264 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Bioware could have explained it better, I agree. But for my Shepard, it's still a better choice than committing genocide or gambling everything on my ability to keep the Reapers in check for eternity.

As for "actual scientific sense" - synthesis breaks new ground. There's nothing like it. What analogy or theory would you use to explain it?

That's your perogative then. Synthesis is right for you. It's terrifying for me. I personally don't believe the Catalyst sees things in a way that are beneficial for life. I see his idea of 'peace' as no conflict. And there are many different ways to ensure no conflict. By uniformity, he might mean we all become mindless husks, machinations of half-organic and synthetic nature. It could be his idea of perfection. He never stipulates what that is, and I'm not taking the chance that he means something that I think he means. I'll sacrifice people to build a better future with a vision and a destiny that we are in control of and based on our terms. 

The theory I use? 

Space Magic. It violates science, biology, and logic. Not to mention it completely shatters the narrative by suddenly making things possible in a universe where those things were previously impossible and not part of the narrative befor.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 30 avril 2013 - 08:30 .

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

He never stipulates what that is, and I'm not taking the chance that he means something that I think he means. I'll sacrifice people to build a better future with a vision and a destiny that we are in control of and based on our terms.

Shepard actually gets a vision of Synthesis in EC, just like s/he gets visions of the other two endings. So yes, you do actually see what he means and can make an informed choice without metagaming.

Shepard even asks, once explained, why the Catalyst couldn't do it sooner - this is implicit acceptance of its status as the ideal solution.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
The theory I use? 

Space Magic. It violates science, biology, and logic. Not to mention it completely shatters the narrative by suddenly making things possible in a universe where those things were previously impossible and not part of the narrative befor.

Of course it's magic, to our ignorant minds. That just means we don't understand the science behind it. not that it has no science at all. Shooting stars were space magic for a long time too.

"Shattering the narrative" isn't some cardinal sin. Bringing Shepard back to life from brain death was previously impossible too. "It's always a matter of resources."

[Xilizhra]

Since when did Shepard become a synthetic? There is not hardware or software, just flesh and bones and a few cybernetics that don't do any of that.

In the sense that Legion used it. Both Shepard's mind and body.

What makes Shepard so special that he has to be the one to do it? That sounds a lot different than life energy. It sounds more like Qi.

Shepard's the only living person who's there, and there's no time to take anyone else.

Can you provide me any real proof that that is exactly what happens? Being vaporized in an energy beam doesn't seem like compression. It seems more like he's being vaporized in an energy beam.

It's akin to Control, where Shepard is uploaded into the Catalyst to take over the Reapers. It's just that here, the upload uses the Crucible to distribute Shepard over the relay network.

Where do the nanites come from? Why does Shepard jumping into a beam cause a chain reaction that causes organics to get circuits in their skin or be perfect? How are they disseminated from a shockwave, and how does it happen instantaneously? One second you have no circuits, and the next you do. How is that possible?

I'm still working on this. However, I doubt that nanites are the whole solution; if they are, they can't all be distributed instantaneously, just in the zones where we see the immediate transformations.

How does it change anything in Synthetics? How come Synthetics can't achieve this state without synthesis?

The data of all things organic, or as much as possible, are distributed from Shepard, akin to Legion's Reaper code.

Why hasn't the Catalyst been able to achieve a higher, endless evolution if he's a synthetic? Wouldn't he have to keep going? I thought there was no limit to evolution or advancement.

It doesn't feel that it has a need to.

[robertthebard]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

He never stipulates what that is, and I'm not taking the chance that he means something that I think he means. I'll sacrifice people to build a better future with a vision and a destiny that we are in control of and based on our terms.

Shepard actually gets a vision of Synthesis in EC, just like s/he gets visions of the other two endings. So yes, you do actually see what he means and can make an informed choice without metagaming.

Shepard even asks, once explained, why the Catalyst couldn't do it sooner - this is implicit acceptance of its status as the ideal solution.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
The theory I use? 

Space Magic. It violates science, biology, and logic. Not to mention it completely shatters the narrative by suddenly making things possible in a universe where those things were previously impossible and not part of the narrative befor.

Of course it's magic, to our ignorant minds. That just means we don't understand the science behind it. not that it has no science at all. Shooting stars were space magic for a long time too.

"Shattering the narrative" isn't some cardinal sin. Bringing Shepard back to life from brain death was previously impossible too. "It's always a matter of resources."

