587 réponses à ce sujet

[Helios969]

^^perhaps that's part of my rejection of synthesis...my scientific brain simply rejects it as even possible. When I watch the cutscene with organics with glowing IC traces through them I simply have to LOL.

[Wayning_Star]

Helios969 wrote...

^^perhaps that's part of my rejection of synthesis...my scientific brain simply rejects it as even possible. When I watch the cutscene with organics with glowing IC traces through them I simply have to LOL.

but then catching the god particle is pure science..gall derned higgs boson notwithstanding. But with science, it's just another matter of how big the experiment is and how to acquire results that are considered 'real'.. (such as evolution

I didn't care much for those either, really misleading, tawdry for lack of better term..lol, but really leads back to technolgy and interfacing as science.etc..

[Ieldra]

If I may add something regarding the thread title:

The "implied luddism" was mostly a problem of the original endings. All of them, not just Destroy. Just watch the original Normandy crash scene and tell me it's not. The only endings where it doesn't come across like that is low-EMS Destroy or Control, because there it represents hope - people have survived in spite of everything else being destroyed.

The EC high EMS endings haven't got that element any more, high EMS EC Destroy also dispenses with the "Destroy all that evil Reaper tech" theme since the relays will be rebuilt. I think that should not have been done, since one ending should carry that theme, but so it is.

There remains the pro-organic theme. I think its presence is intentional. Post-Destroy, organics are dominant, post-Control, synthetics are (or rather one synthetic is). Synthesis makes the difference irrelevant. Any individual player who chooses Destroy may "buy into" that theme or not, but I don't think its presence can be denied.

Everything else regarding the topic I've said in my post on the previous page.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 03:02 .

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

If I may add something regarding the thread title:

The "implied luddism" was mostly a problem of the original endings. All of them, not just Destroy. Just watch the original Normandy crash scene and tell me it's not. The only endings where it doesn't come across like that is low-EMS Destroy or Control, because there it represents hope - people have survived in spite of everything else being destroyed.

The EC high EMS endings haven't got that element any more, high EMS EC Destroy also dispenses with the "Destroy all that evil Reaper tech" theme since the relays will be rebuilt. I think that should not have been done, since one ending should carry that theme, but so it is.

There remains the pro-organic theme. I think its presence is intentional. Post-Destroy, organics are dominant, post-Control, synthetics are (or rather one synthetic is). Synthesis makes the difference irrelevant. Any individual player who chooses Destroy may "buy into" that theme or not, but I don't think its presence can be denied.

Everything else regarding the topic I've said in my post on the previous page.

I looked up the term luddite, I couldn't apply it anywhere in the MEU. So I just assumed it were a 'handy' term/buzzword associated to confound issues during arguements. Many online social net confrontation requires a set amount of trollage, it's genetically coded into humanity..as a whole..lol

[Ieldra]

You looked it up? I have my doubts....here's the relevant passage from the Wikipedia article:

"In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general."

As you can see, it can easily be applied to the MEU, since the perceived dangers of new technologies and their applications are very much a theme of the trilogy. Examples: the Genophage, Reaper technology, Miranda's genetic engineering, biotics etc. etc.. Oh, and not to forget: artificial intelligence.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 03:13 .

[CosmicGnosis]

There is also this quote from the Illusive Man, which is quite possibly the single most blatant anti-Luddite argument presented in the whole trilogy:

"When humanity discovered the mass relays, when we learned there was more to the galaxy than we imagined, there were some who thought the relays should be destroyed. They were scared of what we'd find, terrified of what we might let in. But look at what humanity has achieved. Since that discovery, we've advanced more than the past ten thousand years combined!"

He criticizes the fear of technologies that are beyond our understanding, arguing that we should try to understand them. Too bad so many people write off his whole perspective simply because he was indoctrinated.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You looked it up? I have my doubts....here's the relevant passage from the Wikipedia article:

"In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general."

As you can see, it can easily be applied to the MEU, since the perceived dangers of new technologies and their applications are very much a theme of the trilogy. Examples: the Genophage, Reaper technology, Miranda's genetic engineering, biotics etc. etc.. Oh, and not to forget: artificial intelligence.

