264 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Ah yes, that old argument.

The problem lies within understanding biology and understanding science vs non-sense.

Can you explain what my "Life energy" and "life essence" is?

Can you explain to me how you can reach a final point in evolution?

Can you explain to me how all life apparently has DNA, even synthetics?

Can you explain how being vaporized in a beam somehow activates it with enough energy and material to cause a change to every denizen in the galaxy?

We've tried explaining all this to you - see my sig. You simply stick your fingers in your ears.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Cop out. 

*shrug*
It's still true. Show an iPad full of books to a caveman. Hell, show one to a librarian from the 1980s or 90s, even.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Ah yes, that old argument.

The problem lies within understanding biology and understanding science vs non-sense.

Can you explain what my "Life energy" and "life essence" is?

Can you explain to me how you can reach a final point in evolution?

Can you explain to me how all life apparently has DNA, even synthetics?

Can you explain how being vaporized in a beam somehow activates it with enough energy and material to cause a change to every denizen in the galaxy?

We've tried explaining all this to you - see my sig. You simply stick your fingers in your ears.

So you can't then. 

You have to resort to ad hominems and other people's arguments.

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Ah yes, here we are at what I consider the 2nd of the two main reason why ME3's ending is bad.

"Inside it, what he relates is 'true': it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside."

- Tolkien -

The ending did not work accordingly to the laws of Mass Effect. Neither the existance of eezo nor anything else in the MEU justifies how the ending, especially Synthesis, work. We don't even get that far, we don't even understand what exactly happens. Suddenly, the MEU is not a believable alternate reality with fictional but consistent rules anymore. The MEU turned into a weird place where anything can happen at any time for no reason and without any explanation. Disbelief arose. The spell was broken, the art failed.

But that's it on that for now. I might make a thread of its own about this sometime. This one is about the other reason, Shepard and the Normandy crew.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, I very heavily disagree. We don't solve problems by avoiding them.

And the problem said method avoids is precisely...?

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Cop out. 

*shrug*
It's still true. Show an iPad full of books to a caveman. Hell, show one to a librarian from the 1980s or 90s, even.

A librarian isn't going to think an iPad is magic, that's a gross exaggeration. We are not cavemen. We are able to distinguish.

[avatar0]

I love your analysis, and I think you are spot-on about why the endings to ME3 feel so out of place.
The ME games have always been about "Shepard and his team" rather than "Shepard the space Jesus."
This is a "Mission: Impossible" vs. "007" kind of thing.

[David7204]

Argolas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, I very heavily disagree. We don't solve problems by avoiding them.

And the problem said method avoids is precisely...?

Lack of a proper climax, lack of a plausible and satisfying resolution to the conflict, lack of a motive for the antagonist, lack of a confrontation with the antagonist, lack of conflict for the ending in general for things pretty much going according to plan, failure to follow up on foreshadowing, somewhat lack of meaningful heroism, various poorly answered and unanswered questions regarding lore...

That's most of it.

Modifié par David7204, 30 avril 2013 - 07:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, I very heavily disagree. We don't solve problems by avoiding them.

And the problem said method avoids is precisely...?

Lack of a proper climax, lack of a plausible and satisfying resolution to the conflict, lack of a motive for the antagonist, lack of a confrontation with the antagonist, lack of conflict for the ending in general for things pretty much going according to plan, failure to follow up on foreshadowing, somewhat lack of meaningful heroism, various poorly answered and unanswered questions regarding lore...

That's most of it.

The problem is that that is subjective for everyone David. While I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with a lot of your assertions that you are objectively correct.

For example, I don't believe in the "lack of meaningful heroism". My Shepard is not a hero, at least not in the sense that I see from your view. He's not a paragon. He has his own sense of idealism and morality, but he's more of an anti-hero and magnificent bastard than an actual hero in the superman sense. Also, a motive does not have to be established for the antagonist to be a compelling villain. Look at the Joker. Look at the Reapers prior to ME3. Things don't have to go *wrong* for their to be drama. It's a tall plan and the Reapers pose a mighty challenge. Bringing the plan to fruition is in itself full of the necessary drama. We know there's going to be lot's of casualties. We know that people are going to die.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Optimystic_X wrote...
*shrug*
It's still true. Show an iPad full of books to a caveman. Hell, show one to a librarian from the 1980s or 90s, even.

