Bann Duncan
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 303 Likes: 419
inherit
4209
0
419
Bann Duncan
303
March 2017
bannduncan
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Bann Duncan on Apr 4, 2017 20:09:07 GMT
Just quoting so you see this. You cannot talk about ME:A's ending in General Discussion! Edit your post before you ruin the game for people.
|
|
inherit
738
0
4,632
Link"Guess"ski
3,882
August 2016
linkenski
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Linkenski
asblinkenski
Linkenski
|
Post by Link"Guess"ski on Apr 4, 2017 20:11:26 GMT
Sorry my man. I edited.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,887 Likes: 49,357
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,357
Iakus
20,887
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 4, 2017 20:21:47 GMT
Their ideal for synthetics and organics in-universe to say that we're so equal we should literally be the same is a much less nuanced and interesting form of equality from a narrative POV than to highlight the differences and tell a story of two parts accepting each other despite how different they are. Instead the agenda forced down your throat as the best resolution that happens... "because" and I'm saying all this as if the ending scenario of 3 even fits its own story which it doesn't. The true ideal is, to me, for organics and synthetics to accept each other as sapient beings and coexist as such. Something Bioware seems to think we are incapable of. Synthesis is much creepier: that neither organics nor synthetics are truly whole, or worthy of acceptance, and need to merge in order to become truly "alive".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 20:26:16 GMT
My only real issue with the SAM implant is that it seems so invasive. SAM has access to all of Ryder's senses and emotional reactions - I guess it doesn't mention thoughts, though, so there's that.
I haven't done it yet (not quite at that point in my playthrough), but sharing Ryder's romantic intimacy with SAM is a bit... ew.
|
|
FeralEwok
N3
Yub Nub
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 494 Likes: 1,374
inherit
4296
0
Nov 17, 2017 12:02:30 GMT
1,374
FeralEwok
Yub Nub
494
Mar 10, 2017 12:40:48 GMT
March 2017
feralewok
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by FeralEwok on Apr 4, 2017 20:28:13 GMT
Synthesis was supposed to be their "best" ending...Visually it even goes as far as Shepard making a not so subtle Jesus on the cross pose as they fall down the green tube.
My problem with it (other than the obvious space magic) was that merging synthetics and organics together was the only way to resolve this supposed endless struggle just kind of flew in the face of everything the trilogy had taught us up until the last few moments of the game. You spend three games getting very different species, governments, factions, and individuals to overcome their differences and put aside old ways of thinking/demonizing others.
If the writers didn't actually believe that, Mass Effect would/should have been a very different game.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,147
AnDromedary
4,399
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Apr 4, 2017 20:40:04 GMT
I may have misled you because I said it was the Grey ending but we all know it's really the Green ending, so I'm just full of BS. Anyway, it's my take on why they seemed to favor synthesis as being the final unlockable choice and what its value was in their eyes. And while it's not 100% widespread on a studio level I suggest you go check out the twitter of various profilic employees and see how much they just preach the kind of thinking I described. I say that as if it's a bad thing which it isn't necessarily, but it is when they're on that PC bandwagon, going to QGCon, Patrick saying "we will fight for you!" for Transgenders, having already written Krem as if it wasn't obvious enough, and posting a pic of Sara Ryder and going "Look at how badass she is STRONG FEMALE WHATEVER TM". I sound like I hate females and transgenders which is not true. It's the way this form of inclusivity is done as part of the game's art that bothers me as, for example, I do not believe in the high-level vision of Synthesis which is that "we should all be on the same level of equality regardless of difference" and it's done in such a generic one-size-fits-all way that it just becomes a form of mindlessly preachy pandering. I am not sure if that's fair though. Yes, ME might be a role playing game where we can make decision within the parameters of the story but it is still their story with their characters and they have every right to tell the kind of story they want, including preaching any kind of morality they want to the extent that they want. If this is their stance and they want it in their story, than there is nothing wrong with it. They also don't "shove it down your throat", it's just the kind of story they want to tell and the kind of future society they want to portray. You have every right not to like it but that doesn't mean that BW made a mistake. No one in their right mind (who isn't really on a crusade against the minority in question) would criticize a book author for writing a story that includes minorities like transgender people or a painter who believes in transhumanism and paints a picture about it, because they included their ideas in their art. Yes, lot's of people may not like it and consequently avoid it but is that really preaching or is it just the artist projecting their world view and beliefs into their creative work? I'd argue it's the latter and I think we should have a discussion on the basis that BioWare owns their art or at least they should. (That last bit is also why I am a bit dismayed that apparently in their patch road map, BW wants to cave before critics and change their transgender character after the fact because it's not exactly what the LGBT community wanted either, btw.)