. Those are all mistrusted because they are dangerous.  The genophage murdered millions of unborn children.  Reaper tech indoctrinates, Miranda is arguable, her genetic enhancements make her more efficient, but she wonders if this is due to her own merits or her father's meddling, biotics are dangerous, in ME1 you see this first hand at least three different times, and most people's experience with AI are the geth.  

If ME embraced Luddite thought then the relays would be being blown up, ships crashed, genetic engineering would be firmly off the table, yet it is shown to be beneficial in several places.

[Wayning_Star]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You looked it up? I have my doubts....here's the relevant passage from the Wikipedia article:

"In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general."

As you can see, it can easily be applied to the MEU, since the perceived dangers of new technologies and their applications are very much a theme of the trilogy. Examples: the Genophage, Reaper technology, Miranda's genetic engineering, biotics etc. etc.. Oh, and not to forget: artificial intelligence.

. Those are all mistrusted because they are dangerous.  The genophage murdered millions of unborn children.  Reaper tech indoctrinates, Miranda is arguable, her genetic enhancements make her more efficient, but she wonders if this is due to her own merits or her father's meddling, biotics are dangerous, in ME1 you see this first hand at least three different times, and most people's experience with AI are the geth.  

If ME embraced Luddite thought then the relays would be being blown up, ships crashed, genetic engineering would be firmly off the table, yet it is shown to be beneficial in several places.

the term is exaggerated to perform tasks not intended. It was based on folks not wanting machines to take away their jobs. It's morphed into a discussion of ethical restraints on technology controlling the mind. As if industry is basis for evolution..not the other way around.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You looked it up? I have my doubts....here's the relevant passage from the Wikipedia article:

"In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general."

As you can see, it can easily be applied to the MEU, since the perceived dangers of new technologies and their applications are very much a theme of the trilogy. Examples: the Genophage, Reaper technology, Miranda's genetic engineering, biotics etc. etc.. Oh, and not to forget: artificial intelligence.

. Those are all mistrusted because they are dangerous.  The genophage murdered millions of unborn children.  Reaper tech indoctrinates, Miranda is arguable, her genetic enhancements make her more efficient, but she wonders if this is due to her own merits or her father's meddling, biotics are dangerous, in ME1 you see this first hand at least three different times, and most people's experience with AI are the geth.  

If ME embraced Luddite thought then the relays would be being blown up, ships crashed, genetic engineering would be firmly off the table, yet it is shown to be beneficial in several places.

ME3 original endings: relays blown up, iconic ship crashed.
ME3: Miranda's genetic engineering is off the table, ignored in order to appease the traditionalists.

My criticism goes specifically to ME3, which I accuse of embracing a Romantic, anti-technological and traditionalist mindset. ME1, despite Cerberus, was a lot more ambivalent with the Alliance's standard genemod packages and Martin Burns and the Alliance Parliamentary Subcommitee for Transhuman Studies, and ME2 features both the up- and downsides of Miranda's genetic engineering and has Shepard become transhuman. That, too, is conveniently retconned by applying a wrong definition in-world.

I maintain my criticism. I do not, however, accuse the OP of this, whose opinion I respect as reasonable but not  authoritative. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 03:35 .

[Wayning_Star]

I suspect our resident wulf as stirring the pot..lol

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

If ME embraced Luddite thought then the relays would be being blown up, ships crashed, genetic engineering would be firmly off the table, yet it is shown to be beneficial in several places.

ME3 original endings: relays blown up, iconic ship crashed.
ME3: Miranda's genetic engineering is off the table, ignored in order to appease the traditionalists.

My criticism goes specifically to ME3, which I accuse of embracing a Romantic, anti-technological and traditionalist mindset. ME1, despite Cerberus, was a lot more ambivalent with the Alliance's standard genemod packages and Martin Burns and the Alliance Parliamentary Subcommitee for Transhuman Studies, and ME2 features both the up- and downsides of Miranda's genetic engineering and has Shepard become transhuman. That, too, is conveniently retconned by applying a wrong definition in-world.

. If ME was dedicated to a Luddite philosophy synthesis would be portrayed hugely negatively.  It isn't.  It's basically thrown at us by the Catalyst.  The "Luddite" ending, Destroy, is the one negatively portrayed.  