Yes, the Lazarus DeM, how well I remember, and how much I despise it.  Especially since it was so unnecessary in regard to what the story could and probably should have been.  Most of what we do outside of the Crucible could have been so much better accomplished in ME 2, with one little item added to ME 1, the plans for the Crucible.  We could have done all of the Cerberus missions in ME 2, except maybe Sanctuary, and of course TIM's base, if we even needed to do TIM's base.  So yeah, probably not a winning example.  Which is exactly why I quit where I do, I don't want to go through yet another DeM to get to the endings.

However, since you do bring up resources, we'll have plenty of resources to rebuild once the Reapers are out of the equation, and I don't have to rely entirely on Space Magic to do it.

[AresKeith]

robertthebard wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

He never stipulates what that is, and I'm not taking the chance that he means something that I think he means. I'll sacrifice people to build a better future with a vision and a destiny that we are in control of and based on our terms.

Shepard actually gets a vision of Synthesis in EC, just like s/he gets visions of the other two endings. So yes, you do actually see what he means and can make an informed choice without metagaming.

Shepard even asks, once explained, why the Catalyst couldn't do it sooner - this is implicit acceptance of its status as the ideal solution.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
The theory I use? 

Space Magic. It violates science, biology, and logic. Not to mention it completely shatters the narrative by suddenly making things possible in a universe where those things were previously impossible and not part of the narrative befor.

Of course it's magic, to our ignorant minds. That just means we don't understand the science behind it. not that it has no science at all. Shooting stars were space magic for a long time too.

"Shattering the narrative" isn't some cardinal sin. Bringing Shepard back to life from brain death was previously impossible too. "It's always a matter of resources."

Yes, the Lazarus DeM, how well I remember, and how much I despise it.  Especially since it was so unnecessary in regard to what the story could and probably should have been.  Most of what we do outside of the Crucible could have been so much better accomplished in ME 2, with one little item added to ME 1, the plans for the Crucible.  We could have done all of the Cerberus missions in ME 2, except maybe Sanctuary, and of course TIM's base, if we even needed to do TIM's base.  So yeah, probably not a winning example.  Which is exactly why I quit where I do, I don't want to go through yet another DeM to get to the endings.

However, since you do bring up resources, we'll have plenty of resources to rebuild once the Reapers are out of the equation, and I don't have to rely entirely on Space Magic to do it.

We can even use the tech from the Reaper corpses to help rebuild 

[robertthebard]

AresKeith wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

He never stipulates what that is, and I'm not taking the chance that he means something that I think he means. I'll sacrifice people to build a better future with a vision and a destiny that we are in control of and based on our terms.

Shepard actually gets a vision of Synthesis in EC, just like s/he gets visions of the other two endings. So yes, you do actually see what he means and can make an informed choice without metagaming.

Shepard even asks, once explained, why the Catalyst couldn't do it sooner - this is implicit acceptance of its status as the ideal solution.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
The theory I use? 

Space Magic. It violates science, biology, and logic. Not to mention it completely shatters the narrative by suddenly making things possible in a universe where those things were previously impossible and not part of the narrative befor.

Of course it's magic, to our ignorant minds. That just means we don't understand the science behind it. not that it has no science at all. Shooting stars were space magic for a long time too.

"Shattering the narrative" isn't some cardinal sin. Bringing Shepard back to life from brain death was previously impossible too. "It's always a matter of resources."

Yes, the Lazarus DeM, how well I remember, and how much I despise it.  Especially since it was so unnecessary in regard to what the story could and probably should have been.  Most of what we do outside of the Crucible could have been so much better accomplished in ME 2, with one little item added to ME 1, the plans for the Crucible.  We could have done all of the Cerberus missions in ME 2, except maybe Sanctuary, and of course TIM's base, if we even needed to do TIM's base.  So yeah, probably not a winning example.  Which is exactly why I quit where I do, I don't want to go through yet another DeM to get to the endings.

However, since you do bring up resources, we'll have plenty of resources to rebuild once the Reapers are out of the equation, and I don't have to rely entirely on Space Magic to do it.

We can even use the tech from the Reaper corpses to help rebuild 

Yep, giant fauxrobot skyscrapers will make nice temporary housing...

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Shepard actually gets a vision of Synthesis in EC, just like s/he gets visions of the other two endings. So yes, you do actually see what he means and can make an informed choice without metagaming.

Shepard even asks, once explained, why the Catalyst couldn't do it sooner - this is implicit acceptance of its status as the ideal solution.

Of course it's magic, to our ignorant minds. That just means we don't understand the science behind it. not that it has no science at all. Shooting stars were space magic for a long time too.

"Shattering the narrative" isn't some cardinal sin. Bringing Shepard back to life from brain death was previously impossible too. "It's always a matter of resources."

