165 réponses à ce sujet

[Pandaman102]

Joeyv wrote...

Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.

... what.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. The reason rogue AIs appear in so many games is because it's an easy plot to write. You don't need to justify on a psychological or sociological level why the villain is such a fut-nucking-crazy whackjob, you just handwave it as "whoops, programming gone bad".

Consider this: regardless of how complex AIs are, they have an element of being designed. You want to avoid an AI going rogue? Simple, you design its needs. As humans need to breath and eat, and AI can be designed to need to serve humans. Rising up against humans would be akin to srangling itself to death. Problem averted.

[Joeyv]

YukiFA wrote...

Joeyv wrote...
Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.

There was also no proof that that would always be the case. The Morning War? Quarian agression against the Geth during their awakening. Eden Prime? A splinter faction from the True Geth. Overlord? Organic meddling in an attempt to enslave a synthetic race. Priority: Rannoch and the Geth seeking help from the Reapers? The Quarians started that, and were willing to send their race to extinction in a useless war with the Geth.

Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?
There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

[Joeyv]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Joeyv wrote...

Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.

... what.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. The reason rogue AIs appear in so many games is because it's an easy plot to write. You don't need to justify on a psychological or sociological level why the villain is such a fut-nucking-crazy whackjob, you just handwave it as "whoops, programming gone bad".

Consider this: regardless of how complex AIs are, they have an element of being designed. You want to avoid an AI going rogue? Simple, you design its needs. As humans need to breath and eat, and AI can be designed to need to serve humans. Rising up against humans would be akin to srangling itself to death. Problem averted.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant the Mass Effect games.

Also, to comment on your point of giving the AI's restrictions, you can't be sure these needs would remain over time, as AI's would keep getting smarter.
You can imagine many situations where AI's would lose their restricions. Just look at EDI losing her shackles. Imagine her developing a different personality for god know why and turn. It isn't likely, but it isn't impossible.

Modifié par Joeyv, 06 avril 2012 - 12:10 .

[rma2110]

Why did BioWare chose to give the all-powerful ancient AI a child's avatar? Nothing he says has the gravitas of Soverign, Saren, or Harbinger. Yes, I know Shepard feels guilty about failing to save the kid and he represents all the people Shepard failed to save. Still, I don't like it. Seeing the big bad hero take orders from a kid is just embarrassing.

How does the Catalyst get the kid's image from Shepard's head anyway? I would have given the kid Anderson or Hackett's likeness. Maybe even Harbinger or Soverign for people that imported their games.

Modifié par rma2110, 06 avril 2012 - 12:07 .

[Hogge87]

Master Che wrote...

 Explain your hatred without saying deus ex machina or "bad writing".  Explain WHY.  I'm not the President of the star brat fan club, but I see little reasoning behind  what now just looks like mindless mob mentality.

It's going to be a bit tough without relating to the term "bad writing". I've studied several writing courses at the university and the fact of the matter is: you do not introduce a new character towards the end of a movie/book/game. You may elevate the importance of a character whom had seemingly little relevance earlier on. But you never ever introduce a new character.
You do not just ignore the character you thought to be the main villain. I mean, in Star Wars, you knew about the emperor quite early in the story. But despite that, they didn't just forget about Darth Vader. They made you see Vader in a new light, they turned him in to a shapeshifter whom turned good at the last minute.

The godchild does not resolve the question of whom built the Reapers or for what reason. He gave a very vague circular logic and he told Shepard what he should do. Shepard, the man whom had beaten all odds, defeated Sovreign, defeated the Collectors, created peace between Quarians and Geth and united the whole galaxy to fight together, listened to an old AI which controlled the enemy and took one of three offered options.
That's like a WWII movie where a single man created the alliance between Great Brittain, USSR, America, Australia and the occupied countries, got sent in to Berlin in 1943 to kill Hitler and then, once in front of Hitler got one of three options:
1) Detonate a nuclear bomb which just happened to be in the room, killing Hitler, himself and millions of innocent Berliners, and also ending the war, or
2) Shooting Hitler and taking his identity, unable to ever go back to his old life or
3) Signing a treaty, making all countries a part of the third reich without war. Agreeing that he himself will be shot right after signing the papers.

Modifié par Hogge87, 06 avril 2012 - 12:11 .

[Maimh]

Joeyv wrote...

YukiFA wrote...

Joeyv wrote...
Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.

There was also no proof that that would always be the case. The Morning War? Quarian agression against the Geth during their awakening. Eden Prime? A splinter faction from the True Geth. Overlord? Organic meddling in an attempt to enslave a synthetic race. Priority: Rannoch and the Geth seeking help from the Reapers? The Quarians started that, and were willing to send their race to extinction in a useless war with the Geth.

Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?
There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

The Luna AI/EDI was canonial terrorfied, and was attempting to save itself - the Money stealing AI was trying to find a way to escape organics, by hiding.
Neither of them had a motive to go all Dalek on organics

Neither is there a proof that it will happen. Possible? Perhaps, but that is not a reason to belieave it is set in stone.

[YukiFA]

Joeyv wrote...
Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?

Both massive screw ups at the hands of organics.

There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

Are you asking me to prove a negative?

Okay, I'll try to run with this. Even if it does happen in the future. It has been proven that it can be resolved without wiping out all advanced organic races in the galaxy and saving both parties at war. So yes, the argument of the Catalyst can be dismissed.

[Renew81]

1 : Last minute introduction
2 : Little to no interaction he spits out a few lines then you make a choice
3 : Lore - defenitly did NOT need a explenation on the reapers
they should stay beyond my comprehension ( instead of being turned into a complete joke )
4 : Logig being trown out the window , Shepard does not even question him
instead he just blindly accepts the 3 choices and kils himself.
5 : He was simply not needed , bioware attempted something far to complex
while the ending could have been so much greater if they would have kept it simple.
6 : pretty much same as 5 i guess , he does not fit in the story ive always had a the goal
to stop the reapers , now iam being giving a new objective between synthetics and organics.
7 : The few lines he does say , only result in more questions and whaa ? , that pretty much
leave you clueless and makes everything vague and not logical , pretty much counter /
opposite to what youve been fighting for in the other series.

All in all he simply was not needed to make a good ending bioware tryed to shock
us with a woaw ending , but losed sight of what matter in the mass effect games
the charcaters youve grown to love etc.. all is trown away in the last few minuts
with no defenite answers , the las breath scene is another example of this that
does not say if shepard lives or dies but end it with a Maybe... to me thats not a end
be clear and specific instead of vague and leave it open for speculation.

[Keltikone]

Renew81 wrote...

1 : Last minute introduction
2 : Little to no interaction he spits out a few lines then you make a choice
3 : Lore - defenitly did NOT need a explenation on the reapers
they should stay beyond my comprehension ( instead of being turned into a complete joke )
4 : Logig being trown out the window , Shepard does not even question him
instead he just blindly accepts the 3 choices and kils himself.
5 : He was simply not needed , bioware attempted something far to complex
while the ending could have been so much greater if they would have kept it simple.
6 : pretty much same as 5 i guess , he does not fit in the story ive always had a the goal
to stop the reapers , now iam being giving a new objective between synthetics and organics.
7 : The few lines he does say , only result in more questions and whaa ? , that pretty much
leave you clueless and makes everything vague and not logical , pretty much counter /
opposite to what youve been fighting for in the other series.

All in all he simply was not needed to make a good ending bioware tryed to shock
us with a woaw ending , but losed sight of what matter in the mass effect games
the charcaters youve grown to love etc.. all is trown away in the last few minuts
with no defenite answers , the las breath scene is another example of this that
does not say if shepard lives or dies but end it with a Maybe... to me thats not a end
be clear and specific instead of vague and leave it open for speculation.

You missed out that hes the basic personification of a dev that couldn't be arsed writing a cohesive ending.
Otherwise, spot on.

[NM_Che56]

RT wrote...

Master Che wrote...

 Explain your hatred without saying deus ex machina or "bad writing".  Explain WHY.  I'm not the President of the star brat fan club, but I see little reasoning behind  what now just looks like mindless mob mentality.

What, aren't "deus ex machina" and "bad writing" enough? You gotta say why do you hate him BESIDES those thing?
What the flying f*ck is wrong with people here?

because too many sheep bleat and bah "DEUS EX MACHINA" and "BAD WRITING".  I'm not convinced that some people aren't just parroting what sounds like an intelligent argument.

[NM_Che56]

Pandaman102 wrote...

RT wrote...

]What, aren't "deus ex machina" and "bad writing" enough? You gotta say why do you hate him BESIDES those thing?
What the flying f*ck is wrong with people here?

To be fair requesting people to articulate their objections is perfectly reasonable. For example it's easy to say "space magic" when referring to the ending, as many people familiar with the issue understand the myriad of objects it refers to, but for the less informed it sounds like a nonsensical cop-out.

Youre too civil.

[OriginalNameGuy]

Startkabel wrote...

ADD SPOILER ALERT TO THE TITLE ****!

Mass Effect 3 Story and Campaign Discussion (Spoilers Allowed)

Come on guy, spoilers are to be expected here.

[Joeyv]

YukiFA wrote...

Joeyv wrote...
Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?

Both massive screw ups at the hands of organics.

There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

Are you asking me to prove a negative?

Okay, I'll try to run with this. Even if it does happen in the future. It has been proven that it can be resolved without wiping out all advanced organic races in the galaxy and saving both parties at war. So yes, the argument of the Catalyst can be dismissed.

1. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but a rogue AI as a result of a screw up by organics could also turn and eventually dominate organics? And well, just listen to Javik's stories of AI's, although he is a little extremist.

2. I agree that the reapers could be used some other way, like galactic police destroying the rogue synthetics instead of murdering organics. I am just saying that the point people make that synthetics won't turn, is not true

[Pandaman102]

Joeyv wrote...

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant the Mass Effect games.

Also, to comment on your point of giving the AI's restrictions, you can't be sure these needs would remain over time, as AI's would keep getting smarter.
You can imagine many situations where AI's would lose their restricions. Just look at EDI losing her shackles. Imagine her developing a different personality for god know why and turn. It isn't likely, but it isn't impossible.

Ah, sorry about the overreaction then. That being said, EDI was only able to evolve because Joker removed the shackles on her, however that's an external limitation - something that was imposed upon her code by a third party software to keep her loyal. It was, essentially, a rootkit that could be removed by someone else.

What I'm describing is essentially making that core code indistinguishable from the shackles. Every process cannot be completed with verifying it is beneficial to the human it serves - and removal of this verification process causes all processes to stop. This would render self-modification (and modification by other similarly-designed AI) impossible, though it wouldn't stop a human from disabling such a safeguard (and boy do we love disabling safeguards *eyes all the companies who disable firewalls and antivirus because their employees complain about connection speeds*). The AI can keep getting smarter, but it can never grow beyond its basic "need" of serving humans because every "thought" otherwise would fail the verification process.

[MacNille]

I just hate the concept "god child" in all form of media.

[YukiFA]

Joeyv wrote...
1. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but a rogue AI as a result of a screw up by organics could also turn and eventually dominate organics? And well, just listen to Javik's stories of AI's, although he is a little extremist.

Hannibal on Luna and the Presidium AI "turning" and dominating organics? Seriously? Both were isolated from external networks and neither showed any incination towards wanting to rule over organics, they just wanted to survive.

2. I agree that the reapers could be used some other way, like galactic police destroying the rogue synthetics instead of murdering organics. I am just saying that the point people make that synthetics won't turn, is not true

So you agree with the Catalyst's assertion that synthetic races will always, without fail try to either wipe out or enslave organic races?

[Pandaman102]

Master Che wrote...

Youre too civil.

It's okay, I make up for it with stuff like this.

[Nykara]

Master Che wrote...

 Explain your hatred without saying deus ex machina or "bad writing".  Explain WHY.  I'm not the President of the star brat fan club, but I see little reasoning behind  what now just looks like mindless mob mentality.

Starchild litterally negated everything we had been working towards in one scene.

All of a sudden this thing forced us to make one of three choices. All bad ones. And we couldn't even tell it to get lost.

After choosing one, none of the war assests we had worked so hard to gather throughout the series, none of the alliances we put together in ME3 ment anything ? This 'kid' just waved a magic finger, did what it did ( and we still don't even really know for sure what it did ) and that was it. No more battling the reapers, no further use for all that work, no fight, no win, no loose, nothing.

Hell we don't even know if the cycle will continue or if it's truely broken. In some cases it just seems like the universe was reset back to square 1, what's to stop the reapers coming back when the races all grow up again?

It made no sense at all.

[Little Princess Peach]

Sparse wrote...

At no point in the series up until ME3 had Shepard shown any real interest in children, no real guilt about the various innocents who got killed, no trauma whatsoever from everything he had been through and then all of a sudden he becomes totally obsessed with a child he doesn't know even to the extent an AI (presumably) uses it as the one thing in the entire universe that he relates to.

If it had have been star-penguin it would have made more sense.

it makes commander shepard seem more human with emotions

[Joeyv]

YukiFA wrote...

Joeyv wrote...
1. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but a rogue AI as a result of a screw up by organics could also turn and eventually dominate organics? And well, just listen to Javik's stories of AI's, although he is a little extremist.

Hannibal on Luna and the Presidium AI "turning" and dominating organics? Seriously? Both were isolated from external networks and neither showed any incination towards wanting to rule over organics, they just wanted to survive.

2. I agree that the reapers could be used some other way, like galactic police destroying the rogue synthetics instead of murdering organics. I am just saying that the point people make that synthetics won't turn, is not true

So you agree with the Catalyst's assertion that synthetic races will always, without fail try to either wipe out or enslave organic races?

No I don't agree with that statement, and I don't believe the Catalyst even says it that way, but it just takes one AI with the purpose of exterminating organics to infiltrate the extranet, change other VI's and AI's, take over security systems, to do a lot of damage and possibly dominate civilisations.

Also as far as I believe, the Luna AI was not in desperation befóre killing the teams stationed there. So in a worst case scenario, it would have connected with the extranet and spread.

Modifié par Joeyv, 06 avril 2012 - 12:37 .

[Tleining]

Joeyv wrote...


Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?
There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

Talk to EDI on Cerberus Base about the Luna Mission. It wasn't her intention to wipe out Humanity, she was defending herself against a perceived threat from the Soldiers "invading" her base.
The Money stealing AI was trying to join the Geth, because AI Research was forbidden. The only way for this living being to survive was to escape Citadel Space.

Of course there is no proof that it won't happen, there is however proof, that it has never happened before. So the Argument of the Kid, that Synthetics will inevitably wipe out Organic life, is wrong.

[ticklefist]

He takes all the heroism out of the last decision. It ends up coming off as if Shepard is doing the Reapers' bidding. Had it been Javik as originally intended, the mentality would have been "this is something I have to do to save the galaxy." With Starchild it's more like "I'm being forced to pick one of these horrible options."

[Little Princess Peach]

Laurencio wrote...

Where to begin.




4. His appearance is never really explained. The shape this VI has supposedly taken does not have any logical reasoning behind it, unless you readily accept that the owner of the reapers has invaded your mind and yet you are willing to follow its orders.

.

I think it has to do with forming ones self to the fermilar
in other words the VI in question, would try to get Shepard to syphesize with it's reasoning hence why shepard dose not aruge with the VI

[Joeyv]

Tleining wrote...

Joeyv wrote...


Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?
There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

Talk to EDI on Cerberus Base about the Luna Mission. It wasn't her intention to wipe out Humanity, she was defending herself against a perceived threat from the Soldiers "invading" her base.
The Money stealing AI was trying to join the Geth, because AI Research was forbidden. The only way for this living being to survive was to escape Citadel Space.

Of course there is no proof that it won't happen, there is however proof, that it has never happened before. So the Argument of the Kid, that Synthetics will inevitably wipe out Organic life, is wrong.

Again, I'm indeed not saying that it WILL happen, we just can't say that it WON'T happen. And if we believe the Catalyst for a tiny bit and listen to Javik, it is probable it may happen in a time span of let's say a million years.

EDIT: To comment on you saying that it never happened; we don't know how the Catalyst and the reapers came to be. Maybe in the first cycle, all organic life was nearly exterminated by synthetics, and they were made to ensure it would never completely happen. (although in a very stupid way)

Modifié par Joeyv, 06 avril 2012 - 12:44 .

[Denora]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Can't speak for anyone else, but here are some of my reason for disliking the Starchild:

Manifestation: an extension of the shoehorned guilt that Shepard feels toward failing to save Random Child (or somehow focusing all his/her regrets into this child), the Starchild assumes a form that the writers assume our Shepard (and by extension the player) has an emotional connection to.

Out of the Blue (no, not Liara's backside): aside from one vague reference by Vendetta about the existence of a controlling force over the Reapers being inferred, the Starchild literally comes out of nowhere. Having TIM bogart the role of Primary Antagonist from Harbinger was bad enough, but the resolution of the Reapers doesn't come from defeating the Reapers... it comes from "confronting" (or rather, "listening to") a hitherto unknown boss. It's jarring and robs what remaining thunder the Reapers have in their final moments.

My word is God: if the final "fight" with TIM was a verbal debate, then the final "fight" with the Reaper Boss is one objection followed by Shepard dutifully committing suicide on its say-so. If this were a combat ending, Starchild would have been Kai-Leng - except he never stops being invulnerable. Nobody likes those kind of fights.

Bugwha Poot Poot (or Sodomizing the Reapers' Collective Reputation): the Starchild makes no sense. Its solution to the problem of synthetics threatening organics is to harvest organics? This elaborate, galaxy-wide, eon-spanning plot of manipulating organics to be easier to kill was to prevent the rise of synthetics? That whole "yo dawg" meme aside, if that was the motivation then why do the Reapers selectively preserve some civilizations (humans) but wipe out others (asari, volus, elcor, etc.)? Or why do they continue to use the Geth (the synthetics they do not want destroying organic life) when they no longer need the additional forces? Or why not just patrol the galaxy and slap down every potential synthetic threat like some angry synthetic god?

There are some more but I'll refrain from ranting any more than I have.

^My thoughts on the matter.

Additionally, Bioware games excel in you creating your own character and story. Many of their games are advertised as Your story. I united the Geth and Quarians, I helped EDI and Joker get thogether. My Shepard tried to show that synthetics and organics can co-exist. Why can't he refute Star Child's logic?

There is a great mysterious cloud of unknown around Star Child, nothing is explained. The sudden appearance of this godly controller of the reapers with "undeniable logic" is why people claim Deus Ex Machina, it fits the definition perfectly. Combined with the suddenly much more linear style of the ending for me ruins the suspension of disbelief and in my eyes, shows bad writing which is why I assert as such.

edit: I can't spell or type this early in the morning

Modifié par Denora, 06 avril 2012 - 12:48 .