9087 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

So because there's a lot of people who didn't like, it's bad? Then masterpieces (in every art) turn into bad writing, painting...

 

Suffice to say, yes. Generally, the consensus is that if a large number of people (definitely the majority) feel a certain way towards something, it's bad. You can't give the artistic defense to everything. And blaming the people who don't like it for not getting it or not understanding it comes off scornful and pretentious and done by creators who either wanted to troll people or are upset that they had a bad idea that people don't like. 

[Obadiah]

Do EDI and the geth ever take umbrage at being called an AI or synthetics?  Nope.  They're quite matter-of-fact about their existence as created life.  Why should the Catalyst be any different?  Unless, of course, it considers itself to be something more.  Which is entirely consistent with the attitude shown by Reapers.

So firstly, I haven't heard Shepard call EDI or the Geth "just" anything, but even if he did and they did react differently, listen to what you're saying: that all AI should react in a consistent way, or in a way you desire. That is not an analysis, that is an unmet and rather obviously unrealistic expectation.
 

1) Starting with an absolutist statement right off the bat virtually guarantees a flawed assumption.  
2) No it does not have authority, because it has been cooking the books for millions of years.  It recruited the geth, suborned the zha'til, and did who knows what to other synthetic life forms .  It's an arsonist selling fire insurance.
3) it does not say that it will fail "someday".  It says my solution will no longer work.  As in, the solution isn't breaking down it's already broken.

Now you're simply engaging in a rehash of old arguments with reinterpreted disputed "facts" and statements from the game in a manner to suit your arguments, while dismissing all evidence that doesn't suit you. Again, as bad as the "flawed assumptions" you are accusing the Catalyst of having.
 

Because it continues to Reap even as it talks of Shepard having "hope"

But that does not indicate an inability to change on its part. It indicates an act which it thinks has some use. Perhaps it does if Shepard is unwilling to act and a new solution cannot be found in this cycle - there is the next cycle.

[jtav]

Suffice to say, yes. Generally, the consensus is that if a large number of people (definitely the majority) feel a certain way towards something, it's bad. You can't give the artistic defense to everything. And blaming the people who don't like it for not getting it or not understanding it comes off scornful and pretentious and done by creators who either wanted to troll people or are upset that they had a bad idea that people don't like.

Minor point of correction. There are a number of works that were both critical and commercial failures in their own day, only to be vindicated much later. I really don't think ME is among that number, however. I think it's a throwback to pulp sci-fi whose attempt to engage in some complex ideas was defeated by a lack of skill.

[Iakus]

So firstly, I haven't heard Shepard call EDI or the Geth "just" anything, but even if he did and they did react differently, listen to what you're saying: that all AI should react in a consistent way, or in a way you desire. That is not an analysis, that is an unmet and rather obviously unrealistic expectation.
 

"I won't be second-guess on my own ship, by my own ship!"

 

And what I'm saying is AI, like any other person, should respond in a manner consistent with their personalities.  Reapers have been shown to be quite arrogant about their place in the galaxy, which lends credence to the Catalyst's response to be one of a sense of superiority.  Especially if there is any truth to its claim to being the controlling intelligence of the Reapers

 

 

Now you're simply engaging in a rehash of old arguments with reinterpreted disputed "facts" and statements from the game in a manner to suit your arguments, while dismissing all evidence that doesn't suit you. Again, as bad as the "flawed assumptions" you are accusing the Catalyst of having.
 

I could say the same about you, you know.  My evidence clearly doesn't suit you.

 

But that does not indicate an inability to change on its part. It indicates an act which it thinks has some use. Perhaps it does if Shepard is unwilling to act and a new solution cannot be found in this cycle - there is the next cycle.

 

Look a tthe battle raging on as Shepard and the Catalyst chat about "new solutions".  The Catalyst is continuing to harvest the galaxy even as its talking to Shepard, before Shepard even gets a chance to make a choice.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Suffice to say, yes. Generally, the consensus is that if a large number of people (definitely the majority) feel a certain way towards something, it's bad. 