Where the hell does the vision come from? Why does it have any meaning? A 4 second vision of the Crucible firing? Real great information there. What does that even say? There's nothing informative about those visions. They are deleted after Leviathan anyway. So they're not even there anymore.

Implicit acceptance of it being 'perfect'? What the hell is that? The whole ending is written to not make sense, and I can't even point out or ask why? 

We understand enough about science to know that what the Catalyst is telling us is not science. He is telling us things that are not biologically possible, nor scientifically credible. There is no final evolution of life. There is no "life essence" or "organic energy." If the catalyst (and BW) meant something different, they would have clarified it, and they should have clarified it. It is hamfisted writing and a terrible execution for a problem that is a problem that can be solved by destroying, but was narratively solved in the story at Rannoch. Synthesis also tries to solve a problem that was narratively non-existent. No one before ever wondered why peace could never occur. No one ever thought about being perfect. There was no narrative coherence in the trilogy for it. The writers have said they didn't plan ahead when writing. 

And you don't break the narrative and the story in the last moments. Bringing Shepard back was a change in the narrative mid-series and introduces a new mechanic and ideal at a time when the main theme of the story is to stop the Reapers, not solve the problem of organics and synthetics. The narrative, and the lore, and science is disregarded to change the story to fit the writers vision for the ending. 

They broke the Socratic Method. They set up a universe and established the rules, lore, and science of the universe from the get-go. Through a fair amount of techy-talk, they were able to overcome Shepard's death and bring him back to life. It's not perfect, but it works. As Mass Effect 3 progresses, they slowly abandon the prior rules, lore, and science of the series up to that point. Then Mass Effect 3's ending completely breaks it. Synthesis itself completely breaks my suspension of disbelief, both in game in how my Shepard immediately gets red warning lights flashing in his head at what the Catalyst says, and from a meta-sense from the execution of it.

For your reading pleasure: http://awtr.wikidot....s-is-not-a-pipe

You fit in group 1. I fall into group's 2, 3, and 4.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 30 avril 2013 - 10:36 .

[Iakus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Of course it's magic, to our ignorant minds. That just means we don't understand the science behind it. not that it has no science at all. Shooting stars were space magic for a long time too.

"Shattering the narrative" isn't some cardinal sin. Bringing Shepard back to life from brain death was previously impossible too. "It's always a matter of resources."

It's only a matter of resources" can explain Santa Claus too.

[Xilizhra]

For your reading pleasure: http://awtr.wikidot....s-is-not-a-pipe

Extraordinarily biased in its dismissal of the first group, and also ignoring the virulent attacks on the first group by those of the other three.

[David7204]

Lazarus is not a DEM. I see absolutely no reason why Cerberus shouldn't be able to restore function to Shepard's brain and body 170 years from now with the technology and expertise available to them.

[robertthebard]

David7204 wrote...

Lazarus is not a DEM. I see absolutely no reason why Cerberus shouldn't be able to restore function to Shepard's brain and body 170 years from now with the technology and expertise available to them.

So how many other times was it used?

[Argolas]

Lazarus was well done and considering the circumstances also pretty well-explained. I found it questionable as an opener, but decent as a concept and executed just fine. Synthesis is neither of them.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

robertthebard wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Lazarus is not a DEM. I see absolutely no reason why Cerberus shouldn't be able to restore function to Shepard's brain and body 170 years from now with the technology and expertise available to them.

So how many other times was it used?

Despite it being possible to revive Shepard, it's also established as being a one-time thing only. Two years of dedicated cutting edge science and technology and some of the best and smartest minds devoted to bringing back one individual. Billions of credits were spent. And in the end, the tech and nearly all of the people were lost with the destruction of the Lazarus Space Station.

[robertthebard]

Argolas wrote...

Lazarus was well done and considering the circumstances also pretty well-explained. I found it questionable as an opener, but decent as a concept and executed just fine. Synthesis is neither of them.

I kept wanting to ask:  How many credits does it take to bring a soul back from the aether?  Somebody told me I needed to keep my responses to the ME U, so "Does this unit have a soul" started what war?  It is a one off solution to a problem that was created specifically to force Shepard to work with Cerberus.  It serves no other purpose, and really, I think ME 3 could have been a lot better if all the Cerberus drama had been dealt with in ME 2, along with uniting the galaxy.  Instead, Vigil quits working, they kill off Shepard, blow up the SR 1, and force you to work with an organization that you could have spent a couple of hours in ME 1 fighting against.

[Iakus]

Argolas wrote...

