9088 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

BeastSaver wrote...

I thought "It is an efficient model," was referring to the sniper rifle that was being picked up.

I prefer the Geth as they were in ME2, wanting to evolve along their own path. However, once the Quarians attacked them, that showed a major flaw in the shared-intelligence model. "Imagine if, as your people are being killed, your own intelligence dims," (paraphrased).

Yes, if I recall Legion/Geth VI do say that is why the Geth turn themselves over to the Reaper. The loss of the mega structure and many programs reduced their overall intelligence, and in that moment they decided loss of free-will was greater than extinction.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Having said that (see above), I am finding myself relieved to be mostly rid of the ME universe in my mind. DA is like a breath of fresh air, and it's such a relief not having to fight the writers.

I hope that the next game can convince you to renew your status as a fan. You have a perspective that others lack. Your complaints have always been rather non-mainstream. I hope that someone important at BioWare has noticed this massive thread and read through it.

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...
But I never really saw how Synthesis was seen as anti-diversity in any meaningful sense. Did peace at Rannoch reduce diversity?

No, but that was a symbiosis, not a galaxy-wide biochemical adaptation.

And of course Synthesis *is* not anti-diversity in a biological sense if you think things through. First, "a new...DNA" was a figure of speech and not meant literally, and even if you follow this analogy through, all species on Earth have their genetic information coded by DNA and there's a great deal of diversity of life on Earth. The problem exists purely on the thematic level: the idea "cast all life into (one) new framework" carries the message of "biochemical unification", and because this is said to solve a problem it is to be regarded as meaningful.

There would've been several ways to avoid this unfortunate message: (1) Make the Synthesis a symbiosis like on Rannoch and let it create tools to make synthetic and organic life more physically compatible. (2) Make the Synthesis a choice for every individual. Even with the hint that non-synthesized life would eventually be doomed to insignificance, this would have avoided the thematic pitfall. (3) Explain that the Synthesis actually increases any individual's choices. This is, after all, very much hinted at in the epilogue. Basically, everyone is provided a high-level built-in toolbox. 

I've said it before: the main problem of the endings in general and Synthesis specifically is their use of allegory and symbolism in a way disconnected from the actual ME lore. The writers didn't anchor their allegories in the lore, so the fans looked for the most obvious link to the lore in order to get a plausible interpretation of what that allegory means for the actual ME universe. The most obvious example is Control: the theme of Control is order enforced by an ultimate authority in order to avoid a conflict that would otherwise destroy everything. We can discuss the merit of the idea on its own with no obvious bias except by our own personal ideologies. The idea as such is neutral. However, ME lore provides a context wherein everyone who sought this Control was evil and ultimately failed. Connected to ME lore, the idea isn't neutral any more. This is the most obvious connection, and since the writers failed to provide their own connection, many fans latched onto that. It would've been easy to avoid that: just give Shepard an appropriate response when TIM asks "Will YOU control the Reapers?". Something like "After all I've seen, better I than you." might have worked.    

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Having said that (see above), I am finding myself relieved to be mostly rid of the ME universe in my mind. DA is like a breath of fresh air, and it's such a relief not having to fight the writers.

I hope that the next game can convince you to renew your status as a fan. You have a perspective that others lack. Your complaints have always been rather non-mainstream. I hope that someone important at BioWare has noticed this massive thread and read through it.

Thank you. Some of the debates here have been rather interesting.

As for renewing my interest in future ME games, there are two necessary conditions:

(1) Subvert the traditionalism. While I don't need my games to actively support my personal ideology, I am not motivated to actively take part in stories which habitually treat it with contempt. More specifically: between Miranda-level genetic engineering and the Reapers, I am always drawn to the (truly) alien, the "other", and the things which challenge our traditional ideas of what it means to be human, and I'm absolutely sick of stories which portray these things as irredeemably evil, abomination etc.. through visual and/or textual representation or association with antagonists, or portray those who embody it as somehow in need of redemption. Synthesis attempted a subversion, and that's in part why I like it, but as people have observed, it isn't exactly a natural fit with the rest of the story, and the religious vibe greatly reduces its appeal anyway.