Not always. I mean, just because Avatar made over a billion dollars at the box office and The Big Lebowski made 46 million, doesn't mean Avatar was the better movie. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Not always. I mean, just because Avatar made over a billion dollars at the box office and The Big Lebowski made 46 million, doesn't mean Avatar was the better movie. 

 

That's also marketing in there for that particular example. What I'm saying is that if the popular consensus for people who have seen the game or the movie and think it's junk outweighs the positive response (especially by a wide margin), then it's safe to say that the work doesn't get to hide behind the 'artistic integrity' shield.

 

Otherwise, yeah, 'the dude abides' was much, much better than getting beaten over the head by James Cameron's preaching about how much better the blue alien cat things are than us because they're primitive and in harmony with the environment.

 

And to jtav, that definitely can be the case, though I suspect that a lot of the previous works might have been not so much for artistic reasons, but for dealing with topics that were taboo or controversial at the time, or too high concept at the time (Mass Effect tried to do this but failed because Mass Effect was never about being high concept prior to that point), or was a case of being so bad that it became good when people look back (anything by Ed Wood or anything shown on MST3K comes to mind) because they realize that it takes a certain amount of talent to produce something so horrendously bad that it is in itself a work of art and achievement.

[Obadiah]

"I won't be second-guess on my own ship, by my own ship!"

But EDI is still shackled in this example. Why not cite the argument between EDI and Javik when she is unshackled, and clearly taking umbrage?
 

And what I'm saying is AI, like any other person, should respond in a manner consistent with their personalities.  Reapers have been shown to be quite arrogant about their place in the galaxy, which lends credence to the Catalyst's response to be one of a sense of superiority.  Especially if there is any truth to its claim to being the controlling intelligence of the Reapers

Certainly, the Reapers being part of the Catalyst would be evidence to the idea that the Catalyst would be arrogant. But this arrogance is simply not born out in the conversation with the Catalyst or its "animal" comment. In fact, I would say the Reapers show degrees of arrogance. Sovereign was most arrogant, then Harbinger who sounded more arrogant that the Rannoch Reaper - indicating that the Reaper's personalities may be different, and based on our interactions with 3, we should not assert anything with respect to their effect on the Catalyst, however we may expect the Catalyst to behave. The Catalyst ought to be judged by its own.
 

I could say the same about you, you know.  My evidence clearly doesn't suit you.

You could try, but I didn't start out with the rather strange premise that goes against the narrative - that EDI, the Reaper/Cerberus/Alliance construct about 3 years old who exists in the Normandy and the EVA platform and modifies its core programming, is more sophisticated than the billion year old Catalyst which exists in/controls the Citadel and Reapers and constructed the Relay network, because it did not explicitly say it could modify its core programming.

Look a the battle raging on as Shepard and the Catalyst chat about "new solutions".  The Catalyst is continuing to harvest the galaxy even as its talking to Shepard, before Shepard even gets a chance to make a choice.

It seems Shepard had plenty of time make a decision nonetheless. The Catalyst may be allowing the battle to continue to show that Shepard must act. Again, that does not indicate an inability to change.

[angol fear]

Suffice to say, yes. Generally, the consensus is that if a large number of people (definitely the majority) feel a certain way towards something, it's bad. You can't give the artistic defense to everything. And blaming the people who don't like it for not getting it or not understanding it comes off scornful and pretentious and done by creators who either wanted to troll people or are upset that they had a bad idea that people don't like. 

I'm not giving artistic defense to everything but I do work in art, so i know when there's an artistic ambition and when there's not. But seems like, now, Bela Tarr isn't one of the most impressive director of the last years anymore because the majority of people talked!  

[Iakus]

But EDI is still shackled in this example. Why not cite the argument between EDI and Javik when she is unshackled, and clearly taking umbrage?
 

So?  Shackling an AI only blocks functions.  Not it's personality.  Javik openly advocates destroying all AIs, whcih is far mor ethan acknoledging that synthetics are "just" AIs

 

You could try, but I didn't start out with the rather strange premise that goes against the narrative - that EDI, the Reaper/Cerberus/Alliance construct about 3 years old who exists in the Normandy and the EVA platform and modifies its core programming, is more sophisticated than the billion year old Catalyst which exists in/controls the Citadel and Reapers and constructed the Relay network, because it did not explicitly say it could modify its core programming.

