739 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The Catalyst's AI core? Heh. It'd be funny if all Destroy did was turn the Reapers loose from the Catalyst's plan. After that, of course, no more Mr. Nice Guy from them; they'd proceed to conquer the galaxy and rule it for good. There's no sensible reason to let organics ever have have mass effect technology or interstellar travel.

It's also very possible they'd turn on each other or splinter into Reaper factions if we assume that their mind is actually the amalgamation of their race's individuals. Perhaps Reapers made from organic races vs. Reapers made from synthetics (PURE SYNTHETICS. PURGE THE HALF-BREEDS)

I kind of like this one. Still not great for the organics, but fun.

[SwobyJ]

You don't even know what fan-fiction is Seival. Wow.

[Seival]

SwobyJ wrote...

You don't even know what fan-fiction is Seival. Wow.

I know what is it well enough. But looks like you are trying to apply "everything is fan-fiction except the fan-fiction I really like" double standard here, i.e. repeating the same mistakes ITers did. Do you think IT discussion would become prohibited if it would take place in fan creations forum? I really doubt that.

IT was not just a fan-fiction, but also a movement of very vocal and agressive people. The closest analogy is agressive football fans, I guess. So, maybe their creation wouldn't fit even fan-fic section... You may try and disprove this assumption though. Start a constructive IT thread in fan creations forum and see where will it go. If it will not become full of fanatics "spreading the words of the truth to lesser beings" within few months, I will reconsider my assumptions about football fans analogy

Modifié par Seival, 03 janvier 2014 - 07:44 .

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
I don't follow your argument about intent. Hackett's intent would matter if he'd designed the thing, but he didn't.

I guess the easiest way to sum up the idea is

"if you set out to build a car, it's unlikely that you'll end up with a gun."

Hackett didn't design or build the thing, no - but he set the mandate - "find a way to use whatever the hell this thing is to Destroy the Reapers.".  That was the aim of everyone working on the Crucible, bar possibly the Rachnii and the Geth - that was the goal, the target, the idea.  And while it's true that if you set out to build a car, it's unlikely that you'll end up with a gun, you can still build a pretty serviceable gun from the components used to build a car if you put your mind to it.  Intent is important.

Seival wrote...
IT modifies the ending, so it becomes different from the official ending.

What a ridiculous thing to say.  IT modifies nothing, nothing at all other than (potentially) the perception of the player.  A player who thinks about IT sees and does exactly the same things in-game as a player who takes everything they see literally (and in a work of fiction with an open ending, who would do that?)  

IT examines the events and situations within the game as they happen, and considers them alongside the existing Mass Effect lore and the player's experience of the games.  MEHEM modifies the endings; IT simply subjects them to analysis.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
I guess the easiest way to sum up the idea is

"if you set out to build a car, it's unlikely that you'll end up with a gun."

Hackett didn't design or build the thing, no - but he set the mandate - "find a way to use whatever the hell this thing is to Destroy the Reapers.".  That was the aim of everyone working on the Crucible, bar possibly the Rachnii and the Geth - that was the goal, the target, the idea.  And while it's true that if you set out to build a car, it's unlikely that you'll end up with a gun, you can still build a pretty serviceable gun from the components used to build a car if you put your mind to it.  Intent is important.

What happens if someone's trying to build a gun by following the blueprints for a car? Does his intent magically rewrite the blueprints? Or does the device magically work differently after construction? Remember, the builder diesn't understand the operating principle of either cars or guns.

A bit glib there, yep,  but you haven't given a mechanism for translating intent into action.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 janvier 2014 - 09:01 .

[SwobyJ]

Again, you don't know what fanfiction is, Seival.

IT does nothing to change the game. Nothing. At all. Period.

It doesn't modify anything.

And again, you don't know what fanfiction is. I gave you the difference. You ignored it.

NOW, what IS fanfiction, is when people assume I.T. is true PLUS create works based on it. Whether that is stories, mods, audiobooks, plays, comics, etc.

MEHEM is fanfiction (and fanfiction I can respect well enough, btw, even though I wouldn't enjoy it personally). IT is not. It's a theory about the presented story made by the creators of the game. It could be wrong. It could also be right. It could be anywhere in between.

