9088 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

StreetMagic wrote...
I wouldn't mind depth of this kind, but I've never really cared about the technological aspects of ME much (or any sci-fi really). I want depth in the politics. They have all the makings of it, but it would seem their general mandate for all of their games is to eschew smaller conflicts, and write stories where people forget their differences and unite against "ancient evils". So I'll probably never get depth in politics.

I recommend DA2. it is very political on the scale of a city. You have an overburdened ruler whose family problems impinge on his political position, religious fanatics attempting to manipulate public opinion, the presence of foreign soldiers whose status between "visitors" and "would-be-conquerors" remains unclear, and two ideologically opposed factions whose conflicts tear the city apart. The political situation feels very real to me, and it's in part why I like the game in spite of its shortcomings.

Meanwhile, ME gives us the position that military leaders are competent while political leaders are idiots or villains.

Personally, I like to explore the effects of speculative technologies on societies. It's a part of why I like SF, and part of why I like Synthesis specifically since it gives the galaxy a whole cornucopia of new technological possibilities. It's just too bad that the EC ending avoids any kind of ambiguity in the outcome. Perhaps that was unavoidable though, since a subset of anti-ending people were determined to use the slightest pretext to decry all outcomes as disasters. Bioware may have felt they needed to hammer home it's all good. The result is less than satisfactory, but I can't really blame them.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 février 2014 - 11:40 .

[78stonewobble]

Nanotech is overrated... I want to see IT (semi intelligent microscopic robots in the bloodstream) working before I believe it.

Especially considering how far we have to go making just semi intelligent systems. And thats with all the room in the world to do it.

"The number of neurons, according to array tomography, a technique far more accurate than earlier microscopic methods, has shown about 200 billion neurons in the human brain with 125 trillion synapses in the cerebral cortex alone."

I find much more likely that we'll be able to construct wholly artificial human beings and organs before we are able to decipher what makes a true human level intelligence tick then emulate it electronically and then scale some of it down to nano size.

...

In any case synthesis is enforced indoctrination for the entire galaxy, no matter the technological benefits (which may or may not be beneficial in the long run).

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 février 2014 - 11:50 .

[JasonShepard]

StreetMagic wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I recommend DA2.

I've played DA2. I like it well enough. I think it's unfairly criticized. I don't think the politics are all that though. It shines where Mass Effect shines most. The characters.

Well, considering that I haven't played DA2 yet, it's good to know that I have something to look forward to. I'm still doing one Absolutely Final I-mean-it-this-time playthrough of DA:O... on Nightmare, with a no-mage party that does include Dog...

[Obadiah]

Just to address the idea of the Catalyst's statements of "seek perfection" and "perfected".

Perfect: free from defects

It is safe to say that right now we are trying to "perfect" ourselves with the technology of modern medicine, and this process will only continue in the future. If you can image yourself "perfected", free of defects, then that would be what happens in Synthesis with nano-technology. Does that mean we're all the same? Hardly. What it does signify is an end to limitations due to physical impairment, and probably an increase in ability.

Purely aesthetic perfection does not appear to be part of Synthesis, since everyone in the epilogue looks pretty much as they did before, just which circuit board skin, clothes, and green eyes.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
Just to address the idea of the Catalyst's statements of "seek perfection" and "perfected".

Perfect: free from defects

It is safe to say that right now we are trying to "perfect" ourselves with the technology of modern medicine, and this process will only continue in the future. If you can image yourself "perfected", free of defects, then that would be what happens in Synthesis with nano-technology. Does that mean we're all the same? Hardly. What it does signify is an end to limitations due to physical impairment, and probably an increase in ability.

Purely aesthetic perfection does not appear to be part of Synthesis, since everyone in the epilogue looks pretty much as they did before, just which circuit board skin, clothes, and green eyes.

Here's an example of what I'm speaking about: some people see aging and death as a defect. Actually, Christianity would agree since it's seen as a result of our flawed nature which resulted in our removal from the Garden Eden.

So,if people are made perfect, is everyone immortal then? What about those who don't see it that way? Or does Synthesis give everyone the ability to remake themselves in their own image of perfection? Where does it end? When you become as powerful as the Catalyst?

[Bob from Accounting]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Take Miranda: as genetically optimized beyond the human norm, the result of mediated reproduction and an artificial biotic on top of it, she's one of the best examples of what those "transhumanist" technologies can do. Yet she rejects all that, embracing traditional values instead...

And how exactly does she 'reject all' transhuman values and 'embrace traditional values instead'?

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 19 février 2014 - 04:15 .

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Just to address the idea of the Catalyst's statements of "seek perfection" and "perfected".

