1300 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

Or, for that matter, they don't show all the people who die because of disease and malnutrition in Destroy. The presented the details that conveyed the mood they wanted. Storytellers do that.

[elitehunter34]

I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

[nitefyre410]

jtav wrote...

Or, for that matter, they don't show all the people who die because of disease and malnutrition in Destroy. The presented the details that conveyed the mood they wanted. Storytellers do that.

 

Disease, 
Malnutrition 
Starvation 
Piracy 
Rape 
Murder  and mass riots  from lack of supplies and aid. 

you know minor little things like that and everything else that would happen after a war as devestating as the Reaper  War, with  the collapse of the civilaztion and semblance of law and order..... but hey the Relays can be rebuilt right? 

[Argable]

elitehunter34 wrote...

I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

I'm starting to agree with this more and more. One ending, the success of the war being determined by you (ugh) EMS score, with clear scenes during the final battle that show that your decisions had an influence, and a clear ending not left open to interpretation. ME2 got that much right, even if it ended on a cliffhanger, nobody was uncertain whether the humongous swarm of reapers was on their way or not.

[Ieldra]

elitehunter34 wrote...
I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

The more pertinent question is: why do people *want* to paint Synthesis in such dark colors? It's not at all plausible to assume that all those nice pictures are just lies. Brainwashing is just a conspiracy theory. You can *always* assume that for any scenario you don't like for unrelated reasons. For it to appear plausible, there must be some actual evidence, and that doesn't exist. I think peoples' emotions are overriding their common sense in this.

And no, I'm fine with having three widely divergent endings. I am unconcerned with canon since there won't be any sequels.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:19 .

[zambot]

elitehunter34 wrote...

I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

Nah.  One canon ending is boring.  I like the variety.   People still bickering over which ending is "best" will never get it.  They are hopeless.  Ignore them and move on.

[zambot]

Ieldra2 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...
I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

The more pertinent question is: why do people *want* to paint Synthesis in such dark colors? It's not at all plausible to assume that all those nice pictures are just lies. Brainwashing is just a conspiracy theory. You can *always* assume that for any scenario you don't like for unrelated reasons. For it to appear plausible, there must be some actual evidence, and that doesn't exist. I think peoples' emotions are overriding their common sense in this.

It's funny when you consider many of the people who insist on painting synthesis dark are the same people criticizing Bioware for being too nihilist with their endings.  I've taken that to mean that people are pissed at Bioware's uber happy rainbow ending (synthesis) because it doesn't fit their version of a happy ending.

[Aedan276]

Ieldra2 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...
I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

The more pertinent question is: why do people *want* to paint Synthesis in such dark colors? It's not at all plausible to assume that all those nice pictures are just lies. Brainwashing is just a conspiracy theory. You can *always* assume that for any scenario you don't like for unrelated reasons. For it to appear plausible, there must be some actual evidence, and that doesn't exist. I think peoples' emotions are overriding their common sense in this.

And no, I'm fine with having three widely divergent endings. I am unconcerned with canon since there won't be any sequels.

Sequels don't seem very likely, but I wouldn't say the concept is down for the count due to the Legacy save. At the very least there could be an expansion or two. 

A running theme of the Mass Effect series is that each species has the moral capacity to reconcile their divergent values and goals to the others, in order to accomplish greater things than they could operating seperately or in conflict. Hackett speaks about this at length in the High EMS Destroy ending. In ME2, this moral was extended to include Synthetics. ME3 veers schizophrenically toward affirming or denying their ability to participate, until it finally seems to deny it in the ending where apparently Synthetics and Organics must always go to war. All that stuff about peace between Quarians and Geth on Rannoch suddenly became narrative misdirection from the "true" theme of the ME series, which is that by nature Organics and Synthetics must go to war. This was an extremely unpopular pervision of a running theme. 

Another running theme is self-determination, the idea that, for good or bad, each species enjoys a collective right to determine their own destiny. In order to repair the seriously damaged theme of Synthetics and Organics working together, we have to throw another cherished theme under the bus. Because the species' of the galaxy didn't determine to become half-Synthetic, or to elevate their existence to "a realm that transcends understanding," rather than enjoy the mode of existence that has made life meaningful since the first conscious thought. Shepard imposed that fate upon them. 

