9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@Nimrodell:
Interesting thoughts. I'll let them settle until I know if I need to reply. I don't know Space Odyssey 2061, so that's where the confusion may come from.
IMO Mac Walters has a different problem. He started out being a writer of comics, and the legacy of that is all too apparent in the aesthetics of ME2 as well as the increasing disrespect of the ME universe's own lore.

[Ieldra]

I would also like to say that I think the circuitry overlay on everything in the Normandy scene isn't meant to taken as people having actual circuitry under their skin. It's just a way to show that people are part-synthetic now, whatever that may mean in a technical sense. All that synthetic stuff must be good for something, and I can't see something as primitive as what those overlays would indicate being good for anything. Circuitry as we know it today isn't very powerful. You need 10 of the worlds largest supercomputers to come near the processing power of the human brain. ME integrated circuitry would almost certainly look very different from today's, and any patterns would not be visible to the naked eye anyway. So this pattern is a placeholder.

(Triggered by reading a fanfic that took this literally. A very odd read. I liked the functionality of the added synthetic stuff, but the description.....no comment)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 juin 2012 - 05:44 .

[Taboo]

You'd need it there to show that some sort of change occured, I agree. A visual reference is needed. The eyes are affected though.

It will be VERY interesting to see what they do.

Although I can actually see them recycling certain scenes and just...painting over models depending on what ending you chose. 

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[Nimrodell]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The ending to 2001:A Space Odyssey is not confusing. Everything that happens is understandable.

Contact with the Monolith causes rapid evolution. This is why the apes start using bones after touching it and why David Bowman turns into the original Star Child, he has long term exposure to it.

That too has fascist aesthetics. I'm not even kidding. I've seen it come up countless times in discussion.

But remember, that DOESN'T make it Facist.

I didn't say that the ending of Space Odyssey is confusing - I was addressing the other scifi phenomena - we accept monolith as it is - we don't know anything about its nature, nor do we judge its morality - because with it we're actually accepting such as it is - as some unknown higher power that is capable of creating and destroying without consulting with us or considering our thoughts on those issues. We can't give scientific explanation on its omnipotency nad yet we accept its 'space magic' (monolith multiplying in Jupiter spot, Jupiter becomes another sun and then 51 years later, monolith just like that shuts it down thus killing every life form that developed on Jupiter's moon Europe). We even respect the restriction it gives us. And honestly, I read many studies on Clarcke's Odysseys and on Kubrick's and Hyams' movies and none of them was actually questioning monolith, its morality or immorality - because there is none. I guess monolith got away with creating/destroying agenda because it didn't kill something that was known to us, familiar to us or attacked us, but it wiped out those 'sharks' and 'jellyfish' on the moon Europe. Just imagine what would happen if monolith's ruthless calculus decides we're not worthy of sustaining? But as I stated, no study or review is even dealing with 'human perspective' issues of who gave it the right to decide on life and death and its morality if we can apply our moral standards there. Most importantly, we actually accept its omnipotency without questioning it, without strangling Arthur C. Clarke with constant saying that he used 'space magic'. That's what I was addressing . I sincerely hope I'm clear now.

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Nimrodell:
Interesting thoughts. I'll let them settle until I know if I need to reply. I don't know Space Odyssey 2061, so that's where the confusion may come from.
IMO Mac Walters has a different problem. He started out being a writer of comics, and the legacy of that is all too apparent in the aesthetics of ME2 as well as the increasing disrespect of the ME universe's own lore.