(2) Let me play an intelligent protagonist. While I'm at it, don't portray a "heart-over-mind" ideology as the epitome of the good, and dispense with the insulting feel-good morality.

I've said it before: even considering that DA2's Hawke is way more defined than DAO's Warden (which I preferred), playing DA2 after ME3 was a revelation. It made me realize just how suffocating ME's Shepard is to play ever since and including the ending and post-ending DLC of ME2, and how suffocatingly the themes of the story are presented. How much of all that was intentional I can't say, but it doesn't matter: the result counts.

While I'm at it: one more thing which might renew my interest is a story set in a post-Synthesis galaxy - though I have no confidence that anyone in the ME team could write a satisfactory one.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 février 2014 - 12:32 .

[Ieldra]

StreetMagic wrote...
I don't think you can escape from the religious tones of Synthesis. The whole transhuman and "tech singularity" movement is pseudo-religious already. It's like a geeky version of Gnosticism. Complete with a Protestant styled "Rapture", where we're all saved from our mundane/physical nature. Anything that champions a way of life other than flesh and blood and living in the present is going to be religious.

As a transhumanist, I have to disagree. I most emphatically do not believe that any kind of plausible existence where the traits that define us as intelligent beings (not necessarily as humans) are retained will solve all our problems. Nor do I think that a non-biological existence is necessarily preferable to "flesh and blood" (some do, but I don't). What I do believe is that technologies to overcome some of our defining limitations - as a choice made by and for individuals - are intrinsically desirable and should be pursued. That, and nothing more, lies at the heart of the transhumanist movement. There is really no religion in that.

The perception that transhumanism is like a religion has two roots: first, for some, it really is, and they are often among the more outspoken people. Second, among other things, it deals with relative immortality (defined as a state of being where you don't die of natural causes), which has religious connotations for many, especially in the cultural sphere of the Abrahamic religions. Meanwhile, it needs to be noted that this is one of the least speculative technological goals since it already exists in the biological realm, though not for so-called higher species.

All this is not particularly relevant to Synthesis and its religious vibe though: that is carried by the implication that Shepard "sacrifices their soul" in order to give everyone a chance at a better life and galactic civilization a chance at survival. As I mentioned in my first Synthesis thread, it is also linked to the idea of Chrisitianity that we'll all end up in an afterlife where we continue to exist forever in bodies in perfect physical condition. That's where the allusion to "perfection" comes in. As opposed to that, transhumanism does not promote any specific kind of existence as perfect.

[Obadiah]

StreetMagic wrote...
...
I don't think you can escape from the religious tones of Synthesis. The whole transhuman and "tech singularity" movement is pseudo-religious already. It's like a geeky version of Gnosticism. Complete with a Protestant styled "Rapture", where we're all saved from our mundane/physical nature. Anything that champions a way of life other than flesh and blood and living in the present is going to be religious.

I don't think Synthesis is any more religious than believing it is best to just do what you're told and kill the enemy (what we're accustomed to doing in every other game).

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 février 2014 - 04:55 .

[Skvindt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Thank you. Some of the debates here have been rather interesting.

As for renewing my interest in future ME games, there are two necessary conditions:

<snip>

Not even just for the combat?

I mean I get where you're coming from and I don't blame you.  But you gotta admit setting up a biotic explosion or sending in a drone to electrocute someones face is pretty damn cool/fun.

[jtav]

Not Ieldra, but I think I speak for him when I say that combat is at best a pleasant distraction we could actually handle less of.

As for those themes, the Christ imagery is all over Synthesis. Shepard's death effects a fundamentally new order that saves all life from the problem that would doom them and institutes a paradise. Which also carries a pretty unpleasant message that we can't ccoexist without this fundamental alteration and are broken without Shepard the Christ-figure.

