9088 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

While it does have a somewhat negative tone towards it all, I highly suggest a viewing of TechnoCalyps.

Part 1 is more general and scientific.
Part 2 is imo the best, and presents the moral questions that imo Mass Effect was attempting.
Part 3 may annoy some here. It brings in the religious/spiritual aspects and ...imo, where the Mass Effect series itself may be heading.

youtu.be/7MXQSbjBL7Q

[SwobyJ]

ruggly wrote...

Daemul wrote...

I've always seen the Control ending as the Helios ending of ME3.

How interesting would it have been for ME3 control to have Shepard keep their form (or use the AI body concept art) but be completely detached from everything still.

My headcanon-ish deal is that Shepard's body remains, but the mind is replaced by an AI that only acts like it is Shepard, or thinks it is him, or something like that...

Not getting into why I think that lol

[ruggly]

SwobyJ wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Daemul wrote...

I've always seen the Control ending as the Helios ending of ME3.

How interesting would it have been for ME3 control to have Shepard keep their form (or use the AI body concept art) but be completely detached from everything still.

My headcanon-ish deal is that Shepard's body remains, but the mind is replaced by an AI that only acts like it is Shepard, or thinks it is him, or something like that...

Not getting into why I think that lol

Pretty much what I was thinking with that scenario.  Instead of Shepard getting uploaded, it's the catalyst that gets uploaded into Shepard.

[Ieldra]

Daemul wrote...
If you're interested you can also watch this conversation taken from Deus Ex:Invisible War where JC Helios outlines his vision of a posthuman civilisation



You can also check out the Helios ending from the first Deus Ex



I've always seen the Control ending as the Helios ending of ME3.

This shows so clearly how bad ME3's endings have been executed in comparison. Had they been discussed in this depth, had we been able to ask the kind of questions Alex asks here, I'm sure the reception would've been rather different.

[SwobyJ]

ruggly wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Daemul wrote...

I've always seen the Control ending as the Helios ending of ME3.

How interesting would it have been for ME3 control to have Shepard keep their form (or use the AI body concept art) but be completely detached from everything still.

My headcanon-ish deal is that Shepard's body remains, but the mind is replaced by an AI that only acts like it is Shepard, or thinks it is him, or something like that...

Not getting into why I think that lol

Pretty much what I was thinking with that scenario.  Instead of Shepard getting uploaded, it's the catalyst that gets uploaded into Shepard.

Yeah. Sort of. The hangup for people is the whole 'Catalyst' part, thinking its the kid.

My thoughts are that the Catalyst is actually Sovereign. But that's just speculationz.

Could be interesting to me though. A being that caused to many deaths, eventually becoming the 'hero' and reconciling that. Dramaaa.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Daemul wrote...
If you're interested you can also watch this conversation taken from Deus Ex:Invisible War where JC Helios outlines his vision of a posthuman civilisation



You can also check out the Helios ending from the first Deus Ex



I've always seen the Control ending as the Helios ending of ME3.

This shows so clearly how bad ME3's endings have been executed in comparison. Had they been discussed in this depth, had we been able to ask the kind of questions Alex asks here, I'm sure the reception would've been rather different.

One of my complaints with the ending is that it just doesn't fit, it's the Megablok to my Lego Mass Effect story. If the AI of Mass Effect had adhered to the Catalyst's description of Synthetics and the merits of each choice had been discussed throughout the story I might be some what down for the meta-physical/philosophical bent of the ending. Instead it feels like the story died with Anderson and everything with the Catalyst is just... something else.

I think the Synthesis choice is very reflective of this. The option comes out of left field and the exact mechanics of what it does is left so frustratingly vague by the Catalyst that the actualy meaning and interpreation of what it does is left to the player. To me it always seemed like an assertion that 'understanding' and peace or whatever was some relfex of biology, instead of going out and talking to people. I always wanted to ask the Catalyst, "Synthetics gain 'understanding' by having partly Organic DNA? I thought the Synthetics already had a pretty good understanding of Organics. I thought the problem existed because of prejudice, which is hardly a Organic vs Synthetic thing and hardly this inevitable conflict."

Coming here though I realized that people have an entirely different view of Synthesis which is entirely reasonable, maybe even the intended view of the writers. I don't even necessarily disagree with the idea that Synthesis represents ascension or that such a thing is bad -- I just don't see Synthesis as that, because the introduction was so random and ambiguous. Even after reading your entire original post (which I thought was good) I just can't get out of my original mindset.