Someone can make a 'TIM will ally with us in the squad' theory during ME2's time (and they did, I remember a couple threads from years ago) and again, that's not a 'fanfiction', but a theory, as long as they present the things that made them more convinced that would happen. It can be a very weak and unsubstantiated theory, or a strong and intriguing one.

Once ME3 game out, that would change. Whatever, *shrug*.
IT might be utterly and totally disproven in the next game. As far as I'm concerned, EC, Leviathan, and even Citadel treaded the line of keeping IT at least in the cards (or any variant thereof), while deciding to not confirm it at all.
EC --> Extended version of what we got in every way.
Leviathan --> Wake up, breathe. Heh. Memories give voice to your words. Mastered the process into.. indoctrination. Etc.
Citadel --> I have stuff on this that I'll leave alone for now

If you're taking the 'fan creation' route, then I.T. is an IDEA, and you're going crazy about any possible interpretation of the story being a 'fan creation'. Duh. We think things and create ideas about them. Wow. Tell me more.

When it comes to people outright expecting Bioware to change the ending *to* IT (being proven), and writing stories about it.. sure, that's literally fan creation. But you don't seem to get what that means, so I'm done here. lol

~~~~

A last bit, actually.

The theory is just a theory. As in, putting theories about the story of Mass Effect would outright clutter up the Fan Creations forum and you sound very silly for suggesting that.

USING the theory for actual fan creations - that's something.

It's not a hard difference. I'm writing so much here because I'm actually just a little shocked that you don't get it. Should I be?

Modifié par SwobyJ, 03 janvier 2014 - 09:10 .

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
What happens if someone's trying to build a gun by following the blueprints for a car? Does his intent magically rewrite the blueprints? Or does the device magically work differently after construction? Remember, the builder diesn't understand the operating principle of either cars or guns.

Well, basically what would happen is you'd end up with a very, very dangerous machine whatever it ended up being used for.  Which seems appropriate.  

A bit glib there, yep,  but you haven't given a mechanism for translating intent into action.

Yup, I wouldn't want to be accused of "modifying" the game LOL

[AlanC9]

So you're just going with intent being magic? If you say so.

[Kurremurre]

Seival wrote...

You may call IT "an interpretation" of course, but this also doesn't change the fact that it's a fan-fiction. Fans may interprete whatever they want whatever they like, but they aren't working in BioWare, so everything they can imagine regarding the story will always remain fan-made, i.e. fan-fiction.

Nice to see you completely ignored my post about literary interpretation. You do realise, I hope, that everyone has an interpretation of any given story. Viewing the ending literally may seem like the most straightforward interpretation, but it is nonetheless an interpretation. As such, whether or not someone interpreting the story is part of BioWare is utterly irrelevant.

[Seival]

SwobyJ wrote...

Again, you don't know what fanfiction is, Seival.

IT does nothing to change the game. Nothing. At all. Period.

It doesn't modify anything.

And again, you don't know what fanfiction is. I gave you the difference. You ignored it.

NOW, what IS fanfiction, is when people assume I.T. is true PLUS create works based on it. Whether that is stories, mods, audiobooks, plays, comics, etc.

MEHEM is fanfiction (and fanfiction I can respect well enough, btw, even though I wouldn't enjoy it personally). IT is not. It's a theory about the presented story made by the creators of the game. It could be wrong. It could also be right. It could be anywhere in between.

Someone can make a 'TIM will ally with us in the squad' theory during ME2's time (and they did, I remember a couple threads from years ago) and again, that's not a 'fanfiction', but a theory, as long as they present the things that made them more convinced that would happen. It can be a very weak and unsubstantiated theory, or a strong and intriguing one.

Once ME3 game out, that would change. Whatever, *shrug*.
IT might be utterly and totally disproven in the next game. As far as I'm concerned, EC, Leviathan, and even Citadel treaded the line of keeping IT at least in the cards (or any variant thereof), while deciding to not confirm it at all.
EC --> Extended version of what we got in every way.
Leviathan --> Wake up, breathe. Heh. Memories give voice to your words. Mastered the process into.. indoctrination. Etc.
Citadel --> I have stuff on this that I'll leave alone for now

If you're taking the 'fan creation' route, then I.T. is an IDEA, and you're going crazy about any possible interpretation of the story being a 'fan creation'. Duh. We think things and create ideas about them. Wow. Tell me more.

When it comes to people outright expecting Bioware to change the ending *to* IT (being proven), and writing stories about it.. sure, that's literally fan creation. But you don't seem to get what that means, so I'm done here. lol

~~~~

A last bit, actually.

