540 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Wow.  This is the first time I've actually seen someone come up with a GOOD alternative.  I guess maybe their programming wouldn't allow it though?  Man, I tell ya, those Leviathans SUCKED at computer programming!

Anyways, I've said it before I'll say it again.  The AI is just the freaking operators manuel for the Crucible/Citadel gun.  It isn't 'giving you options', it's explaining how the thing works.  Of course, I know many here will ignore that; they'd rather revel in the idea of being 'forced' to make decisions and yadda yadda yadda.  When all is said and done, though, it's just a stupid game.  I'm just glad some of ya'll who hate the game so much won't be in the ME4 forums.  I mean, surely you wouldn't be so sad and pathetic as to buy yet ANOTHER game that you know you'll hate from a company you abhor.  Right?  

Catalyst:  I was created to bring balance, to be the catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics

Shepard:  So you're just an AI?

Catalyst: In as much as you are just an animal.  I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers

The Catalyst is far more than just an operator's manual.

And fyi, If I knew how bad ME3 would end up I never would have bought the first game, let alone the third.  SoBiwoare can just deal with me being in this forum.  I paid for it, and not just in money.  

AS for your incredibly snide comment:  yes, you are more than welcome to that forum when it comes about.  If you want to fling money at Bioware for railroaded endings, half-baked pseudomystical nonsense, and dark=deep, well, P. T. Barnum had something to say about that.  

Modifié par iakus, 14 août 2013 - 03:09 .

[KaiserShep]

Maybe we should wait until the next game actually exists before passing judgment on it and calling people suckers.

[Xilizhra]

What if the ending is not, in one's own mind, bad enough to tarnish the rest of the series? Is this too a matter of flinging money at Bioware due to bad taste?

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

AS for your incredibly snide comment:  yes, you are more than welcome to that forum when it comes about.  If you want to fling money at Bioware for railroaded endings, half-baked pseudomystical nonsense, and dark=deep, well, P. T. Barnum had something to say about that.  

It'll more of a debit-card-flinging.

[Iakus]

KaiserShep wrote...

Maybe we should wait until the next game actually exists before passing judgment on it and calling people suckers.

Hmm, that's actually not the quote I had in mind.

Though the one I did was hardly more complimentary 

At any rate, I'd argue that Wolvar was calling me (or at least, ending haters in general) suckers by implying we'd buy the next game knowing it would be something we disliked.  I simply replied that after the endings we received, blind devotion to the Bioware brand is not the smartest financial move one could make.

Though yes, I did go a bit berserk at that and was intemperate in my phrasing.  I do regret that.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

What if the ending is not, in one's own mind, bad enough to tarnish the rest of the series? Is this too a matter of flinging money at Bioware due to bad taste?

If that happens, then Bioware will have managed to turn itself around.  If the next ending was also actually good and fit the stroy being told, that would be even better.

I wish I could be confident in that happening.  But Bioware is no longer a proven label.  A barker exhorting the praises of the next game is not going to be enough.  

Now they have to answer the question "Why should I trust you again?" 

[Xilizhra]

If that happens, then Bioware will have managed to turn itself around. If the next ending was also actually good and fit the stroy being told, that would be even better.

I mean, that's how I see ME3's ending. It wasn't great, which is more problematic than it might be because the series as a whole was, but once I got around to actually playing it (admittedly post-EC), I didn't find it apocalyptically terrible. I'm willing to give the fourth game a shot.

[KaiserShep]

Given the majority of the content of Mass Effect is something I enjoy immensely (and I do not loathe the ending post-EC), I at least have a modicum of faith that the next game will be enjoyable. I'd like to think that the devs paid attention to the backlash caused by the trilogy's finale.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 14 août 2013 - 03:22 .

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

If that happens, then Bioware will have managed to turn itself around. If the next ending was also actually good and fit the stroy being told, that would be even better.

I mean, that's how I see ME3's ending. It wasn't great, which is more problematic than it might be because the series as a whole was, but once I got around to actually playing it (admittedly post-EC), I didn't find it apocalyptically terrible. I'm willing to give the fourth game a shot.

