80611 réponses à ce sujet

[paxxton]

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Well, it would be a perfect (preferably) copy of the original. You couldn't actually transfer minds but the physical structure of the brain that gives rise to the mind.

Yeah, the mind is essentially cloned. It is just another version of you.

This is not what happens in control. It is an AI loosely based on Shepard, but it isn't a clone, meaning it isn't Shepard.

It is what happens in Control. Just imperfectly, hence the caveat I wrote - the new Shepard is aware of the fact that his entity is seperate from the fleshy one and that leaves open the possibility of future rebellion. Also, is it really possible to transfer a mind to a different platform without that mind becoming aware of its seperation from the original?

[estebanus]

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Wow, this whole conversation reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I was thinking more like Fiend without a face

I guess it's because I just recently fineshed Deus Ex that I'm thinking about it...

[DoomsdayDevice]

paxxton wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Also, transferring minds is more of an ethical question than using artificial limbs, wouldn't you think?

Uhm, no. If you gradually substituted different parts of the body with their artificial counterparts, you'd eventually end up only with the brain being original. Why wouldn't one be allowed then to transfer his or her consciousness between platforms?

Because you literally don't know what you're doing.

Is it actually being transferred?

Or is it just a copy that thinks it's you?

You'd never be able to tell.

Maybe by 'copying' someone's consciousness, you're literally creating another individual, who'd have to live with the fact that he's an artificially created individual.

The moral questions are very much the same as when wondering if it's okay to clone human beings. Don't take these things too lightly, it's a really slippery slope.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 18 août 2012 - 11:27 .

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Well, it would be a perfect (preferably) copy of the original. You couldn't actually transfer minds but the physical structure of the brain that gives rise to the mind.

Yeah, the mind is essentially cloned. It is just another version of you.

This is not what happens in control. It is an AI loosely based on Shepard, but it isn't a clone, meaning it isn't Shepard.

It is what happens in Control. Just imperfectly, hence the caveat I wrote - the new Shepard is aware of the fact that his entity is seperate from the fleshy one and that leaves open the possibility of future rebellion. Also, is it really possible to transfer a mind to a different platform without that mind becoming aware of its seperation from the original?

I think that depends. You'd have to do a lot of rewriting to the mind in order to achieve that, and then it wouldn't be you anymore.

[plfranke]

DJBare wrote...

plfranke wrote...
Spill it bare, this may be your redeeming idea.

Praise the lord to be redeemed!, huh no, I do not require redemption for an opinion, but thanks for the offer.

Your idea, your rules, your loss. And trust me, after that opinion you could have used the redemption.

[paxxton]

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Wow, this whole conversation reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I was thinking more like Fiend without a face

I guess it's because I just recently fineshed Deus Ex that I'm thinking about it...

Great game. It was worth the many years in the making.

[estebanus]

plfranke wrote...

DJBare wrote...

plfranke wrote...
Spill it bare, this may be your redeeming idea.

Praise the lord to be redeemed!, huh no, I do not require redemption for an opinion, but thanks for the offer.

Your idea, your rules, your loss. And trust me, after that opinion you could have used the redemption.

Redemption for what? Is there even anything that needs to be redeemed? And more importantly, who are you to judge what another person needs or not?

Modifié par estebanus, 18 août 2012 - 11:30 .

[DJBare]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Doomsday, I think it's fair in a 100+ hour (easily) game where the player is given great agency to determine their story's outcome, and replayability is a crucial aspect, I think it's fair to ask for a clear ending

Even in those stories that end on cliff hangers and such like allow you conclude it is finished, but ME3 has never given me the feeling of "finished"
I'll try to explain that a little better, when an episode of a tv series ends on a cliff hanger you know that series is finished..until the next series, ME3 does not feel like that.

[lex0r11]

plfranke wrote...

DJBare wrote...

plfranke wrote...
Spill it bare, this may be your redeeming idea.

Praise the lord to be redeemed!, huh no, I do not require redemption for an opinion, but thanks for the offer.

Your idea, your rules, your loss. And trust me, after that opinion you could have used the redemption.

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Wow, this whole conversation reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I was thinking more like Fiend without a face

I guess it's because I just recently fineshed Deus Ex that I'm thinking about it...

Great game. It was worth the many years in the making.

Indeed it was. I loved the conflict between augmented people and unaugmented ones. It's a pretty interesting moral question. Me, I sympathize with the augs. They're allowed to make their own choices, and people like Bill Taggart should have nothing to say in the matter.

[paxxton]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

paxxton wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Also, transferring minds is more of an ethical question than using artificial limbs, wouldn't you think?

Uhm, no. If you gradually substituted different parts of the body with their artificial counterparts, you'd eventually end up only with the brain being original. Why wouldn't one be allowed then to transfer his or her consciousness between platforms?

Because you literally don't know what you're doing.

Is it actually being transferred?

Or is it just a copy that thinks it's you?

You'd never be able to tell.

Maybe by 'copying' someone's consciousness, you're literally creating another individual, who'd have to live with the fact that he's an artificially created individual.