 

That's because the narrative goes against the narrative.  EDI exhibits a greater degree of adaptability and ability to absorb and apply new information than the Catalyst does.  Just because the Catalyst can control a bunch of murder machines and can lay waste to worlds doesn't make it sophisticated. 

 

Though I suppose one could intimidate the galaxy into saying you are

 

 

It seems Shepard had plenty of time make a decision nonetheless.

Who cares how  much time Shepard has?  Again the Catalyst is still actively pursuing a "solution" it know won't work, and is actively trying to destroy the MacGuffin it knows will provide these new "solutions"  That is a fundamental inability to adapt.

[Iakus]

And to drag this back on track, since I feel somewhat responsible for the direction this conversation is going:

 

I do not think the Catalyst demonstrated the perspective or reasoning to state with any authority that Synthesis was a viable option, let alone the most ideal solution

[MassivelyEffective0730]

And to drag this back on track, since I feel somewhat responsible for the direction this conversation is going:

 

I do not think the Catalyst demonstrated the perspective or reasoning to state with any authority that Synthesis was a viable option, let alone the most ideal solution

 

It was the ideal solution for its problem. Whether or not you hold the same perspective on its problem or the viability of it in comparison to your problem or whether it's the ideal solution to your problem is entirely up to you. I will agree that it provided a very lackluster and completely unconvincing argument for synthesis, its cause and effects, and its execution however. The only problem is that your Shepard is scripted to operate under an assumption of acceptance for the Catalyst and its problem. Keeping Shepard's responses to a minimum while having the Catalyst go on a tract would have done wonders for the ending. That way, I can be quiet as I walk to the tube and shoot it.

[AlanC9]

That's also marketing in there for that particular example. What I'm saying is that if the popular consensus for people who have seen the game or the movie and think it's junk outweighs the positive response (especially by a wide margin), then it's safe to say that the work doesn't get to hide behind the 'artistic integrity' shield.

 

OTOH, it's easy enough to put together a long list of things that were unpopular on release but were later acclaimed as masterpieces. And the reverse too, of course. But there's no particular reason to think that the later audiences are any more "right" than the initial audience was.

[Ymladdych]

@Ieldra
But "atrocious" is such a big word for what appears to be 3 or 4 sentences. The original Synthesis explanation was that Shepard had to add his energy to the Crucible, and that everything that he was would be absorbed and sent out causing a chain reaction to form a new matrix/DNA. This could easily have been understood (as you have explained previously) as a simplified explanation dumbed down for the soldier protagonist to understand, because the science at work is just too advanced. It barely even recognized Shepard as special, other than being the one to reach the room, and still be alive.

Instead each word was taken and analyzed, as if it could be, by real currently understood science, and criticized as ridiculous. How much more could this really have been improved? It is a surprise twist ending, so an obvious buildup is out of the question. Perhaps one or two trans-human or evolutionary conversations prior to establish some groundwork. Maybe remove the plant tech aesthetic. A few different words by the Catalyst to describe Shepard's death. People would still be complaining about themes, broken AI, ridiculous science, and Eugenics etc... because they really just want the enemy to be wrong and destroyed.

Uhhhh...no.

My academic background is in Psychology and Biotechnology; my primary interests were philosophy of mind, behavioral neurobiology, and tangentially, artificial neural networks. I'm not a luddite or technophobe. I don't fall into the "brainless, warmongering 'Murrrrrican" stereotype that some people want to fling around (like you just did). Furthermore, I'm pro genetic and cybernetic augmentation in RL.

I fully understood what they were going for with Synthesis: thematically and "scientifically." And you know what? My reaction was *still* one of visceral disgust.

Why? For one, as I've already written in this thread, even being able to "fill in the blanks" as I can, I have NO legitimate reason to think think that Synthesis at the hands (tentacles) of the Reapers is a good, or smart idea. Period.

