9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
If you can't do that - or won't do that - then you have no right to criticize my version as too speculative. Any hypothesis has to be measured against another.

This is incorrect. Whether or not your version is speculative is an objective measure of speculation vs. extant source material.

My hypothesis is built on the extant source material. There is only one objective element in the source material: "synthesis combines organics and synthetics". Otherwise, there is nothing that makes sense if taken as the concrete, literal truth. Or do you really insist that I accept that "new...DNA" as literal? Then I'll put you firmly in the same category as Biblical literalists. If something makes no sense if taken literally, then you need to take it allegorically. Anything else is simply idiotic.
As for the Normandy scene, you might notice that my version can be made compatible with it. I just haven't done that so far because I hope the EC will prove that it'd be a waste of time.

As for your alternative ending scenario being unbalanced, I said sacrifice from the point of view of those who are making the decision. People who choose usually don't believe the Catalyst's logic. Thus, the risk of organics being destroyed by synthetics is no downside.

This is…insulting? Might be the word for it.

Let’s go over this. You say that the Catalyst is correct and that synthetics will inevitably cause the extinction of organics. This is how you justify choosing Synthesis — whose payoff is that you can avoid that.

I may choose to not believe the Catalyst. Or I may believe it’s truthful but still choose to Destroy because I value the immediate future more (a lot of Renegades would probably feel this way) or simply believe that we’ll be able to win — or avoid — the war against the synthetics.

So, if the Catalyst is truthful as you assume (and as we may further deduce from the writing that doesn’t give an option), my choice of Destroy is going to have a very significant downside. If it isn’t, well, your choice of Synthesis is a little iffy then, isn’t it?

Ah, I see the problem. Both the risk of organics going extinct and the benefits of Synthesis are *subjective* down- or upsides. If you choose Destroy because you don't believe the Catalyst, then as far as you're concerned, there is no downside. If you choose Synthesis and believe that Synthesis is X, then in your universe, Synthesis *is* X. That's because no one will ever tell you otherwise.
As opposed to that, the relay destruction and Shepard's death are objective downsides, and those need to be balanced. And they aren't, because your Destroy scenario has none of them and your Synthesis has both. *THAT* is insulting!

[Taboo]

 Yeah, there's the thing. I don't think Miranda would be too happy once she figured out Shepard jumped into the Synthesis beam.

I believe that was one of the goals of the Romance. Self worth. Which she doesn't have. At all. She's fine the way she is.

Validity comes from what a person chooses to do with life, not how they are created or augmented. She was made the way she is, and it hurts her.

Independance from that amount of interference is my goal here. Freedom from interference from the Reapers. From authority. A new beginning. Similar to what you are doing, but without, you know, the nanites. Also, I choose to assume responsibility for my actions. People who choose Synthesis do not.

The reason Synthesis appears so funky is because of the way it was presented. It was not forshadowed enough, nor is it explained. This is not your fault. It's presentation is terrible.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 05:28 .

[o Ventus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The reason Synthesis appears so funky is because of the way it was presented. It was not forshadowed enough, nor is it explained. This is not your fault. It's presentation is terrible.

With the highly improbably exception of Saren (Ugh, I hate comparing him to Synthesis), it wasn't foreshadowed in the damn slightest.

Not even Morrigan's Dark Ritual came this far out of left field.

[Taboo]

Synthesis has the most bizarre introduction I've ever seen. I've never seen anything like it.

Solaris. Stalker. Both imposed the belief that the Universe was mysterious and should remain as such, especially Solaris. Stalker imposed the belief that humans were best as they were, incredibly flawed.

Those films are what Bioware was trying to emulate, and they failed miserably.

[o Ventus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis has the most bizarre introduction I've ever seen. I've never seen anything like it.

And hopefully we'll never see something introduced so poorly again.

That said, DA3 will probably do it.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis has the most bizarre introduction I've ever seen. I've never seen anything like it.

And hopefully we'll never see something introduced so poorly again.

That said, DA3 will probably do it.

It doesn't even fit a "twist" in literature.

It just appears. I'm used to this, in say the films of Luis Buniel, where someone might espouse an opinion that contradicts the time period they are in. Or something appears where it shouldn't, like a bear in a mansion.

It kind of resembles that, at least to me. But that's surrealism.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 05:47 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
If you can't do that - or won't do that - then you have no right to criticize my version as too speculative. Any hypothesis has to be measured against another.

This is incorrect. Whether or not your version is speculative is an objective measure of speculation vs. extant source material.