Lazarus was well done and considering the circumstances also pretty well-explained. I found it questionable as an opener, but decent as a concept and executed just fine. Synthesis is neither of them.

To me, the Lazarus Project killed some of my brain cells.  "It's all a matter of resources", riiiiight 

But it looks like hard science compared to the silliness that is Synthesis.

But both feel like something that came out of a comic book rather than a science fiction novel.  Sorry, writers, but "it's science fiction" is not carte blanche to just make poop up out of thin air.

[David7204]

robertthebard wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Lazarus is not a DEM. I see absolutely no reason why Cerberus shouldn't be able to restore function to Shepard's brain and body 170 years from now with the technology and expertise available to them.

So how many other times was it used?

None. Which is perfectly justified.

It's not a 'cure for death' as far too many people have said. Lazarus required an immense amount of money, an immense amount of technology, an immense amount of expertise, an immense amount of motivation, a very specific death, and a considerable amount of luck.

How likely are those circumstances to occur again? Miniscule. And if they did, so what? How would they change anything? It's just bringing a man back, and that man will die like any other if he takes a bullet to the face. And Lazarus likely wouldn't do much for a brain that's been turned into goo.

We've been essentially doing the same thing for decades with modern medicine - extending the circumstances of which someone can be brought back to health. Lazarus allows that to happen beyond death for incredible specific circumstances, but I see no reason why that makes any practical difference.

Modifié par David7204, 01 mai 2013 - 12:26 .

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

As Mass Effect 3 progresses, they slowly abandon the prior rules, lore, and science of the series up to that point.

Suffice to say I don't agree with this and never will.

You people started a whole wiki to **** on? Seriously?
(Also, what Xilizhra said.)

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

How likely are those circumstances to occur again? Miniscule. And if they did, so what? How would they change anything? It's just bringing a man back, and that man will die like any other if he takes a bullet to the face.

Beside the point, sorry, but it's kinda related to the thread at least. As soon as Shepard is alone, he needs plot armor to survive...

Modifié par Argolas, 01 mai 2013 - 12:44 .

[David7204]

That is not plot armor. The fact that whoever took that shot couldn't make his point without rotating the camera to a non-canonical position should demonstrate it doesn't count for much.

Modifié par David7204, 01 mai 2013 - 12:50 .

[robertthebard]

David7204 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Lazarus is not a DEM. I see absolutely no reason why Cerberus shouldn't be able to restore function to Shepard's brain and body 170 years from now with the technology and expertise available to them.

So how many other times was it used?

None. Which is perfectly justified.

It's not a 'cure for death' as far too many people have said. Lazarus required an immense amount of money, an immense amount of technology, an immense amount of expertise, an immense amount of motivation, a very specific death, and a considerable amount of luck.

How likely are those circumstances to occur again? Miniscule. And if they did, so what? How would they change anything? It's just bringing a man back, and that man will die like any other if he takes a bullet to the face. And Lazarus likely wouldn't do much for a brain that's been turned into goo.

We've been essentially doing the same thing for decades with modern medicine - extending the circumstances of which someone can be brought back to health. Lazarus allows that to happen beyond death for incredible specific circumstances, but I see no reason why that makes any practical difference.

I'm not even claiming it's a cure for death, it is, however, a DeM:  a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty  Source.  What part of that definition doesn't fit, again?  It is the very literal definition of the term.

What is the insoluble problem?  Well, Shepard's quite dead, can't have Shepard as the protagonist if Shepard is dead.

Is it contrived?  It certainly seems to have an unnatural quality:  If you spend enough money, you can bring a soul back from the aether.  So my question is, how much money is enough money?

So yes, it's a DeM.  It's a one off plot device that comes out of nowhere to save Shepard so Shepard can be forced to work for/with Cerberus.  So it's Space Magic.

[David7204]

No, it isn't a DEM. The 'problem' of Shepard being dead isn't even conclusively established until Lazarus is already over and done with. And calling it 'space magic' is just nonsense unless you have any credible scientific objections, which I hope would be more through than 'the brain decays, lol.'

As for Lazarus bring solely in place to have Shepard work for Cerberus, that's just ridiculous. Lazarus is continually brought up long after Shepard's work with Cerberus is established. They could have dropped it. They didn't. They kept using it as a point of characterization, and it led to some of the best moments of the series.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

No, it isn't a DEM. The 'problem' of Shepard being dead isn't even conclusively established until Lazarus is already over and done with. And calling it 'space magic' is just nonsense unless you have any credible scientific objections, which I hope would be more through than 'the brain decays, lol.'

I guess the Wilson recording that mentioned they restarted Shepard's neurological activity is just a minor detail...