Perfect: free from defects

It is safe to say that right now we are trying to "perfect" ourselves with the technology of modern medicine, and this process will only continue in the future. If you can image yourself "perfected", free of defects, then that would be what happens in Synthesis with nano-technology. Does that mean we're all the same? Hardly. What it does signify is an end to limitations due to physical impairment, and probably an increase in ability.

Purely aesthetic perfection does not appear to be part of Synthesis, since everyone in the epilogue looks pretty much as they did before, just which circuit board skin, clothes, and green eyes.

Here's an example of what I'm speaking about: some people see aging and death as a defect. Actually, Christianity would agree since it's seen as a result of our flawed nature which resulted in our removal from the Garden Eden.

So,if people are made perfect, is everyone immortal then? What about those who don't see it that way? Or does Synthesis give everyone the ability to remake themselves in their own image of perfection? Where does it end? When you become as powerful as the Catalyst?

Well, this moves away from a common understanding of what "removal of defects" would mean, and into a realm of wishlist of goodies. We age either by design, or just because everything ages, Synthetic or otherwise. A perfection of that design would probably keep aging as an attribute or minimize it, but maybe it just be more graceful.

That's probably why the Synthesis epilogue describes immortality in an aspirational way, and not as something simply granted by Synthesis.

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 février 2014 - 05:10 .

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Just to address the idea of the Catalyst's statements of "seek perfection" and "perfected".

Perfect: free from defects

It is safe to say that right now we are trying to "perfect" ourselves with the technology of modern medicine, and this process will only continue in the future. If you can image yourself "perfected", free of defects, then that would be what happens in Synthesis with nano-technology. Does that mean we're all the same? Hardly. What it does signify is an end to limitations due to physical impairment, and probably an increase in ability.

Purely aesthetic perfection does not appear to be part of Synthesis, since everyone in the epilogue looks pretty much as they did before, just which circuit board skin, clothes, and green eyes.

Here's an example of what I'm speaking about: some people see aging and death as a defect. Actually, Christianity would agree since it's seen as a result of our flawed nature which resulted in our removal from the Garden Eden.

So,if people are made perfect, is everyone immortal then? What about those who don't see it that way? Or does Synthesis give everyone the ability to remake themselves in their own image of perfection? Where does it end? When you become as powerful as the Catalyst?

It's really just about relative thinking. We cannot really associate or even identify with 'perfection', as we're not perfect. No way to tell if'n when we actually make it to 'perfect'. But... that don't mean that many will try to get there.

I've never seen any hint or lore tid bit that lead to the concept of synthesis being perfection, maybe the opinion of reaching a tableau, or a summit of mechanical evolution, putting identity on share...
Dog Can't Reach

[Mcfly616]

Plenty of tidbits....

[CosmicGnosis]

At what point do cautionary tales embrace traditional values? Does a story like Frankenstein, which explores both sides of the power of science, the good (in this case, the creation of life) and the unethical (the process of creation), embrace traditional values? What about Jurassic Park? An amusement park of extinct animals showcases the wonders of science, but when the animals escape, it is decided that the whole park was unethical and irresponsible. Is this a traditionalist story? Just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should? And what if they had resurrected only non-carnivorous species? Would it still be "bad"?

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 19 février 2014 - 09:11 .

[Helios969]

JasonShepard wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I recommend DA2.

I've played DA2. I like it well enough. I think it's unfairly criticized. I don't think the politics are all that though. It shines where Mass Effect shines most. The characters.

Well, considering that I haven't played DA2 yet, it's good to know that I have something to look forward to. I'm still doing one Absolutely Final I-mean-it-this-time playthrough of DA:O... on Nightmare, with a no-mage party that does include Dog...

I played it after ME3 with expectations that it was going to be really bad, and was pleasantly surprised.  Be warned though, it is not a happy, feel good game...there is no ultimate victory play through.  But I thought the story was quite dynamic even if I couldn't influence things the way I was used to.  Outside the lack of influence (game and companion,) my only real complaint was its tendency to reuse level designs.  But nothing I couldn't live with.  I also recommend buying all the downloadable content for your first play through.

[Bob from Accounting]

StreetMagic wrote...

Even non-carnivious dinosaurs can severely upset the balance of an environment. Hell, rabbits can upset it, if you relocate them inappropriately.

At least in this case, it has nothing to do with value judgements.

'Even' rabbits? You say this as if large animals are a generally larger threat to 'upset the environment.' The exact opposite is true. Giant dinosaurs would almost certainly be a trivial threat to deal with, carnivious or not. Smaller animals would be much more difficult.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 19 février 2014 - 10:15 .

[JasonShepard]

Helios969 wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I recommend DA2.

I've played DA2. I like it well enough. I think it's unfairly criticized. I don't think the politics are all that though. It shines where Mass Effect shines most. The characters.

