9088 réponses à ce sujet

[Tevinter Soldier]

see you had to meta game, from an ingame perspective playing as if YOU DONT know what will come of it, logic should dictate you actions rather then hope.

 

yes many of the logical choices are "safe" that's the point its logical you reduce the risks.

 

as for the more risky choices id argue they are only rewarded so that rainbows and sunshine people don't get disappointed (hence why the only big illogical choice from the renegade ends up serverally ****** you in ME3 and nobody complained) its also the same reason so many people disliked the endings people wanted geth hugging bunnys and reapers playing skip rope with absolutely no cost attached to it.

[SwobyJ]

You kill every potential ally you could make, and you're just hurting yourself.

 

That's not just a 'Mass Effect' thing, but you know, the real world.

 

I actually don't think the endings are quite real, and I think that it's all in a Reaper btw, haha. So yes, I personally view Synthesis and Control as having huge backfiring elements. Just for Shepard, they might also have personal backfirings for Vaporize-Low-High Destroy too (as he wouldn't survive those in any form too, instead of Digital forms in Control/Synth). Only in Breath, does he make it out to the physical world.

 

#toomatrixforu?

[Tevinter Soldier]

not every logical choice ends up killing everyone: wrex for instance Ashley has you covered you've bonded with the teammate why wouldn't you calm him down, just shooting him sort of seems unnecessary, like wise taking out the geth during the assault to keep the team alive moving through strategically eliminating threats to keep extra men alive means the distraction works better.

 

and again why set off alarms and overwhelm or assets when you disarm them and "sneak" in catching your enemy by surprise?

 

don't look at it as paragon vs renegade look at it as what's logical. so many people play to fill up a stupid colour bar instead of placing themselves in Shepard's shoes.

[SwobyJ]

Shooting Wrex takes out someone with their gun put at you. That's a common theme. You have a gun put on you, what do you do? Oh, you only stopped because he may have been a friend? What if you never got his armor and never talked to Wrex - is he still a friend?

 

Only taking out ALL the Virmire base areas helps you. If you only do some, deaths still happen except this time you messed around uselessly. If you do none, deaths still happen. It's only through pulling out all the stops and fully sabotaging the base that you get the Salarian team to make it.

 

BTW I pick Destroy.

However, I do so with the understanding that given Bioware's record throughout the entire series, the result is that I'm going to lose out (assuming sequel for a moment here) on a few things in exchange for my Shepard surviving + keeping to his goal and minimizing complications with the Reapers.

[Obadiah]

@scrub python
I think different people just look at those situations differently. Since we aren't omniscient, "Hope" is actually a factor in most choices made in ME.

[kazumasoju]

I really appreciate the existence of this post

[Vigilant111]

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.

 

I assume it is usually a creationist's stance that only a deity has the power to create life, and obviously you do not subscribe to such convictions. However, this does not release anyone from moral and ethical obligations because morality is irreplaceable by religious principles.

 

Large scientific projects require fundings and resources, and appeals must be made to whom provide such. There most likely exists some sort of agenda, and morals keep it in check. Mass Effect illustrates this relationship in juxtapositioning reaperisation and synthesis. On one hand, reaperisation exposes the ills of unimpeded progress that are not bound by any moral or ethical standards. The reapers do not have to answer to anyone, they make their own rules, and as a result, great loss of life ensued; on the other hand, synthesis presents a relatively responsible progress where at least a member of affected party is consulted (namely, Shepard) about the benefits and costs of each potential progressive path.

 

The problem presented to people both in game and in real world isn't whether technological progress should factor in moral considerations. It is HOW we should plan and execute scientific projects better while recognising existing moral standards, and that, requires some genuine ingenuity.

 

I would be hard pressed to say an anti-progress theme manifests in the trilogy. Rather, there is something resembles a warning against rash decisions when embarking on controversial endeavours which purposes are questionable, if not objectionable.There are things we are hesitant to do because we do not possess sufficient knowledge, just like the way the geth let the quarians go when the former could not ascetain the validity of anhilating the latter.