Yes, you're right on this point too, still I have to add, it is also media itself that presents a story - it's the damned nature of games and limits they have - all story designers should be aware of those limits or they will get shallow resolutions like it happened in Mass Effect 3 unfortunately. When Casey Hudson stated in one of the interviews that they planned the entire trilogy from the very start - I said, oh good, there will be some consistency there, but then I realized, after playing Mass Effect 3 that they actually only planned to have three games, maybe some main outlines, but that was about it. So many writers kept good track on their writing if they had chosen that path so they don't loose themselves in the story, so the story doesn't break control. Even great Tolkien kept neat track of his ideas and versions, even closely watching on story time/chronology, kept track of days, sunsets and sunrises and after many years of reasearching him, I found only few mistakes he made - only few times when the story itself tricked him and made him forget that some piece of draft found its way into final story (for example, Saruman's ring).

[Taboo]

 You decide which piece of facist aesthetic pie you want in the ending.

The monolith is a non issue. Unless anyone plans on travelling to Jupiter and beyond the infinite it won't be an issue. The fascist aesthetics come from the stargate seuquence. It really pissed some people off. I'm not joking. They consider Bowman's apotheosis to be fascist in nature as it promotes an idealized vision of the perfect human. It's incredibly stupid, but I won't deny it's there.I can respect it's nature as is, because it makes conceptual sense within the narrative. Kubrick structured the film that way. The film actually makes LESS sense than the novel, which was written at the same time.

My issue with Synthesis has nothing to do with how it's done. You have to accept it's totality in the narrative. You have to accept Walters logic here, even if it pains you. I don't expect Synthesis to be explained to me in the EC. What Ieldra has here is far better than whatever Bioware came up with. I SERIOUSLY doubt they put that amount of effort into this.

The glorification of sacrifice through sacrifice and or submission bothers me greatly and Shepard's forced sacrifice, and the emodiment of it is also an issue.

The aesthetic that runs through both Ieldra and my own interpretations is the one of a new state. His, one of new technology, positioned by a state of what I believe will be a type of anarcho-communism (Unless he states otherwise). Mine is anchored in similiar fashion, except we have no Synthesis and people will decide what they wish to do without any interference of others.

I cement my belief that people will choose to help one another in times of great duress, as they have in the last game, and they don't need Synthesis to do it. That freedom from my positioning will, I hope, send a message that this is your future, and will be bound by what you want, not a set path determined by my Shepard.

My Shepard still has a lot to say and a lot to do. His job isn't finished after we defeat the Reapers.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 juin 2012 - 06:37 .

[Nimrodell]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 You decide which piece of facist aesthetic pie you want in the ending.

The monolith is a non issue. Unless anyone plans on travelling to Jupiter and beyond the infinite it won't be an issue. The fascist aesthetics come from the stargate seuquence. It really pissed some people off. I'm not joking. They consider Bowman's apotheosis to be fascist in nature as it promotes an idealized vision of the perfect human. It's incredibly stupid, but I won't deny it's there.I can respect it's nature as is, because it makes conceptual sense within the narrative. Kubrick structured the film that way. The film actually makes LESS sense than the novel, which was written at the same time.

My issue with Synthesis has nothing to do with how it's done. You have to accept it's totality in the narrative. You have to accept Walters logic here, even if it pains you. I don't expect Synthesis to be explained to me in the EC. What Ieldra has here is far better than whatever Bioware came up with. I SERIOUSLY doubt they put that amount of effort into this.

The glorification of sacrifice through sacrifice and or submission bothers me greatly and Shepard's forced sacrifice, and the emodiment of it is also an issue.

The aesthetic that runs through both Ieldra and my own interpretations is the one of a new state. His, one of new technology, positioned by a state of what I believe will be a type of anarcho-communism (Unless he states otherwise). Mine is anchored in similiar fashion, except we have no Synthesis and people will decide what they wish to do without any interference of others.

I cement my belief that people will choose to help one another in times of great duress, as they have in the last game, and they don't need Synthesis to do it. That freedom from my positioning will, I hope, send a message that this is your future, and will be bound by what you want, not a set path determined by my Shepard.

My Shepard still has a lot to say and a lot to do. His job isn't finished after we defeat the Reapers.