Control is tempting because it's the most morally "hands clean," but I can't even justify *that,* given the disastrous outcome of Project Overlord. "Oh, a human mind went crazy connecting to 200 Geth, but it could TOTALLY handle a connection to countless Reapers. (Even though an individual Reaper alone is exponentially more complex than the entire Geth neural network.)" Yeah, right.

Not to mention, YES, even though I believe it was unintentional...Bioware sent a very disturbing message with Synthesis, which is interestingly at odds with their apparent ethical stance on things like the Genophage. Mordin's last name sounds out like "soulless" after all - not a coincidence. And what was Mordin's original stance on the Genophage? "All data and simulations point to war! Genophage avoids genocide! Best solution for Krogan - best solution for galaxy!" <- I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds an awful lot like the Catalyst's argument for Synthesis.

And at the end of the day, I cannot, and I WILL not endorse a concept that amounts to "when populations disagree, don't bother trying to work anything out, because nobody's gonna change of their own free will - just genetically alter everyone so they're the same."

To me, it's the equivalent of things like:

"Men and women have serious gender issues, so I think I'm going to turn everyone into hermaphrodites."

"Sorry, Native Americans, don't you realize you were on the losing side of technology? Integrate or go extinct."

"Well, maybe (insert despot who shall remain nameless) had a point. What's so bad about having a hyper-intelligent, fair-haired race? I mean, everybody would be on an equal footing!"

Yeah...no thanks.

[Farangbaa]

Van Gogh was very poor during his lifetime.

 

His paintings sell for (tens) of millions now.

[Mathias]

Not always. I mean, just because Avatar made over a billion dollars at the box office and The Big Lebowski made 46 million, doesn't mean Avatar was the better movie. 

 

That's true that it's not always the case, but in this particular case that majority is spot on about Synthesis being bad. Mostly because it's so easy to pick it apart on why it's bad, and a lot of people do. The Synthesis ending comes off as something that was not thought out well by the writer, at all. I mean the Catalyst tells you Synthesis cannot be forced, and then tells you to jump into the beam, effectively forcing Synthesis on every living organism without their knowledge and consent. So right there that ending fails right outta the gate and directly contradicts what he said. I mean that's just one problem with it.

 

MassivelyEffective is right though. I've heard plenty of Synthesis Defenders claim that "Oh you just don't get it. You don't understand that ending." Which is the exact opposite. In fact if someone is able to see the faults with that ending, he/she generally has a better understanding of the ending than the people who defend it. One thing I do realize is that video games are art, and as we all know, art is completely subjective to the viewer. So nobody is wrong for liking the ending. But if you didn't look at Synthesis from an "artistic" point of view, but from an "academic" point of view, the ending is a poorly written mess. To the point where it's actually laughable.

[Farangbaa]

That's true that it's not always the case, but in this particular case that majority is spot on about Synthesis being bad. Mostly because it's so easy to pick it apart on why it's bad, and a lot of people do. The Synthesis ending comes off as something that was not thought out well by the writer, at all. I mean the Catalyst tells you Synthesis cannot be forced, and then tells you to jump into the beam, effectively forcing Synthesis on every living organism without their knowledge and consent. So right there that ending fails right outta the gate and directly contradicts what he said. I mean that's just one problem with it.

 

MassivelyEffective is right though. I've heard plenty of Synthesis Defenders claim that "Oh you just don't get it. You don't understand that ending." Which is the exact opposite. In fact if someone is able to see the faults with that ending, he/she generally has a better understanding of the ending than the people who defend it. One thing I do realize is that video games are art, and as we all know, art is completely subjective to the viewer. So nobody is wrong for liking the ending. But if you didn't look at Synthesis from an "artistic" point of view, but from an "academic" point of view, the ending is a poorly written mess. To the point where it's actually laughable.