Not really, for one we're lacking context to justify it. The Reapers are the most advanced species in the narrative and even they don't have this level of technology, if they did the whole harvest would be needed, or much more effective. They wouldn't need to rely on dragon spikes to convert people to husks they could just shoot beams at them to do so, that doesn't happen.
http://tvtropes.org/.../MagicAIsMagicA

What we have is an effect that throws context and established lore out the window because the plot and ostensibly the writers, demanded it to do so. In short we're given a technology that is far beyond the creation and depolyment of any characters in the series simply because the writers wanted a specific result for their narrative.

[David7204]

This is not Batman. The Joker can get away with not having a motive because the narrative and characterization heavily supports such it. Mass Effect does not. Quite the opposite, actually.

Same thing for the Reapers prior to ME 3. We only accepted the lack of motive on the expectation that one would eventually be revealed.

Yes, the story has to introduce new challenges and information. There's no drama in the events of the story going exactly as characters say they will. If there is a plan, things cannot go according to it. If they do, the plan becomes a spoiler. Look at any and every great story. Things never go to plan - never. On literally every single major mission in Mass Effect, you have unexpected challenges come up.You have characters improvising as they go along.

The only exception is when the characters have a plan that works perfectly, but isn't revealed to the audience until after it's complete. Which would never work for Mass Effect, since Shepard isn't supposed to know anything significant that we don't.

Modifié par David7204, 30 avril 2013 - 07:41 .

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

You have to resort to ad hominems and other people's arguments.

If you're not going to read their posts, why would you read mine saying the same thing? It would just be a lot of wasted effort and energy on my part.

Argolas wrote...

The ending did not work accordingly to the laws of Mass Effect. Neither the existance of eezo nor anything else in the MEU justifies how the ending, especially Synthesis, work.

Er... should it? Synthesis has nothing to do with Eezo. The only connection I could draw between the two is the initial transmission of the nanites over the relay network, and even that is a one-time deal.

Argolas wrote...

The spell was broken, the art failed.

A number of us got it, therefore it succeeded. If nobody got it you'd be right.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

You have to resort to ad hominems and other people's arguments.

I have read their posts... And I'm waiting for an answer.

I can understand and respect what Ieldra does with Synthesis. But his synthesis isn't the same as in the game. He acknowledges as such and even dislikes the concept as written.

Can you answer any of my questions? What is the 'essence and life energy' of Shepard, and how is it in any way scientific? 

[Xilizhra]

Can you answer any of my questions? What is the 'essence and life energy' of Shepard, and how is it in any way scientific?

The combined data of Shepard's hardware and software, all that it is to be Shepard compressed into a form of data comprehensible by synthetics. It's then distributed, in a manner similar to Legion's direct personality dissemination.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

This is not Batman. The Joker can get away with not having a motive because the narrative and characterization heavily supports such it. Mass Effect does not. Quite the opposite, actually.

Same thing for the Reapers prior to ME 3. We only accepted the lack of motive on the expectation that one would eventually be revealed.

Yes, the story has to introduce new challenges and information. There's no drama in the events of the story going exactly as characters say they will. If there is a plan, things cannot go according to it. If they do, the plan becomes a spoiler. Look at any and every great story. Things never go to plan - never. On literally every single major mission in Mass Effect, you have unexpected challenges come up.You have characters improvising as they go along.

The only exception is when the characters have a plan that works perfectly, but isn't revealed to the audience until after it's complete. Which would never work for Mass Effect, since Shepard isn't supposed to know anything significant that we don't.

I never expected or hoped for an explanation for the Reapers. What we got from Sovereign and Harbinger pretty much outlined the basic narrative of the Reaper threat. If I got an explanation, cool, if not, that's cool too. I made my own explanation as a mental exercise to compensate for the current concepts issues.

And yes, the story does introduce new challenges and information. I think this might be a case of talking past each other. I'm talking about the ending. The thing is that there really is no plan, or that it is incredibly vague. Stop the Reapers is the plan. That's highlighted from the beginning of the mission. 

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

A librarian isn't going to think an iPad is magic, that's a gross exaggeration.

If they can't explain how it works,  there's no appreciable difference. It might as well be magic to them, just as Synthesis might as well be magic to us.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

We are not cavemen. We are able to distinguish.

To the Catalyst we might as well be. Organics have been capable of transhumanism for how long? Yet only the Salarians and Quarians have embraced it so far, while the rest quibble. 

Officer Dara: "How could we expect humans to understand? You can't even figure out your own religions!" 

In a cosmic sense, we're pretty far behind.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, I very heavily disagree. We don't solve problems by avoiding them.

