Aller au contenu

Photo

"I’m okay with made up sci-fi nonsense in my made up sci-fi nonsense."


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
336 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Auld Wulf

Auld Wulf
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages
This is worth a read.

One of the things that always confused me with the Mass Effect fanbase is its fetishism of fact, even in a fictional story, to go so far as to say that canon isn't canon. The hatred for the Lazarus Project and Synthesis, in the face of stupendously smart men like Arthur C. Clarke pointing out the fatal flaw with that kind of thinking. This is why I still think that Synthesis goes over the head of the average fan, and incites pitchforks and torches raised in anger with screams of abomination, embracing hatred and fear over erudite understanding.

See, here's a thing: Science-Fiction is fiction. Fiction deals with dreams, ideals, and symbolism. It would be very, very bad fiction if it didn't, and there's already enough bad fiction out there. It's attractive to think of Today being Forever, it's comforting and familiar. It's like the little cardboard box you'll never creep out of, making the average person intellectually a hermit crab. When I look at fiction, I see tales of what could be, what might be, and what potentialities exist. Synthesis is attractive to me because it is a potentiality.

As a fun what if, a little thought exercise as you know I like those, what if all alien life in the galactic community is already wired into an AI in order to achieve complete understanding of their own race? What if the ultimate test of nature is to achieve that complete understanding? What if this is our test? The test of each sapient race. Every planet is fragile, every planet can only last so long with its inhabitants draining resources and slowly killing it. What if the greatest test for any sapient race is to pull together as a whole, with complete understanding of every other person, sharing themselves in a state of understanding, sans suffering?

Whta if that's what alien races had seen time and again? If you can escape your planet by gaining global understanding, and working towards the mutual goal of being spaceborne, then you pass. If you fail, then you won't be around to care about it. Stephen Hawking warns us of confining ourselves to earth. So what if? What if the galactic community is waiting and watching? That is but one idea, and an idea is a powerful thing. Fiction is about ideas. Romance, potentiality, what could we be, one day?

Fiction is a beautiful thing.

Does it matter if fiction isn't mired too much in modern day fact? I'd say no. Star Trek was a hilarious fabrication of pseudoscience and it was well loved. And at times, Star Trek was art. You see, when you ground fiction in fact too much, you're binding it in chains, tying it down with the weight and burden of expectation to be real, you're limiting it, you're telling it what it can't be, and where it can't go. But for fiction to be art, in any way, it has to be free. I believe that... in its own way? Synthesis was art. It's a powerful idea, as part of fiction.

I feel if you don't get that, then you don't understand why we have fiction in the first place. Why we bother to create, explore, or reach for the stars. And if you don't understand that, then what point is there to getting out of bed each morning? Human imagination is powered by ideals, not facts. When a Scientist works on a theory, they're fashioning various could be's and pontentialities, working imaginary numbers, and sometimes even just throwing things at the wall until something sticks. It's the idea that propels us forward, it's the idea that makes us special.

Synthesis was a culmination of everything that had come before it, of everything we'd seen and done, and in the end it presented us with a new potentiality; A symbolic dream of a far-flung future. What drives us is the want to understand and even realise ideas. The worst thing you could ever do is to want to dismiss or destroy an idea. Ideas are what we are.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 22 avril 2013 - 09:32 .


#2
Yestare7

Yestare7
  • Members
  • 1 340 messages
I choose Destroy.

#3
Mr.BlazenGlazen

Mr.BlazenGlazen
  • Members
  • 4 159 messages
I don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand that people legitimately don't like the vanilla endings and would rather replace it with their own canon ending. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Hell, bioware even encouraged people to do that at one point.

Also, I can't take whatever you say seriously after you compared everyone who picks destroy to hitler.

#4
Ledgend1221

Ledgend1221
  • Members
  • 6 456 messages
Synthesis is stupid.
Fact.

#5
Jukaga

Jukaga
  • Members
  • 2 028 messages

Yestare7 wrote...



I choose Destroy.


Well played, well played.

Hey Auld, I get that you care deeply about this franchise and your take on the endings but let me ask you why do you care SO MUCH about other people's opinions? I mean a thread now and again is fine, that is what we are all here for; to discuss the universe of Mass Effect, but your crusade is bordering on an obsession at this point. I'm not flaming you, just curious.

#6
Papa John0

Papa John0
  • Members
  • 147 messages
Lazarus has never been an issue for me, and I can swallow Synthesis. That said, I don't think Synthesis fits with the rest of the Mass Effect universe. The power of the Crucible in general seems to go well beyond what we have understood about the Reapers to this point. Would it not have just been more effective for the Catalyst to send out a pulse from the Crucible that killed organic life? Why use the Reapers at all?