Wrongfulness compounding on top of wrongfulness. That's why people dislike the Synthesis ending. 

Modifié par Aedan276, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:38 .

[Caladors]

What don't you understand?

Malditor wrote...

Caladors wrote...

I think the reason is for a lot of people who have a long history of playing video games and whom have played many other games they see this as a direct rip from J.C. Denton's answer to Dues Ex.
And those who have played those games saw them trying for superficial depth where there was none. For Dues Ex which the game is named after the very thing we face at the end of the series a Dues Ex Machina both in the literary and literal sense, it simply doesn't fit. Dues Ex did a lot of Easter egg-esque stuff like, J.C see what we did there he has to save humanity, poke, poke, nudge, nudge.

But for a lot of this it doesn't fit the mass effect universe. The Mass Effect universe is a universe of causality. Villains in this a pro active they're not just sitting around waiting for things to happen they have goals and the world goes on as you do things elsewhere. Mass effect one had this to degrees but it still seemed like the world waited for you. As an example Liara if late comments about how she thought you were hallucinations because she has been here for so long. But mass effect 2 really reinforced the cause and effect, living world galaxy where stuff happens even if you don't do things.

In mass effect 2 if your not fast enough most of your crew is harvested by the collectors. This is the kind of universe your in. So to find yourself against a D&D-esque Dues Ex Machina Big Bad End Guy.
That was kind of jarring. One could understand if he was just the interface left behind by the survivors of Iilos that went to the Citadel, another Victory VI instead of Vigil VI.

So that was shocking then the idea of you don't choose renegade or paragon. That their was only one good choice which was synthesis which irked a lot people because of the insidious way it was suggested to be the right path. Wile choosing Destroy or Control were really other peoples choices, Anderson and the Illusive man respectively. Synthesis is 'your' choice.

It just smacked of not fitting into the universe. Add that with everything else people were bound not to like it. It's a lot like Wesley Crusher or Wolverine. For those of you who don't know what I am talking about it's like that character your told to love and the makers are continually showing you stuff that say's don't you love him. The whole time your sitting there saying no I don't love him stop making me swallow it. And that is essentially the problem, your told to love it on a number of levels and because of that you hate it.

Wait, people hate wesley and wolverine??
I don understand what you are saying though, however that is one of the arguments I can concede to, that it doesn't fit the story that's why they don't like it. Because that's a logical response whereas most of the other responses are emotional.

[Argable]

Ieldra2 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...
I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

The more pertinent question is: why do people *want* to paint Synthesis in such dark colors? It's not at all plausible to assume that all those nice pictures are just lies. Brainwashing is just a conspiracy theory. You can *always* assume that for any scenario you don't like for unrelated reasons. For it to appear plausible, there must be some actual evidence, and that doesn't exist. I think peoples' emotions are overriding their common sense in this.

And no, I'm fine with having three widely divergent endings. I am unconcerned with canon since there won't be any sequels.

I can only speak for myself, but the reason I view synthesis as brainwashing is because, considering how vague that ending is left, it's simplest way to reconcile the sudden change from "We hate each other for a range of reasons personal al lthe way to spiritual," all the way to "Well, it's more efficient and practical to utilize the strengths of both our forms to the betterment of the galaxy and let bygones be bygones."

Which is more simple?

1. That the device capable of manipulating DNA in ways previously unthinkable and run by a being with no interst or recognition of the value of individuals or personalities is also able to manipulate thoughts and brain structure. Not to mention that indoctrination and brainwashing have been part of the ME universe since its inception.

or

2. That the change linked the minds of every living entity in ways previously unmentioned in the series to that everyone could understand that the slightly greener husks were no longer the same abominations that killed their families, that there was no backlash to the sudden change in individuals, that everyone with religious or personal reasons to hate the concept never rebelled against this, and that despite all these dramatic physical changes, the personalities of the organic and synthetic individuals were never rewritten.

Neither are clarified, both are perfectly possible, but in the absence of an actual response from the writers, I personally have to assume that the simplest possibilty happened. Reapers rewrite personalities all the time, and the starchild doesn't care abotu individuals. Why should I assume that either of those things changed right at the end?