I wasn't questioning your reasons or Ieldra's or mine - I was just merely pointing out the things Mac Walters or whomever overlooked when they were using archetypes - they forgot that this is a game, game that became very personal and that they are exposed to different categories of people on wide scale - unlike scifi and stories they were using while making the skeleton of Mass Effect 3.

As for my own reasons, why I will always choose synthesis - if you're interested I'll tell you (because I actually never did, only part of it if you watched my Homage to Shepard, if you watched my Irikah video that was made for my lecture about practical use of literature in modern gaming), but my reasons or anyone's reasons were the thing BW team overlooked - you don't gamble with co-creation aspect in something that is, after all, merchandise if you want to earn money (not you, Taboo, I mean generally in something that is business:)).

Shepard is too personal, everything is too personal, so the Catalyst and the Reapers can't be seen/accepted as Old Testament vindictive, cruel Jahveh that seeks to uphold his order or Monolith with its ruthless calculus that keeps what it sees as balance, what it has programmed inherently or as it perceives as order - Catalyst can't be taken with objectivity nor its offers can be taken that way by majority - that's the cruel law of co-creation by players, especially nowadays. Clear conclusion would help a lot in removing this entire confusion we've been having for three months now. And as you see, because they tried to play with co-creation phenomena (a lot of speculation from everyone), we have aggressive views, paranoid views, exclusive views, liberal views, self-righteous views, etc. on something that actually provides so little information to actually know what we're talking about and it would be OK, tbh, if this was indeed a work of art that strives for its independency no matter the cost - but unfortunately, it's not the case.

Edit: split paragraphs for easier understanding, I hope - this post refers to things already said in previous posts.

Modifié par Nimrodell, 21 juin 2012 - 07:56 .

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
The aesthetic that runs through both Ieldra and my own interpretations is the one of a new state. His, one of new technology, positioned by a state of what I believe will be a type of anarcho-communism (Unless he states otherwise). Mine is anchored in similiar fashion, except we have no Synthesis and people will decide what they wish to do without any interference of others.

Anarcho-communism? Where did you get that from? I haven't expressed any preference on socio-political systems. I think there will be many different new cultures after Synthesis, based on people's attitude to the change. It will cover the whole range of the old divisions and then some. Though I won't deny that personally, I'm in the anarcho-communist quarter of the political compass.

@Nimrodell:
I have to admit that I don't understand your explanation of why you chose Synthesis. You make associations I am unable to follow (Old Testament? Where did that come in?) and I can't connect them - or their antithesis - with the idea of Synthesis.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 juin 2012 - 07:39 .

[Taboo]

SMALL WORLD IELDRA. I AM TOO. I TOOK THE SAME DAMN TEST.

[Taboo]

God in the Old Testament was an ***hole, Ieldra. A big one. From what I remember he was smiting people left and right for various things. In one scenario he kills some people because the fire they bring him is not blessed.

In fact, God kills more people than Satan does in the Bible. It's absurd. He/She is referring to that cold logic that cannot be understood.

Anyway, I want the same goal Ieldra does, but without the interference. I want people to choose to live in that community. if they wish to conservative...much to my ire, that is their choice.

With proper education, people can learn a great many things. Destroy provides that situation without Synthesized bodies. There will be no Batarian Hegemony to spread fear. No media to spread lies. Wrex and Eve can control their species.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
The aesthetic that runs through both Ieldra and my own interpretations is the one of a new state. His, one of new technology, positioned by a state of what I believe will be a type of anarcho-communism (Unless he states otherwise). Mine is anchored in similiar fashion, except we have no Synthesis and people will decide what they wish to do without any interference of others.

Anarcho-communism? Where did you get that from? I haven't expressed any preference on socio-political systems. I think there will be many different new cultures after Synthesis, based on people's attitude to the change. It will cover the whole range of the old divisions and then some. Though I won't deny that personally, I'm in the anarcho-communist quarter of the political compass.