The theory is just a theory. As in, putting theories about the story of Mass Effect would outright clutter up the Fan Creations forum and you sound very silly for suggesting that.

USING the theory for actual fan creations - that's something.

It's not a hard difference. I'm writing so much here because I'm actually just a little shocked that you don't get it. Should I be?

Theories are created, SwobyJ. They don't pop-up from nowhere. It doesn't matter if a theory was used to create some additional content or not. Theory is a content itself. Content, written on a paper, just like many other fan-fictions. Theory, interpretation, imagination - call IT whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that it's a fan-fiction - some fictional content created by the fans based on some content that wasn't created by the fans.

Modifié par Seival, 03 janvier 2014 - 11:25 .

[Kurremurre]

Theories are created, SwobyJ. They don't pop-up from nowhere.

This is obvious. It doesn't make it fanfiction or "fan creation", which - as should be obvious - refers specifically to artistic works: pictures, music, stories and the like. That it should matter that it was at one point created is quite frankly just foolish drivel.

It doesn't matter if a theory was used to create some additional content or not. Theory is a content itself.

Not necessarily, no. An interpretive theory merely describes a possible way of understanding the story as it is. That is not "content".

Content, written on a paper, just like many other fan-fictions.

Is this supposed to prove anything? Because it's a very obvious, very basic logical fallacy.

Theory, interpretation, imagination - call IT whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that it's a fan-fiction - some fictional content created by the fans based on some content that wasn't created by the fans.

Well, I guess you make up in confidence for what you lack in evidence. This is nothing but vacuous say-so. Again, interpretation is not the same as "content".

Modifié par Kurremurre, 04 janvier 2014 - 12:03 .

[SwobyJ]

You're wrong, Seival. Let it go.

[ImaginaryMatter]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

I guess the easiest way to sum up the idea is

"if you set out to build a car, it's unlikely that you'll end up with a gun."

Hackett didn't design or build the thing, no - but he set the mandate - "find a way to use whatever the hell this thing is to Destroy the Reapers.".  That was the aim of everyone working on the Crucible, bar possibly the Rachnii and the Geth - that was the goal, the target, the idea.  And while it's true that if you set out to build a car, it's unlikely that you'll end up with a gun, you can still build a pretty serviceable gun from the components used to build a car if you put your mind to it.  Intent is important.

I think a better comparison for the Crucible is to liken it to the construction of a glumdroopglupbloom. What's that you ask? I have no idea and I certainly think the builders had no idea what the Crucible was. Nothing is known about it: it's energy source, how it focuses this energy, what the result of focusing this energy does... if it even works. What is known about it gets changed every other time it is brought up in the game.

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
So you're just going with intent being magic? If you say so.

Now that was glib.  Not to mention a blatant attempt at putting words into my mouth.

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
I think a better comparison for the Crucible is to liken it to the construction of a glumdroopglupbloom. What's that you ask? I have no idea and I certainly think the builders had no idea what the Crucible was. Nothing is known about it: it's energy source, how it focuses this energy, what the result of focusing this energy does... if it even works. What is known about it gets changed every other time it is brought up in the game.

Very true.  Still, if a team of incredibly talented scientists and engineers are given the blueprints for and materials for, say, a space shuttle and are given the remit to "make a weapon of mass destruction out of this", then chances are they're going to create something extremely dangerous out of it.

[Seival]

SwobyJ wrote...

You're wrong, Seival. Let it go.

I'm right, SwobyJ. And I wonder why don't you see the difference between simple conversation and systematic creation of a theory. Maybe because each thread about IT gone completely out of topic eventually?

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
So you're just going with intent being magic? If you say so.

Now that was glib.  Not to mention a blatant attempt at putting words into my mouth.

You didn't actually come up with a mechanism other than magic. How does intent matter without the knowledge of how to put that intent into action?

