9087 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

The idea that AIs and synthetics are inevitably in conflict pops up several times in ME1.

[Obadiah]

It doesn't matter how nefarious you judge AI, the example of the Geth is that, even in a newly awakened AI, the Quarians were reduced to 99% of their population and lost their planet. Same thing happened with Leviathan.

And in the current cycle Destroy does the exact reverse - AI lose.

The danger of the conflict is amply demonstrated in the game, players just want a different story.

[Farangbaa]

The danger of the conflict is amply demonstrated in the game, players just want a different story.

 

Hallelujah

[AlanC9]

Heck Dragon Age does a credible job of showing us that mages are inherently dangerous.  Both in lore and in presentation. 

 

Though I really hope they don't present some sort of Synthesis as the "answer" there either

 

Sure. IIRC, this is why Gaider said that allowing peace at Rannoch was a mistake. Actually, the whole setup is bad for the theme, since even if the player can't get peace, the war looks like a mistake.

[Reorte]

It doesn't matter how nefarious you judge AI, the example of the Geth is that, even in a newly awakened AI, the Quarians were reduced to 99% of their population and lost their planet. Same thing happened with Leviathan.

And in the current cycle Destroy does the exact reverse - AI lose.

The danger of the conflict is amply demonstrated in the game, players just want a different story.

Players want a convincing story. Just because it states something as fact doesn't make it acceptable fact even if it's in a fictional universe, it needs to convince me that it's plausible fact. The AI inevitability doesn't do that, and never will no matter how many examples it gives since when you're making the whole thing up proof by example proves nothing. It needs some good logic to demonstrate that we're not simply getting the author's prejudices presented as fact.

[AlanC9]

Meaning that the danger is proven but the inevitability is not, right?

[Farangbaa]

deleted.

 

[Iakus]

The danger of the conflict is amply demonstrated in the game, players just want a different story.

Would that be the story of the Rachni Wars?  Or the Krogan Rebellions?

 

Two other genocidal/near-genocidal wars which were purely organic vs organic.  And were far more devastating than any  AI conflict short of the Reapers themselves. 

 

Would Synthesis have somehow stopped these wars?

[Farangbaa]

Would that be the story of the Rachni Wars?  Or the Krogan Rebellions?

 

Two other genocidal/near-genocidal wars which were purely organic vs organic.  And were far more devastating than any  AI conflict short of the Reapers themselves. 

 

Would Synthesis have somehow stopped these wars?

 

Organic vs Organic is outside of the scope of the problem.

[Iakus]

Meaning that the danger is proven but the inevitability is not, right?

That the danger is even plausible. would have been nice.

 

As it is, I went through the entire series believing the krogan were a much greater potential threat than the geth.  Even through ME3.

 

Even then it would not have made forced Synthesis seem like a good idea. 

[Deathsaurer]

Organic vs Organic is outside of the scope of the problem.

That's the wrong way to word this. Organic vs organic was outside the realm of Leviathan concerns. Meanwhile Protheans actually encourage it.

[Iakus]

Organic vs Organic is outside of the scope of the problem.

 

I'd say it's a more relevant problem than Organic vs Synthetic.

[Farangbaa]

I'd say it's a more relevant problem than Organic vs Synthetic.

 

Why?

 

t's unthinkable, with all the space flight going on, that Organic vs Organic would destroy all organic life.. unless they destroy the entire galaxy.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The idea that AIs and synthetics are inevitably in conflict pops up several times in ME1.

 

Which is why I think ME3's ending would have been a better ending for ME1. As the series went on the entire nature of the conflict changed. In ME1 the two groups were painted as being too alien to live in peace. As the series progressed, starting with ME2, the AIs were painted as being more "human", which is completed in ME3 where the source of conflict isn't their differences but the notion that organics are terribly racist bigots and the AI characters just want to be our friends.

 

It doesn't matter how nefarious you judge AI, the example of the Geth is that, even in a newly awakened AI, the Quarians were reduced to 99% of their population and lost their planet. Same thing happened with Leviathan.

 

The whole genocide thing gets really downplayed in ME3 and the story shifts the blame, almost exclusively, to the organics, who are also responsible for things like wiping out an entire sentient race and releasing something as catastrophic as the genophage. The conflict is technically there (along with a lot of other things), but it certainly isn't prominent by the time we get to the ME3 ending. The dangers of dark energy were also demonstrated to be a problem but that would have also made a pretty bad ending if it was introduced at the end of ME3.

[Iakus]

Why?

 

t's unthinkable, with all the space flight going on, that Organic vs Organic would destroy all organic life.. unless they destroy the entire galaxy.

The krogan were quite willing to drop asteroids on garden worlds.  The rachni fought genocidal wars against the entire Council.  And the krogan eventually drove them to (near) extinction.  I have seen nothing to indicate that Synthetics are any worse.  Just the opposite, really.

[Reorte]

Meaning that the danger is proven but the inevitability is not, right?

Up to a point. That AI can be dangerous is plausible. The degree of danger is questionable. Yes, it's fiction so some leeway with what you stick down as fact is fine but beware pushing that too far. Saying AI will kill us all is no better than saying any and all alien life forms will do their utmost to kill us all. Having some hostile is plausible, having every single one bloodthirstily destructive is not. About the only time you can get away with blanket statements is with entirely fictional concepts that can have no possible connection whatsoever to the real world.