And the problem said method avoids is precisely...?

Lack of a proper climax, lack of a plausible and satisfying resolution to the conflict, lack of a motive for the antagonist, lack of a confrontation with the antagonist, lack of conflict for the ending in general for things pretty much going according to plan, failure to follow up on foreshadowing, somewhat lack of meaningful heroism, various poorly answered and unanswered questions regarding lore...

That's most of it.

Those are all valid problems, but I believe that it could have worked much better than what we got by simply doing said cut and some rather minor changes.

First we'd need some proper reason why we reach the beam at all, not just Harbinger stupidly leaving. A proper distraction? Maybe the Normandy? After that, it's the same. Shepard gets in alone, finds Anderson and TIM, defeats TIM but after that TIM becomes Harbinger's avatar (ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL style). That could be our final confrontation and Harbinger's chance to speak for himself and the Reapers.

Possible motivation: The Reapers are Leviathans who upgraded themselves with technology until they became what they are now. As they are stronger and more intelligent than organics, also immortal and with no flaws, they conclude that organics would desire to join them, to "ascend", thus they came up with the harvest, a method to share their fortune. Shepard may be already falling for Harbinger (Indoctrination) when Shepard's crew steps in and help Shepard to snap out of it, reminding him/her about why they don't, they find meaning in each other. After the Reapers' ideological defeat, we can have our boss battle and then open the Citadel. The Crucible, the ultimate symbol of the galaxy's potential, docks. The Prothean VI Vendetta interfaces with the Crucible. The relay network spreads the energy through the whole galaxy, Vendetta targets the Reapers. 

Then we basically see the EC Destroy ending followed by an epilogue. Our choices determine the state of the galaxy after the war.


You see, the only thing that I heavily changed is cutting out the Starchild scene and expanding the TIM encounter instead.

What do you think?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

Can you answer any of my questions? What is the 'essence and life energy' of Shepard, and how is it in any way scientific?

The combined data of Shepard's hardware and software, all that it is to be Shepard compressed into a form of data comprehensible by synthetics. It's then distributed, in a manner similar to Legion's direct personality dissemination.

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.

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. 

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.

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? 

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

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. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 30 avril 2013 - 08:00 .

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I can understand and respect what Ieldra does with Synthesis. But his synthesis isn't the same as in the game. He acknowledges as such and even dislikes the concept as written.

Ieldra dislikes the use of certain terms by the Catalyst, such as "new DNA" and "final evolution of life." These statements are clearly not meant to be taken literally - the Catalyst pauses before the former, as though groping for an analogy the monkey before him might grasp. For the latter, "final evolution" has multiple meanings - but Ieldra rightfully presumed that BSN would latch onto the most literal and least sensible one, undermining Bioware's vision.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Can you answer any of my questions? What is the 'essence and life energy' of Shepard, and how is it in any way scientific? 

Shepard is not normal. 
Leviathan: "You are an anomaly." "Your victories are more than the product of mere chance." "Your confidence is singular."
Legion: "Your code is superior."

You've beaten indoctrination by shouting at it 3 times now, if not more. Whatever science is behind that, it's not something we can yet quantify, so there is no point in turning to outdated theories to try.

[Argolas]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

For example, I don't believe in the "lack of meaningful heroism". My Shepard is not a hero, at least not in the sense that I see from your view. He's not a paragon. He has his own sense of idealism and morality, but he's more of an anti-hero and magnificent bastard than an actual hero in the superman sense.

But your Shepard is a hero in the sense I described it in my OP, isn't he? An outstanding leader who can push a squad far beyond their natural limits, achieving the impossible together. That's what I mean.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I can understand and respect what Ieldra does with Synthesis. But his synthesis isn't the same as in the game. He acknowledges as such and even dislikes the concept as written.

Ieldra dislikes the use of certain terms by the Catalyst, such as "new DNA" and "final evolution of life." These statements are clearly not meant to be taken literally - the Catalyst pauses before the former, as though groping for an analogy the monkey before him might grasp. For the latter, "final evolution" has multiple meanings - but Ieldra rightfully presumed that BSN would latch onto the most literal and least sensible one, undermining Bioware's vision.

That sounds really selective. 