|
|
inherit
5551
0
113
mordivier
104
Mar 22, 2017 19:56:59 GMT
March 2017
mordivier
|
Post by mordivier on Apr 4, 2017 21:19:31 GMT
I may have misled you because I said it was the Grey ending but we all know it's really the Green ending, so I'm just full of BS. Anyway, it's my take on why they seemed to favor synthesis as being the final unlockable choice and what its value was in their eyes. And while it's not 100% widespread on a studio level I suggest you go check out the twitter of various profilic employees and see how much they just preach the kind of thinking I described. I say that as if it's a bad thing which it isn't necessarily, but it is when they're on that PC bandwagon, going to QGCon, Patrick saying "we will fight for you!" for Transgenders, having already written Krem as if it wasn't obvious enough, and posting a pic of Sara Ryder and going "Look at how badass she is STRONG FEMALE WHATEVER TM". I sound like I hate females and transgenders which is not true. It's the way this form of inclusivity is done as part of the game's art that bothers me as, for example, I do not believe in the high-level vision of Synthesis which is that "we should all be on the same level of equality regardless of difference" and it's done in such a generic one-size-fits-all way that it just becomes a form of mindlessly preachy pandering. I am not sure if that's fair though. Yes, ME might be a role playing game where we can make decision within the parameters of the story but it is still their story with their characters and they have every right to tell the kind of story they want, including preaching any kind of morality they want to the extent that they want. If this is their stance and they want it in their story, than there is nothing wrong with it. They also don't "shove it down your throat", it's just the kind of story they want to tell and the kind of future society they want to portray. You have every right not to like it but that doesn't mean that BW made a mistake. No one in their right mind (who isn't really on a crusade against the minority in question) would criticize a book author for writing a story that includes minorities like transgender people or a painter who believes in transhumanism and paints a picture about it, because they included their ideas in their art. Yes, lot's of people may not like it and consequently avoid it but is that really preaching or is it just the artist projecting their world view and beliefs into their creative work? I'd argue it's the latter and I think we should have a discussion on the basis that BioWare owns their art or at least they should. (That last bit is also why I am a bit dismayed that apparently in their patch road map, BW wants to cave before critics and change their transgender character after the fact because it's not exactly what the LGBT community wanted either, btw.) One could argue that video games are different. Your actually playing a character. You have interaction. You are the one controlling the character and when that happens people naturally feel like its a representation of themselves in a fictional universe. That is why people are very sensitive to political/social agendas presented in a video game. There is a personal interactive element involved and its more akin to the developers steering you and influencing you versus you just reading it with no personal connection. That is why they are called "ROLE-PLAYING". When was the last time you saw on the box art or promotional material for a video game where it actually says "LGBT friendly! Show your characters appreciation for the transgender movement by choosing dialogue options that give flattering views so that you wont present a 'bigoted' attitude!"? You don't. Its the overall story. The minor side-quests is where a lot of social crap gets involved...and that's where they put this stuff. If it were the main story these companies might as well be a political podium and people wouldn't be buying their product...they would just turn on the news or browse the net.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,147
AnDromedary
4,399
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Apr 4, 2017 21:31:55 GMT