 

All the endings are ridiculous from an academic point of view. A beam of energy strong enough to annihilate near-indestructible beings, but leaves everything else alive, including those squishy organics. Give me a break. (don't try to be a smartass and say it's an EMP. A strong enough EMP will kill organics. Besides, if it was an EMP, the galaxy would just laugh when the Reapers come and kill them)

 

The entire game is ridiculous from an academic point of view. 

[jtav]

I'll cheerfully admit the ending is a mess. But I like the tone. And I adore the Synthesis ending to pieces. It strikes me as the kind of ending ME should have (heroic sacrifice, transformation of Reapers into something positive, dawn of golden age) even if it's not grounded in lore.

[Obadiah]

@Ymladdych
But you have proven my point. You are assuming that the problem could have been worked out without the Catalyst's intervention and the Reaper cycles. This goes against the narrative: that in this case there is no solution without the Catalyst and the Reaper cycle, and the Decision Chamber encounter with Shepard.

I realise why people want to believe this, but surely we can accept that there could exist some conflicts that are irreconcilable without drastic intervention. The Synthetic Organic conflict is MEU is supposedly one of these.

That is why I say that people want a different story, one where as Iakus and others have argued the Catalyst is wrong/broken and is simply overcome.

[SwobyJ]

That, I suspect, is the point. There is a layer of irony to all of this. They were responsible for setting the problem in motion but their creation is responsible for its continuation from the other side of the equation. It's easy to see how it went wrong from their attitude. It's easy to see why the Morning War happened. The point, I suspect, is we need to accept each other as equals to move forward. Something the Catalyst didn't learn until Shepard. At the end it realized it needed organics help to fulfill its purpose. Is that enough to earn it a reprieve for all that it's done? That's the ultimate question for me.

 

In response to the bolded, I say... sorta.

 

1)We could just destroy all AI we see as we run into it or see others create it.

Pro - Barely have to deal with AI problems! Yay!

Con - There's always something bigger than you, and it'll eventually defeat you anyway

 

2)We could just control all AI and regulate its expansion and development.

Pro - We might more properly deal with AI problems! Yay!

Con - When there is an AI problem, you may not be able to shut it down yourself.

 

3)This is the 'inevitable'. At some point, years, decades, centuries, millenia or more... humanity/organics will have merging with machinery to the point of no longer being humanity, but some other posthuman AI/NI (Neo Intelligence?) state.

Pro - Well, it's gonna happen in some way and we'd move on past any of this conflict

Con - ...But we need to do it right. The less struggle we have in going for it, the more terrible the outcome could be.

 

 

So was ME1 a good time to make a deal with the Reapers? Hell naw.

Was ME2 a good time to make a deal with the Reapers? For the most part, nope.

Was pre-London ME3 a good time to make a deal with the Reapers? Not really.

Was Crucible ME3 a good time to make a deal with the Reaper? Yes, but just barely enough, and only with conditions met.

 

This is seen elsewhere.

 

Is ME1 a good time to cure the genophage? Hell naw.

Is ME2 a good time to cure the genophage? For the most part, nope (though Wrex can help it).

Is ME3 a good time to cure the genophage? Yes, but barely enough, and only with conditions (Wrex, Eve) met.

 

I think a possible problem with Synthesis is its lack of counterpoint. When it appears, it is just the outright 'ideal solution'. I would have liked to see negative or mixed reactions if you killed the geth, sabotaged the genophage, and other actions.

[Iakus]

@Ymladdych
But you have proven my point. You are assuming that the problem could have been worked out without the Catalyst's intervention and the Reaper cycles. This goes against the narrative: that in this case there is no solution without the Catalyst and the Reaper cycle, and the Decision Chamber encounter with Shepard.

I realise why people want to believe this, but surely we can accept that there could exist some conflicts that are irreconcilable without drastic intervention. The Synthetic Organic conflict is MEU is supposedly one of these.

That is why I say that people want a different story, one where as Iakus and others have argued the Catalyst is wrong/broken and is simply overcome.

 

Actually the narrative showed that the galaxy was trapped in a cycle.  History was made cyclical by the Reapers.  Civilizations were channeled down the paths of development the Reapers wanted, and were harvested at a certain point.  We were trapped in a cage.  Made dependant on the technology the Reapers provided.

