503 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

maaaze wrote...

he says 
indistinguishable...meaning you can not attribute the effects of the Technologie to it´s source.
The more advanced something is the more it becomes unrelated to your known world.
It seems like magic to you because the concept on which the Technologie is based of is completely alien to you.

"Indistiguishable" implies that it is explicitly the same as, or is effectively the same as something else. 

It is not.

[Mazebook]

o Ventus wrote...

maaaze wrote...

he says 
indistinguishable...meaning you can not attribute the effects of the Technologie to it´s source.
The more advanced something is the more it becomes unrelated to your known world.
It seems like magic to you because the concept on which the Technologie is based of is completely alien to you.

"Indistiguishable" implies that it is explicitly the same as, or is effectively the same as something else. 

It is not.

No, It means that you can not tell them apart.

If you have a set of twins that look that completely the same to you and do the exact same thing.

you can not distinguis them from another.

That does not mean that they are the same Person with the same properties and personalites.

Modifié par maaaze, 16 août 2012 - 11:15 .

[o Ventus]

maaaze wrote...

No, It means that you can not tell them apart.

If you have a set of twins that look completely the same to you.

you can not distinguis them from another.

That does not mean that they are the same Person with the same properties.

Like I said, "effectively the same as", or do you not know what that means?

[Tealjaker94]

maaaze wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author

Ah yes. This quote again. You can always say we're just too primitive to understand it. That is absolutely terrible storytelling. I don't recall finding anything in 2001 anywhere near as ridiculous as synthesis.

opinions...opinions...

I have also one...Techno babble is the least interessting part of Sci-Fi. The less the better. Good Sci-Fi was always about "what if we could do this...?" and not about "how we could do this...!"

Which brings us back here.

Bill Casey wrote...

"From very early on we wanted the science of the universe to be plausible. Obviously it's set in the future so you have to make some leaps of faith but we didn't want it to be just magic in space."

- Mac Walters

I contend that they failed at this. Whether or not you feel this degrades the experience is irrelevant. This thread tries to argue that the complaint about space magic is invalid because it's sci-fi. However, Mac Walters himself said he wanted to avoid anything being complete space magic. If he failed to convince us with synthesis, it is a valid complaint for those of us who care about this sort of thing. If you have no problem with it, you have the right to your own opinion, but that does not invalidate our complaints.

Modifié par Tealjaker94, 16 août 2012 - 11:14 .

[Meltemph]

At the 10 min mark - Does a good job at explaining what ME3 didnt do with the ending and what it should have done... It also shows that the good writers will, whether they "need to" or not, will atleast give some form of plausible "goblygook" to give to the readers to accept where they are about to go.

Whatever you think ME3 was up to the point of pre ending, the last sequnce of events would be upgrading what ME3 was, to having a last boss be a zombieraptorobot.  You are left asking yourself, what just happened and how did that just happen(at least with control and synthesis).  We are given no real expliantion, other then the mouthpiece of the writers telling us to accept it at the end.

Modifié par Meltemph, 16 août 2012 - 11:15 .

[Mazebook]

o Ventus wrote...

maaaze wrote...

No, It means that you can not tell them apart.

If you have a set of twins that look completely the same to you.

you can not distinguis them from another.

That does not mean that they are the same Person with the same properties.

Like I said, "effectively the same as", or do you not know what that means?

But they are not the same...they seem the same.

They are 2 different persons with different atributes.

or here...one is based in technologie and one is based in supernatrual.

The effect may look the same to you but they are different.

If you made fire with your mind or with a device does not matter in our perception.

You can only tell the difference when you understand the technologie behind the device.

advanced technologie has the atribute of being not known. otherwise it would not be advanced to you.

[Mazebook]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author

Ah yes. This quote again. You can always say we're just too primitive to understand it. That is absolutely terrible storytelling. I don't recall finding anything in 2001 anywhere near as ridiculous as synthesis.

opinions...opinions...

I have also one...Techno babble is the least interessting part of Sci-Fi. The less the better. Good Sci-Fi was always about "what if we could do this...?" and not about "how we could do this...!"

Which brings us back here.

Bill Casey wrote...