If Destroy was the "best" ending then I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

[1337b0r0m1r]

@OP:

You should at to that list that choosing Synthesis means altering all organic species tremendously and (possibly) irreversibly - without asking them. And I would imagine that, to put it mildly, not everyone would be happy about that.

Compared to that, Destroy is quite a happy ending in my book. Then again, I failed to see why Destroy is considered bad in the first place.

Modifié par 1337b0r0m1r, 12 février 2013 - 03:42 .

[Wayning_Star]

There is NO best ending, only synthesis. Sucks, but there it is.

[fiendishchicken]

Depending on how you look at cybernetics and genetic enhancements (or in Shepard and Miranda's case, full rebuilding of his body, and complete genetic engineering), transhumanism plays a large role in the background of the franchise as it is already.

That said, yeah, I wouldn't pick it if it were advocated by the Reapers. There's nothing to suggest that they aren't fooling you, which is their nature, to deceive, control, and indoctrinate.

I'm going to destroy, since it leads to a far better long-term outcome in my opinion.

[Wayning_Star]

I borrowed Nero's violin..any requests?

[clennon8]

Wayning_Star wrote...

I borrowed Nero's violin..any requests?

Yes.  Will you kindly stop spamming my thread?  Thank you.

[Wayning_Star]

clennon8 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

I borrowed Nero's violin..any requests?

Yes.  Will you kindly stop spamming my thread?  Thank you.

so be it.

[CynicalShep]

Wayning_Star wrote...

I borrowed Nero's violin..any requests?

I'll take "In The Hall Of The Mountain King" 

[humes spork]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, nothing that is shown *necessarily* implies that. But storytelling is always an act of communication. You should be aware of this, having drawn parallels with the Divine Comedy I'm sure would occur only to a very small minority...

That's the beauty of ambiguity and interpretation. There's a difference between what is the "right" or "wrong" interpretation, and what is a reasonable and unreasonable inference to be made from the material presented to you. That's my interpretation of the ending sequence (which is distinct from the ending itself). You'll notice that when I made the Divine Comedy parallel, I did not state my interpretation was right and that others were invalid, nor did I argue with people who flatly disagreed with me. You could say the same when I made an Hegelian interpretation of the ending, or months ago when I argued the ending taken as a whole could be construed as an environmentalist statement about conservatorship opposed to preservation.

The "Endor holocaust" ending is no more "right" or "wrong" than my Divine Comedy parallels. They're both valid interpretations. The difference lies in how heavily they are supported by the source material as presented, that make them reasonable or unreasonable interpretations, which is to a certain extent subjective. I, personally, find the "Endor holocaust" interpretation of the ending unreasonable for that reason.

...for many people, the images presented to us are heavily suggestive of a technological dark age, and the writers didn't intend them to suggest that, then the failing is at least in part a failing of the writers. They failed to communicate their intent to the players.

Fair, but people need to take into consideration that is their interpretation of the ending, not "fact", and that there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Arguing as if it is somehow objective truth is destructive and closes the door to productive conversation on the topic.

A work of art must stand on its own. It must be comprehensible without additional input from its creators, or it isn't finished as it is...

The irony here is the person to whom I initially responded along this train of thought is interpreting these endings framed by pre-release statements by the developers -- something that is, in every way, "additional input" as you put it, outside the immediate context of the ending as presented. I trust that same admonishment is to be levied against them?

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

If ME embraced Luddite thought then the relays would be being blown up, ships crashed, genetic engineering would be firmly off the table, yet it is shown to be beneficial in several places.

ME3 original endings: relays blown up, iconic ship crashed.
ME3: Miranda's genetic engineering is off the table, ignored in order to appease the traditionalists.

My criticism goes specifically to ME3, which I accuse of embracing a Romantic, anti-technological and traditionalist mindset. ME1, despite Cerberus, was a lot more ambivalent with the Alliance's standard genemod packages and Martin Burns and the Alliance Parliamentary Subcommitee for Transhuman Studies, and ME2 features both the up- and downsides of Miranda's genetic engineering and has Shepard become transhuman. That, too, is conveniently retconned by applying a wrong definition in-world.