@Nimrodell:
I have to admit that I don't understand your explanation of why you chose Synthesis. You make associations I am unable to follow (Old Testament? Where did that come in?) and I can't connect them - or their antithesis - with the idea of Synthesis.

You misread - I didn't say at all why I chose synthesis - I was just telling Taboo that I never said anything about my reasons why I choose what I choose and that I will say if you guys r interested in one more personal overview of reasons. I was replying to Taboo, explaining previous posts on BW mistakes and why we can't observe Catalyst as we would with previously mentioned beings that have unknown potency. I hope this clears things. God, is my English that bad? lol

[Nimrodell]

I've split the paragraphs, hope it'll help in avoiding the confusion .

Modifié par Nimrodell, 21 juin 2012 - 07:57 .

[Ieldra]

@Nimrodell:
Remove the bracketed part from the second paragraph of your restructured post and read it again, and you'll understand why I got confused. It still reads as if you want to connect your decision for Synthesis with all the statements about co-creation. With which I mostly agree btw.. You can leave many things undefined, but at the core there must be some solid ground to stand on, else everything will fray into randomness or twisted beyond recognition by preconceptions and ideological associations.

As for the Reapers, I must be one of few who don't see them as personal at all, though I recognize the attempt to make them so and the success of that as evidenced by people's reactions. But it never worked on me. That's because the "abomination aesthetics" (is there a better word for that) didn't touch me. I am never taken in by disgust that way because it appeals to values I am suspicious of.

BTW, I'm interested in why you chose Synthesis.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 juin 2012 - 08:36 .

[Taboo]

The word is fascist aesthetics.

Seriously. I know it sounds dumb but that's what it's called.

That "Us and Them" belief that people have here dehumanizes the Reapers. That is an aesthetic found in...you guessed it.

I was told I was too liberal for caring about the Reapers and not choosing Control, so you can imagine how I feel about the matter.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 juin 2012 - 08:39 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

So I just took that political-compass test. My score ... here.


That's pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from Hitler. You can rest easy now, Taboo-XX.

[jtav]

I got Libertarian-Left too.

[Taboo]

You nearer to the libertarian right than I am HYR.

Here I am
http://www.political...-7.75&soc=-7.95

And here you are:

http://www.political...-5.1<div style=

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[Taboo]

Look at the chart. It doesn't appear that we are that far apart. We are. Obama and Romney are in the same area and aren't that far apart, chart wise but they couldn't have a bigger difference between them.

I am MUCH farther to the left than you are.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Look at the chart. It doesn't appear that we are that far apart. We are. Obama and Romney are in the same area and aren't that far apart, chart wise but they couldn't have a bigger difference between them.

I am MUCH farther to the left than you are.

I don't doubt it. I will admit looking only at the results here and everything is a bit misleading, though I do think the idea is accurate.

Obama's placement did shock me a bit too. I agree he is fairly moderate, but no way in hell is he that right.

[Taboo]

Hitler is actually in the same section. As is Margret Thatcher. Notice however, as Hitler is nearest to Authoritarian Fascism. Thatcher is closer to Romney.



We may be on the same area of the political spectrum, but we differ greatly in some views. Notice I believe in a more Anarchist state of being.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 juin 2012 - 10:05 .

[Taboo]

Just a heads up HYR. Facist aesthetics are all over the place. Even Soviet Propaganda films have some fascist aesthetics, even though it makes no sense.

Sergei Eisenstein for example, had some in his films, especially in Alexander Nevsky.

Don't even get me started about super hero films. Those REALLY ****** some people off.

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Nimrodell:
BTW, I'm interested in why you chose Synthesis.

Well, then I guess I should say why I chose synthesis each time. I just hope I won’t be misunderstood. I’m sincerely sorry for the wall of text and I am afraid of reactions, not going to lie to you, because the reasons are more complex than this I’m capable to express. Two months ago I already mentioned some of these things on these boards while discussing ’morality issue’, but I’ll do it again, because you two, Ieldra and Taboo, deserve it and this explanation is not intended to provoke any reaction that would brand me as a whiner or someone who seeks compassion, attention or is being pathetic.