One could argue that video games are different. Your actually playing a character. You have interaction. You are the one controlling the character and when that happens people naturally feel like its a representation of themselves in a fictional universe. That is why people are very sensitive to political/social agendas presented in a video game. There is a personal interactive element involved and its more akin to the developers steering you and influencing you versus you just reading it with no personal connection. That is why they are called "ROLE-PLAYING". When was the last time you saw on the box art or promotional material for a video game where it actually says "LGBT friendly! Show your characters appreciation for the transgender movement by choosing dialogue options that give flattering views so that you wont present a 'bigoted' attitude!"? You don't. Its the overall story. The minor side-quests is where a lot of social crap gets involved...and that's where they put this stuff. If it were the main story these companies might as well be a political podium and people wouldn't be buying their product...they would just turn on the news or browse the net. I would get that argument if people were just complaining if BW forced the protagonist to have a certain opinion about things. And this is a problem in ME:A, which I have criticized myself in a number of threads. It's not good of devs and writers limit our options on a role playing game (though sometimes, I guess it's unavoidable). And yes, if the player character is denied the ability to express themselves, then by extension the player is and that would feel like an agenda is shoved down the players throat, I agree. But people already get into a hissyfit over side characters (like the transgender one for example or which romance is available for whom) and there it really is again just a story, isn't it? As long as the player is free in their reactions, there shouldn't be an issue more than in any other media. Everything else would be oversensitive for no good reason. Now, ironically, the title of this thread actually makes sense because in ME:A we are forced to have SAM in our protagonist and from all I've seen we don't have the option to reject or even dislike SAM, we have to get along with him. So IMO, it's fair criticism that Ryder can't be against SAM even to some extent. But from what I have seen, that was not the argument made here, but rather people complain about the overall story and it's characters (at the very least, the one I quoted above).
|
|
inherit
5551
0
113
mordivier
104
Mar 22, 2017 19:56:59 GMT
March 2017
mordivier
|
Post by mordivier on Apr 4, 2017 21:40:09 GMT
One could argue that video games are different. Your actually playing a character. You have interaction. You are the one controlling the character and when that happens people naturally feel like its a representation of themselves in a fictional universe. That is why people are very sensitive to political/social agendas presented in a video game. There is a personal interactive element involved and its more akin to the developers steering you and influencing you versus you just reading it with no personal connection. That is why they are called "ROLE-PLAYING". When was the last time you saw on the box art or promotional material for a video game where it actually says "LGBT friendly! Show your characters appreciation for the transgender movement by choosing dialogue options that give flattering views so that you wont present a 'bigoted' attitude!"? You don't. Its the overall story. The minor side-quests is where a lot of social crap gets involved...and that's where they put this stuff. If it were the main story these companies might as well be a political podium and people wouldn't be buying their product...they would just turn on the news or browse the net. I would get that argument if people were just complaining if BW forced the protagonist to have a certain opinion about things. And this is a problem in ME:A, which I have criticized myself in a number of threads. It's not good of devs and writers limit our options on a role playing game (though sometimes, I guess it's unavoidable). But people already get into a hissyfit over side characters (like the transgender one for example or which romance is available for whom) and there it really is again just a story, isn't it? As long as the player is free in their reactions, there shouldn't be an issue more than in any other media. Everything else would be oversensitive for no good reason. Now, ironically, the title of this thread actually makes sense because in ME:A we are forced to have SAM in our protagonist and from all I've seen we don't have the option to reject or even dislike SAM, we have to get along with him. So IMO, it's fair criticism that Ryder can't be against SAM even to some extent. But from what I have seen, that was not the argument made here, but rather people complain about the overall story and it's characters (at the very least, the one I quoted above). Well, I would wager that people would be acting less hissy if Bioware gave the player the option to say that the transgender or whatever is wrong for doing so for whatever reason. You literally cannot say or do anything negative about it. Its the same with Krem in DAI. blog.bioware.com/2014/12/04/building-a-character-cremisius-krem-aclassi/All positive intention. That was the purpose behind it. That means no negative criticism in whatever form or fashion. Its the same thing here. They design it with the explicit intention of being neutral or positive but not a negative thing. If people were given the option to go to both sides of the spectrum I would bet that the hissy-fits would even out and it would objectively be more fair. You can be positive towards it, neutral or negative. But no, Bioware doesn't want that and it shows and that is what grates on people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 21:47:07 GMT