 

In terms of "Sanctity of whatever", it is largely a phenomenon of the human psyche that we as humans like to grasp on the concept of identity, it helps us get by, to take pride in both ourselves as individuals or as part of a group. Yes, it carries a religious undertone, but it is irrelevant because "anti-progress advocates" (if such people actually exist) are not religious

[Ieldra]

see you had to meta game, from an ingame perspective playing as if YOU DONT know what will come of it, logic should dictate you actions rather then hope.

I maintain that it is clearly recognizable even in the original endings that all endings are meant to be good. However, I agree that it is not recognizable if you stay strictly in the in-world perspective. You don't need to look to the epilogue, but you need to consider the allegorical level and the imagery of the presentation, and add a dose of genre-savviness. The problem especially with Synthesis is that even though you recognize it as a good ending without looking at the epilogue, this is not sufficiently anchored in in-world logic. A typical reaction is this: "The writers clearly want me to believe this is a good ending. That's....confusing."

Why do I still choose Synthesis then? Well, I maintain that you can't stay strictly in the in-world perspective and make any informed decision at all - not for any of the endings - in the Catalyst scene. This is because the attitude expected from you towards the Catalyst, i.e. accepting its role as this universe's almost omniscient AI god and ultimate legitimate authority who tells you about how things are, is both alien to the genre and to this story specifically which also has it as the Bigger Bad. Thus, going to the allegorical and thematic level is an unfortunate necessity unless you're the type to blindly trust some entity solely on the ground of its presumed status as some kind of pseudo-deity. Stay strictly in-world, and all choices become suspect, and you might as well make a choice at random and hope for the best. I refuse to do that because that wouldn't make an acceptable story.

[Xilizhra]

Why do I still choose Synthesis then? Well, I maintain that you can't stay strictly in the in-world perspective and make any informed decision at all - not for any of the endings - in the Catalyst scene. This is because the attitude expected from you towards the Catalyst, i.e. accepting its role as this universe's almost omniscient AI god and ultimate legitimate authority who tells you about how things are, is both alien to the genre and to this story specifically which also has it as the Bigger Bad. Thus, going to the allegorical and thematic level is an unfortunate necessity unless you're the type to blindly trust some entity solely on the ground of its presumed status as some kind of pseudo-deity. Stay strictly in-world, and all choices become suspect, and you might as well make a choice at random and hope for the best. I refuse to do that because that wouldn't make an acceptable story.

What if you acknowledge that it might be a lie, but make a choice based on it not being so, as it won't be worse than picking one at random if the Catalyst is lying?

 

My Shepard doesn't really care about the Catalyst or its opinions that much, she just wants the cycle to end with no more deaths.

[SwobyJ]

This isn't just a thematic story. It's a character story, and Synthesis is the extent of Shepard's possible perception.

 

Onto a new protagonist with a new range of views.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Well, technically every decision is "metagamed," in the sense that you take certain things for granted because it's a video game. You don't, for example, worry about the explosions in the Geth Heretic station or Collector Base not being effective enough to complete the primary goal you set out to do there (neutralize the Heretic geth or Collector threats respectively). You also don't typically worry about your main-character's untimely death because ... it's a given -- you wouldn't be able to keep playing, otherwise (although this concern becomes legitimate when dealing with the end of the game, of course). Anyone who claims not to use some degree of metagaming behind their decision-making process is being dishonest. Or, if they're being completely honest, then they're just stupid. It's quite literally insane to not treat the game as simply a game.

 

Anyway, I'm no more guilty of metagaming than the next guy, but I can honestly say to you that my reasoning behind choosing Sync was sound. I'm sure no one will believe me on that, though I would gladly respond to whatever doubts they may have to prove I'm genuine.