My hypothesis is built on the extant source material. There is only one objective element in the source material: "synthesis combines organics and synthetics". Otherwise, there is nothing that makes sense if taken as the concrete, literal truth. Or do you really insist that I accept that "new...DNA" as literal? Then I'll put you firmly in the same category as Biblical literalists. If something makes no sense if taken literally, then you need to take it allegorically. Anything else is simply idiotic.

Even if I were to accept that it is metaphorical, that doesn’t mean that there is one single interpretation or, especially, that the interpretation you’ve chosen is the right one.

Like I said. Fantasy Synthesis.

As for the Normandy scene, you might notice that my version can be made compatible with it. I just haven't done that so far because I hope the EC will prove that it'd be a waste of time.

Sorry, but you probably should.

As for your alternative ending scenario being unbalanced, I said sacrifice from the point of view of those who are making the decision. People who choose usually don't believe the Catalyst's logic. Thus, the risk of organics being destroyed by synthetics is no downside.

This is…insulting? Might be the word for it.

Let’s go over this. You say that the Catalyst is correct and that synthetics will inevitably cause the extinction of organics. This is how you justify choosing Synthesis — whose payoff is that you can avoid that.

I may choose to not believe the Catalyst. Or I may believe it’s truthful but still choose to Destroy because I value the immediate future more (a lot of Renegades would probably feel this way) or simply believe that we’ll be able to win — or avoid — the war against the synthetics.

So, if the Catalyst is truthful as you assume (and as we may further deduce from the writing that doesn’t give an option), my choice of Destroy is going to have a very significant downside. If it isn’t, well, your choice of Synthesis is a little iffy then, isn’t it?

Ah, I see the problem. Both the risk of organics going extinct and the benefits of Synthesis are *subjective* down- or upsides. If you choose Destroy because you don't believe the Catalyst, then as far as you're concerned, there is no downside. If you choose Synthesis and believe that Synthesis is X, then in your universe, Synthesis *is* X. That's because no one will ever tell you otherwise.

You’re metagaming, just like you do with your Fantasy Synthesis.

For any given playthrough, there is some fundamental truth about the ending. It could be that the Catalyst is truthful (and correct), or it could be that it’s not. However, as you are so very fond of pointing out, we must assume that the Catalyst is truthful because the writers give us no choice.

So, we know this fact: at some point in the future there is an inevitable extinction-capable conflict between organics and synthetics. Once again, this is the basis of your argument — I don’t understand why you insist on using one interpretation for your argument, and then use another to disparage mine? Oh, wait, yes I do.

Given this fact, me choosing Destroy has exactly that downside, and you choosing Synthesis doesn’t. Shepard believing one way or another is irrelevant to this.

It looks like you just want to ‘win’, you concentrate only on tangible, immediate benefits, and you assume everyone else does the same. Furthermore, you somehow think that it’s taking away from you what other people choose. So you don’t judge the choices by their merits.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juin 2012 - 06:03 .

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
If you can't do that - or won't do that - then you have no right to criticize my version as too speculative. Any hypothesis has to be measured against another.

This is incorrect. Whether or not your version is speculative is an objective measure of speculation vs. extant source material.

My hypothesis is built on the extant source material. There is only one objective element in the source material: "synthesis combines organics and synthetics". Otherwise, there is nothing that makes sense if taken as the concrete, literal truth. Or do you really insist that I accept that "new...DNA" as literal? Then I'll put you firmly in the same category as Biblical literalists. If something makes no sense if taken literally, then you need to take it allegorically. Anything else is simply idiotic.

Even if I were to accept that it is metaphorical, that doesn’t mean that there is one single interpretation or, especially, that the interpretation you’ve chosen is the right one.

I've never said that my interpretation is the only possible one. But there is no single right one. That's the whole point. All the interpretations that fit certain conditions are valid. If no one at Bioware ever comes out and tells the "real" story, then the real story IS what we make of it. And if you don't stop being so damned condesceding about my attempt to be constructive - which you don't seem to be particularly fond of when it comes to Synthesis - then we have nothing more to talk about. I challenge you AGAIN to present a better interpretation.

As for the Normandy scene, you might notice that my version can be made compatible with it. I just haven't done that so far because I hope the EC will prove that it'd be a waste of time.

Sorry, but you probably should.

I'll wait for the EC, sorry. There's the possibility I'll give up if they actually insist on hybrid plants. Not that I couldn't make a scenario including it, it just stretches my suspension of disbelief to the snapping point.