One could argue that video games are different. Your actually playing a character. You have interaction. You are the one controlling the character and when that happens people naturally feel like its a representation of themselves in a fictional universe. That is why people are very sensitive to political/social agendas presented in a video game. There is a personal interactive element involved and its more akin to the developers steering you and influencing you versus you just reading it with no personal connection. That is why they are called "ROLE-PLAYING". Right - which means you're playing a character who isn't you. I would get that argument if people were just complaining if BW forced the protagonist to have a certain opinion about things. And this is a problem in ME:A, which I have criticized myself in a number of threads. It's not good of devs and writers limit our options on a role playing game (though sometimes, I guess it's unavoidable). There are always limits on character reactions. Obviously, they can't put the entire universe of possible PC reactions in a game - and I think that exactly where to draw the line is always a challenge for the writers. I mean, if I were writing a scene, I might come up with 20 or more possible reactions - but the word budget will allow me to include only 2-4 in the actual game. Except for the very rare blank slate (or mostly blank slate) PCs, most PCs come with some... quirks, so to speak. But, yeah, in the case of Ryder, the character came with a SAM implant. Shepard had Anderson as a father figure / mentor. I guess in my mind, if you choose to play the game, you're agreeing to play a character with an onboard AI.
|
|
amleth
N2
Posts: 231 Likes: 243
inherit
2241
0
Dec 16, 2018 22:17:42 GMT
243
amleth
231
December 2016
amleth
|
Post by amleth on Apr 4, 2017 21:49:07 GMT
I'm not sure it's so much indirect as it is beating you over the head with a dead horse
|
|
jastall
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire
Posts: 341 Likes: 583
inherit
3138
0
583
jastall
341
Jan 30, 2017 21:13:28 GMT
January 2017
jastall
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by jastall on Apr 4, 2017 21:52:41 GMT
I've said it in spoilers section, but it sounds more like the Geth and Quarian cooperation if you make peace with Rannoch. With an AI helping an organic achieve something they can't on their own.
I mean, it has undertones of Synthesis, but it's way less abhorrent than mass galactic brainwashing turning people in glowy green hippies. If Bioware had tackled the Synthesis angle the way they did with SAM, it would have been more interesting and probably way less controversial.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,147
AnDromedary
4,399
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Apr 4, 2017 21:53:07 GMT
One could argue that video games are different. Your actually playing a character. You have interaction. You are the one controlling the character and when that happens people naturally feel like its a representation of themselves in a fictional universe. That is why people are very sensitive to political/social agendas presented in a video game. There is a personal interactive element involved and its more akin to the developers steering you and influencing you versus you just reading it with no personal connection. That is why they are called "ROLE-PLAYING". Right - which means you're playing a character who isn't you. I would get that argument if people were just complaining if BW forced the protagonist to have a certain opinion about things. And this is a problem in ME:A, which I have criticized myself in a number of threads. It's not good of devs and writers limit our options on a role playing game (though sometimes, I guess it's unavoidable). There are always limits on character reactions. Obviously, they can't put the entire universe of possible PC reactions in a game - and I think that exactly where to draw the line is always a challenge for the writers. I mean, if I were writing a scene, I might come up with 20 or more possible reactions - but the word budget will allow me to include only 2-4 in the actual game. Except for the very rare blank slate (or mostly blank slate) PCs, most PCs come with some... quirks, so to speak. But, yeah, in the case of Ryder, the character came with a SAM implant. Shepard had Anderson as a father figure / mentor. I guess in my mind, if you choose to play the game, you're