212 réponses à ce sujet

[ZLurps]

Greylycantrope wrote...

warblewobble wrote...
Well, following the link the OP provided, I did like getting an explanation on why Legion had a stalker crush on Shepard. It never made sense to me and apparently it didn't make sense to the person who had to write it either. Sounds like he basically approached it from the perspective of damage control.

I meant explanation in the flow of the story as a whole. Bascially my perception of synthetics in game after playing ME and reading this has not changed. Reading the authors intention merely reinforces my initial impersion of the works meaning, so from my perspective Chris did a good job presenting his ideas to the audience through his characters despite the occasional hickup like Legion's armor.

Only N7 patch and that it inspired something that didn't made sense is IMO an issue. Graphics guys had obvious problem, how to make player not to mix Legion with other Geth on his loyalty mission. Hole was pretty good idea.

[GreyLycanTrope]

ZLurps wrote...
Only N7 patch and that it inspired something that didn't made sense is IMO an issue. Graphics guys had obvious problem, how to make player not to mix Legion with other Geth on his loyalty mission. Hole was pretty good idea.

I agree, though Chris managed to lampshade it well enough given the situation I think.

[ZLurps]

Greylycantrope wrote...

ZLurps wrote...
Only N7 patch and that it inspired something that didn't made sense is IMO an issue. Graphics guys had obvious problem, how to make player not to mix Legion with other Geth on his loyalty mission. Hole was pretty good idea.

I agree, though Chris managed to lampshade it well enough given the situation I think.

Yep. "There was a hole"

[Indy_S]

What's a good alternative to the patch? A different paint-job wouldn't really help. His antennae are a good idea, but not really enough. And to be honest, I've still shot at Legion because I can't see his patch in dark places like Legion's and Tali's loyalty missions.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Indy_S wrote...

What's a good alternative to the patch? A different paint-job wouldn't really help. His antennae are a good idea, but not really enough. And to be honest, I've still shot at Legion because I can't see his patch in dark places like Legion's and Tali's loyalty missions.

Well I suppose they could have just given him a distinct flashbulb color since he houses more Geth than the average platform that would have even been enough reason for why his platform looked distinct, add some other hardware to his shoulders to emphesize the point.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 14 janvier 2013 - 03:06 .

[ZLurps]

Indy_S wrote...

What's a good alternative to the patch? A different paint-job wouldn't really help. His antennae are a good idea, but not really enough. And to be honest, I've still shot at Legion because I can't see his patch in dark places like Legion's and Tali's loyalty missions.

Well, there is like that huge hole in the middle of it.

Pro tip: Look below the patch.

[Indy_S]

You're right, there is a hole there. Still not very standout-ish. I do like Grey's ideas on this. A distinctive light colour would have helped immensely with my 'shooting him' problem. And having awesome pauldrons is never a bad idea.

[ZLurps]

Indy_S wrote...

You're right, there is a hole there. Still not very standout-ish. I do like Grey's ideas on this. A distinctive light colour would have helped immensely with my 'shooting him' problem. And having awesome pauldrons is never a bad idea.

Didn't had that problem but sure simple texture or palette mod could help a lot. Some creative use of bright neon pink for example.

[Cypher_CS]

Wow.

I still like ME3 - but a bit less, I admit. I hate it when games lose potential.
But this does usually happen with pretty much any game, once the post mortems arrive.
Obviously, in serial games the problem is much more visible and admittedly greater.

However, I do not agree with two points l'Etoile makes.

1. I think Legion's obsession with Shepard is fine.
It doesn't have to be emotion. It can easily be healthy curiosity - just much much stronger. It is an AI after all.

2. l'Etoile mentions how evolution creates emotions cause of all the hormones and pheromones and all that chemical stuff.
However, all that chemical stuff is, in the end, just electric signals. Organic Neural Networks are the same Binary entities as software neural networks. Hell, in some perspectives even more primitive.
The chemistry there is a kin to API between the neurons. And it works on the principle of All or Nothing when signaling (making it Binary), with the only difference being the Refractory period.
So there is no reason that artificial neural networks can, in theory, evolve emotion. By accident, obviously, I too shouldn't think they'd want to by design.