[CosmicGnosis]

Since BioWare seems to want some religious metaphors in their ending, I think that Shepard should have become some kind of conduit between the Reapers and the galaxy in the Synthesis ending. He would be the symbolic bridge between the "gods" and the galaxy, and both sides would communicate through him.

Some may believe that Shepard is indoctrinated, but the reality is that he has subverted Indoctrination; Shepard doesn't go mad when communicating with the Reapers, which allows him to become a messianic figure that reconciles both sides. Shepard explains the Reapers' perspective to the galaxy, and he explains the galaxy's perspective to the Reapers. As time passes, "the Shepard" persuades many individuals to take the Synthesis leap that he took.

In doing so, they gain the knowledge of the Reapers, and that knowledge is used to advance society in astonishing ways. Thus, another Lovecraftian theme, the fear of knowledge, is subverted.

And this is how Shepard saves the galaxy. He liberates everyone, including the Reapers, and no one is forced to change.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 29 décembre 2013 - 11:52 .

[Ieldra]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Daemul wrote...
If you're interested you can also watch this conversation taken from Deus Ex:Invisible War where JC Helios outlines his vision of a posthuman civilisation



You can also check out the Helios ending from the first Deus Ex



I've always seen the Control ending as the Helios ending of ME3.

This shows so clearly how bad ME3's endings have been executed in comparison. Had they been discussed in this depth, had we been able to ask the kind of questions Alex asks here, I'm sure the reception would've been rather different.

One of my complaints with the ending is that it just doesn't fit, it's the Megablok to my Lego Mass Effect story. If the AI of Mass Effect had adhered to the Catalyst's description of Synthetics and the merits of each choice had been discussed throughout the story I might be some what down for the meta-physical/philosophical bent of the ending. Instead it feels like the story died with Anderson and everything with the Catalyst is just... something else.

I think the Synthesis choice is very reflective of this. The option comes out of left field and the exact mechanics of what it does is left so frustratingly vague by the Catalyst that the actualy meaning and interpreation of what it does is left to the player. To me it always seemed like an assertion that 'understanding' and peace or whatever was some relfex of biology, instead of going out and talking to people. I always wanted to ask the Catalyst, "Synthetics gain 'understanding' by having partly Organic DNA? I thought the Synthetics already had a pretty good understanding of Organics. I thought the problem existed because of prejudice, which is hardly a Organic vs Synthetic thing and hardly this inevitable conflict."

Coming here though I realized that people have an entirely different view of Synthesis which is entirely reasonable, maybe even the intended view of the writers. I don't even necessarily disagree with the idea that Synthesis represents ascension or that such a thing is bad -- I just don't see Synthesis as that, because the introduction was so random and ambiguous. Even after reading your entire original post (which I thought was good) I just can't get out of my original mindset.

I'm the last person to deny that the implementation of the Synthesis left a great deal to be desired, but the ascension theme and the prospect of a hyper-advanced future is explicit in the Extended Cut epilogue, even though it's not as clearly visible in the Catalyst encounter. The implementation and the explanation in the Catalyst encounter is partly nonsensical (hybrid DNA, "final evolution" and Shepard's "essence" which powers it all. Ugh.), but the outcome is rather more clear. So I disregard the nonsense in the exposition and choose for the outcome, and part of the OP - thanks for reading btw - are written to replace some of the nonsense with something more plausible.  

[ruggly]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Since BioWare seems to want some religious metaphors in their ending, I think that Shepard should have become some kind of conduit between the Reapers and the galaxy in the Synthesis ending. He would be the literal and symbolic bridge between the "gods" and the galaxy, and both sides would communicate through him.

Some may believe that Shepard is indoctrinated, but the reality is that he has subverted Indoctrination; Shepard doesn't go mad when communicating with the Reapers, which allows him to become a messianic figure that reconciles both sides. Shepard explains the Reapers' perspective to the galaxy, and he explains the galaxy's perspective to the Reapers. As time passes, "the Shepard" persuades many individuals to take the Synthesis leap that he took.

In doing so, they gain the knowledge of the Reapers, and that knowledge is used to advance society in astonishing ways. Thus, another Lovecraftian theme, the fear of knowledge, is subverted.

And this is how Shepard saves the galaxy. He liberates everyone, including the Reapers, and no one is forced to change.

I woudn't have minded something like that.

[SwobyJ]

Ewwww, Space Jesus.