"From very early on we wanted the science of the universe to be plausible. Obviously it's set in the future so you have to make some leaps of faith but we didn't want it to be just magic in space."

- Mac Walters

I contend that they failed at this. Whether or not you feel this degrades the experience is irrelevant. This thread tries to argue that the complaint about space magic is invalid because it's sci-fi. However, Mac Walters himself said he wanted to avoid anything being complete space magic. If he failed to convince us with synthesis, it is a valid complaint for those of us who care about this sort of thing. If you have no problem with it, you have the right to your own opinion, but that does not invalidate our complaints.

It is advanced technologie...not only from our own perspective but also from the perspective of mass effect continuity.
If you would be able to understand it, it would not be advanced anymore.

[o Ventus]

maaaze wrote...

But they are not the same...they seem the same.

Yeah... Effectively the same. Holy f**k. Are you deliberately ignoring what that statement means?

or here...one is based in technologie and one is based in supernatrual.

The effect may look the same to you but they are different.

Which is the reason that advanced technology is not "magic".

If you made fire with your mind or with a device does not matter in our perception.

You can only tell the difference when you understand the technologie behind the device.

Yeah, except one of those two is physically impossible, and thus "magic".

advanced technologie has the atribute of being not known. otherwise it would not be advanced to you.

You're deliberately being anti-intellectual, aren't you?

Modifié par o Ventus, 16 août 2012 - 11:25 .

[Jadebaby]

JC_aka_fps_john wrote...

It's science fiction. Science fiction is space magic.

Get over it.

I'd say before creating a thread you learn what science fiction actually means.

The very definition will show you that it relies strongly upon a suspension of disbelief system to showcase it's seemingly plausible fiction.

Although DNA and genetic altering does cater into this disbelief suspension. The means in which it was used was complete fantasy and space magic. Which is where the belief is ultimately broken.

I have never chosen synthesis anyway and have only seen the results on youtube. Suffice to say, not only does it's means completely shatter the very definition of science-fiction, it's also completely and utterly .

[Meltemph]

maaaze wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

maaaze wrote...

No, It means that you can not tell them apart.

If you have a set of twins that look completely the same to you.

you can not distinguis them from another.

That does not mean that they are the same Person with the same properties.

Like I said, "effectively the same as", or do you not know what that means?

But they are not the same...they seem the same.

They are 2 different persons with different atributes.

or here...one is based in technologie and one is based in supernatrual.

The effect may look the same to you but they are different.

If you made fire with your mind or with a device does not matter in our perception.

You can only tell the difference when you understand the technologie behind the device.

advanced technologie has the atribute of being not known. otherwise it would not be advanced to you.

Writing scifi doesnt work like that though.  It isnt like the people writing these stories know science to the point that they know things that look like magic to us... That would be just silly.  They are writing either magic or they are writing science, and if they are writing a science based event, then they should respect teh audience and even themselves enough to have an internal explanation in their head that justifies what is happening; and if that is the case they should explain it to the viewer.  People will accept an impossible explanation, as long as it fits in the setting. 

Modifié par Meltemph, 16 août 2012 - 11:40 .

[Tealjaker94]

maaaze wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author

Ah yes. This quote again. You can always say we're just too primitive to understand it. That is absolutely terrible storytelling. I don't recall finding anything in 2001 anywhere near as ridiculous as synthesis.

opinions...opinions...

I have also one...Techno babble is the least interessting part of Sci-Fi. The less the better. Good Sci-Fi was always about "what if we could do this...?" and not about "how we could do this...!"

Which brings us back here.

Bill Casey wrote...

"From very early on we wanted the science of the universe to be plausible. Obviously it's set in the future so you have to make some leaps of faith but we didn't want it to be just magic in space."

- Mac Walters

I contend that they failed at this. Whether or not you feel this degrades the experience is irrelevant. This thread tries to argue that the complaint about space magic is invalid because it's sci-fi. However, Mac Walters himself said he wanted to avoid anything being complete space magic. If he failed to convince us with synthesis, it is a valid complaint for those of us who care about this sort of thing. If you have no problem with it, you have the right to your own opinion, but that does not invalidate our complaints.