You know, if so many people had problems seeing the Catalyst's perspective - BioWare's vision - don't you think that goes back on BioWare for not explaining their vision or using actual narrative sense (let alone scientific sense)? You can't fall back on the argument "Oh you just missed the point, you weren't supposed to take it literally". If the Catalyst had a different meaning, don't you think he could have clarified it? Would have? Should have? 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Argolas wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

For example, I don't believe in the "lack of meaningful heroism". My Shepard is not a hero, at least not in the sense that I see from your view. He's not a paragon. He has his own sense of idealism and morality, but he's more of an anti-hero and magnificent bastard than an actual hero in the superman sense.

But your Shepard is a hero in the sense I described it in my OP, isn't he? An outstanding leader who can push a squad far beyond their natural limits, achieving the impossible together. That's what I mean.

He can't push them beyond their natural limits, but he can bring the best of their skills to the forefront and integrate them into a team. He pushes them to achieve and overcome together yes, but he can't actually make them overcome natural limits so much as realize potential.

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Ieldra dislikes the use of certain terms by the Catalyst, such as "new DNA" and "final evolution of life." These statements are clearly not meant to be taken literally - the Catalyst pauses before the former, as though groping for an analogy the monkey before him might grasp. For the latter, "final evolution" has multiple meanings - but Ieldra rightfully presumed that BSN would latch onto the most literal and least sensible one, undermining Bioware's vision.

You know that these few lines and terms like "new DNA" and "final evolution of life" are pretty much every explanation we have about what Synthesis is? If you choose to dismiss these as "not meant to be taken litererally", Synthesis is completely up to headcanon. I might just as well say that organics integrating with technology ends up the same way as Project Overlord: "Quiet! Make it stop!"

[Argolas]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

For example, I don't believe in the "lack of meaningful heroism". My Shepard is not a hero, at least not in the sense that I see from your view. He's not a paragon. He has his own sense of idealism and morality, but he's more of an anti-hero and magnificent bastard than an actual hero in the superman sense.

But your Shepard is a hero in the sense I described it in my OP, isn't he? An outstanding leader who can push a squad far beyond their natural limits, achieving the impossible together. That's what I mean.

He can't push them beyond their natural limits, but he can bring the best of their skills to the forefront and integrate them into a team. He pushes them to achieve and overcome together yes, but he can't actually make them overcome natural limits so much as realize potential.

It's not literally about natural limits... just, you know, that thing about forming a team out of outstanding individuals that can do things that are considered impossible, such as the suicide mission. The thing that got the ME1 squad together and let it fall apart again after Shepard's death. The thing that got the ME2 squad together and let it fall apart again after Shepard was taken into custody. It's just a unique and natural quality that Shepard has. If not for Shepard, how would all these people have ended up? They would have made almost no difference. Yet together with Shepard, they can save the galaxy. That's the kind of heroism I mean, and it has nothing to do with being a Paragon.

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...

You know that these few lines and terms like "new DNA" and "final evolution of life" are pretty much every explanation we have about what Synthesis is? If you choose to dismiss these as "not meant to be taken litererally", Synthesis is completely up to headcanon. I might just as well say that organics integrating with technology ends up the same way as Project Overlord: "Quiet! Make it stop!"

Except you don't. There is the entire slideshow and EDI's narrative, plus the tone of that epilogue, to tell you otherwise. Unless you choose to ignore all of that anyway.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That sounds really selective. 

You know, if so many people had problems seeing the Catalyst's perspective - BioWare's vision - don't you think that goes back on BioWare for not explaining their vision or using actual narrative sense (let alone scientific sense)? You can't fall back on the argument "Oh you just missed the point, you weren't supposed to take it literally". If the Catalyst had a different meaning, don't you think he could have clarified it? Would have? Should have? 

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?

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

A librarian isn't going to think an iPad is magic, that's a gross exaggeration.

If they can't explain how it works,  there's no appreciable difference. It might as well be magic to them, just as Synthesis might as well be magic to us.

What if the Librarian asked how the iPad worked? What should they be told, that they wouldn't understand so they don't deserve an explanation?

The Night Mammoth wrote...

We are not cavemen. We are able to distinguish.

To the Catalyst we might as well be. Organics have been capable of transhumanism for how long? Yet only the Salarians and Quarians have embraced it so far, while the rest quibble. 

Officer Dara: "How could we expect humans to understand? You can't even figure out your own religions!" 

In a cosmic sense, we're pretty far behind.

The culture in the fiction doesn't matter. I'm real. I know it's not magic. BioWare aren't explaining it to an office worker on Terra Nova, they're explaining it to me. 

Or aren't, as the case is. I don't even really care about the how, I care more about the what. The results of Synthesis are given the barest of explanations. I'd like something more, because I want to understand it better. That's my barrier.