agreeing to play a character with an onboard AI. Yes, true. I don't mind the fact that Ryder has to be pro-transhumanism to some extent either (and I di write that I know that sometimes it is unavoidable to limit options). However, great roleplaying games have writers that design their options in a way that the players doesn't notice that they are limited (or at least so that they don't miss an option they might have come up with themselves). Dragon Age Origins did a great job with this. I felt like I always found an option exactly for I wanted the character to say in any given situation. Mass Effect Andromeda is IMO the worst BioWare game in that regard so far. Ryder's dialogue wheel is not about options of what I want to express, but just how I want to express the same opinion. There is only a few instances where I can really chosee to say different things and in those cases it's almost always limited to two options. That's not great. But that's also getiing OT as to the topic of the thread, so I guess it's a discussion for another time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 22:10:38 GMT
Yes, true. I don't mind the fact that Ryder has to be pro-transhumanism to some extent either (and I di write that I know that sometimes it is unavoidable to limit options). However, great roleplaying games have writers that design their options in a way that the players doesn't notice that they are limited (or at least so that they don't miss an option they might have come up with themselves). Dragon Age Origins did a great job with this. I felt like I always found an option exactly for I wanted the character to say in any given situation. Mass Effect Andromeda is IMO the worst BioWare game in that regard so far. Ryder's dialogue wheel is not about options of what I want to express, but just how I want to express the same opinion. There is only a few instances where I can really chosee to say different things and in those cases it's almost always limited to two options. That's not great. But that's also getiing OT as to the topic of the thread, so I guess it's a discussion for another time. Since DAO was unvoiced and not nearly as cinematic - it was a lot easier for them to give us a wider variety of options. Despite the fact (or theory) that the writers had assumed implied tones in the dialogue, you were still free to decide for yourself not only the exact words the warden said, but how s/he said them. DA2 changed all that, and gave us a Hawke where your choices revolved around tone/personality. Then DAI backed off of that a bit, and people complained that the Inquisitor was boring and not personable enough to entertain them. With Shepard, it was largely paragon, renegade, or neutral. The warden (and ME1 Shepard to a degree) are the only characters I ever felt were as much (or more) mine than BioWare's. I would posit that we lost the ability to decide what our characters actually say when word-for-word text dialogue was replaced with paraphrases. At this point, you're more or less choosing branches in a branching narrative. But you're right - we are getting a bit off-topic here.
|
|
jastall
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire
Posts: 341 Likes: 583
inherit
3138
0
583
jastall
341
Jan 30, 2017 21:13:28 GMT
January 2017
jastall
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by jastall on Apr 4, 2017 22:12:37 GMT
Yeah I'm not a big fan of the Synthesis connotation either. Really though, I find the whole transhumanism via AI integration angle to be a little overdone in the media these days. Why is nobody looking at the other side of the coin on this? Advancement through genetic modification and gene splicing techniques? I would think that a story centered around how Ryder can modify their body to gain gills, or wings, or a redundant circulatory system, etc. in order to better explore and adapt to the Helus cluster; and the overarching theme of whether they are still human after said augmentations; would make for a more unique story at the very least. Genetic modification is widely accepted and practiced in-universe provided it doesn't go too far, however. Alliance soldiers often go through gene therapy for instance. Medi-gel is also a derivative of that, if memory serves. But amidst all the other space superscience nonsense going on in Mass Effect, it seems Bioware is reluctant to add outlandish stuff like developing gills. Remember that the Council banned overly serious genetic tampering; the Initiative is clearly not bound by its rules, but it still perhaps means there are little advances made in the field, possibly because technology does the same job. Why would you go to the trouble of sticking gills on a human when you can just invent a better breathing mask? Way less side-effects, for one thing, and potentially costs way less resources than modifications on such a scale.
