706 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@Addictress:
What it comes down to: I cannot believe in a universe where the giving of a life is ontologically meaningful, as opposed to psychologically meaningful. That is the purview of religion and fantasy. I like fantasy btw., but I approach fantasy stories with a different mindset.

[Addictress]

My personal favorite ending is synthesis because it provides a clear, defined purpose beyond pure mysticism as you call it.

It is not as preferable as the rumored 'Dark Energy' ending, since the Dark Energy concept is grounded in hard science, and synthesis is frivolous sci-fi and nearly paranormal. (Dark Energy is being quantified right now at research institutions. Transhumanism and the Singularity are pop-sci, and not taken as seriously by hardcore scientists).

However, it serves the same purpose: it reveals something new to tie up all the mysticism that came before without being ridiculously religious. It is utopian but it isn't sorcery. It's a little like revealing the Wizard behind the curtains in the Wizard of Oz.

Without synthesis, all of the mysticism is unjustified. If there is nothing beyond simple destroy, simply harvest, simple control, then many of the reaper motivations and the Illusive Man's ponderings go unresolved.

[Addictress]

All of anime is basically Mass Effect 3. A string of pointless allegories that go out of control and accidentally sometimes hit a higher meaning, and strews of senseless ontologically meaningful deaths and suicides.

Modifié par Addictress, 19 février 2013 - 09:34 .

[Ieldra]

Addictress wrote...
My personal favorite ending is synthesis because it provides a clear, defined purpose beyond pure mysticism as you call it.

It is not as preferable as the rumored 'Dark Energy' ending, since the Dark Energy concept is grounded in hard science, and synthesis is frivolous sci-fi and nearly paranormal. (Dark Energy is being quantified right now at research institutions. Transhumanism and the Singularity are pop-sci, and not taken as seriously by hardcore scientists).

However, it serves the same purpose: it reveals something new to tie up all the mysticism that came before without being ridiculously religious. It is utopian but it isn't sorcery. It's a little like revealing the Wizard behind the curtains in the Wizard of Oz.

Without synthesis, all of the mysticism is unjustified. If there is nothing beyond simple destroy, simply harvest, simple control, then many of the reaper motivations and the Illusive Man's ponderings go unresolved.

I don't like the rumored Dark Energy plot because it imposes an environmentalist rationale on the setting, which is not at all convincing because of the insignificance of Citadel civiization compared to the size of the galaxy. This comes across as invoking a theme for its own sake without a sufficient grounding in the fictional universe.

Also, I agree with your last statement. Synthesis provides a way forward out of the situation, it overhauls the system, so to speak, while Destroy resets things and Control perpetuates a dependency. I do not think, however, that this justifies the mysticism. It could've been handled differently and the outcome would be just as compelling to me.

[Indy_S]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't like the rumored Dark Energy plot because it imposes an environmentalist rationale on the setting, which is not at all convincing because of the insignificance of Citadel civiization compared to the size of the galaxy. This comes across as invoking a theme for its own sake without a sufficient grounding in the fictional universe.

Also, I agree with your last statement. Synthesis provides a way forward out of the situation, it overhauls the system, so to speak, while Destroy resets things and Control perpetuates a dependency. I do not think, however, that this justifies the mysticism. It could've been handled differently and the outcome would be just as compelling to me.

I prefer the reset of Destroy. Going backwards and finding a different way forward is a suitable alternative to just going forward. At least, it is if done right.

And Dark Energy seemed strange to me. The reliance on the 'humans are special' cliche almost turns me off the idea completely.

[Indy_S]

LineHolder wrote...

Because allegories suck that's why. Allegorical statements or stories tend to hide behind multiple explanations without clearly stating what they are actually implying. You cannot ever hold an allegorical statement as literal because the one who makes said statement refuses accountability for the literal statement. Instead they typically hide behind whatever is the most expeditious interpretation to them at the time.