[Mangalores]

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
The first thing about Synthesis to understand is that it's not about universal harmony and peace. It's about being on the same level, so that conflicts, which will inevitably arise, don't lead to the extinction of one side. On the synthetic side, "understanding" doesn't guarantee a conflict-free state but it is conducive to a state where the chance of talking things out is greater. On the organic side, the upgrades bring them up to a synthetic-like level of capability....

Which doesn't solve what the Starchild thinks it does.

Obadiah wrote...

Mangalores wrote...
...
The problem is that Synthesis doesn't logically conclude to do what Starchild think it does. So we merge all the nano tech over there with all the DNA goo over there and have harmony, peace and understanding... why?
...

Why:
Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. But these improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, they must be allowed to evolve. They must, by definition, surpass their creators. The result is conflict, destruction, chaos. It is inevitable.

Result:
Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology.

My understanding:
Organics no longer need Synthetics to improve themselves because, in Synthesis, they are as perfected as they are going to be with synthetic technology (so no AI slavery), and thus Synthetics are free to evolve past their original limitations without coming into conflict with organics.

You misunderstood me. My issue is the effects described by Synthesis do nothing to achieve the goals supposedly achieved by Synthesis. The entire idea that some random definition of "perfection" ends evolution, chaos, conflict and destruction is what is nonsense as is the idea that  surpassing the creator must end in conflict when the only actual example of that are the Reapers themselves.

Modifié par Mangalores, 30 décembre 2013 - 12:37 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

SwobyJ wrote...

While it does have a somewhat negative tone towards it all, I highly suggest a viewing of TechnoCalyps.

Part 1 is more general and scientific.
Part 2 is imo the best, and presents the moral questions that imo Mass Effect was attempting.
Part 3 may annoy some here. It brings in the religious/spiritual aspects and ...imo, where the Mass Effect series itself may be heading.

youtu.be/7MXQSbjBL7Q

Max More: I don't remember exactly what he said, but he said something about that he doesn't want to be sitting on the sidelines watching some robot taking off into space. He wants to be there.

I'm with him on this technological stuff. What do I get out of it? What do I get out of all this super computer crap? if they can build a computer that becomes self aware and reproduces itself and replaces me, I get nothing out of it. What good is it? But this nanotech stuff where they can keep my brain functioning or even improve its function, keep my organs functioning or improve their functioning, and perhaps start replacing stuff as it wears out? That I can get something out of. And even instead of croaking altogether they get to a point where they can upload consciousness into a virtual world, then I get something out of that too.

So I want to be there. I don't want to be left behind.

[SwobyJ]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

While it does have a somewhat negative tone towards it all, I highly suggest a viewing of TechnoCalyps.

Part 1 is more general and scientific.
Part 2 is imo the best, and presents the moral questions that imo Mass Effect was attempting.
Part 3 may annoy some here. It brings in the religious/spiritual aspects and ...imo, where the Mass Effect series itself may be heading.

youtu.be/7MXQSbjBL7Q

Max More: I don't remember exactly what he said, but he said something about that he doesn't want to be sitting on the sidelines watching some robot taking off into space. He wants to be there.

I'm with him on this technological stuff. What do I get out of it? What do I get out of all this super computer crap? if they can build a computer that becomes self aware and reproduces itself and replaces me, I get nothing out of it. What good is it? But this nanotech stuff where they can keep my brain functioning or even improve its function, keep my organs functioning or improve their functioning, and perhaps start replacing stuff as it wears out? That I can get something out of. And even instead of croaking altogether they get to a point where they can upload consciousness into a virtual world, then I get something out of that too.

So I want to be there. I don't want to be left behind.

I do too.

Yes, I don't really care if it happens in my lifetime or not. I'm in no rush, no real obsession about it. It's a very interesting concept to me, and always has been, but I also love my more basic humanity. I, in fact, love even much of the primal.

That's why moral questions, especially in these RPGs, can stump me in a way. I'm playing Shin Megami Tensei IV right now () and I'm so stuck between the Law and Chaos sides that ultimately for these games, I pick the Neutral or Freedom route. Whatever advancements happen, I don't want them imposed on anyone to the point of force.

But the science itself? Ok. I'll just process it first. I do want to be there, but I'm not about to take any tool as automatically good for us, especially if it ventures into the areas of sapience/sentience itself.