Well, considering that I haven't played DA2 yet, it's good to know that I have something to look forward to. I'm still doing one Absolutely Final I-mean-it-this-time playthrough of DA:O... on Nightmare, with a no-mage party that does include Dog...

I played it after ME3 with expectations that it was going to be really bad, and was pleasantly surprised.  Be warned though, it is not a happy, feel good game...there is no ultimate victory play through.  But I thought the story was quite dynamic even if I couldn't influence things the way I was used to.  Outside the lack of influence (game and companion,) my only real complaint was its tendency to reuse level designs.  But nothing I couldn't live with.  I also recommend buying all the downloadable content for your first play through.

I'm not one to mind dark, unhappier storylines, so long as they're well done. And reusing level designs - well, so did DA:O, it was just clever about it. (I gather DA2 is less clever about it though.) All DLC is certainly the plan.

EDIT: So the current topic of discussion is about dinosaurs, rabbits, and cross-referencing themes from Synthesis with that of Christianity? I think I may need to read through the last few pages...

Modifié par JasonShepard, 19 février 2014 - 10:38 .

[Ieldra]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Take Miranda: as genetically optimized beyond the human norm, the result of mediated reproduction and an artificial biotic on top of it, she's one of the best examples of what those "transhumanist" technologies can do. Yet she rejects all that, embracing traditional values instead...

And how exactly does she 'reject all' transhuman values and 'embrace traditional values instead'?

Play the extended death scene. It suggests that all she ever wanted was marriage and children. Also, she never came around to appreciating her own enhancements - they were a problem for her in ME2, but that arc was completely dropped in ME3.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Bob from Accounting wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Take Miranda: as genetically optimized beyond the human norm, the result of mediated reproduction and an artificial biotic on top of it, she's one of the best examples of what those "transhumanist" technologies can do. Yet she rejects all that, embracing traditional values instead...

And how exactly does she 'reject all' transhuman values and 'embrace traditional values instead'?

Play the extended death scene. It suggests that all she ever wanted was marriage and children. Also, she never came around to appreciating her own enhancements - they were a problem for her in ME2, but that arc was completely dropped in ME3.

I'd say this assessment is a little unfair on her, for it is a common theme for characters in fiction to try to get things that they are least expected to want. What she really wanted was happiness, her desire is more acute due to her childhood upbringings...On one hand, having family life is somewhat traditionalist, but on the other, being happy is not, it is perhaps, universal

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
At what point do cautionary tales embrace traditional values? Does a story like Frankenstein, which explores both sides of the power of science, the good (in this case, the creation of life) and the unethical (the process of creation), embrace traditional values? What about Jurassic Park? An amusement park of extinct animals showcases the wonders of science, but when the animals escape, it is decided that the whole park was unethical and irresponsible. Is this a traditionalist story? Just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should? And what if they had resurrected only non-carnivorous species? Would it still be "bad"?

The distinction is subtle. If a cautionary tale sends the message "be careful with X. It's very dangerous" then it isn't anti-advancement. However, all too many such tales send the message "Don't ever do/deal with X, only bad will come of it" instead. In order to send the former message, there needs to be an instance where X is used with desirable results, a success story that complements the cautionary tale, and in a story told through a visual medium, this success story must get sufficient screen time alongside the cautionary tale to have narrative impact. The cautionary tale must also avoid the impression that the disaster created by the use of X is instrinsic to X rather than the result of the user's incompetence or recklessness.

ME3 actually attempts that: the first N7 mission has you collect samples of Reaper tech for study, and Shepard is reminded by Brynn Cole what the advancements created by Cerberus did for him. However, these things have little narrative weight compared to the overwhelming evidence of failed/evil life science experiments connected to Cerberus. Even Shepard's biosynthetic fusion is downplayed as insignficant almost everywhere else, as if the writers were afraid that reminding players too much of that would make them like Shepard less. The genophage arc, too, sends a "leave these things alone" message, with Padok Wiks growing explicit about it, and as for the Reapers, just look at their minions. Abomination aesthetic plus genocidal acts sends a very strong message.

So whatever the intention, the message driven home is mostly "life sciences are evil".

[Helios969]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Bob from Accounting wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Take Miranda: as genetically optimized beyond the human norm, the result of mediated reproduction and an artificial biotic on top of it, she's one of the best examples of what those "transhumanist" technologies can do. Yet she rejects all that, embracing traditional values instead...

And how exactly does she 'reject all' transhuman values and 'embrace traditional values instead'?

Play the extended death scene. It suggests that all she ever wanted was marriage and children. Also, she never came around to appreciating her own enhancements - they were a problem for her in ME2, but that arc was completely dropped in ME3.

