Manton-X2 wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I shall, it's nice and shiny too!
You're not right in the head ..... I like you.
I don't know if I should take that as a compliment or an insult...
Either way, I like smiley faces in the end.
I challenge those who hate the ending to read this
Débuté par
sp0ck 06
, avril 19 2012 04:04
#851
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 08:58
LinksOcarina
-
- Members
- 6 514 messages
I don't know if I should take that as a compliment or an insult...
Either way, I like smiley faces in the end.
Retour en haut
#852
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 09:05
Kushan101
-
- Members
- 230 messages
Its a well written article, and the guy has done his homework about various scientific theories. But the fact that he needs to read THAT MUCH into the ending and make far more "leaps of faith" than the indoctrination theory ever needed to tells me that the ending failed.
The ending was badly delivered, regardless of what it was trying to achieve. But, to the authors credit, he does kinda say this at the start.
The ending was badly delivered, regardless of what it was trying to achieve. But, to the authors credit, he does kinda say this at the start.
#853
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 09:11
Bellarmine360
-
- Members
- 46 messages
Plot holes and lies for the win....... yea ......
Modifié par Bellarmine360, 22 avril 2012 - 06:46 .
#854
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 09:56
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
^ That wall of overused pictures has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread.
#855
Posté 22 avril 2012 - 05:21
tractrpl
-
- Members
- 1 271 messages
'Twas a good read. It seemed logical and well-thought out. However, I have some reservations concerning it. First of all, the "grey goo" scenario can easily be extended to humans. If we continue to reproduce, or self-replicate, at our current rate, we could easily destroy all life on earth not related to keeping humans fed. Then, if we leave this earth, we will do the same to other planets, potentially destroying all life not related to keeping us fed.
However, the above scenario discounts the fact that not all humans have a need to have 9-14 children in a clutch. Recently, people in most countries have been having between 1-3 kids, or none at all. If this continues and extends to all countries, human population will actually decline, unless we find a cure for old age and the problem reappears again, in which case perhaps people will decide not to have children at all for the most part.
Now here's the rub, the synthetic grey goo argument assumes that machines are not really alive in the organic sense of the word. They self-replicate without thinking about why they're self-replicating, indicating they're not really sentient. This is rubbish. We're talking about synthetic intelligences. If a synthetic intelligent is truly a logical and sentient being, then it would a) limit its self-replicating, just as humans are currently apparently trying to do, and
find a way to self-replicate and live their lives without over-straining their environment, just as humans are currently trying to do and *might* one day succeed. If they succeed, then these synthetics might not only be able to prevent any other synthetic grey goo from becoming a problem, but defeat any that arise.
This is really my only issue with the ending, this logic that they must kill us to prevent us from launching the grey goo. Every other part of the ending is ok with me for the most part, honestly.
However, the above scenario discounts the fact that not all humans have a need to have 9-14 children in a clutch. Recently, people in most countries have been having between 1-3 kids, or none at all. If this continues and extends to all countries, human population will actually decline, unless we find a cure for old age and the problem reappears again, in which case perhaps people will decide not to have children at all for the most part.
Now here's the rub, the synthetic grey goo argument assumes that machines are not really alive in the organic sense of the word. They self-replicate without thinking about why they're self-replicating, indicating they're not really sentient. This is rubbish. We're talking about synthetic intelligences. If a synthetic intelligent is truly a logical and sentient being, then it would a) limit its self-replicating, just as humans are currently apparently trying to do, and
find a way to self-replicate and live their lives without over-straining their environment, just as humans are currently trying to do and *might* one day succeed. If they succeed, then these synthetics might not only be able to prevent any other synthetic grey goo from becoming a problem, but defeat any that arise.This is really my only issue with the ending, this logic that they must kill us to prevent us from launching the grey goo. Every other part of the ending is ok with me for the most part, honestly.