See, and I did find the ending "apocalyptically terrible".  It invalidated the entire trilogy to me.  And EC didn't touch a single detail that made me feel that way.  At this point I have zero reason to trust the Mass Effect team (And I'm watching Dragon Age: Inquisition's development very carefully)

 I would not game at any table that had them as a GM.  

I have absolutely no reason to invest myself in a new character when the old one was treated so terribly.

If they can turn that sentiment around and rebuild that trust, great.  But if they still consider the Catalyst and RGB a stroke of genius, that's not happening anytime soon.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

See, and I did find the ending "apocalyptically terrible".  It invalidated the entire trilogy to me.  And EC didn't touch a single detail that made me feel that way.  At this point I have zero reason to trust the Mass Effect team (And I'm watching Dragon Age: Inquisition's development very carefully)

 I would not game at any table that had them as a GM.  

I have absolutely no reason to invest myself in a new character when the old one was treated so terribly.

If they can turn that sentiment around and rebuild that trust, great.  But if they still consider the Catalyst and RGB a stroke of genius, that's not happening anytime soon.

What if they think that the Catalyst and RGB were something that wasn't genius, but wasn't apocalyptically terrible either?

[CronoDragoon]

Personally I love the idea of the Catalyst and the Crucible but think their implementation was terrible.

It would be interesting to see the effect on ME3 if the Catalyst was a plot twist at the end of an alternate universe ME2 plotline (one in which ME2 actually advanced the plot) and how this would have affected/reframed the ME3 war.

[Omega Torsk]

David7204 wrote...

The Crucible just firing an EMP burst would be completely unnacceptable and abhorrent writing.

You know why?

When there is a plan, things cannot go according to it. If they do, the plan becomes a spoiler.

Among several other reasons. But that's the main one.

There is absolutely no drama, no tension, and no satisfaction in things happening exactly as we're told they would happen. Things never go to plan in good fiction. Never. If you look at the story missions throughout Mass Effect, not a single one has things going to plan.

Every single story mission introduces new information and new challenges to the player.

Every single one. And that's what the ending needs to do.

Mass Effect has already had that formula throughout the first two games. Things have to go to plan or else, game over. Shepard has to reach Citadel control before Sovereign opens the relay. S/he has to stop the Collectors. And in ME3, S/he has to stop the Reapers or else the galaxy is doomed.

The way it's done is academic. At the end of it, maybe things don't go according to plan, but the goal is reached, regardless. Based on your choices, the genophage is cured, there is peace on Rannoch, and the Crucible fires. In my proposed EMP burst idea, the Reapers can be defeated, but it wasn't how they planned it (actually, now that I think about it, the entirety of Priority: Earth was to hope for the best, and whatever happens, happens). However, the goal was still the same. So yeah, things didn't go according to plan, but the goal is reached.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Wolfva2 wrote...

That's why I said 'some of ya'll' instead of MR GOGETA HIMSELF PERSONALY!!!!   <LOL>   Brain excercises are fun; so's being a Devil's advocate.

//bows  Very well then.

There's plenty of things the Reapers COULD do; the thing is they won't.  What they WILL do is...Reap.  That's it.  They won't entertain other options.  Perhaps they COULD, but they won't.  They're obstinate like that.  Coulda shoulda woulda doesn't really matter when faced with what does happen.  History is replete with such examples of commanders, kings and tyrants who COULD have done something different but for whatever reason they thought good, they didn't.  So.  The catalyst really has NO options but to reap.  Apparently that's it's programming.  It can't change it.  That's all it's going to have the Reapers do.  IT has no other option.  It could, perhaps it should, and if it was fully sentient and with free will it would...but it doesn't.  SO it's only option is to reap.  Oh yeah, and to go, "By the way....here's what this machine you had no CLUE about does!"  Nice of it, dontchathink? <LOL>

The thing is, the Reapers themselves are a decision the Catalyst had made.  It's not 'bound' to keep Reaping... as Reaping itself is the Catalyst's idea.  It only does it because it wants to do it... and feels it's the best thing to do.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 15 août 2013 - 01:38 .