Case by case. That's me. In Mass Effect I welcomed the ME2 Geth, was wary about but ultimately trusted the Reaper Coded ME3 Geth, and first Synthesised with the Reapers but every time after that I've Destroyed. While some of the aspects of Synthesis are, imo going to become important to Mass Effect moving forward, I made the choice to not embrace them immediately but instead take my time to learn about it first.

It would be funny (toss away the literal or alternative views of the ending and just look at things generally) if we get a Wrex(ME1)+Bakara(ME2)+Krogan(ME3) situation in the next game.
-Did you just cure the Krogan but Wrex and Bakara died? Well, curing the Krogan wasn't so bad, but we've probably screwed everything else up.
-Did you cure the Krogan with Wrex alive? Well, it looks like things will be mostly ok.
-Did you cure the Krogan with Wrex and Bakara alive? Well, it looks like they're going to head into a new Golden Age, at least in story tone.

Maybe we might (again, forget about literal or IT or Intoxication Theory etc, just pure and general imagination) if we get a similar thing with Reapers or at least 'Machines' in a 'future' game. If you choose Synthesis, while parts are distasteful, you might set up the pieces for a better 'Machine Peace' outcome. If you choose something else, maybe it'll be harder, or there will be more of an uphill climb. The story itself is the same, but the telling of it could have different tones.

But wait, the events don't matter. Nevermind

[Ieldra]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

While it does have a somewhat negative tone towards it all, I highly suggest a viewing of TechnoCalyps.

Part 1 is more general and scientific.
Part 2 is imo the best, and presents the moral questions that imo Mass Effect was attempting.
Part 3 may annoy some here. It brings in the religious/spiritual aspects and ...imo, where the Mass Effect series itself may be heading.

youtu.be/7MXQSbjBL7Q

Max More: I don't remember exactly what he said, but he said something about that he doesn't want to be sitting on the sidelines watching some robot taking off into space. He wants to be there.

I'm with him on this technological stuff. What do I get out of it? What do I get out of all this super computer crap? if they can build a computer that becomes self aware and reproduces itself and replaces me, I get nothing out of it. What good is it? But this nanotech stuff where they can keep my brain functioning or even improve its function, keep my organs functioning or improve their functioning, and perhaps start replacing stuff as it wears out? That I can get something out of. And even instead of croaking altogether they get to a point where they can upload consciousness into a virtual world, then I get something out of that too.

So I want to be there. I don't want to be left behind.

Absolutely. Actually, that's what transhumanism is about for me. Changing ourselves so that we can be there.

@SwobyJ:
I do regret that it probably won't happen in my lifetime, but it's far more important to me see things happening and see our technology "on the road", so that I can be positive about the future.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 décembre 2013 - 08:16 .

[David7204]

There's a somewhat compelling argument that the universe we inhibit is almost certainly virtual.

[Ieldra]

Mangalores wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
The first thing about Synthesis to understand is that it's not about universal harmony and peace. It's about being on the same level, so that conflicts, which will inevitably arise, don't lead to the extinction of one side. On the synthetic side, "understanding" doesn't guarantee a conflict-free state but it is conducive to a state where the chance of talking things out is greater. On the organic side, the upgrades bring them up to a synthetic-like level of capability....

Which doesn't solve what the Starchild thinks it does.

The logic goes as follows:

If you have two domains of life of which one is intrinsically more powerful than the other, a history of conflict will inevitably end in the extinction of the weaker side. Put them on the same level, and the probabiliy of extinction is drastically reduced. If the Catalyst has a deep understanding of the development of civilization, something like the discipline of psychohistory in Asimov's Foundation cycle, then it will be able to make accurate predictions about the outcome of decisions made now (the larger picture only, not details), for rather far into the future.

I don't think it's all that hard to suspend your disbelief for this. The nonsense lies all in the implementation; the basic logic appears rather plausible to me. I concede, though, that this is already an interpretation, and given the exposition of the original ending, I don't think the writers thought this through even this far but rather left the ending on a symbolic level with no grounding in in-world logic. Nonetheless, it is possible to make sense of it.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the nonsensical "final evolution", the idea of a hybrid DNA and Shepard's "essence" as powering the change.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 décembre 2013 - 08:33 .

[SwobyJ]

Of course they left it on the symbolic level with a lack of logic.

The friggin place for the decision was going to be the 'Guardian's Garden' with dream trees in it.

Lalalalaindoclalala.