It is advanced technologie...not only from our own perspective but also from the perspective of mass effect continuity.
If you would be able to understand it, it would not be advanced anymore.

Well according to Clarke's quote, if it's that advanced it's indistinguishable from magic. And according to Walters' quote, he wanted to avoid anything seeming like magic. Thus, Walters failed to achieve his stated goal.

[krukow]

o Ventus wrote...

maaaze wrote...

But they are not the same...they seem the same.

Yeah... Effectively the same. Holy f**k. Are you deliberately ignoring what that statement means?

or here...one is based in technologie and one is based in supernatrual.

The effect may look the same to you but they are different.

Which is the reason that advanced technology is not "magic".

If you made fire with your mind or with a device does not matter in our perception.

You can only tell the difference when you understand the technologie behind the device.

Yeah, except one of those two is physically impossible, and thus "magic".

advanced technologie has the atribute of being not known. otherwise it would not be advanced to you.

You're deliberately being anti-intellectual, aren't you?

Hey o Ventus, I think he's (badly) just arguing for Clarke's third law.  His pionts are badly written, but actually pretty true.

edit:'d by everyone.  Clarke's third law is well known...

Modifié par krukow, 16 août 2012 - 11:28 .

[o Ventus]

krukow wrote...

Hey o Ventus, I think he's (badly) just arguing for Clarke's third law.  His pionts are badly written, but actually pretty true.

edit:'d by everyone.  Clarke's third law is well known...

maaaze is true or Clarke is true?

[Tealjaker94]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So you guys are willing to accept....

The bending of time and space.

Mind powers.

A non exsistent chemical element that makes this all happen.

But you're not willing to accept the re-writing of DNA?

Why?

Exposition.

[en2ym3]

Reorte wrote...

It's been explained in enough posts but I'll chip in anway.

Every fictional universe, be it sci-fi or fantasy, has to establish its rules fairly early on and live with them. Any work of fiction that resorts to "anything at all is possible" has failed. Obviously when we're moving into fantasy and everything beyond the hardest science fiction there has to be some departure from reality - ideally it should be the minimum possible to get the fictional universe running and from then on the author should do his best to stick rigidly to what's possible within known reality, his new exceptions, and whatever logical conclusions can be drawn from those. Straying beyond that chucks us into "anything is possible" which is a huge disaster for storytelling and demonstrates a massive lack of imagination and ability in the author (and anyone who accepts it).

How far beyond reality you can get away with in your initial exceptions is largely a matter of personal taste (and to a fairly large degree conventions that we're used to, e.g. FTL travel and weird asari mind powers).

Exactly.  

Suspension of Disbelief is not supposed to mean the we believe everything, it's a contract between the writer and their audience - when it's not followed on the writer's part, it breaks that suspension of disbelief.
Just an example of one I saw recently is the "Superman with laser vision and super strength" vs. "No one knowing who Superman is because he wears glasses."  The former is fine, but the latter bugs people.



If Mass Effect was a Star Wars universe, where "Space Magic" was more common, then there wouldn't be complaints.  But it's not.  It has set up a universe, espeically in 1, that cares about details, that explains how things work, that overall has remained very consistent to the information it gave us.  We have a Codex of all this information - a lot of which you might not see in the game.  I didn't really know what the League of One was, despite having a quest for it, until I read the Codex entry on it.  

Yes, Element Zero is fictional, but they set up rules for it, they set up an explanation for what it was, how it worked, and then used that concept to explain many, many other things.  I personally thought it was a brilliant idea - a relatively simple one that acted as revolutionary technology that hugely changed any culture that discovered it, and thus described so many things in the game otherwise (biotics, mass effect, etc.)  

However, although there may have been some bending of the rule (not sure), it wasn't broken - or, at least, wasn't in such a severe and blatant way (the more noticeable it is, the worse it is).

Synthesis?  And a lot of the rest of the ending?  It does break rules of the world, logic, and otherwise leaves things unexplained that should otherwise be impossible.  Not only is it odd, for such a carefully detailed universe, to have something so important introduced out of no where, with no real explanation of where it came from, it is worse that there is little to no explanation of how it works, what it is, or why it would solve anything - what explanation (was there any?) there is is horridly poor.