[SeaSquared]

 Can we all just agree starchild is pretty illogical the more you think about it? 
Which I think is atleast somewhat intentional. Dunno why some many people are so flustered by the concept that the head of the primary antagonist doesn't have everything perfectly figured out. If he did, he would be the good guy.

[Wolfva2]

iakus wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Wow.  This is the first time I've actually seen someone come up with a GOOD alternative.  I guess maybe their programming wouldn't allow it though?  Man, I tell ya, those Leviathans SUCKED at computer programming!

Anyways, I've said it before I'll say it again.  The AI is just the freaking operators manuel for the Crucible/Citadel gun.  It isn't 'giving you options', it's explaining how the thing works.  Of course, I know many here will ignore that; they'd rather revel in the idea of being 'forced' to make decisions and yadda yadda yadda.  When all is said and done, though, it's just a stupid game.  I'm just glad some of ya'll who hate the game so much won't be in the ME4 forums.  I mean, surely you wouldn't be so sad and pathetic as to buy yet ANOTHER game that you know you'll hate from a company you abhor.  Right?  

Catalyst:  I was created to bring balance, to be the catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics

Shepard:  So you're just an AI?

Catalyst: In as much as you are just an animal.  I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers

The Catalyst is far more than just an operator's manual.

And fyi, If I knew how bad ME3 would end up I never would have bought the first game, let alone the third.  SoBiwoare can just deal with me being in this forum.  I paid for it, and not just in money.  

AS for your incredibly snide comment:  yes, you are more than welcome to that forum when it comes about.  If you want to fling money at Bioware for railroaded endings, half-baked pseudomystical nonsense, and dark=deep, well, P. T. Barnum had something to say about that.  

Nothing you quoted from the AI has anything to do with what I said about it being essentially the owners manual.  By which I meant it's informing you of the instructions on how to use the catalyst.

Did my snide comment hurt your feelings?  Want a tissue?  Lemme clue you in to a fact.  You're not 'speaking truth to power' here, although you seem to think you're some 'rebel' fighting valiantly against Bioware.  They don't even know you exist.  You are meaningless, just like the rest of us.  Heck, the devs don't even come here anymore and about the only BW employes that hop into threads are mods warning us to tone it down, or locking 'em. 

So you want to vent your disapointment?  Go right ahead.  Just don't be so shocked and buttsore when someone who disagrees with you makes comments you don't like.  This isn't your personal echo chamber, as much as you and others like you want it to be.  Freedom of expression goes both ways, as much as you might hate it.

And yes, I will happily fling my money at Bioware for their next game; the next 2 actually; ME4 and DA3.  I liked their games enough to do so, and I found enough entertainment in them it's worth the money.  I'm sure that'll throw you into a rage...after all, someone actually believes something DIFFERENT from you!  NO!  That CAN NOT BE!  Why, if someone says something different from you it must mean they think you're WRONG!  And if they think you're wrong, they must think you're stupid!  And if they think you're stupid...why...how DAAAARE they insult you like this!   QUICK!  To the forum to complain about snide comments! <cue '60s batman theme>.  People disagreeing with you means only ONE thing.  That they disagree with you.  It's not an attack.  Or an insult.  So stop acting like it is Princess.

[silverexile17s]

iakus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Because no other option exists. If it did, he would have presented it alongside the Crucible options. He even explisitly makes note of this in the EC, saying that the galaxy used up the majority of all their collective resources to make the Crucible, and thus, no other options exist.
If you think you know better, why not prove it? How about you tell us just what you think these "filtered-out options" that don't require the Crucible were?

Yes, there's another option.

The Reapers can back off  

We have a functioning Crucible, an adaptive power source that's freaking magical. Even while under seige from teh repaers, the galaxy manage to build and deplay it.  And it potentially holds the answers to everyone's problems.  Back off, parlay, and find a new solution.