 

*edit*

 

You know what, though, I have to confess: I went into ME3 spoiled ('read the leaked script). I keep forgetting that. Then again, I hadn't really decided anything involving the three ending options because they were kind of unclear the way they were written, and then I actually chose Destroy the first time I played because I wasn't interested in thinking about it too much (only later switched after I came to BSN and saw the ending debates).

[Tevinter Soldier]

@scrub python
I think different people just look at those situations differently. Since we aren't omniscient, "Hope" is actually a factor in most choices made in ME.

 

and thats fine i play Hope roles as well, not all my characters are logical. some of my characters are down right illogical.

i never said it was the correct choice merely the only logical one.

[Obadiah]

and thats fine i play Hope roles as well, not all my characters are logical. some of my characters are down right illogical.
i never said it was the correct choice merely the only logical one.

I'd have to disagree. Destroy is the choice that is simplest to justify logically; however, all the choices can be made for logical reasons (Reaper power is useful, advance life to solve inherent problem of annihalation, etc...)

[Seival]

Decided to post my new picture here in addition to fan-art section, because it also represents my view of how synthesized human might look without most of Synthesis epilogue "symbolism". I believe that eyes would be one of the very few noticeable "anomalies":

 

EDIT

Improved the picture a little and re-uploaded:

[Ieldra]

I'm crossposting my vision of post-Synthesis civilization here, which appeared first in the thread "Synthesis - what happened to the Reapers". These core elements should provide enough of an impression to gain a feeling of what I think post-Synthesis civilization will be like:

 

The Reapers:

The only reason the Reapers acted in concert is because they were mind-controlled by the Catalyst. Free of that, they revert to individual behaviour which is influenced by the collective characteristics of the species each Reaper was made from. Some will be co-operative, some will be hostile, some will want to atone while others will help galactic civilization for unrelated reasons, maybe even reasons incomprehensible to anyone else, some will help civilization against those who are hostile, some will just go away, some will kill themselves.

 

Organic enhancement and mental networking:

Meanwhile, nanotechnological symbiotes will enable the (not 100% any more) organic species to change themselves in various ways, with the ability of mental networking being at the core of the change. This will enable people to communicate with each other much more reliably and with less unintentional (!) misunderstanding, which will remove one cause of conflict. It will also enable people to communicate with the Reapers, but as they're beings of a higher order of complexity this is an ability that must be learned. Communication between human-level individuals and Reapers is mediated by specially-trained people called "avatars".

 

Synthetic understanding:

Analogous to organics, synthetics will profit from the mental networking with their organic counterparts and gain an "understanding from within" of them they were unable to attain before, as some aspects of the unique and common organic perspective was unable to be communicated by less direct means. Some will change themselves to adapt to that perspective, some will be content to understand it from without, but all will learn of the fear organics tend to have of their creations, which can actually be overcome without the Synthesis as Rannoch shows, but which is only now fully part of both sides' common knowledge, ironically outdated now that organics share some synthetic characteristics.

 

Conflicting visions of ascension:

Several kinds of (voluntary) mind-melding become additional ways for people to form subcultures and communities which greatly enhance existing cultural diversity. In time, it becomes possible to "visit" Reaper collectives. Reapers and collectives created in their image become known as "transcendants", a technical term referring to improvement of cognitive abilities through mind-melding, and this becomes a philosophical counterpart to the idea of ascension, which refers to improvement of cognitive abilities through enhancement of the individual mind. The two competing philosophies provide the main dividing line of post-Synthesis societies, resulting in a competition which drives a technological and philosophical renaissance, but also creates new conflicts.

 

No utopia:

Abuse of the new abilities is common. Almost every new wonder has a new horror to accompany it, ranging from invasion of mental privacy to forced mind-melding. On the whole, civilization does see less conflict than pre-event, so the net result is positive, but it's still very far from perfect. Even the mental networking which causes people to be generally more empathic is unable to prevail completely against the conflicts caused by taking the natural human competitiveness to extreme levels. [I recommend reading "Altruizine" by Stanislaw Lem as a counter to utopian visions]

 

Old conflicts don't die:

There is a significant part of civilization which will be unwilling to embrace co-existence with the Reapers. This will result in areas of the galaxy riddled by guerilla warfare against Reapers and their so-called "slaves" (meaning everyone who co-operates with them). As many such wars it is ultimately futile, but it will take a very long time to die out, possibly only be gone once everyone alive at the event has died. Ironically, some of the fighting factions have embraced enhancements that grant them longevity...