I'd say this assessment is a little unfair on her, for it is a common theme for characters in fiction to try to get things that they are least expected to want. What she really wanted was happiness, her desire is more acute due to her childhood upbringings...On one hand, having family life is somewhat traditionalist, but on the other, being happy is not, it is perhaps, universal

Yep.  I would extend that to real life as well.  We all think we know what we want and spend half our lives in pursuit.  It rarely lives up to expectations, and yet then we go chasing something else.  Miranda is an incredibly interesting and complex individual.  On the one hand she cannot really change the fact she was manufactured to be "perfect" and takes advantage of those assets...even flaunts them frequently.  Yet she despises that she is so dependent on her genetic makeup and the lack of choice it represents.  Hers, might be a story of self-loathing.  I really love the scene with her in the Citadel DLC at the casino and her line: "I'm not very good at this."  Refering to downtime and interacting with others in a social setting.  It's funny I used to despise her in ME2...always siding with Jack.  But her ME3 arc really changed my perspective.

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Bob from Accounting wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Take Miranda: as genetically optimized beyond the human norm, the result of mediated reproduction and an artificial biotic on top of it, she's one of the best examples of what those "transhumanist" technologies can do. Yet she rejects all that, embracing traditional values instead...

And how exactly does she 'reject all' transhuman values and 'embrace traditional values instead'?

Play the extended death scene. It suggests that all she ever wanted was marriage and children. Also, she never came around to appreciating her own enhancements - they were a problem for her in ME2, but that arc was completely dropped in ME3.

I'd say this assessment is a little unfair on her, for it is a common theme for characters in fiction to try to get things that they are least expected to want. What she really wanted was happiness, her desire is more acute due to her childhood upbringings...On one hand, having family life is somewhat traditionalist, but on the other, being happy is not, it is perhaps, universal

This is a valid reading I tend to use as well. However, my problem does not lie with valid readings, it lies with the fact that the most simple, mainstream interpretation of that scene by people who aren't are obsessive about possible alternative interpretations as we are, does indeed suggest that she rejects one for the other. I bet if you asked 100 people not from BSN what the scene meant, a majority would say it says that. So, whatever we hardcore fans read here, the "cultural weight", so to speak, lies with the traditionalist message. This is because the alternative interpretations are not, as opposed to the traditionalist one, made explicit.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2014 - 10:17 .

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...
At what point do cautionary tales embrace traditional values? Does a story like Frankenstein, which explores both sides of the power of science, the good (in this case, the creation of life) and the unethical (the process of creation), embrace traditional values? What about Jurassic Park? An amusement park of extinct animals showcases the wonders of science, but when the animals escape, it is decided that the whole park was unethical and irresponsible. Is this a traditionalist story? Just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should? And what if they had resurrected only non-carnivorous species? Would it still be "bad"?

The distinction is subtle. If a cautionary tale sends the message "be careful with X. It's very dangerous" then it isn't anti-advancement. However, all too many such tales send the message "Don't ever do/deal with X, only bad will come of it" instead. In order to send the former message, there needs to be an instance where X is used with desirable results, a success story that complements the cautionary tale, and in a story told through a visual medium, this success story must get sufficient screen time alongside the cautionary tale to have narrative impact. The cautionary tale must also avoid the impression that the disaster created by the use of X is instrinsic to X rather than the result of the user's incompetence or recklessness.

ME3 actually attempts that: the first N7 mission has you collect samples of Reaper tech for study, and Shepard is reminded by Brynn Cole what the advancements created by Cerberus did for him. However, these things have little narrative weight compared to the overwhelming evidence of failed/evil life science experiments connected to Cerberus. Even Shepard's biosynthetic fusion is downplayed as insignficant almost everywhere else, as if the writers were afraid that reminding players too much of that would make them like Shepard less. The genophage arc, too, sends a "leave these things alone" message, with Padok Wiks growing explicit about it, and as for the Reapers, just look at their minions. Abomination aesthetic plus genocidal acts sends a very strong message.

So whatever the intention, the message driven home is mostly "life sciences are evil".

I think that's largely your interpretation...and even if correct I doubt that was the writer(s) intended message.  They are merely devices to create conflict.  Plus without all those cool abominations we would have much of the way of azz-kicking gameplay.

[Ieldra]

The intended message? Perhaps not. Even probably not, given the token attempt at subversion. I can't look into the writers' minds. But the result is the same regardless of intention.

[Obadiah]

Its probably just the nature of the TPS shoot 'em up action genre. Most stories in ME have Shepard walking into a completely ****ed-up situation, where whatever "they" were doing went to hell, so he can shoot stuff. The message just generally turns into a repeating, "don't do X."

Gotta hunt the codex for positives.