Allegory is the most cowardly form of story telling ever. I know I am being absolutist but hey, I'm not writing a story here. Do you see why religious texts have such a problem being taken seriously nowadays? Because they are mired in half-truths and allegories which can never be proven or disproven.

This isn't a personal attack on you, but I find allegory as an 'artistic' mode of story-telling completely shameful and insulting.

Allegories have some merits but they are rarely used in a way that doesn't come across as shameful or insulting. David and Goliath is a simple allegory and people still can't say conclusively if it was literal and exaggerated or metaphorical. Does it really mean something about 'the little guy can win' or is it a story of fighting oppression, encouraging a revolution?

[Ieldra]

Oransel wrote...
1. Lazarus Project used "genes" card. So, Miranda remade your body and brain as accurately as possible, made it live through artificial ventilation/blood stream and voila! Your genes made the trick! Shepard is back!

This is not actually implied in Lazarus. If it were, it would just be nonsense, not mysticism. Javik's "genetic psychometry" is a much worse offender. Being able to read a personality from DNA samples? Pfft.

2. Human Reaper is the same - unload a lot of genes in a machine and it's suddenly combined human consiousness, "their essense". This is wrong on so many levels, it's not funny.

Not if you use the cut SM dialogue and Legion's rare post-SM dialogue. Destructive analysis of the body, including the brain and all it contains, connects logically to what the Reapers are supposed to represent - a species forcibly transformed into one entity. The published version, yes, makes nonsense of it and is evocative of vitalism.  

3. Legion shows us that Reapers are so advanced, they can ignore core geth technology and do what they want, including giving geth individuality.

I don't see a problem with Reaper code giving the geth a fast track to individuality. That Legion has to die for it, that's the point where mysticism is invoked.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 février 2013 - 10:36 .

[David7204]

No. Lazarus is not 'mysticism'. It is not at any point treated in the way that the Reapers and Synthesis are. All of the dialogue surrounding it is precise and down-to-Earth.

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 10:40 .

[Biotic Sage]

Speaking as someone who enjoyed the trilogy and yes, even the ME3 ending, this is some very valid criticism. Every great work has flaws; not an excuse, just an observation. In the Godfather, when Sonny beats up on his sister's husband, his fists are about 10 feet from the guy's face. In The Return of the Jedi we get terribly paced fuzzy bear excursions and moronic "infiltrations" by allegedly competent characters into Jaba's palace, sprinkled with some truly amazing, iconic moments; all of us seem to ignore the former and focus only on the latter. In Battlestar Galactica, we have some of the best television ever created (not to mention some of the best hard sci-fi ever filmed in some episodes) but throughout it we have to endure cringe-worthy, mystical angelic influence and visitation (especially cringe-worthy after we realize where the writers are taking this).

In Mass Effect, there are liberties taken with science, but at least there are no Ewoks or angelic avatars. Although...Shepard being "brought back" via the Lazarus Project is eerily reminiscent to Angel Starbuck Avatar...bleh. If there's 3 things I hated about the Mass Effect trilogy it was the damn Lazarus Project, f***ing Kai Leng, and the absurd amounts of useless loot in ME1.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 19 février 2013 - 10:44 .

[David7204]

I think Shepard's death and revival was one of the best parts of the series, both in concept and execution.

[Dr_Extrem]

David7204 wrote...

I think Shepard's death and revival was one of the best parts of the series, both in concept and execution.

not really imo ... it was a ****** poor tool to get shepard 2 years into the future and tp provide a reason to work for cerberus.

that could have been done far better without killing shep.


like this i.e. ... after the battle of the citadel, shep got annoying and the council and the alliance fired shep. shepard gets depressed, drinks a lot and works as a merc for shady people .. suddenly, the collectors appear and cerberus drags shep out of the gutter.

not very creative but  easier to believe than project lazarus ..

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 19 février 2013 - 10:50 .

[David7204]

It's not hard for me to believe at all. Am I the only one who finds it completely hypocritical to complain about 'vitalism' with the Reapers and whatnot and then basically advocate vitalism by implying the brain is beyond any kind of repair or reconstruction?

