9088 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

All she ever wanted, or just the only thing she wanted that she couldn't actually have?

[CosmicGnosis]

This is one of the specific scenes from Jurassic Park that I had in mind. Watching it again, it probably can be argued that it does have a traditionalist vibe. What does it mean to "earn" knowledge?

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
This is one of the specific scenes from Jurassic Park that I had in mind. Watching it again, it probably can be argued that it does have a traditionalist vibe. What does it mean to "earn" knowledge?

Will watch that later. As for the expression of "earning" knowledge: whenever someone uses it, it usually means "You don't deserve that knowledge because you have an ideology I don't like." It's an excuse for a nonsensical moral condemnation, the one who uses it asserts moral authority over what others may or may not "rightly" know. I never come as close to an axe murder as when confronted with one of those self-righteous pricks. Fortunately, most of those people are fictional. I wonder why this expression persists. I have never met a real person who wouldn't scoff at it. 

[JasonShepard]

StreetMagic wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

This is one of the specific scenes from Jurassic Park that I had in mind. Watching it again, it probably can be argued that it does have a traditionalist vibe. What does it mean to "earn" knowledge?

That scene doesn't make any sense to me (not without more context). I think I understand what it means to earn knowledge. It's about walking through the process. There's a different between declaring an answer to a math problem, for example, and explaining your actual process. One is just trivia. The other is actual mathematics.

That said, it seems like Jeff Goldblum's character is just railing against those dudes.. I can't tell from the context of that vid, but it seems like those scientists do know what they're doing and did make the discoveries on their own.

In context (I've read the book, but not watched the film for a LONG time):

Malcolm is saying that a scientist would be more cautious than someone who goes "Ooh, we can resurrect the dinosaurs! Let's make a theme park and get rich!"

He's then asserting that a scientist would have learnt that caution by working for the knowledge. That's where the earning knowledge comes in. It is a bad phrase, but he's not exactly in a good mood. And the character does have a mindset of "Scientists = Good, Business = Bad".
(Also his dialogue goes off the rails shortly afterwards - Nature didn't select dinosaurs for extinction, they got unlucky. And by now they are more than likely incompatible with most modern ecological environments. The other scientists have more logical arguments.)

There is a related point here though. Certain knowledge is dangerous. Before we learnt how to develop nuclear weapons, there was relatively little chance of us wiping out the whole planet. Now that we can make them, we've actually come close to thermonuclear war a couple of times.

But I'd say that the moral is "Advance with caution", as opposed to "Advancement is BAD". Afterall, if we'd never gotten past the Middle Ages, then we'd just be sitting ducks for the next global disaster to wipe us out. Asteroid, supervolcano, or the eventual death of the Sun - take your pick.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 20 février 2014 - 10:26 .

[Obadiah]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

This is one of the specific scenes from Jurassic Park that I had in mind. Watching it again, it probably can be argued that it does have a traditionalist vibe. What does it mean to "earn" knowledge?

That's a pretty good argument against consumerism, really. The whole world functions on using something we just grabbed off a shelf without knowing or appreciating the work that went into creating it.

The argument does seem misplaced when used on Hammond. Perhaps if Ian Malcolm was talking to one of the scientists....

[Ieldra]

JasonShepard wrote...
There is a related point here though. Certain knowledge is dangerous. Before we learnt how to develop nuclear weapons, there was relatively little chance of us wiping out the whole planet. Now that we can make them, we've actually come close to thermonuclear war a couple of times.

But I'd say that the moral is "Advance with caution", as opposed to "Advancement is BAD". Afterall, if we'd never gotten past the Middle Ages, then we'd just be sitting ducks for the next global disaster to wipe us out. Asteroid, supervolcano, or the eventual death of the Sun - take your pick.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that certain knowledge is dangerous. There's also nothing wrong with trying to keep it out of the hands of people you think might cause disasters with it. After all, nobody wants Al-Quaeda armed with nukes.