|
|
inherit
608
0
478
tantumdicverbo
170
August 2016
tantumdicverbo
|
Post by tantumdicverbo on Apr 4, 2017 23:40:31 GMT
Anyway, I've had enough of that shit in MET. I hope I won't end up with the plot of Remnants killing the organics so that they don't create synthetics. Butlerian Jihad FTW!
|
|
inherit
1040
0
May 15, 2024 10:26:25 GMT
3,228
Vortex13
2,202
Aug 17, 2016 14:31:53 GMT
August 2016
vortex13
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Vortex13 on Apr 5, 2017 1:09:26 GMT
Yeah I'm not a big fan of the Synthesis connotation either. Really though, I find the whole transhumanism via AI integration angle to be a little overdone in the media these days. Why is nobody looking at the other side of the coin on this? Advancement through genetic modification and gene splicing techniques? I would think that a story centered around how Ryder can modify their body to gain gills, or wings, or a redundant circulatory system, etc. in order to better explore and adapt to the Helus cluster; and the overarching theme of whether they are still human after said augmentations; would make for a more unique story at the very least. Genetic modification is widely accepted and practiced in-universe provided it doesn't go too far, however. Alliance soldiers often go through gene therapy for instance. Medi-gel is also a derivative of that, if memory serves. But amidst all the other space superscience nonsense going on in Mass Effect, it seems Bioware is reluctant to add outlandish stuff like developing gills. Remember that the Council banned overly serious genetic tampering; the Initiative is clearly not bound by its rules, but it still perhaps means there are little advances made in the field, possibly because technology does the same job. Why would you go to the trouble of sticking gills on a human when you can just invent a better breathing mask? Way less side-effects, for one thing, and potentially costs way less resources than modifications on such a scale. Because technology can break down, and why not give the Pathfinders and early colonists every possible advantage when trying to settle new worlds? Sure technology might be more "stable" but if genetic modification has advanced to the point where full blown splicing can occur without the risk of tissue rejection or organ failure, then why not give a human the strength and endurance to run at 100 km/hr wearing nothing but their birthday suit? Why not adjust our metabolic rates so that we can operate with only three hours of sleep a night, but without the drastically shortened lifespans of species like the Salarians? If we could add in traits from species like the Rachni; where we could survive on wildly different planets, with extremely different atmospheres, all without the need for a space suit, then maybe that particular scenario from the beginning of the game could have been avoided altogether.
|
|
danishgambit
N3
A master of his game
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 364 Likes: 367
inherit
3867
0
367
danishgambit
A master of his game
364
February 2017
danishgambit
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by danishgambit on Apr 5, 2017 3:57:37 GMT
Ugh... Lets not go over how a giant ray gun could alter the dna of living creatures and violate their rights or the number of organisms that would die from the medical complications alone. Lets not go over how "human essence" is a tangible thing (if it even exists at all) that you can just buy from the home depot and install into your favorite genocidal robot army. Lets not go over that again...
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Apr 5, 2017 4:01:10 GMT
My only real issue with the SAM implant is that it seems so invasive. SAM has access to all of Ryder's senses and emotional reactions - I guess it doesn't mention thoughts, though, so there's that. I haven't done it yet (not quite at that point in my playthrough), but sharing Ryder's romantic intimacy with SAM is a bit... ew. I guess one practical upshot is being immune to highly contagious diseases.
|
|
inherit
1482
0
3,373
Fredward
1,342
September 2016
fredward
http://bsn.boards.net/board/40/dragon-age-4
|
Post by Fredward on Apr 5, 2017 4:01:10 GMT
You know what else gave away that Bioware prefers the synthesis ending/it is canon in their hearts? The fact that it was in the middle. Like, I mean.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Apr 5, 2017 4:02:18 GMT
You know what else gave away that Bioware prefers the synthesis ending/it is canon in their hearts? The fact that it was in the middle. Like, I mean.
|
|
SwobyJ
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 2,093 Likes: 2,137
inherit
2698
0
May 17, 2024 16:40:57 GMT
2,137
SwobyJ
2,093
January 2017
swobyj
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by SwobyJ on Apr 5, 2017 6:25:21 GMT
SAM situation isn't Synthesis.