[ZLurps]

Shift from sc-fi to fantasy was very obvious in ME3 and like others have pointed out, there are issues beyond those mentioned in OP.

What bothers me the most with direction to just put some "cool stuff" in game is that I don't see how anything was really gained by that. I don't see how well written AI's would leave out possibility to write engaging scenes with them. I don't see how turning Cerberus to Empire of Cerberus brought anything new to the table regarding them. We sure see a lot of Cerb in ME3 but that political angle was completely dropped... I don't know what to think.

Modifié par ZLurps, 19 février 2013 - 10:59 .

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

No. Lazarus is not 'mysticism'. It is not at any point treated in the way that the Reapers and Synthesis are. All of the dialogue surrounding it is precise and down-to-Earth.

What of the whole 'we don't want to change him, we want Shepard' thing?

[David7204]

You can't have Shepard fighting nothing but husks for 35 hours...that's boring.

[Dr_Extrem]

dont get me wrong .. lazarus is one of the weaker sci-fi elements of the story, that can be accepted - because it was somehow explained and miranda makes it look plausible. thats what ieldra2 posted in the op.

nonetheless - its a border case.

[David7204]

Indy_S wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. Lazarus is not 'mysticism'. It is not at any point treated in the way that the Reapers and Synthesis are. All of the dialogue surrounding it is precise and down-to-Earth.

What of the whole 'we don't want to change him, we want Shepard' thing?

How is that mysticism at all? That sounds like a completely practical and reasonable request when dealing with that sort of thing.

[David7204]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dont get me wrong .. lazarus is one of the weaker sci-fi elements of the story, that can be accepted - because it was somehow explained and miranda makes it look plausible. thats what ieldra2 posted in the op.

nonetheless - its a border case.

Why?

What is implusible at all about the possibility of technology existing in 200 years that has the ability to reconstruct and reactivate the brain and other tissues and organs? 

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

How is that mysticism at all? That sounds like a completely practical and reasonable request when dealing with that sort of thing.

A change of any part of the person is the same as a change of the whole. That's a question posed by mysticism, is it not? What constitutes the self?

[David7204]

No. Not at all. The question 'What constitutes the self?' is just basic logic when considering these sorts of issues. And it's a question that everyone asks, regardless of their beliefs. Scientific, religious, or otherwise. Mysticism is a conclusion, not a question. And it's being used rather sloppily to denote 'anything that isn't determinism and materialism.'

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 11:07 .

[cyrslash1974]

Just read your text for the first time. Very well written, OP !

The descent from science to mysticism (or heroic fantasy or philosophy) is someting I dislike in ME3 and in particular in the endings (that doesn't mean that ME3 is a bad game).

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

You can't have Shepard fighting nothing but husks for 35 hours...that's boring.

You can't have Shepard fighting nothing but husks and Cerberus for 35 hours, that's boring.

Throw assasination in the mix instead. High ranking military person is behaving oddly, s/he is being suspected for either being indoctrinated or working for Cerberus.

Mission would be to investigate and optionaly terminate. Cerberus sleeper agents would be involved and we could have all sort of dramatic stuff happen just via dialogue, if Shepard doesn't pull the trigger perhaps VS or Garrus would suggest they can do it instead leading to bit different consequence if they do.
On major scale, if Shep chooses to shoot the bastard there wouldn't be severe consequences, Spectre and all. If non human party member does it, we get news broadcasts from Terra Firma suspecting something which would lead to another scenario where we could lose some war assets, or if indoctrinated military person is left alive, s/he would eventually jump on Cerberus band wagon at some point and again we would lose some war assets. Terra Firma could work play various roles in this scenarios.

[David7204]

Firstly, the player should never be significantly punished or rewarded for having certain squadmates on missions unless there's reasonable foreshadowing that bringing certain squadmates will have consequences.

Secondly, that just sounds dumb.