"In medicine, a mass effect is the effect of a growing mass which results in secondary pathological effects.
In oncology, the mass typically refers to a tumor.
(...)
In neurology, mass effect is a general term applied to the effects exerted by any mass, including, for example, an evolving intracerebral hemorrhage (a bleeding within the skull) presenting with a clinically significant hematoma. The hematoma can exert a mass effect on the brain, increasing intracranial pressure and potentially causing midline shift or deadly brain herniation." -Wiki

Anyway, all's I'm saying is that Bioware decided to go dreamy with us in ME3 instead of give us a more concrete establishment of a transhumanistic story.

Maybe the next game. Maybe. Maybe. A part of me really hopes!

Mac, you got your dreamy game. Now give us something cooler again.

[Eryri]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mangalores wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
The first thing about Synthesis to understand is that it's not about universal harmony and peace. It's about being on the same level, so that conflicts, which will inevitably arise, don't lead to the extinction of one side. On the synthetic side, "understanding" doesn't guarantee a conflict-free state but it is conducive to a state where the chance of talking things out is greater. On the organic side, the upgrades bring them up to a synthetic-like level of capability....

Which doesn't solve what the Starchild thinks it does.

The logic goes as follows:

If you have two domains of life of which one is intrinsically more powerful than the other, a history of conflict will inevitably end in the extinction of the weaker side. Put them on the same level, and the probabiliy of extinction is drastically reduced. snip

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that ME3's version of synthesis would even accomplish this. While I don't deny the ability to repair and maintain one's cells indefinitely would be a terrific thing to have, it still doesn't bring post-organics to the competitive level of pure synthetics. Some of the greatest potential advantages of a synthetic lifeform would be their durability, their ability to adapt to a wide variety of environments (including the vacuum of space) and most powerful of all, their ability to rapidly reproduce themselves, while designing improvements into each new generation.

The Geth were able to simply copy themselves into new platforms. (Or at least they were, before the equally space magic-ish transfer of "Reaper Code" to turn them into "true AI") Given enough resources they could churn out "offspring" on an assembly line basis. They were classic Von Neumann machines. Geth could conceivably survive perfectly happily almost anywhere; on asteroids, mining them for minerals, while even synthesised organics would still be restricted to very specific environments. Unless organic life adopts cloning, or some other rapid method of reproduction, and vastly augment their own physical forms to give them similar environmental tolerances, synthetic forms would still be able to vastly out-compete them. ME3's particular, funamental reason for advocating synthesis still seems to be flawed to me - in addition to being deeply flawed in its quasi-mystical implementation.

Modifié par Eryri, 30 décembre 2013 - 12:42 .

[Daemul]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Daemul wrote...
If you're interested you can also watch this conversation taken from Deus Ex:Invisible War where JC Helios outlines his vision of a posthuman civilisation



You can also check out the Helios ending from the first Deus Ex



I've always seen the Control ending as the Helios ending of ME3.

This shows so clearly how bad ME3's endings have been executed in comparison. Had they been discussed in this depth, had we been able to ask the kind of questions Alex asks here, I'm sure the reception would've been rather different.

I'm not sure about that, the audiences for Mass Effect and Deus Ex seem to be two different gaming segments with some crossover from people like you and me. I'm not sure many people would have understood what was going even if it was similarily executed.

Mind you, I'm not by any measure calling the main Mass Effect segement stupid or anything like that, I'm just saying that most wouldn't be familiar with this theme. It wouldn''t be their fault either, since it is rarely touched upon in gaming and when it is it's mainly restricted to PC games. 

[Ieldra]

SwobyJ wrote...
Of course they left it on the symbolic level with a lack of logic.

The friggin place for the decision was going to be the 'Guardian's Garden' with dream trees in it.

Lalalalaindoclalala.

[...]

Anyway, all's I'm saying is that Bioware decided to go dreamy with us in ME3 instead of give us a more concrete establishment of a transhumanistic story.

Maybe the next game. Maybe. Maybe. A part of me really hopes!

Mac, you got your dreamy game. Now give us something cooler again.

I believe Hudson is the mastermind behind the symbolism, if only because (a) the idea as such is interesting, as ill-fitting as it is for a somewhat grounded SF story, and ( it takes some creativity to design something like this. Mac is good in screenwriting for characters, but honestly, I get the impression that he's grossly incompetent in plotting and worldbuilding. There's not a single original thought in his comics, they're all 100% derivative of things already existing elsewhere in the same universe, and consistent worldbuilding went down the drain as soon as he'd taken the helm.