For any given playthrough, there is some fundamental truth about the ending. It could be that the Catalyst is truthful (and correct), or it could be that it’s not. However, as you are so very fond of pointing out, we must assume that the Catalyst is truthful because the writers give us no choice.

So, we know this fact: at some point in the future there is an inevitable extinction-capable conflict between organics and synthetics. Once again, this is the basis of your argument — I don’t understand why you insist on using one interpretation for your argument, and then use another to disparage mine? Oh, wait, yes I do.

Given this fact, me choosing Destroy has exactly that downside, and you choosing Synthesis doesn’t. Shepard believing one way or another is irrelevant to this.

This is a story the aftermath of which we are writing, within the constraints of what the game tells us. That's why the endings are so vague, so that everyone can take something satisfying away from it (no matter that that attempt has failed). There is no canon, and any headcanon is valid unless contradicted by the material. For the same reason, there won't be game set after ME3.
So yeah, what Shepard believes doesn't matter, but what the player believes becomes reality for that particular parallel universe.  

It looks like you just want to ‘win’, you concentrate only on tangible, immediate benefits, and you assume everyone else does the same. Furthermore, you somehow think that it’s taking away from you what other people choose. So you don’t judge the choices by their merits.

No, it is taking away from me if the *writers* present one choice that's clearly "best" in some objective way. Just like pushing Liara into my face is telling me "you romanced the wrong character", pushing an ending I don't choose is the writers telling me "you chose the wrong ending". I'll choose my preferred ending anyway, but I'll resent the writers for giving me that message. People have a similar issue with the extra-high EMS requirement for Synthesis, and rightly so. I have the same issue with IT, btw., only worse. Most IT variants actually tell me my preferred choice is *invalid*. That's why I hate IT with a passion instead of simply not believing it.

If you want a well-balanced ending, look to DAO.

Edit:
Yes, I am discussing this on a metagaming level because it is a metagaming issue.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 06:48 .

[Nimrodell]

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis has the most bizarre introduction I've ever seen. I've never seen anything like it.

And hopefully we'll never see something introduced so poorly again.

That said, DA3 will probably do it.

It doesn't even fit a "twist" in literature.

It just appears. I'm used to this, in say the films of Luis Buniel, where someone might espouse an opinion that contradicts the time period they are in. Or something appears where it shouldn't, like a bear in a mansion.

It kind of resembles that, at least to me. But that's surrealism.

Taboo, I think you're giving too much credit to BW writers when you say that somewhere they were actually trying to emulate Lem/Tarkovsky's Solaris or Strugockiy/Tarkovsky's Stalker - honestly, the first time I saw the ending, the first thing on my mind was - oh, this is Voyager becoming true life form in melding of synthetic and organic in Star Trek 1979. Cheap but effective idea in those times. I even thought that they went for Philip. K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (Bladerunner) but nah, it's not even that - maybe as few archetypes fetched, but the execution itself, far from it.

As for Chien Andalou and Bunuel and all that surrealism craziness, well, maybe you're onto something for IT-ers there - since it's all dreams and daydreaming . Actually, I wish BioWare exploited little more of Shepard's sinking into PTSD and Andre Breton's ideas .

[o Ventus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis has the most bizarre introduction I've ever seen. I've never seen anything like it.

And hopefully we'll never see something introduced so poorly again.

That said, DA3 will probably do it.

It doesn't even fit a "twist" in literature.

It just appears. I'm used to this, in say the films of Luis Buniel, where someone might espouse an opinion that contradicts the time period they are in. Or something appears where it shouldn't, like a bear in a mansion.

It kind of resembles that, at least to me. But that's surrealism.

At least in surrealist mediums it fits. Kind of.

And call me insane, but ME isn't surrealist.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

At least in surrealist mediums it fits. Kind of.

And call me insane, but ME isn't surrealist.

You're CLEARY missing the genius of the writing of the game then. 

U R JUST A SHEEP. JUST LIEK THE ONES IN BUNUEL'S FILMS.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 07:09 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It looks like you just want to ‘win’, you concentrate only on tangible, immediate benefits, and you assume everyone else does the same. Furthermore, you somehow think that it’s taking away from you what other people choose. So you don’t judge the choices by their merits.

No, it is taking away from me if the *writers* present one choice that's clearly "best" in some objective way.

Explain to me how one of these is objectively better than the other:

1. You can die and stop the inevitable extinction of organics; or
2. You can live and not stop the inevitable extinction of organics.

You keep denying yourself, but the only reason you think Destroy is “best” is because you think it’s best. You’d like to be the better person and you want to want to choose Synthesis, but you don’t.