 

@Seival:

I think there will be no morphological aftereffects of the event people won't eventually be able to control. You won't have green eyes if you don't want to.

[Seival]

I'm crossposting my vision of post-Synthesis civilization here, which appeared first in the thread "Synthesis - what happened to the Reapers". These core elements should provide enough of an impression to gain a feeling of what I think post-Synthesis civilization will be like:

 

The Reapers:

The only reason the Reapers acted in concert is because they were mind-controlled by the Catalyst. Free of that, they revert to individual behaviour which is influenced by the collective characteristics of the species each Reaper was made from. Some will be co-operative, some will be hostile, some will want to atone while others will help galactic civilization for unrelated reasons, maybe even reasons incomprehensible to anyone else, some will help civilization against those who are hostile, some will just go away, some will kill themselves.

 

Organic enhancement and mental networking:

Meanwhile, nanotechnological symbiotes will enable the (not 100% any more) organic species to change themselves in various ways, with the ability of mental networking being at the core of the change. This will enable people to communicate with each other much more reliably and with less unintentional (!) misunderstanding, which will remove one cause of conflict. It will also enable people to communicate with the Reapers, but as they're beings of a higher order of complexity this is an ability that must be learned. Communication between human-level individuals and Reapers is mediated by specially-trained people called "avatars".

 

Synthetic understanding:

Analogous to organics, synthetics will profit from the mental networking with their organic counterparts and gain an "understanding from within" of them they were unable to attain before, as some aspects of the unique and common organic perspective was unable to be communicated by less direct means. Some will change themselves to adapt to that perspective, some will be content to understand it from without, but all will learn of the fear organics tend to have of their creations, which can actually be overcome without the Synthesis as Rannoch shows, but which is only now fully part of both sides' common knowledge, ironically outdated now that organics share some synthetic characteristics.

 

Conflicting visions of ascension:

Several kinds of (voluntary) mind-melding become additional ways for people to form subcultures and communities which greatly enhance existing cultural diversity. In time, it becomes possible to "visit" Reaper collectives. Reapers and collectives created in their image become known as "transcendants", a technical term referring to improvement of cognitive abilities through mind-melding, and this becomes a philosophical counterpart to the idea of ascension, which refers to improvement of cognitive abilities through enhancement of the individual mind. The two competing philosophies provide the main dividing line of post-Synthesis societies, resulting in a competition which drives a technological and philosophical renaissance, but also creates new conflicts.

 

No utopia:

Abuse of the new abilities is common. Almost every new wonder has a new horror to accompany it, ranging from invasion of mental privacy to forced mind-melding. On the whole, civilization does see less conflict than pre-event, so the net result is positive, but it's still very far from perfect. Even the mental networking which causes people to be generally more empathic is unable to prevail completely against the conflicts caused by taking the natural human competitiveness to extreme levels. [I recommend reading "Altruizine" by Stanislaw Lem as a counter to utopian visions]

 

Old conflicts don't die:

There is a significant part of civilization which will be unwilling to embrace co-existence with the Reapers. This will result in areas of the galaxy riddled by guerilla warfare against Reapers and their so-called "slaves" (meaning everyone who co-operates with them). As many such wars it is ultimately futile, but it will take a very long time to die out, possibly only be gone once everyone alive at the event has died. Ironically, some of the fighting factions have embraced enhancements that grant them longevity...

 

@Seival:

I think there will be no morphological aftereffects of the event people won't eventually be able to control. You won't have green eyes if you don't want to.