EDI can alter her core programming to become more altruistic.  If the Catalyst is so far advanced, he can at least tell the Reapers "stop shooting for a moment" 

No. There isn't.
If that was an option, it would have been done.
Even when the Crucible is under fire, the Catalyst seems completely incapable of making them pull out. He directs them and controls their goals. He's doesn't control them in'depth like that.
To clarify, the Crucible uses Dark Energy (biotics), which do a pretty big amount of things depending on the fine-tunning of the production/output.
Also, even if it could order the Reapers to pull back (which it can't), why? What get's done through that method? It would be nothing but stalling out in the eyes of the Catalyst, because since the galaxy used up all their resources already, no other possiblity exists but this. Didn't the "let the quarians & geth resolve the problem themselves" route prove what little "back off, parlay, and find a new solution" did without someone to kick them in the ass and force a resolution? The Catalyst is almost the same as Shepard in that sense - except much, much more sociopathic and cold.

After her restraints are removed. The Catalyst says that he doesn't want to do any of this. He doesn't want to "waste time" finding a solution, because he doesn't think a perminate one exists (until now). He's shackled by his programming directives (Think EDI before Joker unlocked her shackles).

[silverexile17s]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

iakus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Because no other option exists. If it did, he would have presented it alongside the Crucible options. He even explisitly makes note of this in the EC, saying that the galaxy used up the majority of all their collective resources to make the Crucible, and thus, no other options exist.
If you think you know better, why not prove it? How about you tell us just what you think these "filtered-out options" that don't require the Crucible were?

Yes, there's another option.

The Reapers can back off  

We have a functioning Crucible, an adaptive power source that's freaking magical. Even while under seige from teh repaers, the galaxy manage to build and deplay it.  And it potentially holds the answers to everyone's problems.  Back off, parlay, and find a new solution.

EDI can alter her core programming to become more altruistic.  If the Catalyst is so far advanced, he can at least tell the Reapers "stop shooting for a moment" 

No. Can't stop shooting. Having too much fun. Do you know what it's like waiting 50,000 years to do this? Man, did you just see that dreadnought blow up? Your cycle is so weak, Shepard. The Protheans put up a decent fight, but yours? It just sucks. I should have stayed in dark space for another 10,000 years and it might have been a challenge, but I like these one-sided matches. OMG! there goes another one.

Actualy, "can't stop shooting" is pretty much the truth. Stopping would entail stopping the enactment of the Solution, which is a vioation of his programming.
He's got multiple directives restraining him, since he's shackled to his mission of achiving a Solution. Like how EDI was.

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

He doesn't want to be destroyed (Destroy) or replaced (Control) as he doesn't think it will help, but his programming compells him to submit-

Tell you what, here's an instant fix for you.  Replace 'permission' with 'submittance.'

Feel better?

We need the Reaper King's 'submittance' to stop the Reapers.

No, because you are still being snide about it and still refuse to accept that he hasn't got a choice in this -- he's not pulling the strings. His programming's forcing him into this.
Maybe when you are honest about it and drop the IT belief in your other posts:P

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

@silverexile17s

Hitting the same debate, one point at a time, is not "worming" out of anything. Either you want to do it or you don't. But you can't seem to stay focused (and are more prone to make things up) when you're hit with multiple points at once.

One point at a time (the same points), should make it easier for you to understand.  Again, we'll get to every topic you want to address.  From IT head cannon, to Shepard's importance.

No more excuses.. and no escape, let's hit it or quit it, your choice.  Let your programming compel you either way.

You were responding to each point repeatedly and without fail until I picked apart the fact that the lack of other resources prevented other options from existing. The sudden attempt to try and take them one "one at a time" is basically admoting you couldn't respond to them. Especally since those are the points you are running from.
After all, aren't you the one that suddenly stopped the debate to try and change the rules at the last second?