 

The goal (to me) was to break free of that cage.  To let the people of the galaxy develop down the paths they chose for themselves.  To no longer be dependant on artifacts form the past, but to look ahead.  Synthesis seemed to do the exact opposite.  the galaxy was, again, dependant on a relic of the past (the Crucible) to be used in order to shortcut their way to a path of development established by the Reapers as the "best course"

 

It's pretty much validating the concept of robbing people of free will, of being able to choose their own lives.

[Deathsaurer]

But you're never going to break free of Reaper technology. It's an easy source of advancement everyone will latch onto as seen by rebuilding the Citadel and relays in Destroy. Synthesis is ironically the only ending where the fate of the relay network isn't touched upon.

[CronoDragoon]

It's pretty much validating the concept of robbing people of free will, of being able to choose their own lives.

 

The free will argument is only an issue with the current generation. The next generation will have no such regrets.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Synthesis is nothing more than a Reaper victory. Also, apparently calling someone a Reaper or an indoctrinated husk is considered offensive, as it got my previous post removed. I thought people who choose synthesis would like to be affiliated with Reapers.

[Deathsaurer]

You really can't be surprised that is considered offensive.

[SwobyJ]

Mmmmm...everyone's different when it comes to their Shepard's reasons for fighting. I also don't believe it's quite so cut-and-dried as renegade = selfish, paragon = selfless. I've seen people have some pretty selfish reasons for picking Paragon options, and I know that I've had some pretty non-selfish reasons for picking the Renegade options that I do. (My Shepard's purple across the Trilogy.)

There was an art book that said it was actually mind (Renegade) vs. heart (Paragon), which seems true to me. That's probably the basis for the visual symbolism behind TIM and Renegade Shepard's eyes; it's meant to imply a cold, machine-like temperament.

 

Mind vs Heart isn't even the best way to look at it imo.

 

Renegade Shepard can be the most passionate at times, while Paragon is tepid.

 

It is situational. Renegade can be seen as the most logical or emotional at times. Paragon can be seen as t he most logical or emotional at times.

 

One way to look at it sometimes is Synthetic vs Organic, but that is just sometimes. Artificial vs Natural. Anti-Thesis vs Thesis.

 

Shepard comes from a place of Renegade at all times. He's an Alliance N7 soldier (regardless of 'class'). He's an organic. He must constantly prove himself to individuals and authorities. He is on a mission to destroy Reapers (even if the end goal isn't necessarily to destroy *all* Reapers, but to stop them and end the Cycle). He is either imposing or brutish-looking to the new people he meets, not automatically charming and disarming.

 

We then have options to embrace this place of Renegade and be the weapon we need to be against the Reapers, or to aspire for a state of Paragon and the affection from others that comes along with it. Or we can do a mixture of both, with a more customized RP experience with bits of Paragon, Renegade, and more (white options, optimized outcomes in ME3, metagaming).

 

Paragon is selfless in that he's prepared to die for the safety of others.

Renegade is selfless in that he's prepared to die to defeat a threat.

Paragon is selfish in that he believes himself to be the standard to follow, and may want to stick around to always have his friends.

Renegade is selfish in that he believes himself to be the individual to follow, and may want to stick around to always have his followers.

 

(And again, obviously there can be a mix. I am a Paragade player in ME3 who chose Destroy for the primary reason of saving others, not just killing the big robots. But I also metagamed apart from that, wanting my Shepard to survive as something as close to human as possible.)

 

It then depends on your own moral views on which is 'worse'. Personally, I find Renegade to be worse, but others can and have often disagreed for good reasons.

 

 

EDIT: To respond to you again, both Paragon and Renegade become more of a machine.

Renegade reveals himself to be more of a literal machine, while hating other machines for doing this to him (as he more insists on being human, which he technically still is).

Paragon reveals himself to be more of a machine sympathizer, able to actively choose to become more of a machine for the sake of others.

Renegade accepted the existing truth, while Paragon chose a new truth.

"Facing reality" vs "Find another way".