I always saw Shepard as unwilling hero, someone who is actually very afraid, and yet someone that’s been thrown into tempest, to fight it and preserve anything that can be saved... It has something to do with my life I guess, and my experiences.
I come from a strange part of the world, where the east and the west collide and I’m still not sure if it’s a curse or a hidden blessing. I’ll probably bore you with some details, it’s not enough to say that I know what peace is, what war is, what hate can do to men and how true understanding can change that.
While going through my Shepard’s story I noticed a strange thing, some of the choices, situations and characters resembled very much to what I encountered in my life – xenophobia, narrow-mindedness, fear of unknown, constant arrogance in the way of thinking of all species presuming that they are the centre of the universe. But also, there were situations, choices and characters that were incarnation of the opposite. Then I started exploring all options and I saw strange archetype emerging – to be honest, I wasn’t expecting that story to rears up its head, especially because I’m not a religious person, not in a usual sense, as people usually are when they see such patterns. Many of the main points of the story resembled very much the next pattern:

Unwilling ’false’ messiah announcing the coming of the new order/’false’ prophet Cassandra syndrom – resurrection (not like Jesus, more like Osiris to Horus – the same but different) – new nature of the unwilling messiah re-born/dualistic nature (like Ormuzd and Ahriman in one, both of the worlds in one), still announcing the coming of the new order - twelwe followers/dirty dozen (each one presenting new point of view and still believing, and each profoundly changed afterwards) – accepting and understanding/or change of those who are deemed wicked by the rest of the living (like demons pacified by being allowed, free choice that is theirs, to choose pigs) - temptations – the final stand with all three outcomes bringing what was announced at the beginning – a new order of things.

It seemed very interesting how much of old archetypes, intentionally or unintentionally, was incorporated in Shepard’s story and all of them originated from the crucial myths, stories for the human kind. One thing though was consistent – announcing and bringing the new order of things. Either way, no matter if Shepard were to succeed or fail – the new order emerges (as I saw even in Javik’s testimony about his own cycle). It all strangely resembled the archetypes in the stories where God, Jahveh, is forging the new pact with Men after world-shaping violent events - The Great Flood, Noah and the rainbow as a reminder of a new order (God denounces his way of destroying all for the sake of keeping original design for this world when new unknown is introduced – death on large scale) and Old Testament Jahveh versus New Testament Jahveh (there is a reason why New Testament bears that name – it’s a new pact between Men and their Creator, God reveals himself as a true parent, someone who loves this world and each living being without authoritarian claims, thanks to intervention of ’false’ messiah that is of both worlds – half god and half human – no more sending plagues or any horror just to prove a point – again new unknown introduced by messiah – God is not a punisher, he is loving parent).

Then I looked at history of my own people and how we got to be here where we are now. My people lives constantly in the past, but strangely, we have selective memory – we forgot who we were before Christianity and the initial division to Orthodox and Catholic – somehow we forgot that at the beginning, we were all the same. Through history, some members of my nation became Muslims (some willingly, some unwillingly), we renounced them all and they renounced us, then some of them became Catholic (again some willingly and some unwillingly) and the same thing happened. We even forgot that we are of the same indo-european origins as our neighbours and they did the same. Nowadays, we are quite different, mostly having prejudices about each others.

We all speak the same language, know the same stories, cook the same recipes, and yet, we are strangers. We used to have mixed marriages, but usually people frowned upon those, like they knew that something really bad is brewing. And then the hate finally reached it’s boiling point and horrible war broke between us – those that are so very same and yet so very different. That’s when I suddenly became grown-up, that’s when I found out what it means to be hungry, unclothed, hated by the entire world even though I fought with all my strength against those who were for war – that’s when I realized how it looks to be scorned by some of your own people for wanting to understand the other side, for wanting the peace. How I wish I had the choice to use synthesis then – maybe those fools would finally step in each other’s shoes and see what was obvious the whole time. Every life is unique and precious.