[zambot]

Argable wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...
I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

The more pertinent question is: why do people *want* to paint Synthesis in such dark colors? It's not at all plausible to assume that all those nice pictures are just lies. Brainwashing is just a conspiracy theory. You can *always* assume that for any scenario you don't like for unrelated reasons. For it to appear plausible, there must be some actual evidence, and that doesn't exist. I think peoples' emotions are overriding their common sense in this.

And no, I'm fine with having three widely divergent endings. I am unconcerned with canon since there won't be any sequels.

I can only speak for myself, but the reason I view synthesis as brainwashing is because, considering how vague that ending is left, it's simplest way to reconcile the sudden change from "We hate each other for a range of reasons personal al lthe way to spiritual," all the way to "Well, it's more efficient and practical to utilize the strengths of both our forms to the betterment of the galaxy and let bygones be bygones."

Which is more simple?

1. That the device capable of manipulating DNA in ways previously unthinkable and run by a being with no interst or recognition of the value of individuals or personalities is also able to manipulate thoughts and brain structure. Not to mention that indoctrination and brainwashing have been part of the ME universe since its inception.

or

2. That the change linked the minds of every living entity in ways previously unmentioned in the series to that everyone could understand that the slightly greener husks were no longer the same abominations that killed their families, that there was no backlash to the sudden change in individuals, that everyone with religious or personal reasons to hate the concept never rebelled against this, and that despite all these dramatic physical changes, the personalities of the organic and synthetic individuals were never rewritten.

Neither are clarified, both are perfectly possible, but in the absence of an actual response from the writers, I personally have to assume that the simplest possibilty happened. Reapers rewrite personalities all the time, and the starchild doesn't care abotu individuals. Why should I assume that either of those things changed right at the end?

It's not a question of simplicity.  Since synthesis utilizes space magic which is at its core completely unbelievable, anything is equally possible.  So the fact that you go with a fatalist iterpretation of synthesis should tell you a lot about who you are.  

It's clear to me that the writers were going for a transhumanist utopia ending, and they used space magic to get there.  

[Aedan276]

zambot wrote...

Argable wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...
I wish we just had one canon ending so that we wouldn't have people bickering over the morality of one choice over another (just one reason out of many). Honestly, Synthesis is so vague that anyone can construe it into something that is either eugenics and brainwashing or some utopian transhumanist ideal. I just don't see the point in arguing about it.

The more pertinent question is: why do people *want* to paint Synthesis in such dark colors? It's not at all plausible to assume that all those nice pictures are just lies. Brainwashing is just a conspiracy theory. You can *always* assume that for any scenario you don't like for unrelated reasons. For it to appear plausible, there must be some actual evidence, and that doesn't exist. I think peoples' emotions are overriding their common sense in this.

And no, I'm fine with having three widely divergent endings. I am unconcerned with canon since there won't be any sequels.

I can only speak for myself, but the reason I view synthesis as brainwashing is because, considering how vague that ending is left, it's simplest way to reconcile the sudden change from "We hate each other for a range of reasons personal al lthe way to spiritual," all the way to "Well, it's more efficient and practical to utilize the strengths of both our forms to the betterment of the galaxy and let bygones be bygones."

Which is more simple?

1. That the device capable of manipulating DNA in ways previously unthinkable and run by a being with no interst or recognition of the value of individuals or personalities is also able to manipulate thoughts and brain structure. Not to mention that indoctrination and brainwashing have been part of the ME universe since its inception.

or

2. That the change linked the minds of every living entity in ways previously unmentioned in the series to that everyone could understand that the slightly greener husks were no longer the same abominations that killed their families, that there was no backlash to the sudden change in individuals, that everyone with religious or personal reasons to hate the concept never rebelled against this, and that despite all these dramatic physical changes, the personalities of the organic and synthetic individuals were never rewritten.

Neither are clarified, both are perfectly possible, but in the absence of an actual response from the writers, I personally have to assume that the simplest possibilty happened. Reapers rewrite personalities all the time, and the starchild doesn't care abotu individuals. Why should I assume that either of those things changed right at the end?

It's not a question of simplicity.  Since synthesis utilizes space magic which is at its core completely unbelievable, anything is equally possible.  So the fact that you go with a fatalist iterpretation of synthesis should tell you a lot about who you are.  

It's clear to me that the writers were going for a transhumanist utopia ending, and they used space magic to get there.  

Perverting two running themes along the way, seriously detracting from the enjoyment of the series. 