The moral questions are very much the same as when wondering if it's okay to clone human beings. Don't take these things too lightly, it's a really slippery slope.

Those are interesting questions without a definite answer yet. For example, what if such a transfered mind was somehow interconnected with the original and working with it in a kind of symbiosis. That would solve a lot of problems because in this case an individual would have 2 entities.

[spotlessvoid]

As usual Lex...awesome

[DJBare]

estebanus wrote...
Redemption for what? Is there even anything that needs to be redeemed? And more importantly, who are you to judge what another person needs or not?

It's cool, a lot of us are looking for answers and hoping someone else puts something forward to get our teeth into, it's become increasingly difficult for me to wrap my head around an idea I have had, especially when it can contradict so many other things, if I can get sorted out in my head I'll post it.

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

paxxton wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Also, transferring minds is more of an ethical question than using artificial limbs, wouldn't you think?

Uhm, no. If you gradually substituted different parts of the body with their artificial counterparts, you'd eventually end up only with the brain being original. Why wouldn't one be allowed then to transfer his or her consciousness between platforms?

Because you literally don't know what you're doing.

Is it actually being transferred?

Or is it just a copy that thinks it's you?

You'd never be able to tell.

Maybe by 'copying' someone's consciousness, you're literally creating another individual, who'd have to live with the fact that he's an artificially created individual.

The moral questions are very much the same as when wondering if it's okay to clone human beings. Don't take these things too lightly, it's a really slippery slope.

Those are interesting questions without a definite answer yet. For example, what if such a transfered mind was somehow interconnected with the original and working with it in a kind of symbiosis. That would solve a lot of problems because in this case an individual would have 2 entities.

It could also create new ones. If an individual has another entity of the individual itself, it could become a huge problem if they end up in conflict with each other, because this would end the symbiosis, which could lead to great psychic damage.

[CoolioThane]

Endings where you have to make up what happens yourself are ****.

Forgive me for buying a game, or a ticket to a film that is supposed to be the end, and be annoyed it's not complete, there is no true ending, because it may or may not be the truth.

The longer it goes on the more pissed people will become. Chris Griffin

[spotlessvoid]

Yeah, estebanus & paxx, just look at what happened to Keaton in multiplicity lol

[paxxton]

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Wow, this whole conversation reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I was thinking more like Fiend without a face

I guess it's because I just recently fineshed Deus Ex that I'm thinking about it...

Great game. It was worth the many years in the making.

Indeed it was. I loved the conflict between augmented people and unaugmented ones. It's a pretty interesting moral question. Me, I sympathize with the augs. They're allowed to make their own choices, and people like Bill Taggart should have nothing to say in the matter.

And I was surprised that Eliza turned out to be an AI supercomputer. Reminded me of Google and where it could go.  Also that stealth combat system where you can sit in a vent and shoot from there. Or crawl behind desks like a spy. And of course I absolutely loved the fact that this is a non-nonsense game. The events aren't so far-fetched or impossible. Many of the things shown there are in conceptualization or dev stage atm. Like the bionic eye.

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Wow, this whole conversation reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I was thinking more like Fiend without a face

I guess it's because I just recently fineshed Deus Ex that I'm thinking about it...

Great game. It was worth the many years in the making.

Indeed it was. I loved the conflict between augmented people and unaugmented ones. It's a pretty interesting moral question. Me, I sympathize with the augs. They're allowed to make their own choices, and people like Bill Taggart should have nothing to say in the matter.

And I was surprised that Eliza turned out to be an AI supercomputer. Reminded me of Google and where it could go.  Also that stealth combat system where you can sit in a vent and shoot from there. Or crawl behind desks like a spy. And of course I absolutely loved the fact that this is a non-nonsense game. The events aren't so far-fetched or impossible. Many of the things shown there are in conceptualization or dev stage atm. Like the bionic eye.

That's one of the reasons I love the game so much. Its science is actually believable. It makes sense, and it could indeed happen in the not too distant future.

[DJBare]

CoolioThane wrote...

Endings where you have to make up what happens yourself are ****.

Some work and some do not, but it does come down to the individual, Inception worked for me, but I there have been other movies where I've had the same feeling I initially had with ME3, numb.

[spotlessvoid]

Coolio...I agree. It's one thing in a 2 hour movie. Quite another in a game trilogy. The endings give such a feeling of utter nihilism to the whole game that they lost the excitement of replaying too see the different outcomes. The dialogue trees should uniformly be retroactively changed to noting but "it doesn't matter" answers

[paxxton]

It's a pity there is only a single SP DLC for Deus Ex: HR.

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

It's a pity there is only a single SP DLC for Deus Ex: HR.

Not everything needs MP. It sucks that Bethesda are making a TES MMO.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 août 2012 - 11:46 .

[spotlessvoid]

Magnetite:

Guess I should have bugged out on the Normandy like Liara suggested then

[paxxton]

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

It's a pity there is only a single SP DLC for Deus Ex: HR.

Not everything needs MP.

I meant that Square Enix should make more SP DLCs for Deus Ex.