"Greatest achievement in medical history" or somesuch? 

As for Lazarus bring solely in place to have Shepard work for Cerberus, that's just ridiculous. Lazarus is continually brought up long after Shepard's work with Cerberus is established. They could have dropped it. They didn't. They kept using it as a point of characterization, and it led to some of the best moments of the series.

Citation needed

[robertthebard]

David7204 wrote...

No, it isn't a DEM. The 'problem' of Shepard being dead isn't even conclusively established until Lazarus is already over and done with. And calling it 'space magic' is just nonsense unless you have any credible scientific objections, which I hope would be more through than 'the brain decays, lol.'

As for Lazarus bring solely in place to have Shepard work for Cerberus, that's just ridiculous. Lazarus is continually brought up long after Shepard's work with Cerberus is established. They could have dropped it. They didn't. They kept using it as a point of characterization, and it led to some of the best moments of the series.

So what you're saying is it can't be a problem because we didn't know we were dead until we weren't dead any more?  The problem is, everyone else knew we were dead.  Liara knew, everyone involved with the DeM knew, so the fact that Shepard didn't know, or did he/she, doesn't really break away from the DeM aspect of the Lazarus DeM.  The fact that it's now in the plot cannot be denied, so talking about it later doesn't mean it's not a DeM.  The DeM happens when they bring Shepard back to life.  Once Shepard is back to life, discussing it doesn't mean it's a common medical procedure, as you said, it's never done again.

As for a scientific explanation:  LoL?  So the science is, we stick some needles in, do some synthetic bone grafts, and spend trillions of credits, and we can restore Shepard's soul?  Because this is the "science" you're bringing to the table to say "but I liked it, so it can't be a DeM".

[David7204]

Let me give you a little example of why that's wrong and why the context of the story matters, even if it has no bearing on the context in-universe.

Suppose a character gets shot in the head at the very beginning of the story. He survives pretty much just by being lucky. That's not a DEM at all. It's completely reasonable and good storytelling.

Now, suppose a character gets shot in the head near of the end of the story and survives pretty much just by being lucky. That would be absolutely contemptible writing, completely contrived, and a total cop-out. Perhaps not exactly a DEM, but definitely bad writing.

Why don't you consider for a bit what the difference is between those two.

But guess what? Although there's a huge difference for us as the audience, there's utterly no difference in-story for the character himself. He doesn't 'know' when the beginning of the story is and when the end is. So the fact that it's a problem solved for the characters in-universe doesn't make it a DEM, any more than the character surviving the shot in the head at the beginning of the story is a DEM.

Your 'science' argument is stupid. If you have a problem with Lazarus, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have to prove a damn thing. If you have any actual evidence or reasoning explaining to me why restoring function to Shepard's brain and body is impossible, by all means, let me hear it. Otherwise, you've got zero basis.

Modifié par David7204, 01 mai 2013 - 01:57 .

[robertthebard]

David7204 wrote...

Let me give you a little example of why that's wrong and why the context of the story matters, even if it has no bearing on the context in-universe.

Suppose a character gets shot in the head at the very beginning of the story. He survives pretty much just by being lucky. That's not a DEM at all. It's completely reasonable and good storytelling.

Now, suppose a character gets shot in the head near of the end of the story and survives pretty much just by being lucky. That would be absolutely contemptible writing, completely contrived, and a total cop-out. Perhaps not exactly a DEM, but definitely bad writing.

But guess what? There's utterly no difference in-story for the character himself. He doesn't 'know' when the beginning of the story is and when the end is. So the fact that it's a problem solved for the characters in-universe doesn't make it a DEM, any more than the character surviving the shot in the head at the beginning of the story is a DEM.

Your 'science' argument is stupid. If you have a problem with Lazarus, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have to prove a damn thing. If you have any actual evidence or reasoning explaining to me why restoring function to Shepard's brain and body is impossible, by all means, let me hear it. Otherwise, you've got zero basis.

I don't have a problem with it, I recognize it for what it is, space magic.  It is a DeM, by the very literal definition of the term, which I politely provided for your perusal.  As far as my science argument being stupid, all I did was the Reader's Digest Condensed version of what we see on screen, except we don't actually see anyone spending any money.  So, if my version of the events is stupid, it's because the events in game are, you guessed it, stupid.  The other question I have is, since the definition doesn't say when in a story it must occur, just why, how is your scenario relevant?  I actually have a friend that survived getting shot in the head, so I have no problem buying that that can happen, but, he didn't die for 2 years and get brought back to life.  He survived it.  His lower jaw is made out of rib bones now, but he survived it.