One can argue that the purpose of the ME3 ending is to make you critically evaluate the different themes of the series and decide which ones are most important while resolving the Reaper threat, so not every theme is intended to be upheld, but that creates a serious loss to narrative cohesiveness. 

Modifié par Aedan276, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:53 .

[gmboy902]

I think to some it feels like BioWare is rewarding you for accepting the Catalysts' logic, which a lot of people think is BS. Look at the Synthesis ending. Sunshine and butterflies. The end.

[zambot]

Aedan276 wrote...
Perverting two running themes along the way. 

"Perverting" is harsh.  For me the sudden switch to this tranhumanism stuff just comes out of no where, and is more of a wtf moment than anything sinister or malicious.  Perhaps because it springs out of nowhere, people are equating it with the closest thing they can find to it: the reapers and reapers are "evil".  I guess that explains some of the hostility towards synthesis.  I blame the writers for trying to educate everyone about transhumanism in the final minute of the game.

[Argable]

zambot wrote...

Aedan276 wrote...
Perverting two running themes along the way. 

"Perverting" is harsh.  For me the sudden switch to this tranhumanism stuff just comes out of no where, and is more of a wtf moment than anything sinister or malicious.  Perhaps because it springs out of nowhere, people are equating it with the closest thing they can find to it: the reapers and reapers are "evil".  I guess that explains some of the hostility towards synthesis.  I blame the writers for trying to educate everyone about transhumanism in the final minute of the game.

"Perverting" is definitely harsh, but it's closer to how I feel about the decision to make a radical theme switch at the end of a very tight series than saying it's a valid decision.

I find it very strange sometimes to be on this side of the conversation, considering I'm pursuing a career in neuroscience, and hoping to get into BCI's (Brain-computer interfacing). Given the option to get neural implants that improved my processing ability, concentration, memory, or interfacing, I would take it in a heartbeat. I'm confident that those will all become standard within my or my childrens' lifetimes, if we haven't tackled the whole telomere thing by then anyway.

And yet... too much is left unexplained. I can't deny the possibility that the choice of integration offered by the overlord of a race characterized by brainwashing and dominating individual personalities isn't going to do more of the same, and neither can my shep. Do I think that's what the writers intended? I don't honestly think they thought it out that far, but their negligence left that possibility, and until (hah) they fix that gaping hole, I'll assume what is most thematically consistant.

Modifié par Argable, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:06 .

[Stumpykins]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Stumpykins wrote...
I think the ec ending of synthesis , is the writers inability to fully comprehend the repercussions of that choice, that's y no one is freaking out, no mass suicide no hatred that this decision was made without consent , no animosity towards the reapers who still exist, I could go on.........
That why is to utopian it is very rushed , poorly thought out,

Nobody will care about the consent issue because as much as people know, there was no other way to survive. As for people freaking out, hatred and suicides, there will be that. There always is. But complaining about that this isn't shown is like complaining that everyone appears to be happy that the enemy have now become the galactic police in Control. The endings paint a *generally* happy future. Nobody says it has to be a *universally* happy one.

That of course is assuming everyone accepts that the ends justify the means, and think they don't, I think a lot of people share my belief in the idea if synthesis was the only available option , is take my chances fighting the reapers , no matter how futile , at least I and everyone else does free holding onto their humanity...... 
And also that's my point all the endings are poorly thought out , even destroy , I wanted a realistic ending  conveying the sacrifices made, not kittens and rainbows playing happily in the garden of Eden after a brutal and costly war

[Aedan276]

zambot wrote...

Aedan276 wrote...
Perverting two running themes along the way. 

"Perverting" is harsh.  For me the sudden switch to this tranhumanism stuff just comes out of no where, and is more of a wtf moment than anything sinister or malicious.  Perhaps because it springs out of nowhere, people are equating it with the closest thing they can find to it: the reapers and reapers are "evil".  I guess that explains some of the hostility towards synthesis.  I blame the writers for trying to educate everyone about transhumanism in the final minute of the game.

Transhumanism has been a reoccurring subject in the ME series, and has received different treatments and evaluations in the narrative and codex (dealing with Biotics, cybernetics, genetics, etc). Normally it is considered acceptable with the consent of the participants, or their guardians, according to conventional risk/reward parameters to themselves, their species, and the galaxy as a whole. For the most part the choice to engage in transhumanism is a question of the personal will. People who try to impose it on others, like Saren Arterius or the Illusive Man/Cerberus, are generally portrayed as misguided, if not morally and spiritually desolate. 