And if the Reapers are the height of galactic evolution, why do they still use lasers to kill things and why are they susceptible to damage?

With what we know of the Reapers and the Protheans by the end of ME3, the Crucible's power is out of place.

I think the technology presented by the Crucible, particularly with Synthesis which cannot really be explained in a way the other options can (Destroy: uploading Shepard's organic code to computers like on Rannoch; Control: uploading kill code to computers) is the reason Synthesis has been called "space magic" and has been derided.


tl:dr: The last five minutes of the series introduce a 2001: A Space Odyssey esque theme that was not previously present throughout the series.

Modifié par Papa John0, 22 avril 2013 - 09:43 .


#7
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages
It's a good thing you didn't show up before IT was banned from discussion (good riddance).

I think what people want most, or maybe just what I want most, is explanations. I certainly don't care overmuch if Synthesis relies on things that don't exist in our own universe; the whole franchise is based on the mass effect itself as an example. What I do care about is figuring out exactly why and how it happens, exactly what it entails, so many more details that the game never sees fit to give us. Destroy is obvious, Control is reasonably intuitive, but Synthesis is an enormous blank of not entirely coherent imagery and weird mixes of metaphor and fact in both that imagery and the descriptions of it... and neither one explains much at all. Which is why I don't pick it. I'd kind of like to, I find the idea appealing for many of the same reasons that you do, but they just... took something with the potential to be fascinating, but didn't polish it to anything beyond confusing.

#8
Mr.BlazenGlazen

Mr.BlazenGlazen
  • Members
  • 4 159 messages

Jukaga wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...



I choose Destroy.


Well played, well played.

Hey Auld, I get that you care deeply about this franchise and your take on the endings but let me ask you why do you care SO MUCH about other people's opinions? I mean a thread now and again is fine, that is what we are all here for; to discuss the universe of Mass Effect, but your crusade is bordering on an obsession at this point. I'm not flaming you, just curious.


I have two theories. 

One, in reality he really doesn't care and hes just crapping all over the forums for everyone else to smell his fecal flakes "for teh lulz".

Or two. He's just one of those people who believes that someone else's opinons "ARE WRONG AND THEY SHOULD FEEL WRONG!!!!!!"

#9
jstme

jstme
  • Members
  • 2 008 messages
Fiction is fiction. SCIENCE fiction is fiction that has something to do with science. Jumping into beam of light and then green magic simultaneously happening all over galaxy to all vastly different organic life forms and vastly different synthetics is not SCIENCE fiction.
People that try to explain synthesis using SCIENCE use their own headcanon because there is no SCIENTIFIC explanation for green solution in game lore,and their own headcanon is just as headcanony as that of other people.
Hint:
Harry Potter is not SCIENCE fiction though i can headcanon it to be one.

#10
Vargeisa

Vargeisa
  • Members
  • 427 messages
Why didn't Gandalf just create a magic potion that turned hobbits into 1000 ft. tall super hobbits? He's a wizard after all.
Without limitations there's absolutely no point in telling a story.

Modifié par TimtheEnchanter, 22 avril 2013 - 09:50 .


#11
Repzik

Repzik
  • Members
  • 150 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...


Fiction is fiction. In order for a fictional story to have any meaning or value, or pertain in any way to its audience, it must have some sort of rules. If there are no rules, then the story is just nonsensical. In most stories, these rules tend to reflect our universe, such as gravity, humans, etc because we can relate to this. While it isn't necessary for the rules to reflect or be too similar to our own, we do need some sort of established rules that are never completely broken or ignored to maintain a meaningful narrative. 

Mass Effect 1 and 2 established a universe largely similar to our own, except with advanced technology, aliens, and the ability to cheat death if you throw astronomical funds at it. The rules are largely followed and maintained. 

Mass Effect 3, particularly the ending, just discards these rules. We are suddenly presented with technologies and tools vastly superior to everything encountered before hand, that can do things that don't make any sense (do geth get organic implants or something? Do we put tech in trees?). Besides this being thematically revolting (the first game was all about rejecting this philosphy), it doesn't make sense in the rules established by the universe. What's the point of the character's struggle if the struggle was just to reach a "fix all problems in a poorly explained fashion" button? It removes any emotional relevance, or weight to the plot.

EDIT: Essentially what the post above said, but longer.

Modifié par Repzik, 22 avril 2013 - 09:52 .


