciate it.

Technology begins with an idea. An applied principle or series of principles. And once the ideas are in place...it's just a matter of work. The tremendous and often difficult process of building and refining that applied principle. But work is work. There's no interesting themes in a villain being defeated with work.

So when a problem is solved by 'science' and science alone...it's really nothing more than a Deus Ex Machina. One moment a person has no idea how to solve a problem. The next they do. One moment the galaxy is helpless as the Reapers are on the cusp of invading. The next moment Shepard comes up with an idea for a super-weapon. Or super-technology. Or super-whatever. After which, it's just a process of refining the idea and building the thing. And even if the weapon is actually somehow scientifically and logistally possible against the Reapers, it would be ridiculous. Because where's the conflict in that premise? Where's the drama? Where's the themes? There is none.

So allthrough scientific work requires intelligence and experience, it's thematically no different than other work. And conflicts solved by work are boring. How thematically ridiculous would it be to have the Reapers be defeated because a conflict lasting millions of years was solved because factories produced a certain amount of weapons? Because shipyards built a certain number of ships? Incredibly ridiculous and incredibly lame. Scientific work is ultimately no different.

Watch Breaking Bad? A protagonist hailed as someone who solves their problems with science. But look carefully. When the audience knows about the plan beforehand, Walter never comes up with the idea himself. Every time the plan is known ahead of time to the viewer, the original idea comes from somewhere else.

Walter builds a battery in the desert...after Jesse suggests it. Walter breaks into the evidence room using a magnet...after Jesse suggests a magnet. Robs the train using a clever weight idea...after Jesse suggests the method how. Why? Because the writers understand that a person just coming up with an idea and successfully applying it is off the table. Because it's boring. Because it carries no themes.

This can be summed up in an a priori response, based on subjective:

It's your opinion David. Just because you can't find value in it doesn't mean no one else can.

[SwobyJ]

Walter comes up with plenty of ideas himself, and often fully implements them by himself. Don't be silly.

[David7204]

Sometimes he does. But when he does, the audience doesn't know of the plan beforehand.

Bring Tuco fulminated mercury? Walter's idea, and the audience has no idea of what the plan is until they see it executed.

Pretend to be in a fugue state? Walter's idea, and the audience has no idea of what the plan is until they see it executed.

Call Hank and pretend Marie is injured as a distraction? Walter's idea, and the audience has no idea of what the plan is until they see it executed.

Poison Brock? Walter's idea, and the audience has no idea of what the plan is until they see it executed.

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:29 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yet a conflict solved by building a super weapon with magical factories was not work? "I may have found a way to defeat the reapers. It's a Prothean super weapon." We're missing only one component - the catalyst. It just so happened to fit perfectly on the Citadel. I want to know where those factories that were building it were, because the reapers targeted every major manufacturing region in the galaxy straight away. But it all gets rectified because of Kai Leng, right? "Not so fast! Someone wants to speak with you."

David, you can have a smart protagonist. The protagonist can solve problems through science and research. It does make more sense than having a protagonist with a room temperature IQ who can't even figure out that Asari can reproduce with their own species.

Anyone can write a dumb protagonist and a dumb antagonist.

Don't tell me that having a smart protagonist is bad writing and is stupid. Having smart protagonists requires better writing and a smarter writer. A smart protagonist ups the ante. The writer is simply going to have to throw better piles of dog do do in the way of the protagonist accomplishing their goals. Also the writer is going to have to write a more sophisticated antagonist.

[David7204]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yet a conflict solved by building a super weapon with magical factories was not work? "I may have found a way to defeat the reapers. It's a Prothean super weapon." We're missing only one component - the catalyst. It just so happened to fit perfectly on the Citadel. I want to know where those factories that were building it were, because the reapers targeted every major manufacturing region in the galaxy straight away. But it all gets rectified because of Kai Leng, right? "Not so fast! Someone wants to speak with you."

Err...the Crucible was work and little else. And that's precisely the reason why it's a stupid plot point and poor writing. The primary reason, anyway.

Do you have an actual arguments against what I had to say? Anything besides pointless and irrelavant platitudes? I didn't speak anything else smart protagonists. I spoke againsts protagonists (or anyone else) solving conflicts with 'science' and nothing else.

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:34 .