You can’t make the sacrifice.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juin 2012 - 09:23 .

[Ieldra]

Tell, me, can you read minds? No? Then don't act as if you can. Even those who've called me a fascist over Synthesis haven't been so insulting as to presume to tell me what I think.

And you keep sidestepping the issue. Are you denying that Shepard's death and the relay destruction are objective downsides? Are you denying that from the players' perspective, the non-immediate results of any of the choices are subjective? Really? That's just stupid. We wouldn't have all these violent debates about what the endings mean if they weren't subjective.


You appear to me as someone who wants to force that thrice-damned dark age on an option you don't like and remove it from the option you do like. Thank you very much.

Besides, I find the current balance acceptable. It's *your* scenario which is shamelessly weighted in favor of Destroy I have an issue with.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 10:24 .

[Taboo]

I said Fascist Aesthetics. I never called anyone Fascist.

I am not Fascist for liking Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries and neither are you, if you happen to like it.

We owe a great deal of documentary tricks to Leni Riefenstahl, and her films had those aesthetics but that does not make every documentary or film (Star Wars takes a shot directly from Triumph des Willens) that emulates her Fascist.

I'm critiquing something, not insulting you.

[Ieldra]

I was not talking about you, Taboo. There were others. And yes, I'm a great fan of Wagner's music.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 10:10 .

[Taboo]

Synthesis is great concept to talk about and I enjoy doing it. It's far more fruitful than the other discussions here. I have no quarrel with you. I see this as an art debate and nothing else.

I hope you can appreciate that, at least in the capacity that I do.

[Jadebaby]

This is great discussion. Well done.

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
Well, I think we're nearing the point where we've exhausted the fruitful subtopics, but you're right in one thing: speculation about this and constructing scenarios that may or may not work are much more fun than endlessly ****ing about something. Tbh, one of the things that fascinates me about Synthesis is that the post-Synthesis galaxy appears so much more interesting than post-Destroy or post-Control. Lots of new stuff, new lifestyles, new cultures. The others appear rather pedestrian in comparison. Yeah, must be my radical tendency coming through.

Btw...I hope you don't mind me saying it, but there are times when you appear to go off the rails...

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo:
Well, I think we're nearing the point where we've exhausted the fruitful subtopics, but you're right in one thing: speculation about this and constructing scenarios that may or may not work are much more fun than endlessly ****ing about something. Tbh, one of the things that fascinates me about Synthesis is that the post-Synthesis galaxy appears so much more interesting than post-Destroy or post-Control. Lots of new stuff, new lifestyles, new cultures. The others appear rather pedestrian in comparison. Yeah, must be my radical tendency coming through.

Btw...I hope you don't mind me saying it, but there are times when you appear to go off the rails...

I'm going through various states of depression right now. I can't help it. But that's how my life is. Being anxious causes flare ups in OCD and that causes depression. That's why I appear disjointed.

Last night however, was rather fruitful, but only because the drinks at the art gala I was invited to were complimentary.

[DrZann]

Ieldra2 wrote...
...bh, one of the things that fascinates me about Synthesis is that the post-Synthesis galaxy appears so much more interesting than post-Destroy or post-Control. Lots of new stuff, new lifestyles, new cultures. The others appear rather pedestrian in comparison. Yeah, must be my radical tendency coming through. 
...

I totally agree. The idea really opens up some new possibilities for me.
Currently plotting a Mass Effect setting for a pen&paper RPG, I'm having a blast speculating about the Post-Synthesis galaxy and how to fit it into a game.
One of the things I'm currently struggling with, how far does Synthesis go. While the planet in the final scene seams to indicate all organic life has assumed synthetic attributes I have no idea if that world is unique. Perhaps it is assuming the role of the Citadel, except instead of facilitating the cycle of galactic genocide it furthers the goal of peace.
Being able to interface with a world of living technology has interesting possibilities.

Modifié par DrZann, 16 juin 2012 - 11:06 .

[Ieldra]

Oh oh, another avenue of speculation opening up. Nice. I'll get back to that tomorrow.

[Taboo]

Oh dear...

[MisterJB]

DrZann wrote...
Being able to interface with a world of living technology has interesting possibilities.

Indeed. Would this be similar to what the Na'vi do in "Avatar"?

[Taboo]

As much as I find myself in agreeance with Cameron's NON INTERVENTIONALIST policies, it isn't a very profound film.

It's nice to look at though, and he should be noted for doing that.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 11:31 .

[MisterJB]

Definitively not a profound film. Still, I liked the world build.