Of course I can be wrong since I don't know these people in person, but that's the impression I get. Grounding the symbolism in in-world logic would've been Mac's task, and while it wasn't an easy one, he really should've done better than to come up with ideas like hybrid DNA and the "final evolution of life". Of course, the whole religious angle I blame on Hudson, since he would've made the decision to cut the more scientifically grounded version of the Reaper reveal in ME2.

Ah sh*t. What wouldn't I give to be able to talk to them in person and ask how this came to pass and what they thought players would take away from it. Something went wrong in the communication between writers and players through their work, of that I'm reasonably sure. It would be nice to be able to pinpoint where.

[Ieldra]

Eryri wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mangalores wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
The first thing about Synthesis to understand is that it's not about universal harmony and peace. It's about being on the same level, so that conflicts, which will inevitably arise, don't lead to the extinction of one side. On the synthetic side, "understanding" doesn't guarantee a conflict-free state but it is conducive to a state where the chance of talking things out is greater. On the organic side, the upgrades bring them up to a synthetic-like level of capability....

Which doesn't solve what the Starchild thinks it does.

The logic goes as follows:

If you have two domains of life of which one is intrinsically more powerful than the other, a history of conflict will inevitably end in the extinction of the weaker side. Put them on the same level, and the probabiliy of extinction is drastically reduced. snip

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that ME3's version of synthesis would even accomplish this. While I don't deny the ability to repair and maintain one's cells indefinitely would be a terrific thing to have, it still doesn't bring post-organics to the competitive level of pure synthetics. Some of the greatest potential advantages of a synthetic lifeform would be their durability, their ability to adapt to a wide variety of environments (including the vacuum of space) and most powerful of all, their ability to rapidly reproduce themselves, while designing improvements into each new generation.

The Geth were able to simply copy themselves into new platforms. (Or at least they were, before the equally space magic-ish transfer of "Reaper Code" to turn them into "true AI") Given enough resources they could churn out "offspring" on an assembly line basis. They were classic Von Neumann machines. Geth could conceivably survive perfectly happily almost anywhere; on asteroids, mining them for minerals, while even synthesised organics would still be restricted to very specific environments. Unless organic life adopts cloning, or some other rapid method of reproduction, and vastly augment their own physical forms to give them similar environmental tolerances, synthetic forms would still be able to vastly out-compete them. ME3's particular, funamental reason for advocating synthesis still seems to be flawed to me - in addition to being deeply flawed in its quasi-mystical implementation.

Well, organics can't get there without synthetic upgrades, which is exactly the point of Synthesis. I concede there's an imbalance though: synthetics don't appear to gain anything significant from the Synthesis. That "understanding" mentioned by the Catalyst is really nothing you'd need such a big change for, you could just program it in.

While I'm at it: neither would organics need such a fundamental change. It would be sufficient to make Lazarus technology widely available and go forward from there using some knowledge acquired from the Reapers. Making Shepard the avatar of Synthesis would've been vastly more appropriate, but no, they "had to die" because ME3 was intended to be "Heroic Sacrifice: The Game".  

[SwobyJ]

The Reapers told me to do it so I did it. I win, right?

/hides

[Eryri]

Ieldra2 wrote...

snip... but no, they "had to die" because ME3 was intended to be "Heroic Sacrifice: The Game".  

Indeed. A regrettable direction for the franchise. Perhaps it's some sort of HBO-Envy?

Modifié par Eryri, 30 décembre 2013 - 03:07 .

[Obadiah]

Mangalores wrote...
...
My issue is the effects described by Synthesis do nothing to achieve the goals supposedly achieved by Synthesis. The entire idea that some random definition of "perfection" ends evolution, chaos, conflict and destruction is what is nonsense as is the idea that  surpassing the creator must end in conflict when the only actual example of that are the Reapers themselves.

Fandango9641 wrote...
...
Aye, and its that kind of logic that leads people like me to despair. Lauding synthesis for the violence it does to diversity, tolerance, autonomy and understanding is legitimately horrifying! Besides, cherry-picking the elements of the ending you like in attempting to reinvent it as something more appealing to you is to make no case as to its merits.

Except it doesn't do "violence it does to diversity, tolerance, autonomy and understanding" nor does it " end evolution, chaos, conflict and destruction."

It ends one source of one particular conflict, with some decent side effects as seen in the EC slides. It is probably a final evolutuion for sentient beings that can study and harness the new abilities of Synthesis, but we were doing that anyway with medicine and other tools.

Modifié par Obadiah, 30 décembre 2013 - 03:34 .