[ImaginaryMatter]

SRX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Thank you. Some of the debates here have been rather interesting.

As for renewing my interest in future ME games, there are two necessary conditions:

<snip>

Not even just for the combat?

I mean I get where you're coming from and I don't blame you.  But you gotta admit setting up a biotic explosion or sending in a drone to electrocute someones face is pretty damn cool/fun.

To a degree. The problem with the current direction of the combat mechanics in the Mass Effect games is that they are becoming more and more fantasy like, with the MP taking the cake. There's not exactly anything wrong with this but in a series like the Mass Effect that is passes itself as a more serious science fiction story I feel like excessive explotions disconnect the game play from the universe of the story telling.

This is probably just me (although I hope some one else agrees) but I think gameplay should reflect story in these kinds of scenarios. Granted there is always going to be some degree of unrealisticness attached to video game combat and it's needed to make the game fun, but developers should be mindful of how combat fits into the game world. As far as the games are concerned I personally found ME2 to strike the best balance, although it could some fixes.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 18 février 2014 - 06:03 .

[Skvindt]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

SRX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Thank you. Some of the debates here have been rather interesting.

As for renewing my interest in future ME games, there are two necessary conditions:

<snip>

Not even just for the combat?

I mean I get where you're coming from and I don't blame you.  But you gotta admit setting up a biotic explosion or sending in a drone to electrocute someones face is pretty damn cool/fun.

To a degree. The problem with the current direction of the combat mechanics in the Mass Effect games is that they are becoming more and more fantasy like, with the MP taking the cake. There's not exactly anything wrong with this but in a series like the Mass Effect that is passes itself as a more serious science fiction story I feel like excessive explotions disconnect the game play from the universe of the story telling.

This is probably just me (although I hope some one else agrees) but I think gameplay should reflect story in these kinds of scenarios. Granted there is always going to be some degree of unrealisticness attached to video game combat and it's needed to make the game fun, but developers should be mindful of how combat fits into the game world. As far as the games are concerned I personally found ME2 to strike the best balance, although it could some fixes.

I think the trouble is that there's always this pressure to 'innovate' and spice things up.  But at the same time you need to know when to hold back as well or else stuff just becomes goofy, ridiculous, and/or too much.

Some of the stuff they added to multiplayer was pretty cool and didn't seem too far fetched.  Other stuff though felt a little too over the top though in regards to what seems plausible.

[Ieldra]

SRX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Thank you. Some of the debates here have been rather interesting.

As for renewing my interest in future ME games, there are two necessary conditions:

<snip>

Not even just for the combat?

I mean I get where you're coming from and I don't blame you.  But you gotta admit setting up a biotic explosion or sending in a drone to electrocute someones face is pretty damn cool/fun.

It is as jtav said. I don't play these kinds of games for the combat. ME3 combat is actually very good and fun, which is more than I can say of, say, DA2, and which I do appreciate, but it's nothing that motivates me to play the games. Give me a game with an excellent story, reasonably good dialogue and roleplaying opportunities, themes I can connect to but lousy combat, and likely you'll still find me playing it after a few years. Give me one with excellent combat but lousy storytelling and roleplaying, and likely I'll make it through just once, if that. ME3 was an exception in what I put up with because I was invested through playing the previous games.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

We were having a conversation about this over the weekend. Not about ME but about "war stories" in general. Who cares about the war? Yeah there's a little skirmish here and there, and we care about who lives and dies in the skirmish, but overall the war is boring. We care about the characters and their stories more than the war. I think that's where ME3 failed. It was about the war.