Well, in fact I find glowing green eyes attractive and beautiful

 

As for points you made, I agree with almost everything. But I shall give more detailed answer on the matter a little later, when I'll have more time.

[JeffZero]

Thanks for keeping this going through the years. *salutes his fellow Synthesizers and hungrily devours Ieldra's musings as always*

[Seival]

So, It's time for the detailed answer I guess

 

Ieldra, what you've said is not just an interesting point of view, but also very good basis for new stories in Mass Effect Universe. The post-synthesis universe is a goldmine for masterpiece storytelling. Just open it a bit, and you'll get a fountain of ideas similar to what we've seen in Ghost in the Shell, Appleseed, Deus Ex, and other great sci-fi worlds.

 

Post-synthesis is all about ideas based on mental networking, cybernetics/robotics as integral part of the life, testing morality and faith by fires of granted unimaginable powers, individuals and society in regular and phantasmagoric ways, about existance on the new intelligence and physical level never known or experienced before, and so on... In other words, post-synthesis ME can be as deep as tens of great sci-fi stories combined. Writers just need know what are they doing. If they really want to create masterpiece sci-fi story based on MEU, the post-synthesis with base ideas you described above is the best way to go.

 

Mental networking, sharing and trading memories, memory hunting, mental proxies and firewalls, mental viruses, mental cures, mental amplifiers and shielding, mental weapons, mental prisons, mental fortresses and mental abysses. Cybernetics as inborn part of everything. Robotics as manifestation of living intelligent non-organic integral part of the world. Mental collectives as an analogy of internet communities, and/or as a part of society isolated within a giant shell. Information as the most valuable thing in the world. Manipulating any kind of information and memories, including genetic information and memories. People and organisations using all of this according to their own moralities and ethics. And all of this in the world with old conflicts, hyper advanced space travel, 45-km-long space stations and 2-km-long spaceships, mass effect fields shields and weaponary, biotic and tech powers, and without need to lie down on the operating table to gain cybernetic implants. Sci-phantasmagoria, if you want. Something that can become the most deep, philosophical, instructive, and amazing story ever existed.

 

I believe that wasting all this potential or trading it for some "marvel" or "disney" story in MEU is the biggest mistake BioWare can make.

 

 

 

For everyone who wanna feel how the mental network feature may taste, I suggest to watch this. Just imagine something like this in post-synthesis Mass Effect.

[Ieldra]

Sevial, I think that my vision of post-Synthesis civilization has great storytelling potential. I made it with that in mind, among other things. The problem is that I don't trust Bioware to create an appealing one of their own, nor even treat a vision like mine with the appropriate care. SF which includes transhumanist themes is notoriously difficult to write, even for a competent writer, and Bioware's writers haven't been convincing even with classic SF themes. There's also the matter of accessibility. The story would have weird elements, those hard to comprehend if you're not familiar with the matter, and you couldn't ignore those because they're at the heart of things. While I would love to see a story like Bioware can tell them play out in such a setting, I do not think Bioware has the skills to deal with the way the world would necessarily affect characters, nor with the worldbuilding itself. Some other game developers are placed much better in that regard. 

[JeffZero]

I don't suspect BioWare will have any interest whatsoever in pursuing such things, really. Even had Synthesis proven overwhelmingly popular with the fans I'd peg the odds of a full-on continuation of its aspects as rather slim, not least of which for what Ieldra just tapped on -- transhumanist science fiction is infamously difficult in the words of many writers, and making that function as a broad-reaching BioWare-style experience would be arduous. I am aware of course that the Deus Ex series exists, but BioWare games are expected to deal with "larger" universes, multiple arcs, etc.

That said, it is possible some semblance of your terrific ideas can be woven into the framework of a much wider net. Should the next game be a sequel, elements of Synthesis can be drawn into an attemptedly all-encompassing post-2186 narrative without being forefront enough to be deemed "chosen" by the writers as the Most Important Version of ME3's conclusion. One of the beauties of these themes is their diversity of approach. And should the game feature a disconnected group trying to make their way home as some have theorized, these themes can again showcase that beauty by being introduced elsewhere in the great unknown.