However, I take issue with the way these things are used as arguments in political debates to make a more general, and more moral and less pragmatic point. It has to do with the "sacred nature" theme running through certain stories and real-life subcultures. It is an unfortunate legacy of classic Romanticism, this idea that the natural is somehow superior to the artificial, and it persists even in the face of the fact that almost all of human history has been dominated by the desire of the human species to overcome the restrictions placed upon them by their nature and natural environment.

For the proponents of the "sacred nature" theme, every disaster caused by human artifice is an excuse to condemn the whole project. I often get the impression that they welcome disasters like the one with genemodded corn in Brazil (the advantages of which were turned into disadvantages by the unexpectedly fast evolutionary adaptation of the pests) because it enables them to push their ideology. 

And to get back to ME3: I get the impression that large parts of the trilogy promote that mindset, including the original ending with its implication of a dark age - note how that dark age is inaugurated by beautiful nature-themed imagery. Then add the countless Cerberus disasters, almost always attempts to change some life form, Padok Wik's nonsensical statement about leaving things to "the evolutionary process" instead of politics, discounting that the human species has exactly evolved to be a social, political species and that these things have never been independent from one another even since the first human community learned to speak. And not to forget, there are the Reapers, the embodiment of turning (natural) life forms into (artificial) abominations.

The big counterpoint, of course, is Shepard. However, Shepard is seen as an anomaly. Both the Catalyst and the Leviathans make that point, and never is there any hint that what Cerberus did for Shepard could, or should, be adapted to make it more widely available. That the most interesting scenes showcasing Shepard's "unnaturalness" (on Eden Prime) are not part of the main game is probably accidental, but it contributes to the overall impression.

In short, the message "leave nature alone" with regard to changing life forms runs strong through ME2 and ME3 (less so through ME1), and one important reason why Synthesis comes across as alien to some is that it attempts a complete reversal of that message at the last moment.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 février 2014 - 08:43 .

[Helios969]

Progress good...traditionalism bad? Is that the message I'm getting through all this?

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...
Progress good...traditionalism bad? Is that the message I'm getting through all this?

I have never hidden that I'm a techno-progressivist and an anti-traditionalist radical. You are, of course, free to disagree. Perhaps I should clarify though: I don't deny that reckless advancement is dangerous and that a slower pace might be preferable. What I dismiss are objections based on traditional notions of sanctity, and I actively promote "stealing fire from the gods", i.e. aspiring to powers traditionally thought to be reserved for deities, for instance the ability to create life.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 février 2014 - 11:02 .

[Helios969]

No, I wouldn't say I disagree...especially based on your clarification. If that advancement is conducted responsibility...ethically, I'm all for it. Making my living in the cutting edge research you hold dear, I'm about as non-religious as you can get. That said I have no issue with those who believe such, so long as we agree to respect each others' beliefs.

It may be that the way to responsibly progress is to listen to the traditionalist viewpoint as well as the scientific. Those arguments based on religion and spiritual mysticism might not be something either of us can understand or relate to, but they are perfectly valid to those who hold them dear. And given how much power and influence they can wield to interfere with that progress, it's better to make nice and hear them out, and attempt to find a compromise forward.

[SwobyJ]

Remember that you're dealing with the Reapers in ME3. Any technoprogressive-ish anything related to them is going to have a darkness involved. Because, well, this is a fight against the Reapers. It's the trilogy.

However, that isn't so much the case with.. almost everything else. Krogan? Positive result. Geth? Positive result. Rachni? Positive result. Etc.

So duh, a 'Reaper advocated solution' isn't actually what it's cracked up to be, to even big futurists. ..So?

I don't mean this rudely even. I mean it in a way that - maybe you guys (and I'm sometimes one of you, haha) can deal with what is happening in the here and now (Synthesis, Control, Destroy, whatever), and look forward to the possibilities of the future games?