#12
crimzontearz

crimzontearz
  • Members
  • 16 789 messages
this is why people are not OK with synthesis and the Lazarus project

bioware made mistakes, you can either

1 call them out on it hoping for a genuine answer (not happening) or that they will listen for future games (possible)

or

2 move on to other studios who will A not treat you like a child/idiot/worthless minority and B not nickel and dime you AND do not wear a collar that reads "property of EA" on it

or

3 blindly defend them until you are convinced they can do no wrong

Modifié par crimzontearz, 22 avril 2013 - 09:56 .


#13
Yestare7

Yestare7
  • Members
  • 1 340 messages

TimtheEnchanter wrote...

Why didn't Gandalf just create a magic potion that turned hobbits into 1000 ft. tall super hobbits? He's a wizard after all.
Without limitations there's absolutely no point in telling a story.



Made me think of something...

www.youtube.com/watch

#14
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
From my experience, Lazarus has been accepted pretty well outside of the BSN. Which it should be, since it's a very well executed plot point. And I've yet to see any convincing scientific arguments against it.

Modifié par David7204, 22 avril 2013 - 10:02 .


#15
Argolas

Argolas
  • Members
  • 4 255 messages
Fiction does not have to play by real-world rules. Good fictional universes make up their own rules- but keep them consistent. Eternal consistency facilitates suspension of disbelief.
While we experience the story, we are ready to believe in Element Zero, FTL travel and space magic (biotics). Why do we believe in that weird stuff? Not because it's fiction and we are ready to believe anything in fiction. It is because Mass Effect established the existence of eezo as a rule at the very beginning of the franchise, then explained the mass effect that makes eezo special, what it is and what you logically can do with that. A secondary belief is established- we learn what you can and can't do in the MEU. You can travel faster than light using eezo. You can manipulate your environment with your mind if you are a biotic. You can make weapon, armor and even toothbrushes that use the mass effect. However, you can't throw yourself into a beam of light to disintegrate and thus (???) alter all life in the galaxy (?????) so it will no longer be hostile to each other (OMG RLY?). This can neither be explained by real-world nor by Mass Effect rules, it has nothing to do with actual science or eezo.

Once these rules that we learned about and accepted so long ago are broken that drastically without explanation, everything changes. Suddenly, the Mass Effect universe is not a believable alternate reality that follows fictional but consistent rules anymore. Suddenly, the Mass Effect universe is some weird place where anything can happen at any time for no reason, and that's something we can't believe in. That breaks everything. It breaks our immersion into the story. It breaks our secondary belief in the universe. It creates disbelief that we can't simply suspend.

That retrospectively kills the whole franchise because all those rules and consistencies that defined the universe suddenly have no meaning anymore. Anything can happen at any time for no reason. The universe we came to love is broken by that.

Modifié par Argolas, 22 avril 2013 - 10:08 .


#16
Mangalores

Mangalores
  • Members
  • 468 messages
pseudoscience must be self consistent. If you first establish a broad spectrum of SF concepts and pseudoscience to make your SF world work within scientific constraints, and Mass Effect did to some lengths to do so, it follows they didn't want to violate basic scientific principles.

E.g. knowing that you need Mass Effect as space magic to make all the fiction parts work but also detail the usage of mass accelerators and the problems of heat build up in ships appeal to "hard science" (or at least acknowledges these problems).

As such Mass Effect, in contrast to Star Wars, expects to be believable on a basic level.

When you then introduce space magic beyond the self established boundaries the Science Fiction breaks its own system of appealing to suspension of disbelief because it used those constraints to create drama and suddenly subverts its own basis for said drama.

David7204 wrote...

From my experience, Lazarus has been
accepted pretty well outside of the BSN. Which it should be, since it's a
very well executed plot point. And I've yet to see any convincing
scientific arguments against it.


Well, the only point I'd come up with is that it is not a widespread medical standard which it should be if the medicine is there to do it. The problem is it subverts its own appeal to drama by devalueing the effects of death while not explaining why it is still an issue for everyone else except the hero. If it were a standard that high value personnel gets rebuild from bones it would have not stood out as a gimmick.

Modifié par Mangalores, 22 avril 2013 - 10:11 .


#17
Auld Wulf

Auld Wulf
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages
Well, I had hoped for better, I have to say. That's a fairly low-brow confirmation if you look back at it. Still, there are a few diamonds in the dirt. You know who you are.

It's like I keep saying, really. BSN is no NationStates.

Disappointing.

I think what I'm finding is that the BSN is a bit too blue collar, and that's why Synthesis is so hated. I think the 'fans' here just weren't ready for something like that. Yeah, it was a bit 2001. But why the hell not? Isn't it time that games started pulling those kinds of shenanigans?

