6494 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

What about Blade Runner then?

We cannot make a robot so sophisticated that it believes it is human, no satisfactory explanation is given for how they are made, but not many people would say that stops them enjoying it

That is what I don't understand; this view that these 'flaws' are even worth mentioning or discussing

Take one part super processor, one part high  learning processing, add a part of humanistic reactions that come up due to though a as numeric instincts(if unit eat;s cake, unit engages in "happy"), and for the final ingredient fake memories.

It you don't think it's impossible now, I bid you to take a look at the robotics community now. They are able to use rat brains as a robot processor..... All we need if better technical building of the bodies and they could look human.

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

What about Blade Runner then?

We cannot make a robot so sophisticated that it believes it is human, no satisfactory explanation is given for how they are made, but not many people would say that stops them enjoying it

That is what I don't understand; this view that these 'flaws' are even worth mentioning or discussing

The existence of the "replicants" is a necessary element -- the necessary element -- for telling the story the author wanted to tell.  They're not just there to be kewl. 

No, but they are super soldier badasses to be cool. In the book, they were completely normal. The movie turned them into combat monsters to be cool.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

What about Blade Runner then?

We cannot make a robot so sophisticated that it believes it is human, no satisfactory explanation is given for how they are made, but not many people would say that stops them enjoying it

That is what I don't understand; this view that these 'flaws' are even worth mentioning or discussing

The existence of the "replicants" is a necessary element -- the necessary element -- for telling the story the author wanted to tell.  They're not just there to be kewl. 

One can puch through walls, another is a crazy robo ninja...... That not part of the rule of cool?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Sajuro, stop trolling. Star Wars is comprised of nothing else but rule of cool. Almost nothing in there makes any sense, sci fi or otherwise, except to be gorgeous on screen. About your first example, I didn't read it, but to say that a fantasy novel is not comprised of rule of cool is laughable.

On Star Wars, it's pretty much all cinematic and mythological, it's straight up  space fantasy.  It's not all "rule of kewl", some of the elements introduced are simply necessary to tell the story that Lucas and crew wanted to tell. 

If you think that all fantasy novels are nothing but "rule of kewl", then you either need to read more, or don't really understand what the "rule of kewl" actually says or means. 

Dude, Arkitekt asked for examples, and Star Wars was provided. Lightsabers are a perfect example of the very thing you are complaining about. They exist because they freaking rule, not because there is a viable scientific explanation for a sword made of refracted energy inexplicably ending around 3 or so feet beyond the hilt. Same thing with the Trench Run, which he also referenced directly.

It is NOT all cinematic and mythological, and he explains several direct examples which you conveniently ignore. This is exactly why this inane argument keeps going on, is because the naysayers just refuse to acknowedge that Mass Effect 2 did nothing that other great Sci-Fi has done for that last Century. It asks those who watch/play/read it to buy in to implausible events.

VERY rarely do you get anything close to an ultra-realistic portrayal of real life science in Science Fiction, and there is simply no rational reason why the resurrection plot device is your stumbling block for enjoying the premise of the game. 

Or maybe the thread is moving so fast that I missed a post? 

I would never use Star Wars as an example of science fiction, it's space fantasy, with wizards and starships.  

When I said "cimematic and mythological", I wasn't defending Star Wars as an example of a work that avoids the "rule of kewl", I was dismissing it as an example.  It's full of elements that exist to look good on screen and get a WOW from the audience.  Of course, it never pretends to be anything else, and it's good at what it does. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

What about Blade Runner then?

We cannot make a robot so sophisticated that it believes it is human, no satisfactory explanation is given for how they are made, but not many people would say that stops them enjoying it

That is what I don't understand; this view that these 'flaws' are even worth mentioning or discussing

The existence of the "replicants" is a necessary element -- the necessary element -- for telling the story the author wanted to tell.  They're not just there to be kewl. 

One can puch through walls, another is a crazy robo ninja...... That not part of the rule of cool?

No, because those capabilities don't exceed physical plausibility, are part of the established abilities of the replicants (one's a combat model, another is an entertainment model, etc), and so on.  Those superlative capabilties are intertwined with some of the questions being asked by the story. 

[Phaelducan]

They do exceed the capacities of the characters as originally created. They were "upgraded" purely for the wow factor so Decker (more specifically Harrison Ford) would seem cooler in defeating them.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...
They do exceed the capacities of the characters as originally created. They were "upgraded" purely for the wow factor so Decker (more specifically Harrison Ford) would seem cooler in defeating them.