I know it's hard to see now, but at least in my mind, I can very well see a future Mass Effect game that is less attached to traditionalism and is more techno-progressive. I just, I guess, understood Bioware when they made the trilogy a struggle against the Reapers (even as Paragon) - not a fight to stand at the top of the world and go "Alright, let's work together" with them.

And I bloody chose Synthesis the first time through, and don't mind the choice itself being there.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

8 days ago, HYR 2.0 wrote...


Come to think of it, BioWare has flirted with that kind of thing already....

So any of you cats play this game (Mass Effect: Infiltrator)? It's an app for smartphone.

I just downloaded it recently. Controls on the main-character bug me a bit, but otherwise, it's really frickin fun.

It's not BioWare-developed, though, as I said in the above post. IronMonkey Studios did it. EA published it.

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...
It may be that the way to responsibly progress is to listen to the traditionalist viewpoint as well as the scientific. Those arguments based on religion and spiritual mysticism might not be something either of us can understand or relate to, but they are perfectly valid to those who hold them dear. And given how much power and influence they can wield to interfere with that progress, it's better to make nice and hear them out, and attempt to find a compromise forward.

In the real world, of course. In and about stories, I can afford to be uncompromising. As I said, I've read plenty of stories embracing various viewpoints, and I don't have a problem with any but the most extreme, but if a roleplaying game, which is supposed to offer me choices - which were meant to be, as the developers said, "not good or bad, but good from different viewpoints" - if that rpg forces me to be complicit in a viewpoint I detest, I find reason to complain. ME3's original ending was of that kind. The EC version isn't but there is a disconnect to the story that came before, which should tell you enough about the story. 

Note that this has a lot to do with the weight of the two previous games. ME3's Shepard on their own is a rather defined protagonist. WIth ME3 own its own, I would've probably accepted the viewpoint the game presented to me for the sake of the story. However, I had used the previous games to craft my various Shepards, and I am in the unfortunate situation of having infused my main Shepard with my personal ideology and having spent three years to refine him as a character in my mind. Having his viewpoint forcibly adjusted in the final chapter of his story feels like a betrayal.

What does this have to do with the Synthesis? Well, almost everything in that it was the only choice I don't find thematically revolting for my main Shepard's story. Note that I say "thematically" revolting, since this more about the themes presented by the different endings rather than in-world roleplaying.

[Ieldra]

SwobyJ wrote...
I know it's hard to see now, but at least in my mind, I can very well see a future Mass Effect game that is less attached to traditionalism and is more techno-progressive. I just, I guess, understood Bioware when they made the trilogy a struggle against the Reapers (even as Paragon) - not a fight to stand at the top of the world and go "Alright, let's work together" with them.

The problem was not that this was a struggle against the Reapers, but that the Reapers and what came in their wake (Cerberus etc..) were left as the only embodiment of a kind of technological advancement that changes those who initiate it, and that the idea of co-opting their technology without adopting their ideology usually resulted in adopting their ideology anyway by way of indoctrination, thus carrying the message that this kind of advancement is always bad until the endings attempted to subvert it.

This could easily have been avoided without compromising the story, by making a middle path available and attractive where we could learn from the Reapers' technology in a responsible way (as opposed to the Cerberus way) and avoid being indoctrinated through being careful enough, resulting in a Synthesis where we do the adapation ourselves instead of letting ourselves be changed by the space god. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 février 2014 - 09:08 .

[Xilizhra]

It is an unfortunate legacy of classic Romanticism, this idea that the natural is somehow superior to the artificial, and it persists even in the face of the fact that almost all of human history has been dominated by the desire of the human species to overcome the restrictions placed upon them by their nature and natural environment.

Keep in mind that, in excess, this behavior will lead to our extinction along with that of a great many other species.

[Bob from Accounting]

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 watched the scene.

Are you confident you're taking everything in from this? I don't think Miranda says these things (and has been saying these things since ME 2) just because the writers hate transhumanism and want to have the character who best epitomizes it hate it as well. I think there's a bit more going on here you're not considering.

[SwobyJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...
I know it's hard to see now, but at least in my mind, I can very well see a future Mass Effect game that is less attached to traditionalism and is more techno-progressive. I just, I guess, understood Bioware when they made the trilogy a struggle against the Reapers (even as Paragon) - not a fight to stand at the top of the world and go "Alright, let's work together" with them.

The problem was not that this was a struggle against the Reapers, but that the Reapers and what came in their wake (Cerberus etc..) were left as the only embodiment of a kind of technological advancement that changes those who initiate it, and that the idea of co-opting their technology without adopting their ideology usually resulted in adopting their ideology anyway by way of indoctrination, thus carrying the message that this kind of advancement is always bad until the endings attempted to subvert it.

This could easily have been avoided without compromising the story, by making a middle path available and attractive where we could learn from the Reapers' technology in a responsible way (as opposed to the Cerberus way) and avoid being indoctrinated through being careful enough, resulting in a Synthesis where we do the adapation ourselves instead of letting ourselves be changed by the space god. 

Geth Peace.

[DoomsdayDevice]

SwobyJ wrote...

Geth Peace.

Until the Reaper code takes over both the Geth and the Quarians in whose suits the Geth have uploaded themselves now.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 24 février 2014 - 06:26 .

[CronoDragoon]

Ieldra2 wrote...
And to get back to ME3: I get the impression that large parts of the trilogy promote that mindset, including the original ending with its implication of a dark age - note how that dark age is inaugurated by beautiful nature-themed imagery.

A few things here. First, the dark age is unintentional. It's a negative (and by the Catalyst's conversation it is meant to be negative) side effect of stopping the Reaper war. This makes it fundamentally different from Battlestar Galactica's ending, which is wildly anti-technology (the characters actually think that destroying all their technology will prevent further human/cylon conflict) by choice.

Second, the final speech by the Stargazer is about the child being excited by the prospect of exploring space, and the old man supporting that wish. That doesn't sound anti-progress to me.

Then add the countless Cerberus disasters, almost always attempts to change some life form,

It would be reckless for a story to not have examples of things going wrong in the name of "progress." Cerberus and the Reapers are both examples of that. With Cerberus, though, it's not a question of advancement but when the means to advance become corrupt and beside-the-point. That's an extremely relevant question whenever technological advancement is the topic.

Padok Wik's nonsensical statement about leaving things to "the evolutionary process" instead of politics, discounting that the human species has exactly evolved to be a social, political species and that these things have never been independent from one another even since the first human community learned to speak.

I agree that "nature" and "evolution" should not be used as the antithesis of progress.

And not to forget, there are the Reapers, the embodiment of turning (natural) life forms into (artificial) abominations.

The Reapers are an example of attempting advancement without the technological ability to do so. The counterpoint to the Reapers, as the Catalyst explicitly says, is Synthesis: advancement WITH the technological ability to achieve your goal. Of course they also bring in some mystical nonsense about organics "being ready".

The big counterpoint, of course, is Shepard. However, Shepard is seen as an anomaly. Both the Catalyst and the Leviathans make that point, and never is there any hint that what Cerberus did for Shepard could, or should, be adapted to make it more widely available. That the most interesting scenes showcasing Shepard's "unnaturalness" (on Eden Prime) are not part of the main game is probably accidental, but it contributes to the overall impression.

That's because it would simply cost too much, as TIM tells you. "It's always a matter of resources."

In summary, I don't see many examples of the series saying "provided sufficient means and ethical limitations, progress is bad."

About Miranda, she was fine with her genetic enhancements when I last spoke with her in ME2. ME3 drops this because there's nothing more to say. At least, that was my interpretation of her ME2 character arc. The failing of ME2's writing for Miranda isn't her coming to terms with her genetics, but rather the game's inability to explain her betrayal of TIM and Cerberus when she backs Shepard destroying the base.