If this topic screams anything, it's that the majority love their comfort zones.

Intellectual cowardice is disappointing.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 22 avril 2013 - 10:12 .


#18
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...

Well, I had hoped for better, I have to say. That's a fairly low-brow confirmation if you look back at it. Still, there are a few diamonds in the dirt. You know who you are.

It's like I keep saying, really. BSN is no NationStates.

Disappointing.

Ooh, my girlfriend is on that forum. Do you go by the same name there that you do here?

#19
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...

This is worth a read.

One of the things that always confused me with the Mass Effect fanbase is its fetishism of fact, even in a fictional story, to go so far as to say that canon isn't canon. The hatred for the Lazarus Project and Synthesis, in the face of stupendously smart men like Arthur C. Clarke pointing out the fatal flaw with that kind of thinking. This is why I still think that Synthesis goes over the head of the average fan, and incites pitchforks and torches raised in anger with screams of abomination, embracing hatred and fear over erudite understanding.

See, here's a thing: Science-Fiction is fiction. Fiction deals with dreams, ideals, and symbolism. It would be very, very bad fiction if it didn't, and there's already enough bad fiction out there. It's attractive to think of Today being Forever, it's comforting and familiar. It's like the little cardboard box you'll never creep out of, making the average person intellectually a hermit crab. When I look at fiction, I see tales of what could be, what might be, and what potentialities exist. Synthesis is attractive to me because it is a potentiality.

As a fun what if, a little thought exercise as you know I like those, what if all alien life in the galactic community is already wired into an AI in order to achieve complete understanding of their own race? What if the ultimate test of nature is to achieve that complete understanding? What if this is our test? The test of each sapient race. Every planet is fragile, every planet can only last so long with its inhabitants draining resources and slowly killing it. What if the greatest test for any sapient race is to pull together as a whole, with complete understanding of every other person, sharing themselves in a state of understanding, sans suffering?

Whta if that's what alien races had seen time and again? If you can escape your planet by gaining global understanding, and working towards the mutual goal of being spaceborne, then you pass. If you fail, then you won't be around to care about it. Stephen Hawking warns us of confining ourselves to earth. So what if? What if the galactic community is waiting and watching? That is but one idea, and an idea is a powerful thing. Fiction is about ideas. Romance, potentiality, what could we be, one day?

Fiction is a beautiful thing.

Does it matter if fiction isn't mired too much in modern day fact? I'd say no. Star Trek was a hilarious fabrication of pseudoscience and it was well loved. And at times, Star Trek was art. You see, when you ground fiction in fact too much, you're binding it in chains, tying it down with the weight and burden of expectation to be real, you're limiting it, you're telling it what it can't be, and where it can't go. But for fiction to be art, in any way, it has to be free. I believe that... in its own way? Synthesis was art. It's a powerful idea, as part of fiction.

I feel if you don't get that, then you don't understand why we have fiction in the first place. Why we bother to create, explore, or reach for the stars. And if you don't understand that, then what point is there to getting out of bed each morning? Human imagination is powered by ideals, not facts. When a Scientist works on a theory, they're fashioning various could be's and pontentialities, working imaginary numbers, and sometimes even just throwing things at the wall until something sticks. It's the idea that propels us forward, it's the idea that makes us special.

Synthesis was a culmination of everything that had come before it, of everything we'd seen and done, and in the end it presented us with a new potentiality; A symbolic dream of a far-flung future. What drives us is the want to understand and even realise ideas. The worst thing you could ever do is to want to dismiss or destroy an idea. Ideas are what we are.


+1

It's a human nature though. Only few people propel society forwards through the path of evolution. The rest of people are just a "stubborn plankton" - a mass that don't wanna any changes, but feel comfortable just floating were the stream flows. They see any change as a betrayal, and when they eventually forced to be changed, they think it was their own achievement and get used to that change as to many changes before that.

Plankton will never understand or like Synthesis idea until the idea will come true :)

Modifié par Seival, 22 avril 2013 - 10:16 .


#20
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages

Mangalores wrote...


Well, the only point I'd come up with is that it is not a widespread medical standard which it should be if the medicine is there to do it. The problem is it subverts its own appeal to drama by devalueing the effects of death while not explaining why it is still an issue for everyone else except the hero. If it were a standard that high value personnel gets rebuild from bones it would have not stood out as a gimmick.

It should be completely freaking obvious why Lazarus is only avaliable for Shepard! It took an immense amount of money, an immense amount of expertise, an immense amount of motivation, a considerable amount of time, a considerable amount of luck, and a very specific death!