Do you have a reference to the director or an actor from the film stating this? 

( Spoiler: 

Never mind that Decker does not defeat Roy... )

[TobyHasEyes]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

What about Blade Runner then?

We cannot make a robot so sophisticated that it believes it is human, no satisfactory explanation is given for how they are made, but not many people would say that stops them enjoying it

That is what I don't understand; this view that these 'flaws' are even worth mentioning or discussing

The existence of the "replicants" is a necessary element -- the necessary element -- for telling the story the author wanted to tell.  They're not just there to be kewl. 

 Think I came into this debate at a wrong point; I thought  the mention of lightsabers was trying to counter the view  that the presence of something scientifically implausible (or unexplained) ruins a sci-fi story

 My point then was that many well regarded examples of the sci-fi genre include unexplained science, so I do not see why the unexplained science of the Lazarus Project would be an issue to anyone

 But I appreciate that you may have been discussing a different point

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

What about Blade Runner then?

We cannot make a robot so sophisticated that it believes it is human, no satisfactory explanation is given for how they are made, but not many people would say that stops them enjoying it

That is what I don't understand; this view that these 'flaws' are even worth mentioning or discussing

The existence of the "replicants" is a necessary element -- the necessary element -- for telling the story the author wanted to tell.  They're not just there to be kewl. 

One can puch through walls, another is a crazy robo ninja...... That not part of the rule of cool?

No, because those capabilities don't exceed physical plausibility, are part of the established abilities of the replicants (one's a combat model, another is an entertainment model, etc), and so on.  Those superlative capabilties are intertwined with some of the questions being asked by the story. 

So....you can punch through walls? I doesn't matter if it not beyond  physical plausibility. The fact remains that they still makes the character look spectacular. The rule of cool is not about doing the impossible, it's about looking interesting. Like In batman begins and Dark knight. They made batman as human as possible, never exceeding human capabilities, but he still looked cool.

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
They do exceed the capacities of the characters as originally created. They were "upgraded" purely for the wow factor so Decker (more specifically Harrison Ford) would seem cooler in defeating them.

Do you have a reference to the director or an actor from the film stating this? 

( Spoiler: 

Never mind that Decker does not defeat Roy... )

Are you serious? In the book Roy is middle-aged, overweight, and no physical threat at all. In the movie he punches through walls and nearly kills Decker. Why do you need a quote explaining an obvious difference?

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

What about Blade Runner then?

We cannot make a robot so sophisticated that it believes it is human, no satisfactory explanation is given for how they are made, but not many people would say that stops them enjoying it

That is what I don't understand; this view that these 'flaws' are even worth mentioning or discussing

The existence of the "replicants" is a necessary element -- the necessary element -- for telling the story the author wanted to tell.  They're not just there to be kewl. 

One can puch through walls, another is a crazy robo ninja...... That not part of the rule of cool?

No, because those capabilities don't exceed physical plausibility, are part of the established abilities of the replicants (one's a combat model, another is an entertainment model, etc), and so on.  Those superlative capabilties are intertwined with some of the questions being asked by the story. 

So....you can punch through walls? I doesn't matter if it not beyond  physical plausibility. The fact remains that they still makes the character look spectacular. The rule of cool is not about doing the impossible, it's about looking interesting. Like In batman begins and Dark knight. They made batman as human as possible, never exceeding human capabilities, but he still looked cool.

The rule of cool is about excusing the impossible or implausible or inconsistent simply and only because what's being questioned is "really awesome" -- "It's cooler for cars to blow up when their bumpers tap, so never mind that cars are built with all sorts of features to keep them from exploding."    

"The limit of the willing suspension of disbelief for a given element is directly proportional to the element's awesomeness. "  


Given what some real people can do, it's plausible that an artificial person could be made able to punch through a wall, etc.  And more importantly, artitificial people with superlative capabilities are necessary for the story that is being told in that movie.  The replicants are not gratuitous.

The "rule of kewl" comes down to "gratuitous for the sake of awesome". 

[squee365]

Why should anyone be talking about this jerk's "analysis" of an unfinished story? Mass Effect was concieved as a trilogy.

People are amazing, they can really capture an amazing amount of attention just by being stupid. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
They do exceed the capacities of the characters as originally created. They were "upgraded" purely for the wow factor so Decker (more specifically Harrison Ford) would seem cooler in defeating them.

Do you have a reference to the director or an actor from the film stating this? 

( Spoiler: 

Never mind that Decker does not defeat Roy... )

Are you serious? In the book Roy is middle-aged, overweight, and no physical threat at all. In the movie he punches through walls and nearly kills Decker. Why do you need a quote explaining an obvious difference?