. If ME was dedicated to a Luddite philosophy synthesis would be portrayed hugely negatively.  It isn't.  It's basically thrown at us by the Catalyst.  The "Luddite" ending, Destroy, is the one negatively portrayed.  

If Destroy was the "best" ending then I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

I'm talking about the original endings. They weren't different in that, since they all featured the same elements. The EC retconned all that for all endings, but note that this was done because of the demands of the fans. If you pay attention to the tone of the game before the endings, you might notice that much of it is more in tune with the original endings. Between Shepard inexplicably foreseeing his death (and isn't *that* another element that sends me up the walls, Padok Wiks' statement to let the evolutionary process decide who lives and not, in spite of the fact that there would be a krogan empire of the worst sort in that case, the inexplicably anti-transhumanist stance forced onto Shepard, the fact that the geth need "transcendent technology" to acquire individuality and the "organic energy" (yuck!) in Synthesis, there is quite a bit mystification and romanticizing of the natural and organic-analogue individuality here.

As for technology, well, ME3 attempts to mitigate the "Reaper tech is intrinsically evil" vibe but the weight of the abomination aesthetic is so overwhelming that some people even see the geth gaining individuality through Reaper code as suspect. Of course (*heavy sarcasm*) restoring krogan fertility to the "natural" has the best outcome, in spite of the fact that the krogan had an almost sustainable population with a thousandth of their natural fertility, and conveniently overlooking the dramatically inconvenient fact that an almost sustainable population means that on average, every krogan female has almost 2.x children...   Bah. Sometimes I wonder if they really know what they're doing at Bioware. They should hire a science advisor for their next project, and I suspect they were playing with forces they don't understand when they used that abomination aesthetic in a science fiction game.  

[Mouton_Alpha]

Wayning_Star wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

I borrowed Nero's violin..any requests?

Yes.  Will you kindly stop spamming my thread?  Thank you.

so be it.

This Exchange Is Over.

[Argolas]

I once again want to stress the point that not everyone choosing Destroy represents a philosophical standpoint, I know I chose it without any second thoughts the first time I got to the ending. My reason was simple: I know the Reapers are powerful starships, but their most dangerous weapon was always manipulation, so I always figured that they would say ANYTHING to stop me from destroying them if I ever get the chance to.

Note that this thinking was not influenced by IT or metagaming and all. It never occured to me that the endings may be unreal, I didn't read or watch anything and didn't talk to anyone about ME3 until I had finished my first playthrough. I just knew that when I get the chance to rid the galaxy of this threat forever, I have to take it.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Sometimes I wonder if they really know what they're doing at Bioware. They should hire a science advisor for their next project, and I suspect they were playing with forces they don't understand when they used that abomination aesthetic in a science fiction game.  

It is not about science, it is about not having coherent vision and throwing around lots of conflicting ideas as they go. What they need is strong writing/editorial control, a singular vision. Sadly, it never seemed a priority there - they always focus on separate chunks in their games, with the main story/themes being mostly a loose framework.

[Khevan77]

I reject Control.

I reject Synthesis.

I reject Destroy.

I reject Refuse.

I reject anything and everything that is involved with the Catalyst and the Crucible (as it is presented in the ending). The reason that I reject the entire ending of Mass Effect 3, as well as much of the basic plot, is that it completely invalidates the previous games in the series.

It completely destroys the entire plot of ME1, and makes ME2 even more of an illogical mess than it already is. I used to buy Bioware games simply because they were Bioware games. Decent plots, nothing spectacular, but great characters, and great character interactions, at least with the protagonist. That was a Bioware game. No brainer to buy. I have completely lost faith in Bioware at this point. ME2 was a disappointment, but a fun game to play so I laughed it off, then DA2 was an even bigger disappointment, and now ME3.

The last 3 games Bioware has released have been sub par at best (getting progressively worse, ME2 wasn't terrible, but it was the start of the slide). It will take a metric shyte-ton of convincing for me to buy another Bioware game before it hits the bargain bin.

[Dr_Extrem]

Wayning_Star wrote...

I borrowed Nero's violin..any requests?

sir peter was a god among us simple beings.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 12 février 2013 - 05:47 .