Even ignoring the breaking of the universe's rules, though, it's still horrid in terms of theme and literary quality - I don't think people would have accepted this kind of ending for Star Wars, either.

[Xellith]

If Bioware were to just come out and explain how synthesis works according to the lore then this wouldnt be a problem. The problem is however that this feels like it was implimented by people who didnt even know themselves what they were doing.

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So you guys are willing to accept....

The bending of time and space.

Mind powers.

A non exsistent chemical element that makes this all happen.

But you're not willing to accept the re-writing of DNA?

Why?

You mean that same energy wave that was created by a person swan diving into a beam of energy?  Absorbing their "escence"? 

That same green wave that somehow makes organics compatable with Synthetic technology by giving us all USB ports or something? 

You mean that green energy wave that can somehow tell the difference between a piece of metal making a ship and a building and a synthetic that has an AI? 

That same energy wave that can tell the difference between organic material and inorganic material?  That same energy wave that somehow seems to transfer AI's from one machine to another?  EDI bot is just remote controlled.  Synthesis appears to transfer her to it entirely. 

Explain how.

I entered this universe and was emersed in the rules and laws of this universe.  Synthesis comes out of nowhere.  Its not referenced ANYWHERE.  It's not hinted ANYWHERE.  It just comes out of NOWHERE.

Modifié par Xellith, 16 août 2012 - 11:38 .

[Meltemph]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So you guys are willing to accept....

The bending of time and space.

Mind powers.

A non exsistent chemical element that makes this all happen.

But you're not willing to accept the re-writing of DNA?

Why?

Because they didnt prepare the story for it.  They used it as an excuse to an ending, not to actually improve on what was already there.  They explained how what works in this world, for the most part, however it still maintained real-world physics in most other ways not specifically specified.  So up until that point, you would view it the same way you would everything else. 

Also, I dont think anyone is not willing to accept re-writing of DNA, but originally, that was not what the writers were claiming was happening, and also the way it apparently did this, and how suddenly is another reason.  Breaking computers/tech is one thing, effecting organics on this scale is something on the levels of teh Q continuum, something not originally expected from teh story.

When you go off in the most obscure way you can possible do a form of transhumanism, while also creating a boy named pinochio, you need to make sure you have the floor-work down so people dont just go, "no".

[robertthebard]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Suspension of disbelief. Most things, like FTL, are fine. They're explained within lore and make the experience better. Some things, like the Lazarus Project, start to stretch it. These aren't explained as well but we can get past them as long as they benefit the story. And a few things, namely Synthesis, completely shatter the suspension of disbelief. They either lack any sort of explanation or are explained in a way that only makes them more absurd i.e. New DNA WTF?! They don't benefit the overall plot of the game and are thus dismissed as space magic.

Start to stretch it?  The Lazarus Project is a bigger DeM than the Crucible will ever be.  I know, I know, "But Rob, DeM's are supposed to be a the end", and it is, at what is technically the end of ME 1.  Get over Space Magic, the only reason we're still playing after the outtro to ME 1 is Space Magic.

[o Ventus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So you guys are willing to accept....

The bending of time and space.

Because this is already theoretically possible (just not by mankind).

Mind powers.

Which are given a plausible (in-universe) explanation as to why they exist and how they function.

A non exsistent chemical element that makes this all happen.

An element that is based on real-life theoretical physics, with properties taken primarily from dark matter, anti-matter, and gravitons.

But you're not willing to accept the re-writing of DNA?

Way to sugercoat it.

[Mazebook]

o Ventus wrote...

maaaze wrote...

But they are not the same...they seem the same.

Yeah... Effectively the same. Holy f**k. Are you deliberately ignoring what that statement means?

or here...one is based in technologie and one is based in supernatrual.

The effect may look the same to you but they are different.

Which is the reason that advanced technology is not "magic".

If you made fire with your mind or with a device does not matter in our perception.

You can only tell the difference when you understand the technologie behind the device.

Yeah, except one of those two is physically impossible, and thus "magic".

advanced technologie has the atribute of being not known. otherwise it would not be advanced to you.