#856
Posté 22 avril 2012 - 05:33
DJBare
-
- Members
- 6 510 messages
I can fill every plot hole in the game, I can even get a square peg into a round hole, just hand me a sledge hammer.
#857
Posté 22 avril 2012 - 05:40
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
I prefer my video game endings to stick with the story within them rather than to need to be defended by several pages of theory that may or may not apply.
The very fact that in ME3 alone we are treated to several stories that totally contradict the idea that the created will always rebel against (and thus destroy) the creator makes the ending and the story not match up.
I can make up or use any number of theories to fill the plot holes, but in so doing I am merely speculating. And all the explanations have to add up to a great story ending. Even if I add in all the astrobiology theories that may add some semblance of sense to the ending (I don't believe this by the way), the story stinks from the point where Shepard gets hit by the reaper beam on.
If I want a Kafka-esque ending, I'd prefer to have been reading/playing a Kafka-esque story all along.
Let me put it another way. How about I fill all those holes with my conjecture that they are really saying the only decent sentient life is synthetic, so I think it's a treatise on making intelligent Barbies. And, instead of this ending as it is what they have is a race of Barbies getting off of the Normandy at the end. And all of a sudden all the Barbies start to do Barbie-aerobics.
I know the people that try and say this ending makes sense when they fill all the holes and all would hate a Barbie ending, but that's what this ending feels like to many of us now. It is so disconnected from the games we have played-it does not play the same, it does not act the same, it falls off a cliff, it actually dumbs down the game. The subject of this thread actually tries to use some extremely intelligent theories in order to explain something that has been dumbed down. It isn't a well-thought out treatise on all the theories presented as posited in the opinion the OP cited. It does not rise to that level of thought. I will say that I could actually take it if it played out as some intellectual passion play, but it does not. It is 14 lines of text (perhaps) that would have a very hard time trying to pose as some commentary on even one minor work of Stephen Hawkings, let alone whole schools of thought.
The very fact that in ME3 alone we are treated to several stories that totally contradict the idea that the created will always rebel against (and thus destroy) the creator makes the ending and the story not match up.
I can make up or use any number of theories to fill the plot holes, but in so doing I am merely speculating. And all the explanations have to add up to a great story ending. Even if I add in all the astrobiology theories that may add some semblance of sense to the ending (I don't believe this by the way), the story stinks from the point where Shepard gets hit by the reaper beam on.
If I want a Kafka-esque ending, I'd prefer to have been reading/playing a Kafka-esque story all along.
Let me put it another way. How about I fill all those holes with my conjecture that they are really saying the only decent sentient life is synthetic, so I think it's a treatise on making intelligent Barbies. And, instead of this ending as it is what they have is a race of Barbies getting off of the Normandy at the end. And all of a sudden all the Barbies start to do Barbie-aerobics.
I know the people that try and say this ending makes sense when they fill all the holes and all would hate a Barbie ending, but that's what this ending feels like to many of us now. It is so disconnected from the games we have played-it does not play the same, it does not act the same, it falls off a cliff, it actually dumbs down the game. The subject of this thread actually tries to use some extremely intelligent theories in order to explain something that has been dumbed down. It isn't a well-thought out treatise on all the theories presented as posited in the opinion the OP cited. It does not rise to that level of thought. I will say that I could actually take it if it played out as some intellectual passion play, but it does not. It is 14 lines of text (perhaps) that would have a very hard time trying to pose as some commentary on even one minor work of Stephen Hawkings, let alone whole schools of thought.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 22 avril 2012 - 05:42 .
#859
Posté 24 avril 2012 - 09:53
Mobius-Silent
-
- Members
- 651 messages
Have read article, was far from impressed. Contemplated writing long and rambling rebuttal, decided it was not worth my time, author had already wasted enough of that. Overall article created feeling of vague annoyance, would not recommend.
Suddenly sound like Mordin....*sniff* Unexpected
Suddenly sound like Mordin....*sniff* Unexpected