The original Synthesis ending abandoned the usual logic applied to transhumanism and decided forcing everyone to become half-Synthetic should be offered as a reward to players who'd gotten a sufficiently high EMS. Its like the fact it creates a utopia suddenly negated all the moral and existential meaningfulness the personal will carried through the series. 

The new ending at least allows Shepard to voice discontent with the moral implications of the choice, but it still doesn't  fit the thematic development Organic-Synthetic relations received during ME2 and ME3. 

Modifié par Aedan276, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:17 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The transhuman utopia scenario was done much better in Deus Ex: Human Revolution in Sarif's Ending. Ofcourse, since the game was a prequel, everything goes to hell no matter your choice...

And all 3 endings have Space Magic. Don't deny it. Synthesis only uses it more or rather, brings more focus on it.

[zambot]

Aedan276 wrote...

Transhumanism has been a reoccurring subject in the ME series, and has received different treatments and evaluations in the narrative and codex (dealing with Biotics, cybernetics, genetics, etc). Normally it is considered acceptable with the consent of the participants, or their guardians, according to conventional risk/reward parameters to themselves, their species, and the galaxy as a whole.

Has it really?  When I decide to play through ME again, I'll definitely pay more attention next time.  For me, it felt like a bolt out of the blue.

As far as the argument about it being "forced" on people, I honestly don't think the writers intended people to "go there", but now that people have, I doubt the writers care too much.  They probably see it as validation of their art in that it is getting people to think about the deep philospohical issues around transhumanism (insert Keanu Reeves pic here)

Argable wrote...

I find it very strange sometimes to be on this side of the conversation, considering I'm pursuing a career in neuroscience, and hoping to get into BCI's (Brain-computer interfacing).

I'm sure your background colors the way you think about synthesis greatly.  You are both an expert in the details and you've probably thought a lot about the implications of such a synthetic/organic merging in society.   I like your perspective, even if for me the most important thing is understanding the writers' intent.  I believe the writers' intent was rainbows, and they didn't think through the details which allowed debates like this to happen.

Modifié par zambot, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:22 .

[zambot]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The transhuman utopia scenario was done much better in Deus Ex: Human Revolution in Sarif's Ending. Ofcourse, since the game was a prequel, everything goes to hell no matter your choice...

And all 3 endings have Space Magic. Don't deny it. Synthesis only uses it more or rather, brings more focus on it.

All 3 used space magic as the crucible is space magic at its core.  Synthesis is undeniably the most far fetched of the 3 though.

[Argable]

[quote]zambot wrote...

[quote]Aedan276 wrote...

Transhumanism has been a reoccurring subject in the ME series, and has received different treatments and evaluations in the narrative and codex (dealing with Biotics, cybernetics, genetics, etc). Normally it is considered acceptable with the consent of the participants, or their guardians, according to conventional risk/reward parameters to themselves, their species, and the galaxy as a whole.
[/quote]

Has it really?  When I decide to play through ME again, I'll definitely pay more attention next time.  For me, it felt like a bolt out of the blue.

As far as the argument about it being "forced" on people, I honestly don't think the writers intended people to "go there", but now that people have, I doubt the writers care too much.  They probably see it as validation of their art in that it is getting people to think about the deep philospohical issues around transhumanism (insert Keanu Reeves pic here)



[quote] Argable wrote...

I find it very strange sometimes to be on this side of the conversation, considering I'm pursuing a career in neuroscience, and hoping to get into BCI's (Brain-computer interfacing).

[/quote]
I'm sure your background colors the way you think about synthesis greatly.  You are both an expert in the details and you've probably thought a lot about the implications of such a synthetic/organic merging in society.   I like your perspective, even if for me the most important thing is understanding the writers' intent.  I believe the writers' intent was rainbows, and they didn't think through the details which allowed debates like this to happen.


All 3 used space magic as the crucible is space magic at its core.
 Synthesis is undeniably the most far fetched of the 3 though.

[/quote]

[/quote]

In this, we can agree completely.

Modifié par Argable, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:26 .