You are the only one that doesn't understand. Especally since you ignored what I said earlier about the Catalyst indeed being hardwired to his directives. If you were honestly trying to take thye points one at a time, why did you respond to everything else except the answer I gave? Otherwise, you wouldn't be stalling with this -- you would have just answered the question and moved the topic along.

"No more excuses.. and no escape."
Ironic that every qoute is applicable only to your own actions, not mine[/b]. So how about you respond to what I said already about the Catalyst's shackles, and [b]stop trying to worm your way out of this?

Modifié par silverexile17s, 15 août 2013 - 05:41 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

@ silverexile17s
Being snide is your interpretation (that you are welcome to have) but pretty irrelevant considering you could be accused of the same thing. 

Regardless, that's why I said it's time to have a 'serious' debate.  We've done the "you, no you" thing long enough, it doesn't lead anywhere.  The notion of Catalyst choice will be discussed as well, just on a point-by-point basis so that it's easier for you to grasp.

The sudden attempt to try and take them one "one at a time" is basically admoting you couldn't respond to them. Especally since those are the points you are running from.

Confronting them one at a time is running from them? 

.....

How did you come to that conclusion?

Tell you what, when we hit them one by one, remind me of every point you think I'm 'worming' out of, and we'll add that to the list of points to hit (on a point-by-point basis).  The point of this is to make responses you can keep track of.

No escape, no excuses.  We hit them or we don't.  It's your choice.


Otherwise, that was fun.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 15 août 2013 - 06:24 .

[Alien Number Six]

That is pretty odd. Perhaps the Reaper AI is bored with the whole situation. Maybe he is thinking "I haven't seen that thing in a while." "Perhaps it is time to let this galaxy decide for itself." "Harbenger no one gets past the beam but Shepard."

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

@ silverexile17s
Being snide is your interpretation (that you are welcome to have) but pretty irrelevant considering you could be accused of the same thing. 

Regardless, that's why I said it's time to have a 'serious' debate.  We've done the "you, no you" thing long enough, it doesn't lead anywhere.  The notion of Catalyst choice will be discussed as well, just on a point-by-point basis so that it's easier for you to grasp.

The sudden attempt to try and take them one "one at a time" is basically admoting you couldn't respond to them. Especally since those are the points you are running from.

Confronting them one at a time is running from them? 

.....

How did you come to that conclusion?

Tell you what, when we hit them one by one, remind me of every point you think I'm 'worming' out of, and we'll add that to the list of points to hit (on a point-by-point basis).  The point of this is to make responses you can keep track of.

No escape, no excuses.  We hit them or we don't.  It's your choice.


Otherwise, that was fun.

Once again, your qoutes only describe yourself. I've cited the in-game evidence that disproves your accusations and assertations, and all you could do to respond was say"let's start the debate over." Even though it's your debate.

You haven't made a serious comment this entire time. You expect me to believe you'd start now? The only one doing the "you, no you" is you. Especaly since you are the one that's wasted the past 5 comments ranting about the method of debate rather then the actual debate. Also, I'm not the one that demanded a restart, and I'm not the one that fails to grasp the facts. You are the one having a hard time "grasping the facts." Otherwise, you wouldn't have pulled the "let's start over" card to begin with.

You're abandoning them. The fact that this entire time, you haven't once responded to my original retort about the Catalyst's shackles proves that you are just stalling out. I mean, 5 posts, zero mention  of the actual debate. For someone that wants to have a "serious debate," you haven't said anything to counter my one point I provided. Either give me a responce about the Catalyst's shackled programmoing, or admit otherwise.

I already did 5 posts ago. I said the Catalyst was indeed a Shackled A.I. chained to it's directives. You haven't once responded to that sentance. You've been worming out of even that, refusing to even acknoledge them one point at a time. Are you really so unable to admit you were wrong about something?

So, once again, you failed to respond to my point about the Catalyst's shackles. I already provided the topic, but you have been dodging it this entire time.

"No escape, no excuses.  We hit them or we don't.  It's your choice." Strange choice of words for someone that failed to respond when I did give a single point. Once again, you only discribe your own actions. So drop your holier-then-thou atttatude, and respond to your own topic.