Modifié par David7204, 22 avril 2013 - 10:14 .


#21
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

David7204 wrote...

Mangalores wrote...


Well, the only point I'd come up with is that it is not a widespread medical standard which it should be if the medicine is there to do it. The problem is it subverts its own appeal to drama by devalueing the effects of death while not explaining why it is still an issue for everyone else except the hero. If it were a standard that high value personnel gets rebuild from bones it would have not stood out as a gimmick.

It should be completely freaking obvious why Lazarus is only avaliable for Shepard! It took an immense amount of money, an immense amount of expertise, an immense amount of motivation, a considerable amount of time, a considerable amount of luck, and a very specific death!

Right. I, for one, would recommend high orbital reentry as a cause of death for anyone who was going to be resurrected later.

#22
crimzontearz

crimzontearz
  • Members
  • 16 789 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...

Well, I had hoped for better, I have to say. That's a fairly low-brow confirmation if you look back at it. Still, there are a few diamonds in the dirt. You know who you are.

It's like I keep saying, really. BSN is no NationStates.

Disappointing.

I think what I'm finding is that the BSN is a bit too blue collar, and that's why Synthesis is so hated. I think the 'fans' here just weren't ready for something like that. Yeah, it was a bit 2001. But why the hell not? Isn't it time that games started pulling those kinds of shenanigans?

If this topic screams anything, it's that the majority love their comfort zones.

Intellectual cowardice is disappointing.

I was hoping for better trolling but we do not always get what we want right?


 
Also, as it has been said a NUMBER of times, Games CAN pull that kind of shenaningans BUT ME as a series was not meant to but it tried regardless and we saw the results


 
Also, failing to maintain consistency is VERY lowbrow...funny how you do not call Bioware on it

#23
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages

Argolas wrote...

Once these rules that we learned about and accepted so long ago are broken that drastically without explanation, everything changes. Suddenly, the Mass Effect universe is not a believable alternate reality that follows fictional but consistent rules anymore. Suddenly, the Mass Effect universe is some weird place where anything can happen at any time for no reason, and that's something we can't believe in. That breaks everything. It breaks our immersion into the story. It breaks our secondary belief in the universe. It creates disbelief that we can't simply suspend.

That retrospectively kills the whole franchise because all those rules and consistencies that defined the universe suddenly have no meaning anymore. Anything can happen at any time for no reason. The universe we came to love is broken by that.


I don't like Synthesis, but don't go overboard. Every popular science fiction story in existence has such problems. We don't go screaming RUINED FOREVER!!!!! Every story of considerable length that deals with high-tech is going to have such problems. Look at things like Skyfall or The Dark Knight Rises. Not only that, some fudging is flatly necessary to make the story work as a video game.

Modifié par David7204, 22 avril 2013 - 10:18 .


#24
Astartes Marine

Astartes Marine
  • Members
  • 1 615 messages
And yet another in a long line of pro-synth threads from the same person who just doesn't get it.  This gets tiresome after a while.

I see you used the Measure of a Man clip from ST-TNG, a great episode, and one of many that actually has recently (since I've taken up seeing the entire series start to finish) that has helped me reevaluate my stance on whether a machine can actually be considered "alive" or not. 

Thing is, Synthesis is something even TNG's people would decline.  It's akin to Riker as a Q giving out "gifts" to his friends; Wesley gets older, Worf gets a Klingon woman, Data would have been made human, etc etc.  It's very much like Wesley's position; simply given, nothing is learned, it is not earned rightfully, it is cheaply given.  The growth is completely artificial.  Sure he was ten years older, but he lacked the ten years of experience, the ten years of growth, the ten years of maturing.

EDIT:  I'll add that Data declined the gift of humanity, as he wishes to become more human on his own terms and not simply be given it.

If the holobrat is correct and synthesis is inevitable, we'll get there under our own power.  We'll do it ourselves and we'll learn and understand it and hopefully at that point be responsible enough to use it wisely.  At the time of ME3, not one species has that kind of wisdom or responsibility, not yet.  We've seen throughout the series the consequences of uplifting species before they are ready.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 22 avril 2013 - 10:26 .


#25
Archonsg

Archonsg
  • Members
  • 3 560 messages
It amazes me just how often pro-synthesis supporters choose to excercise the argument that those who disdain the "Synthesis" ending lack understanding or the faculties to do so when it is really a case of one having weighed, judged and found Synthesis wanting.

If you are happy with it, hey its your game, your Shepard and your perception of what you think is a "good" for your game.

Just don't presume to think that others who do not like Synthesis are of lesser intellect.