[Aedan276]

Has it really?  When I decide to play through ME again, I'll definitely pay more attention next time.  For me, it felt like a bolt out of the blue.

As far as the argument about it being "forced" on people, I honestly don't think the writers intended people to "go there", but now that people have, I doubt the writers care too much.  They probably see it as validation of their art in that it is getting people to think about the deep philospohical issues around transhumanism (insert Keanu Reeves pic here)

It informs the entire conflict of ME1 and ME2. Saren Arterius wants to transform Organics into part-Synthetics so that the Reapers will tolerate them. In contrast, Shepard wants to fight the Reapers and pursue a destiny indepedent of their designs. In ME2, Reapers have no problem overwriting, altering, manipulating, bending, or perverting life to serve their purposes, and do not see or acknowledge the value of the personal and collective wills each species enjoys to decide their own destinies either as individuals, peoples, or a unified galactic civilization. Shepard asserts time and time again it is the tendency to overlook this tendency that will result in the Reaper's defeat, even up to his final speech. 

Then the Synthesis ending happened. There is a certain kind of sense in it; overwriting each species's nature is the ideal solution to a race of beings that has been perverting and destroy the personal and collective wills of civilizations for millions of years. What doesn't make sense is that the narrative would forward it as the ideal solution, when really the 'ideal' solution is anything that gets the Reapers out of the way so that the galaxy can pursue a destiny free from their designs. 

Modifié par Aedan276, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:38 .

[zambot]

Aedan276 wrote...

Has it really?  When I decide to play through ME again, I'll definitely pay more attention next time.  For me, it felt like a bolt out of the blue.

As far as the argument about it being "forced" on people, I honestly don't think the writers intended people to "go there", but now that people have, I doubt the writers care too much.  They probably see it as validation of their art in that it is getting people to think about the deep philospohical issues around transhumanism (insert Keanu Reeves pic here)

It informs the entire conflict of ME1 and ME2. Saren Arterius wants to transform Organics into part-Synthetics so that the Reapers will tolerate them. In contrast, Shepard wants to fight the Reapers and pursue a destiny indepedent of their designs. In ME2, Reapers have no problem overwriting, altering, manipulating, bending, or perverting life to serve their purposes, and do not see or acknowledge the value of the personal and collective wills each species enjoys to decide their own destinies either as individuals, peoples, or a unified galactic civilization. Shepard asserts time and time again it is the tendency to overlook this tendency that will result in the Reaper's defeat, even up to his final speech. 

Then the Synthesis ending happened. 

So I understood the whole Saren plot.  That was not transhumanism or applicable to what the writers were going for with synthesis.  

[iAFKinMassEffect3]

It's disturbing to think about and you're no longer you.
You may even lose control of your own body, you will become an abomination

[Aedan276]

zambot wrote...

Aedan276 wrote...

Has it really?  When I decide to play through ME again, I'll definitely pay more attention next time.  For me, it felt like a bolt out of the blue.

As far as the argument about it being "forced" on people, I honestly don't think the writers intended people to "go there", but now that people have, I doubt the writers care too much.  They probably see it as validation of their art in that it is getting people to think about the deep philospohical issues around transhumanism (insert Keanu Reeves pic here)

It informs the entire conflict of ME1 and ME2. Saren Arterius wants to transform Organics into part-Synthetics so that the Reapers will tolerate them. In contrast, Shepard wants to fight the Reapers and pursue a destiny indepedent of their designs. In ME2, Reapers have no problem overwriting, altering, manipulating, bending, or perverting life to serve their purposes, and do not see or acknowledge the value of the personal and collective wills each species enjoys to decide their own destinies either as individuals, peoples, or a unified galactic civilization. Shepard asserts time and time again it is the tendency to overlook this tendency that will result in the Reaper's defeat, even up to his final speech. 

Then the Synthesis ending happened. 

So I understood the whole Saren plot.  That was not transhumanism or applicable to what the writers were going for with synthesis.  

Your disagreement is insensible. Saren's manifesto to Shepard on Virmire was text book transhumanism. 

"We're going to augment ourselves and modify our organic nature with cybernetics until we achieve a level of affinity and power that makes us reconcilable and useful to the Reapers." 

Transhumanism in response to the threat of annihilation by Synthetic beings is still transhumanism. 

Modifié par Aedan276, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:43 .