Regarding synthesis. From what I'm reading today, I really think it should have been dropped from the plot. I'm reading stuff that is practically telling me in about 50 years we're going to be there. There should have been a hell of a lot of transhumanism in the plain vanilla MEU. And there was some, like the skin and bone weaves, but what I'm seeing about artificial limbs and stuff like that and nanotech, we would be light years ahead by 2183-86. We wouldn't be thinking anything of nanotech enhancements, genetic engineering of humans. We're going to have cybernetic cerebral enhancements in the next 40 years. Immune system boosters. You wait and see. And they're going to keep getting smaller and smaller and more and more mainstream. It's going to be for the rich at first, but it'll trickle down sooner or later. Time to start playing powerball so I have the money.

Synthesis wouldn't have been a reaper idea. That's what I'm saying. We probably would have already achieved it to some extent already, and so would every other advanced civilization in the galaxy.

Instead BW took the idea and subverted it by 1) making the idea come from the Catalyst. 2) making Shepard have to die to achieve it. 3) applying it to every single organism in the galaxy. 4) adding mystical connotations to it and the last two made it repulsive.

Bioware blew it on this one.

[Bob from Accounting]

I'm curious. What benefits exactly do people believe 'transhumanism' would bestow that propel humanity into a new age and yet somehow never infringe on valuable human institutions we generally don't think of higher beings as sharing?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

I'm curious. What benefits exactly do people believe 'transhumanism' would bestow that propel humanity into a new age and yet somehow never infringe on valuable human institutions we generally don't think of higher beings as sharing?

I'm curious as to the meaning of your question.

[Bob from Accounting]

You seem to praise 'transhumanism.' Where exactly do you imagine it would take us?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

There are degrees of transhumanism. It would be up to the individual to decide. By the way, I don't have a philosophy, and I have to go to the hospital right now, so.... I'll be back in a couple of hours.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 février 2014 - 10:29 .

[Andrew Lucas]

jtav wrote...

Not Ieldra, but I think I speak for him when I say that combat is at best a pleasant distraction we could actually handle less of.

As for those themes, the Christ imagery is all over Synthesis. Shepard's death effects a fundamentally new order that saves all life from the problem that would doom them and institutes a paradise. Which also carries a pretty unpleasant message that we can't ccoexist without this fundamental alteration and are broken without Shepard the Christ-figure.

Never tought of Synthesis that way, good point.

[Bob from Accounting]

I doubt that.

Can a person 'decide' to abandon modern technology? Not really. To function in modern society, a person is expected to have access and to use it. Living as someone with 18th century technology today is a world different from living with 18th century technology 250 years ago. It can pretty much only be done if you accept reclusion as a consequence. I can only imagine such consequences increasing as technology affects humans on more and more fundamental levels.

So no, it really wouldn't be up to the individual in question.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 18 février 2014 - 10:35 .

[AlanC9]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

I'm curious. What benefits exactly do people believe 'transhumanism' would bestow that propel humanity into a new age and yet somehow never infringe on valuable human institutions we generally don't think of higher beings as sharing?

Technology always infringes. The printing press infringed on pretty much everything -- religion, politics, art, you name it. Institutions change over time to cope.

What sort of infringement are you talking about here?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 février 2014 - 11:25 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

StreetMagic wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Instead BW took the idea and subverted it by 1) making the idea come from the Catalyst. 2) making Shepard have to die to achieve it. 3) applying it to every single organism in the galaxy. 4) adding mystical connotations to it and the last two made it repulsive.

Bioware blew it on this one.

The first three I might be able to tolerate, if given time. The last, never.

I don't like it here anymore than BSG or Matrix. It amazes me though how some people can create compelling sci-fi settings like these, and then ruin in one instant by going the "mystical" route (to be fair though, it's only one choice out of three in Mass Effect. For which I am grateful. If some people like it, to each their own).

Actually it's not. Control also has a mystical component. You become the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient being... with faulty programming.... stupid Leviathans.

And in the end all three choices have a mystical component....

"Tell me another story about 'the Shepard.'"
"It's getting late, but alright. One more story."

Shepard has been deified.