However, it is a cooperation in enough of a way as to suggest a form of local Synthesis as its potential inevitability. Or not. Up to you. The idea itself hasn't come up (yet). Ryder doesn't know about it and SAM doesn't suggest it.
What SAM does is use signals to tell Ryder's body what to do. If anything, this is closer to Indoctrination, though it doesn't flex its abilities there ('mind control') as far as we are aware. It does alter physiology through signals and that's something Indoctrination also does, albeit with much more brute force and without any real care to the subject's safety beyond being a tool. From what we understand, SAM does not consider Ryder an external tool, but a part of its existence for as long as it is connected. Reapers decided the 'flesh is a machine' long ago, and that any 'saving' of organics was going to be done through genetic material (maybe theoretically cybernetic records of minds QECed as well; not proven), so the 'self' as we normally consider it, isn't important to the harvest. SAM actually, in its AI way, 'cares'.
Though difference between EDI and SAM is that SAM is 'with us' from inception and EDI has just enough of a positive relationship with us to want to be with us and continue to develop herself to stay that way (much more risky but like anything in Shep's journey, he takes that shot and was just that lucky survivor of it).
I don't think Bioware is showing strong preference to anything with SAM. They are, however, at minimum so far, showing more about how AI development is always more capable in the MEU than we may RP to allow (and indeed, we can't RP Ryder to be outright anti-synthetic, maybe for the first time in ME). Ideas all around it especially add credence to parts of Control. But Destroy isn't redundant as an option to take, as SAM is not actually a Reaper. And Synthesis is still a canonical potential. All we got is that much of the 'science' behind the Reapers (and other MET AIs) gets to continue to be elaborated upon.
And really, we don't know if Alec is even as correct as he insists about SAM. Its not like there can't be further secrets or developments.
|
|
inherit
3840
0
Sept 27, 2018 21:00:22 GMT
297
zeypher
304
Feb 24, 2017 19:59:42 GMT
February 2017
zeypher
|
Post by zeypher on Apr 5, 2017 6:40:14 GMT
Symbiosis is not synthesis.
|
|
moumou38
N1
On en a gros !
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Moumou381
Posts: 13 Likes: 14
inherit
7005
0
Nov 14, 2017 10:35:49 GMT
14
moumou38
On en a gros !
13
April 2017
moumou38
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Moumou381
|
Post by moumou38 on Apr 5, 2017 7:02:29 GMT
I agree with most of what was said before but personally my main problem is not how invasive SAM is (which I find creepy) nor the synthesis hint (I preferred the destroy ending) but more the fact that you can't express any doubt throughout the game. It bothers me a lot that whenever a bit of crticism is expressed toward AIs or SAM you can't be nuanced. Instead you're forced to choose between 2 answers that basically defend AIs non stop even when the person has some valid point (luke Overlord). I would have liked to have the choice. It is very binary...
|
|
TormDK
N3
"No Fear! No Pity! NO REMORSE!"
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: TormDK
Posts: 880 Likes: 1,378
inherit
4219
0
Jun 13, 2018 21:48:51 GMT
1,378
TormDK
"No Fear! No Pity! NO REMORSE!"
880
March 2017
tormdk
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
TormDK
|
Post by TormDK on Apr 5, 2017 7:21:59 GMT
But Ryder doesn't have a choice Moumou. The Implant is in him/her, which he has fully accepted prior to the story starting.
Why would Bioware then give player choice, when the character we play is not aligned with this school of thought? They would have to open up for branches where you get the implant removed, which is not feasible at all.
|
|