[Obadiah]

@Iakus
Asked and answered many times over

http://forum.bioware...-leviathan-dlc/

[AlanC9]

Up to a point. That AI can be dangerous is plausible. The degree of danger is questionable. Yes, it's fiction so some leeway with what you stick down as fact is fine but beware pushing that too far. Saying AI will kill us all is no better than saying any and all alien life forms will do their utmost to kill us all. Having some hostile is plausible, having every single one bloodthirstily destructive is not. About the only time you can get away with blanket statements is with entirely fictional concepts that can have no possible connection whatsoever to the real world.

 

Gotcha. I'm not particularly invested in this since I never thought the Catalyst was supposed to have been right in the first place.

 

It would have been easy enough for Bio to prove him right by having Destroy lead to, say, a robot Stargazer taking about how Shepard finally set their kind free. It's amusing to imagine the torrents of nerdrage that ending would have produced. But that would have been a bit unfair to the player without putting in a better reason to think that the Catalyst is not only honest, but right.

[Reorte]

Gotcha. I'm not particularly invested in this since I never thought the Catalyst was supposed to have been right in the first place.

 

It would have been easy enough for Bio to prove him right by having Destroy lead to, say, a robot Stargazer taking about how Shepard finally set their kind free. It's amusing to imagine the torrents of nerdrage that ending would have produced. But that would have been a bit unfair to the player without putting in a better reason to think that the Catalyst is not only honest, but right.

No, that wouldn't be proving him right. A story making a claim then having something happen to "prove" that claim proves nothing, since the author can have whatever they like happen, no matter how ridiculous. Proof has to either stand up to full rigorous, logical scrutiny, or at least be close enough to plausible for suspension of disbelief to do the rest, which would be rather hard to achieve for such a generalisation.

[AlanC9]

If that's your standard of proof then an awful lot of things aren't ever going to be provable. What can possibly prove a counterfactual?

 

But you've got a point. We still have idiots claiming that the Reapers should have been conventionally defeatable in the MEU. And I mean in the existing MEU, not as a game-design point that the MEU should have been designed so that conventional victory would have been possible.

[Reorte]

If that's your standard of proof then an awful lot of things aren't ever going to be provable. What can possibly prove a counterfactual?

 

No, they won't be. That's a problem writers have to deal with, and why they should be very, very careful in making sweeping statements.

 

But you've got a point. We still have idiots claiming that the Reapers should have been conventionally defeatable in the MEU. And I mean in the existing MEU, not as a game-design point that the MEU should have been designed so that conventional victory would have been possible.

Urgh, don't get me started on the conventional victory thing, it looks like there's something we're in full agreement on. It's a good example though.

[DoomsdayDevice]

The Matrix? 

 

Yes. But also, Cerberus Daily News. That story about a civilization that had uploaded itself onto the mainframe of a spaceship. They lived inside a virtual reality made from their collective memories.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This thread is from a year ago today.

 

Dead. Dead. Let it go!

 

 

Two years, actually.

 

And: no!

 

[Ieldra]

It doesn't matter how nefarious you judge AI, the example of the Geth is that, even in a newly awakened AI, the Quarians were reduced to 99% of their population and lost their planet. Same thing happened with Leviathan.

And in the current cycle Destroy does the exact reverse - AI lose.

The danger of the conflict is amply demonstrated in the game, players just want a different story.

While true, I think there is some justification for complaints. While the conflict was certainly present, it never came across as the defining conflict of the story. It was always a side issue, and one we could expect to resolve on top of it, given what happens with Legion in ME2 and on Rannoch in ME3 if you play for peace.

 

My view of the conflict as posted two pages upthread is one I created trying to answer the question "How can it make sense"? It's nothing that was ever mentioned in the story beyond a mere assertion of the outcome, and compromised by our various successful attempts to co-operate with synthetics. As a result, the conflict scenario is one I can believe in in a general sense - since I found a way to view it that makes sense - but it still comes across as the theme of another story. I don't mind ME being a story with this as a main theme, but it is insufficiently anchored, and thus not good storytelling.

 

If you go back to ME1, there is this encounter with the AI on the Citadel, where it says that organics must always try to control or destroy synthetic life. But this is a small sidequest, and that the geth are hostile to organics appears quite natural given what the quarians tried to do, and it appears disconnected from their nature as synthetic life. With the organic/synthetic conflict having such a low-key narrative significance compared to the effects of the solution implemented by the Catalyst, both the Reaper cycle and ending options come across as...well...using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[Obadiah]

Certainly, there is "some" justification for complaints - but we're a bit far removed from the initial experience of the ending to still be claiming that the trilogy story doesn't make any sense.

The reveal at the end is meant to be a twist ending, with some new added information, grounded in the experience of the trilogy. As such, the Synthetic/Organic conflict doesn't need to be the defining theme of the trilogy, it just needs to be supported in the experience. Even if the ending was confusing the first time it was experienced (and it wasn't really THAT confusing for me the first time), we've had time to dissect the game to determine if it makes sense. To me it mostly does.

The Singularity explanation you gave earlier is interesting, but to be honest I don't think the mere power imbalance is necessary to explain the annihilation of organics by synthetics (though since learning of it I've always liked the explanation). Conflict between the two with drastic outcomes happen enough times in MEU just because of their existence. Certainly cooperative peace is possible as Rannoch showed, but peace does not last, and the conflicts that erupt is enough of an explanation for the destruction of Organics as claimed by the Catalyst. I can see why people may not like it, why some may even see it as racist, but I like the idea of two factions each missing some aspect in their nature that the other has (clinical logic vs emotion) that brings them inevitably into conflict.

Also, the "sledgehammer" description for the solution by Synthetics, that is part of the problem of the Synthetic Organic relationship.