[Ieldra]

A few things here. First, the dark age is unintentional. It's a negative (and by the Catalyst's conversation it is meant to be negative) side effect of stopping the Reaper war. This makes it fundamentally different from Battlestar Galactica's ending, which is wildly anti-technology (the characters actually think that destroying all their technology will prevent further human/cylon conflict) by choice.

The dark age is unintentional in-world, but intentional on the part of the writers. Thus, it has thematic significance, especially since in the original ending, it is not optional.

Second, the final speech by the Stargazer is about the child being excited by the prospect of exploring space, and the old man supporting that wish. That doesn't sound anti-progress to me.

The anti-progress attitude applies mostly to technologies that change or create life.

It would be reckless for a story to not have examples of things going wrong in the name of "progress." Cerberus and the Reapers are both examples of that. With Cerberus, though, it's not a question of advancement but when the means to advance become corrupt and beside-the-point. That's an extremely relevant question whenever technological advancement is the topic.

I've said it before: Showing such things does not constitute a problem. Showing *exclusively* such things constitutes one. With the exception of the Lazarus project (whose philosophical fallout is mostly ignored as Shepard is seen as an anomaly), all life-science experiments lead either to disasters, are conducted by villains or have been conducted by "reformed mad scientists".

The Reapers are an example of attempting advancement without the technological ability to do so. The counterpoint to the Reapers, as the Catalyst explicitly says, is Synthesis: advancement WITH the technological ability to achieve your goal. Of course they also bring in some mystical nonsense about organics "being ready".

I do not see how the Reapers represent that, nor how Synthesis counters it. Please clarify.

[Xilizhra]

I've said it before: Showing such things does not constitute a problem. Showing *exclusively* such things constitutes one. With the exception of the Lazarus project (whose philosophical fallout is mostly ignored as Shepard is seen as an anomaly), all life-science experiments lead either to disasters, are conducted by villains or have been conducted by "reformed mad scientists".

What about all the gene-replacement therapy that's mentioned in the background? Or the Prothean shaping of the asari and potentially other races? Even the genophage cure, while unethically researched, was used ethically in ME3, knowledge treated as valuable regardless of the original source.

[CronoDragoon]

The dark age is unintentional in-world, but intentional on the part of the writers. Thus, it has thematic significance, especially since in the original ending, it is not optional.

The anti-progress attitude applies mostly to technologies that change or create life.

I've said it before: Showing such things does not constitute a problem. Showing *exclusively* such things constitutes one. With the exception of the Lazarus project (whose philosophical fallout is mostly ignored as Shepard is seen as an anomaly), all life-science experiments lead either to disasters, are conducted by villains or have been conducted by "reformed mad scientists".

I do not see how the Reapers represent that, nor how Synthesis counters it. Please clarify.

 

It does have thematic significance, yes. I think they were going for the whole "destruction of the relays = freedom from Reapers" idea, which I consider to be nonsense and unrepresentative of our history: using results gleaned from unethical science to further ethical science. This is partially why the EC is such a huge improvement over the original endings to me. If the galaxy is just going to rebuild the relays asap, then this rationale evaporates and the destruction and reconstruction of the relays becomes thematically linked to the galaxy uniting to rebuild and progress as a unified whole.

 

"Changing" life is a remarkably vague term. Besides Shepard, I see the advancements in biotic research and implants as an example of positive growth in the arena of "changing" or "managing" life. Dr. Archer doesn't simply kill his brother with unethical experiments, after all. You can choose to have him transferred to Grissom, which is a perfect example of ethical progress of "life". I'm also not sure why Shepard being an anomaly disqualifies him as an example.

 

The Catalyst tells you that the Reapers are his failed attempts at Synthesis. Why did he fail? 2 things: he was missing the Crucible (The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities), and organics weren't ready for the change. Synthesis becomes successful once adequate technology is available, and once organics demonstrate their readiness for Synthesis. I'm not really sure what the second thing means as it's meant to be mystical, unfortunately.