[Vigilant111]

Well, I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to implement such themes since "synthesis" is a loosely defined term, as long as they don't utter the word

[Ieldra]

Well, I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to implement such themes since "synthesis" is a loosely defined term, as long as they don't utter the word

That may indeed be true, but addresses only the problem of player reception. In question, as I see it, is their ability to present these themes competently in the first place.

[Iakus]

I don't suspect BioWare will have any interest whatsoever in pursuing such things, really. Even had Synthesis proven overwhelmingly popular with the fans I'd peg the odds of a full-on continuation of its aspects as rather slim, not least of which for what Ieldra just tapped on -- transhumanist science fiction is infamously difficult in the words of many writers, and making that function as a broad-reaching BioWare-style experience would be arduous. I am aware of course that the Deus Ex series exists, but BioWare games are expected to deal with "larger" universes, multiple arcs, etc.

 

To add to your Deus Ex comment, those games also typically focused on transhumanism on a personal level.  The player sees and experiences the good and the bad aspects of transhumanism through Jensen/Denton's eyes, and can weigh in on whether it's overall a good or bad thing.

 

The way Mass Effect portrayed it, not only is the science of jello-soft, but they went massively overboard in trying to make it the "perfect" solution, something worth forcing upon the entire galaxy without regard to potential consequences.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 ... Love the discussion going on here!

 

As it happens, I'm working on a post-ME3 piece following my canon, so I've had to establish the setting and details of a post-Sync galaxy very clearly. It was something I tried and failed in the past, but am trying again with a better vision of what kind of world this is going to be, and the writing has been coming along very nicely this time. I might even share it!

 

Anyway, here is my vision of the setting: ...

 

 

1.) Workings.

 

Though retconning the ending with my revised version of the same thing was tempting, I ultimately decided to keep it canon-compliant, for a host of reasons. So, the implementation -- problematic as it may be -- stays.

 

Initial effect: for organics, nothing. All anyone knows at first is that they have funny green tattoos now, but have no idea how they work. The Reapers, however, are liberated -- totally free of control and now autonomous. I actually believe this was the Catalyst's hope for them all along, that at some point an optimal solution would be found where they would take some place in society, and so the sacrifices made to preserve every civilization was not for nothing.

 

Given freedom, the Reapers have no real motive for conflict. No Reapers (not one!) continues previous aggression. Once their side of the story is made clear, some tentative support is given to them to help rebuild the galaxy. Again, they're not without critics and bitter enemies, but those elements ultimately don't matter in the big scheme of things.

 

Understanding: to understand the changes that took place, it proves necessary to have knowledgeable technicians and experts on synthetic tech; new abilities of organic life are "unlocked" with research and study. Those with AI assistance in their research have much more success than others. While the rest of the galaxy is slow to trust AI, the few species with some experience there ultimately lead the charge: humanity (courtesy EDI), the quarians (courtesy geth), and salarians (only race quickly willing to accept AI assistance, including the Reapers').

 

However, the Council ban on AI creation is eventually lifted when it's clear no one will follow it.

 

Breakthrough: what's learned is that organics (if willing) can establish mental connectivity with any devices capable of handling such a connection (chiefly: omnitools, computer-terminals, VI hosts, and even AI lifeforms). In doing so, they can acquire the capabilities of any devices they are linked to, on a mental level. In sync with an omnitool, you can take in all of its functions as your own: calculators, exact time, maps, what have you... any ability once thought exclusive to AI is now possible for organics. The more advanced the device, the greater the benefits. Organics can also remotely-control things like mechs and drones to serve the purpose of carrying out dangerous and laborious work.

 

This connectivity is made possible by nanotechnology, spread by the Crucible and received by organic lifeforms, coordinating the nervous system (brain) with external devices. It initially affects all organic life, but the effect wears off of lifeforms that do not actively use it -- flora and fauna eventually see the change go dormant and return to mundane form.