Otherwise, pack up and go.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 15 août 2013 - 07:25 .

[silverexile17s]

iakus wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Wow.  This is the first time I've actually seen someone come up with a GOOD alternative.  I guess maybe their programming wouldn't allow it though?  Man, I tell ya, those Leviathans SUCKED at computer programming!

Anyways, I've said it before I'll say it again.  The AI is just the freaking operators manuel for the Crucible/Citadel gun.  It isn't 'giving you options', it's explaining how the thing works.  Of course, I know many here will ignore that; they'd rather revel in the idea of being 'forced' to make decisions and yadda yadda yadda.  When all is said and done, though, it's just a stupid game.  I'm just glad some of ya'll who hate the game so much won't be in the ME4 forums.  I mean, surely you wouldn't be so sad and pathetic as to buy yet ANOTHER game that you know you'll hate from a company you abhor.  Right?  

Catalyst:  I was created to bring balance, to be the catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics

Shepard:  So you're just an AI?

Catalyst: In as much as you are just an animal.  I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers

The Catalyst is far more than just an operator's manual.

And fyi, If I knew how bad ME3 would end up I never would have bought the first game, let alone the third.  SoBiwoare can just deal with me being in this forum.  I paid for it, and not just in money.  

AS for your incredibly snide comment:  yes, you are more than welcome to that forum when it comes about.  If you want to fling money at Bioware for railroaded endings, half-baked pseudomystical nonsense, and dark=deep, well, P. T. Barnum had something to say about that.  

Not really. Otherwise, don't you think it would have thought about organic feelings in this before the Crucible ever docked? It's an A.I. A good one, but not a great one. It solves the problem through brute force logic, rather then actual foresight and understanding of others. It's really not alything less then an operator's manual at this point, and thinking otherwise goes against the majority of the game's examples.

So then you shouldn't be all that surprised to learn that there are people that don't share the same opinion, right? There are people that liked the ending. Can't change that. Sure as heck can't tell them they don't have a right to speak. You can debate what they say, but they have as much right to speak as you do.

The execution of the game's ending was bat, but the concepts weren't all that horrible. Keep in mind that they've made as many gems as failures. I don't know if it's fair to judge the entire future of the company based on one game.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

@silverexile17s, that was the longest debate acceptance I've ever skimmed over.  Lol, but seriously, let's begin.

silverexile17s wrote...
-give me a responce about the Catalyst's shackled programming- 

-I said the Catalyst was indeed a Shackled A.I. chained to it's directives.

And what directives are those?  (Just for quoting's sake.)

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 16 août 2013 - 09:12 .

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

@silverexile17s, that was the longest debate acceptance I've ever skimmed over.  Lol, but seriously, let's begin.

silverexile17s wrote...
-give me a responce about the Catalyst's shackled programming- 

-I said the Catalyst was indeed a Shackled A.I. chained to it's directives.

And what directives are those?  (Just for quoting's sake.)

You mean the longest you ever skipped over. Especally since you were the one that went round and round insetad of asnwering the point I made 5 posts ago while trying to worm out of it.

The directives are "Complete the Solution through any avalible option, including at the cost of self-preservation.
If it's judgement is proven invalid, it must differ to the highest athourity (Shepard) on what Solution is ultimately valid.
It's directives compel it to accept whatever new Solution is manually inputed into it by the higher athourity, regardless of personal belief.
Completing the Solution is paramount."

It's as simple as that -- the Catalyst never had any choice in the matter after the Crucible docked. And it's directives ensure that it couldn't turn away any option -- which are the three we see, since no non-based Crucible options exist.
And while it could accept stimuli from anyone, it must be Shepard that does this, because Shepard is the one that united the galaxy and got them this far, and Shepard is the only one that could make Synthesis possible, and one of the few with strong enough will to make Control possible. No one else has that track list, so no one else would have the Catalyst's acceptance -- he would just debate with them round and round on what to do.