After those wars, even though I was one of those who didn’t hate the others, even though I was one of those who took the beatings from my own police for my convictions – people from abroad saw me as a villain the second I would reveal from which nation I am. And then I had to endure one more horrible test – the bombing of my country for three and a half months by one organization in the name of something that was happening elsewhere and no civilian from here could prevent it and those who tried would suffer greatly from the regime. That’s the time when my PTSD really kicked in. People say ’that’s collateral damage’ without realizing that ’collateral damage’ are usually people like they are. I wonder what would they think about being collateral when depleted uranium bombs or cluster bombs are falling around them, killing kids and grown-up civilians without any difference. And yet, somehow, I managed to make a difference between those who issued those orders and the rest of their nations – I managed to stay clean from the hatred and not to be poisoned by prejudices or idea of collective guilt. This world is full of wonderful open-minded people, and I wish I had the option for synthesis back then too, because, again, maybe standing in each other’s shoes would stop all that madness finally. It’s truly hard to create a life while destroying it is so easy.

After many years I started my Shepard’s saga – and this year, there I was, standing in front of Catalyst, and it offered me the choices and suddenly my mind started playing ’My Body is a Cage’ song, and I felt so sorry for my Shepard and all I mentioned above hit me – ’false’ messiah – Cassandra of Troy, new order, different perspectives and foolishness of people and their prejudices, that all life is precious and that I refuse to kill synthetics that became alive, that I refuse to control because I don’t trust myself to stay sane... And synthesis was the only logical option for me – I won’t destroy those who I deem alive, I won’t endanger some future generations by my own possible insanity or delusions I might develop being that isolated from life itself, I’ll show them all the world from each other’s eyes, make them understand – thus preserving everyone I can, by willingly dispersing myself and what I know. There is no guarantee that there will be no war ever again, but at least, for the start, they’ll know how is it in ’enemy’s’ shoes... just like Faramir watches that Southern fallen soldier and wonders if he had high hopes, loved someone, loved life, hated war and feared it. And my Shepard indeed looked to me like someone who is ready to pay ultimate price to bring new order of things – perhaps better future for all. That’s why I chose synthesis. My explanation is not scientific at all, I hope I didn't disappoint you guys.

[Taboo]

Your post...is full of win. I have no issues with your interpretation or Ieldra's. I may not agree with it but I truly believe you deserve respect for this.

Whoa.

[jla0644]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Just a heads up HYR. Facist aesthetics are all over the place. Even Soviet Propaganda films have some fascist aesthetics, even though it makes no sense.

Sergei Eisenstein for example, had some in his films, especially in Alexander Nevsky.

Don't even get me started about super hero films. Those REALLY ****** some people off.

You can see it in Star Wars for god's sake. The final scene is straight out of Triumph of the Will. So what?

Remind me, what was the point in introducing this to the conversation? It's not like it's a central theme of the game. In fact, the only way it is there at all is if one interprets Synthesis in the exact same way you have. And it doesn't seem to have accoplished anything other than drive the discussion way off topic. We have people posting political spectrum graphs now (as if those are of any use, even when they are on topic). You've admitted yourself that the term doesn't have a direct connection to fascism in the political sense. And yet you've presented it as an argument against Synthesis. I'm just curious what you were trying to prove.

[Taboo]

I haven't had NEARLY enough to drink yet.

I present it as a criticism against Control and Destroy as well. You've never asked so I've never said anything.

It is a critique and a reminder. It is no different than you telling me I commit Genocide in Destroy, which I do.

I take no issue when you address my endings aesthetics. Please, go ahead. Everyone else understands where we stand here. Ieldra and I are at an understanding. What's holding you up?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 juin 2012 - 03:18 .