[Tevinter Soldier]

I love these threads it shows how much some people put into the game.

 

but for me I can never choose anything but Destroy.

 

from an in game perspective what is our mission?

eliminate the reaper threat.

 

from an in game perspective the only thing we have to go on is the word of enemy (star child is responsible for the reapers)

 

control - every example of people trying to control the reapers backfires completely. your mission is to wipeout the threat not attempt to control it.

 

synthesis - in game without knowing what happens you cant be sure of what's going to happen, you stop the reapers at what cost? your there to save the galaxy not forcibly alter the DNA of every living thing without their permission plus the threats not eliminated the reapers still exist, from in game how do you know the threat is ended permanently if the enemy remains

 

Destroy - from in game the only logical choice, star child gives you omens about future threats and warns you about the loss of tech, but you destroy the reapers, your mission is to destroy this threat not mythical threats that may present themselves in the future.

 

the simple fact is from an in game perspective only one fact cannot be argued with without bringing in information that the PC could not have that is fact is as long as the reapers exist they are a threat.

 

and this is why I love that the ending was made hard, the geth are wiped out, EDI is gone (the head of the UN seeing he's a VI) the relays are damaged get a low enough score and the earth is wiped out.

 

the cost is high....but its tangible you tally the losses at worst you lose earth, the relays, EDI, Geth and your own life. you know those that survive will be completely safe and your no going to horribly mutate everything in the galaxy.

 

your job is to eliminate the threat this is the only option that can guarantee that from an in game perspective. Destroy is the only logical choice without meta gaming.

 

its the same issue as the rachni queen, you discover a creature who's species started a war, all indications are they are smart and violent, it makes no logical sense to release the creature the risks are far too great to take it at its word, you've known it for 30 seconds after battling through dozens of its offspring.

 

the collector base again a ship you don't understand, that controls peoples minds and builds baby reapers. why in gods name would you hand it to the most shady person in the galaxy? who trusted him through out ME2? anyone? no of course you didn't, we can tell he's just using us that he's up to no good hes given you no reason to trust him plus the risks it presents even if he's on the level? that base goes boom.

[SwobyJ]

Pros and cons.

 

Rachni:

Trust its words and disagree on the danger? - They end up Reaper troops anyway in ME3, but if you trusted the original queen, you can make something good out of it and they join and help (proving you 'right').

Reject its words and agree on the danger? - They end up Reaper troops anyway in ME3 (proving you 'right') and the cloned queen cannot be trusted at all.

 

Collector Base:

Trust TIM's words and disagree on the danger, keeping the Base? - It ends up being used nefariously anyway in ME3, but since you acquire the Brain, you get a few more asset points than otherwise, and the option to pick Control is more available (proving you at least slightly right, as its always utilized in the Crucible, Brain or Heart).

Reject TIM's words and agree on the danger, destroying the Base? - It ends up being used nefariously anyway in ME3 (proving you right), but since you acquire the Heart, you got less asset points, and the option to pick Destroy is more available.

 

 

Red (throughout trilogy) - Easier to safely go with (story mechanically), with broader availability, but also kills off potential allies and tools.

Blue (in ME1 but moreso ME2) - A bit harder to safely go with (due to inherent dangers of not doing it 'right'), with more limited availability, but also saves/spares/helps potential allies and tools.

Green (only ME3, previously shown as only danger) - Much harder to safely go with (due to potential for disaster), with much more limited availability (ONE good path for it), but also saves/spares/helps as many as possible, of both 'sides'.

 

I know it's hard to see that with Synthesis, as there is no 'cautionary state' like there is with Wreav+NoEve+Cure or GethVI+Upgrade+NoQuarians. So yeah, I could be wrong. In ME3, as far as we're shown, it's just a singular path with a few different slides and no indication that anything can or has gone wrong