Chill.  I haven't read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? since I was in middle school... that was about 25 years ago. 

My point stands regarding the movie Bladerunner.  The replicants and their depiction are entirely coherent and non-gratuitous within the context of the movie and its story. 

[Phaelducan]

Fine, but they, were changed from their original form just to be awesome. They weren't military grade, they were just normal. That didn't jive with test-markets, so they were changed to be killing machines with no justification from the original story other than that it was cooler. No explanation for the change, they just did it to add excitement.

To compare it to ME2 (which in all fairness wasn't adapted, it's an original work), the death was done as a device to add drama, excitement, and take the protagonist out of his situation from the first game. The explanation was given in game for his resurrection, and whether you like the explanation or not, it was at least given. If you don't buy it, fine, but then maybe you aren't really being fair and impartial to the genre as a whole. Sci-fi is rampant with this stuff, and in the case of ME2 it really wasn't just to be cool. It also served the narrative.

[Killjoy Cutter]

squee365 wrote...

Why should anyone be talking about this jerk's "analysis" of an unfinished story? Mass Effect was concieved as a trilogy.

People are amazing, they can really capture an amazing amount of attention just by being stupid. 

Ironically, the thread would hardly be mentioning him at this point if it weren't for people coming in and posting rants about how there shouldn't be a thread about him.   We've moved on. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

aznricepuff wrote...
They have one IFF. If they mount it on a probe and lose it...they're kind of screwed (and there's multiple ways they could've lost it even without defenses shooting at it, and in that case they would've screwed themselves for no good reason).

The IFF will either work or not.Wwhat will happen once you're in is anyones guess.
But it's ALWAYS better to loose a probe rather than loose a expensive ship with people.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...
Fine, but they, were changed from their original form just to be awesome. They weren't military grade, they were just normal. That didn't jive with test-markets, so they were changed to be killing machines with no justification from the original story other than that it was cooler. No explanation for the change, they just did it to add excitement.

It would be nice to have a reference as to why that change was made from the book. 

Phaelducan wrote...
To compare it to ME2 (which in all fairness wasn't adapted, it's an original work), the death was done as a device to add drama, excitement, and take the protagonist out of his situation from the first game. The explanation was given in game for his resurrection, and whether you like the explanation or not, it was at least given. If you don't buy it, fine, but then maybe you aren't really being fair and impartial to the genre as a whole. Sci-fi is rampant with this stuff, and in the case of ME2 it really wasn't just to be cool. It also served the narrative.

The attack, death, and resurection sequence simply wasn't necessary to the narative of ME2.  Give a chance to rewatch the opening and less than an hour, and I could achieve the same effect and get to the same point, without any of the holes and questions.   

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mesina2 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

So...Liara using her unexplained space magic to make sense of the gibberish inside Shepard's head that was somehow imprinted in his brain instead of messing it all up as it wasn't meant for his species to use the Prothean beacons because he had a "strong" mind, just to locate a backdoor into the Citadel is "credible" science?

Ha.

No, that's crap too IMHO. But it works, makes some sense within the plot and I moved past it, hoping no more crap will be thrown at me.

So when Mass Effect 1 does it's not bad writing, but when Mass Effect 2 does it's bad writing?

No, it's bad writing either way (instances of bad writing appear practicly everywhere)
Only ME2 has a lot more of it.
There is no perfection, but there are degrees of writing.

This is the first time and list time I will ever reply to you.

A terrible loss for the human race, I'm sure....

[LeVaughnX]

I have absolutely no respect for Smudboy and his immaturity. I saw his videos once and I tried to point out in the comments and in a personal message why he was wrong with many things. Not only did he call me all sorts of names (Most of which would get you banned here) but when I asked him why he got so hostile he called me more names then blocked my account on youtube.

The kid is unstable and very opinionated. He doesn't just share his feelings, he seems to "expect" you to feel the same and its kind of rude.

Now I know not everyone will agree with me but due to my personal experiences with this kid I feel that he mentally has a lot of growing up to do. He didn't seem to have many un-answerable questions; and it mainly felt like I was watching a poorly made hate video...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Yes...because when there's 10 ships shooting at you at point black, your agiltiy will be the wining factor here....

The over-confidence in Normandy and the level of dellusion is amazing....

Okay, do you even know how big that saftey zone is?

It could just be enough wiggle room to get past the debris field and to the Collector base for all you know.