You're deliberately being anti-intellectual, aren't you?

you are embarrassing yourself... this will not end well.


Yeah, except one of those two is physically impossible, and thus "magic".

Yes supernatural is not possible... but only because you know how to create fire with a device.

If the concept of fire would be alien to you...it would seem like magic to you. Because you would not even have the slightest Idea what it is. 

Also do you think we know everything about the universe and have discovered every possible technologie.
That is basicly what you are saying.

You're deliberately being anti-intellectual, aren't you? 

and you have no concept of the unknown? Every Scientist would tell you that we only know and understand very very little about the universe and possible technologies is known today. We can not foresee what will be known in 100 years.


Yeah... Effectively the same. Holy f**k. Are you deliberately ignoring what that statement means? 


NO! THEY ARE DIFFERENT! they only seem the same from your perspective...but they are totaly different...for christ sake...

THEY ARE NOT THE EFFECTIVLY THE SAME! they are totaly different because they have a different concept and source. 

got it?

Modifié par maaaze, 16 août 2012 - 11:44 .

[Tealjaker94]

robertthebard wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Suspension of disbelief. Most things, like FTL, are fine. They're explained within lore and make the experience better. Some things, like the Lazarus Project, start to stretch it. These aren't explained as well but we can get past them as long as they benefit the story. And a few things, namely Synthesis, completely shatter the suspension of disbelief. They either lack any sort of explanation or are explained in a way that only makes them more absurd i.e. New DNA WTF?! They don't benefit the overall plot of the game and are thus dismissed as space magic.

Start to stretch it?  The Lazarus Project is a bigger DeM than the Crucible will ever be.  I know, I know, "But Rob, DeM's are supposed to be a the end", and it is, at what is technically the end of ME 1.  Get over Space Magic, the only reason we're still playing after the outtro to ME 1 is Space Magic.

I put in that line for a reason. The Lazarus Project was BS too. But we can look past because we get to keep kicking ass. It also stuck with the theme of the story(not even death can slow me down), unlike the endings.

[robertthebard]

Xellith wrote...

If Bioware were to just come out and explain how synthesis works according to the lore then this wouldnt be a problem. The problem is however that this feels like it was implimented by people who didnt even know themselves what they were doing.

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So you guys are willing to accept....

The bending of time and space.

Mind powers.

A non exsistent chemical element that makes this all happen.

But you're not willing to accept the re-writing of DNA?

Why?

You mean that same energy wave that was created by a person swan diving into a beam of energy?  Absorbing their "escence"? 

That same green wave that somehow makes organics compatable with Synthetic technology by giving us all USB ports or something? 

You mean that green energy wave that can somehow tell the difference between a piece of metal making a ship and a building and a synthetic that has an AI? 

That same energy wave that can tell the difference between organic material and inorganic material?  That same energy wave that somehow seems to transfer AI's from one machine to another?  EDI bot is just remote controlled.  Synthesis appears to transfer her to it entirely. 

Explain how.

I entered this universe and was emersed in the rules and laws of this universe.  Synthesis comes out of nowhere.  Its not referenced ANYWHERE.  It's not hinted ANYWHERE.  It just comes out of NOWHERE.

You mean not being dead at the beginning of ME 2?  Explain how.

[Jadebaby]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So you guys are willing to accept....

The bending of time and space.

Mind powers.

A non exsistent chemical element that makes this all happen.

But you're not willing to accept the re-writing of DNA instantaneously across the entire galaxy via a beam of particles?

Why?

Exposition.

QFT,

Oh and fixed your OP Hanar.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

I'll just leave this here:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"
David Langford, corollary to Clarke's third law

The thing is, Clarke's law is fine when it's used as a framing device. Just to make something possible (i.e FTL space travel), and to move a plot forward. It fails completely when it's used as a main plot point. That's where Synthesis fails. If it were just the starting point to present a story (exploring the consequences of a Synthesized galaxy) it could work. It fails completely as a resolution.

And Clarke's laws aren't supposed to justify bad writing.

Modifié par Chaotic-Fusion, 16 août 2012 - 11:47 .