 

For synthetics, the ability to learn about organics is made easier. They can do it in a way they are most comfortable with: memory-sharing. In establishing trust and safety with organics, synthetics are more inclined to cooperation.

 

Cyperspace: perhaps the biggest change here is bridging the gap between the "real world" and cyberspace. While connected to some device, part of the organic mind can work in cyberspace, where data can be shared in a fraction of the time it is done in real-space. This is one huge area where the difference between organic and synthetic is eroded, and why the Catalyst may feel like his work is done: synthetics can no longer universally out-think organic life.

 

Name: since the term "Synthesis" is only used in the decision-chamber, civilizations come up with their own name for this phenomena. Humanity calls it "Harmonics," likening it to biotics, but working through tech rather than eezo. It also aptly describes the nature of organic-synthetic relations in this world -- conflict yields no benefits, only cooperation does.

 

 

2.) Controversy.

 

Perhaps the biggest issue with this ending as it exists now. This is addressed near the beginning of chapter one. It's established that not everyone's happy; there's some opposition to how this solution was enacted. It is what it is.

 

Some accommodations are made for these opponents, though. Groups of people choose never to make use of these abilities, and thereby proceed to live their lives as normal, "off the grid." Since non-sapient organic lifeforms have seen the effect wear off, it is thought that the same will eventually happen for those that shun the change.

 

Additionally, radiation treatment is developed to "kill" the implanted nanotech, permanently and immediately doing away with the effects. However, no one of note in my story is un-synthesized. It's just not practical, only visceral reaction.

 

3.) War and Peace.

 

With breakthroughs across the galaxy aided by the Reapers' high processing-power, it becomes much easier to solve problems through innovation rather than war, and so the deep-seeded issues that typically cause these conflicts are dealt with swiftly and preemptively. As such, you see the "Pax Galaxia" as EDI's epilogue-narration indicates.

 

However, "peace" in this context simply refers to the absence/obsolescence of major, galaxy-scale conflicts. No major war stories will take place in this setting. However, small-scale, localized conflicts will exist as always -- it's simply natural. In truth, these conflicts may actually be more interesting to explore (as were most non-plot missions through Mass Effect).

 

I think some potential plotlines you could see out of this setting would be things like: (1) space-exploration, venturing to uncharted planets; (2) cyberpunk plotlines, big cities that have not yet felt the benefits of galactic prosperity for one reason or another, and all the conflicts that come with life in major metropolitan areas with both the super-rich and dirt-poor; (3) abuses of technological advancement, through corrupt or otherwise irresponsible organizations. Some experiments gone awry or competitions between rival groups vying for some kind of power.

 

 

I don't see BioWare taking the next title in this direction. That's okay: I'll use these ideas for my own stories.

[Seival]

Sevial, I think that my vision of post-Synthesis civilization has great storytelling potential. I made it with that in mind, among other things. The problem is that I don't trust Bioware to create an appealing one of their own, nor even treat a vision like mine with the appropriate care. SF which includes transhumanist themes is notoriously difficult to write, even for a competent writer, and Bioware's writers haven't been convincing even with classic SF themes. There's also the matter of accessibility. The story would have weird elements, those hard to comprehend if you're not familiar with the matter, and you couldn't ignore those because they're at the heart of things. While I would love to see a story like Bioware can tell them play out in such a setting, I do not think Bioware has the skills to deal with the way the world would necessarily affect characters, nor with the worldbuilding itself. Some other game developers are placed much better in that regard. 

 

I think you underestimate BioWare writers' team capabilities

 

Besides, aren't they willing to provide us with great stories? I believe they really want to create something better than they did before. So why not set even higher goal and try to create something most people will call the best story in the world? They want it, we want it, if they will accomplish this we are all going to be happy. Post-synthesis is something really ingenious for the series. I just believe that without post-synthesis Mass Effect they will end up in trivial repeating themselves and not becoming any more successful.