If it's so small, then static, powerfull defenses are even more likely.
This is an argument agaisnt you.

Also, if the IFF didn't work, then I'm fairly sure EDI would've noticed it. People tend to check their equipment before using it. They have tested the IFF. It works.

Really? Who tested it and when?
You can only test if it emitts a signal..not what the relay will do with that signal.
There was no real test made. Only a systems test.

And if the Collector ships were there at point blank range, not only would they endanger their own ships, as there's a debris field there, they would be running the risk of being hit by a ship moving at FTL speeds, which is very dangerous and a completely unnecessary risk.

It's called an exit corridor for a reason.
the bigger the corridor/drift, the more space there is for big collector ships.
The smaller it is, the more deadly any static defense would be.

You're also putting a lot of faith in that nonexistent fleet, which is equally as delusional.

Delusional? It's delusional to jump into reaper controled space wihout recon expecting only one ship.

Humans have 200+ starships and are only space-fearing for a while.
A machine-race that's been space-fearing for millions of years and had acess to resources of an entire galaxy. That had time and ability to build bajjillions of warships....You
think them having a huge amount of ships is a stretch? You're the one
that's dellusional.[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Guldhun2 wrote...

Neither did the Shadow broker, unless he had a hundred IFFs laying around. He did send probes, and they did came back. That they are damaged doesn't matter, they came back is what counts. But don't let me stop you from making no sense.

He recovered the remains of those probes.

But don't let me stop you from grasping at straws for the sake of arguing.

How did he get those remains if they were in the core? The only way to recover them is if they came back trough the relay.... Don't let me stop you from looking like a moron.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...
You even assume that a probe could get past a debris field on its own, while one of the best pilots we know had a hard time maneuvering through it.

"But then we'd know that there's a debris field!"

If the coordinates leads to the galactic core and many ships have tried to go through the relay, then it's pretty easy to figure out that the remains of all those ships might be there somewhere if they were immediately destroyed upon arrival.

And if those remains were pulled in by gravity?
Assume all you want, untill you actually get accurate information you DON'T KNOW.
Assumptions can be a very dangerous thing.

[Weskerr]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


No, it's bad writing either way (instances of bad writing appear practicly everywhere)
Only ME2 has a lot more of it.
There is no perfection, but there are degrees of writing.

If you want to read perfect instances of English writing give Henry James a try I recommend starting with his short story, "The Real Thing." His late works are almost impossible to understand. Video games do not provide the best examples of writing. Just saying.

[aznricepuff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...
They have one IFF. If they mount it on a probe and lose it...they're kind of screwed (and there's multiple ways they could've lost it even without defenses shooting at it, and in that case they would've screwed themselves for no good reason).

The IFF will either work or not.Wwhat will happen once you're in is anyones guess.
But it's ALWAYS better to loose a probe rather than loose a expensive ship with people.

Ok first of all its lose, not loose. Lose is a verb. Loose is an adjective (that has no connection to the verb).

And my point was that Shepard needs to go through the Omega 4 relay to stop the collectors (and also to save his crew). Sending the probe poses too great a risk of losing the IFF (which is their only ticket through the relay). If he doesn't go through, collectors keep abducting colonists and the human reaper gets made (though he doesn't know that second part yet). Under these circumstances, Shepard may understandably conclude that the risk to the Normandy is worth it if he gets a chance to stop the collectors. Besides, everyone that's left on the Normandy knew the risks when they signed on. They knew it could be a one way trip.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dreman9999 wrote...

The normady never had a chance to bombard the ship or destroy it. Horizon they would not be able to attack it, and  when they are on the collector ship, the wanted intell. And destroying the ship would not stop the collectors...They would just build another ship.

WRONG.
They had 2 opportunities. an unupgraded Normandy can take out a fully functional collector cruiser. Don't tell they couldn't take out a LANDED one on Horizon (hint - atmosphere hightens hte destructive power of most weapons), or to cripple it before boarding.

 As for the IFF, the know they are attacking but they don't have a arriving zone for the normandy. Every time a ship comes in   from using a relay they have a location where the ship arrives. A drift. They maybe of the arriving point by many km thus giving the ship a wide area to arrive in after using the mass relay. Using the probes will allow the collectors to narrow it down...... We are literally telling them,"We are going to land over here".......
Also, the SB probes did not reach the core, you need the iff for that, which he did not have.

BS..they already know the drift and capabilities of that relay to a T.
The repaers built it and calibrated it.

And knowing that we know doesn't help the Collectors that much if they don't know when we'll come and what will come trough.