Your space shuttle example is badly confused. The engineers are being told to "build this weapon," not to "make a weapon out of this." They don't understand how it works.; I guess their culture hasn't discovered rocketry, electronics, or hydrogen yet. How do they weaponize it?

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 janvier 2014 - 04:36 .

[Nightwriter]

Why would they care.

[AlanC9]

The argument is that they would somehow make it into a weapon because they're..... thinking about weapons while they're building it? I still got nothing.

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
The argument is that they would somehow make it into a weapon because they're..... thinking about weapons while they're building it? I still got nothing.

This really isn't all that difficult a concept to grasp, Alan.  Just how many sci-fi stories are there out there where a scientist invents something revolutionary, only to end up shocked and dismayed (and occassionally dead) when a government/military/evil supervillan decides to weaponise it?

Intent is important, regardless of the innovation.  Fireworks?  Oh, look at the pretty colours!  How do we weaponise it?"  Nuclear fusion?  "Great, a new source of energy!  how do we weaponise it?"  Nanotechnlology?  "Awesome, near-unlimited computing power - how do we weaponise it?"

[SwobyJ]

Seival wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

You're wrong, Seival. Let it go.

I'm right, SwobyJ. And I wonder why don't you see the difference between simple conversation and systematic creation of a theory. Maybe because each thread about IT gone completely out of topic eventually?

There...is...no...difference in a forum. At all.

The threads going completely off topic is a matter of moderation.

[ImaginaryMatter]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Very true.  Still, if a team of incredibly talented scientists and engineers are given the blueprints for and materials for, say, a space shuttle and are given the remit to "make a weapon of mass destruction out of this", then chances are they're going to create something extremely dangerous out of it.

It would be like giving the plans of a space shuttle to a talented team of engineers from the Bronze Age with nothing but blue prints and a desription that, "This device can move". That's the point of the Catalyst, we have no idea what it is, not even its nature, and what is known about it is frustratingly vague. As Hacket describes of the building building operation makes it sounds like the entire team is basically inserting material L into slot 9. It is continuously stressed throughout the game that no one on the project has any idea of what is actually being built.

As an aside the whole Catalyst plot is absolutely silly and falls into the realm of magical plot convenience, but that's how the game desribes it.

[OdanUrr]

Still going at it?

[ImaginaryMatter]

OdanUrr wrote...

Still going at it?

Having the last word is an unfortunate trait of mine.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The argument is that they would somehow make it into a weapon because they're..... thinking about weapons while they're building it? I still got nothing.

This really isn't all that difficult a concept to grasp, Alan.  Just how many sci-fi stories are there out there where a scientist invents something revolutionary, only to end up shocked and dismayed (and occassionally dead) when a government/military/evil supervillan decides to weaponise it?

Not a difficult concept, no. But utterly irrelevant to the Crucible, which the current builders neither invented nor understand. I'm starting to doubt that you actually followed the ME3 plot. More likely, you're trying to force the plof down a more scientifically rational path than it actually takes.

Intent is important, regardless of the innovation.  Fireworks?  Oh, look at the pretty colours!  How do we weaponise it?"  Nuclear fusion?  "Great, a new source of energy!  how do we weaponise it?"  Nanotechnlology?  "Awesome, near-unlimited computing power - how do we weaponise it?"

 

ME3 is more like: "A black box that's supposed to be a weapon?  Let's build it." Weaponizing it isn't the question; as far as the builders know the device already is a weapon, and if it isn't they're SOL anyway, since they don't know enough about it to redesign it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 janvier 2014 - 01:18 .

[Reorte]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


It would be like giving the plans of a space shuttle to a talented team of engineers from the Bronze Age with nothing but blue prints and a desription that, "This device can move". That's the point of the Catalyst, we have no idea what it is, not even its nature, and what is known about it is frustratingly vague. As Hacket describes of the building building operation makes it sounds like the entire team is basically inserting material L into slot 9. It is continuously stressed throughout the game that no one on the project has any idea of what is actually being built.

If the Bronze Age engineers were actually capable of building the thing they'd have come up with a pretty good guess at what it does before they'd finished, and how it worked. You could rightly say that even the most gifted Bronze Age engineer wouldn't be able to work it out on his own, but he wouldn't be able to build it either.