[rekn2]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Wow.

I still like ME3 - but a bit less, I admit. I hate it when games lose potential.
But this does usually happen with pretty much any game, once the post mortems arrive.
Obviously, in serial games the problem is much more visible and admittedly greater.

However, I do not agree with two points l'Etoile makes.

1. I think Legion's obsession with Shepard is fine.
It doesn't have to be emotion. It can easily be healthy curiosity - just much much stronger. It is an AI after all.

2. l'Etoile mentions how evolution creates emotions cause of all the hormones and pheromones and all that chemical stuff.
However, all that chemical stuff is, in the end, just electric signals. Organic Neural Networks are the same Binary entities as software neural networks. Hell, in some perspectives even more primitive.
The chemistry there is a kin to API between the neurons. And it works on the principle of All or Nothing when signaling (making it Binary), with the only difference being the Refractory period.
So there is no reason that artificial neural networks can, in theory, evolve emotion. By accident, obviously, I too shouldn't think they'd want to by design.

how does a chemicals effect on your brain happen to electronics?

[StarcloudSWG]

The difference is that the level of different neuro-transmitters and hormones changes in a semi-random way. So the Geth would have to deliberately induce random fluctuations into their neural processing.

I don't think they'd see it as an improvement. There is no need, as Chris said, to emulate, only to understand and create predictive models.

I hadn't realized the writer of the Geth had left the project. It explains why Legion's character and attitude undergo such a dramatic change.

[CronoDragoon]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

The difference is that the level of different neuro-transmitters and hormones changes in a semi-random way. So the Geth would have to deliberately induce random fluctuations into their neural processing.

Pretty much. Every age has compared the brain to the most advanced tech of their time (people used to compare the brain to steam engines) and now it's computers, but it's not the most accurate comparison and has some key differences. One is that while a computer may be programmed to do something 100% of the time, the brain cannot be.

However, the point is valid about neuron clusters working as a binary system. You can fool a monkey into thinking something is moving right when it's moving left purely by forcing certain neurons to "excite" or turn on, thereby causing the wrong perception to reach the decision part of your brain.

Hypothetically speaking, if we ever are able to identify which neuron clusters are responsible for moral decisions, you could conceivably alter someone's morality by permanently causing certain neurons to turn on in certain situations.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 janvier 2013 - 07:03 .

[Cypher_CS]

CronoDragoon,

You can do that today, by inducing that change indirectly, psychologically instead of neurologically. Top Down, instead of Bottom Up.

StarcloudSWG,

I'm not sure that description is correct. The semi-randomness may happen on the micro level - sort of a minute trial and error process, but on the macro level there is order. It goes along with the Psychological development of the child.

So, to apply it to Geth or any AI, really, the process can happen not in random. Also, Neural Networks (software) have lots of randomness in them. Again, it's still very far from a brain, but we are getting there.

For example, I'm developing a... solution - I can't specify for what - that uses Semantic-like Reasoning to learn/study a User on his myriad of operations on a PC (work, play, operations of applications and HID). The idea is that through the combination of Semantic links between the various objects in the knowledge base, and statistic accumulation (learning normas and clusters) and the ability to expand upon those links in a directed way (instead of random walk), based on those statistics, we can design a semi Cognitive agent that can identify if the user working on the computer currently is the one that's supposed to.
This can easily expand to any area of reasoning and even reaction to anxiety and fear, for example.

To further explain, I'll answer rekn2's question,

It's not about Chemical effects working on a Digital Brain.
Take for example the induction or inception of Fear and/or Infatuation.
There's no pheromone at work for Fear and doesn't need to be for Infatuation.
It's an internal process, whereby events perceived by the various sensors (Sight, Sound in this case) induce, in parallel to cognitive processes/explanations, elevated levels of neural transmitions - again, within the body, within the brain. Nothing that comes from outside directly (chemically).
This is basically how the Anxiety state of emotion that is Fear comes to pass.
This internal state, moving forward, can induce, for example, infatuation, if you see a girl (for a guy) near or along with whatever is causing your Fear.

That's why Horror movies are so great for a sex life

But, again, these examples are purely internal.
It's just the chemicals in this case are the means of conveyance of the neural signals, whereas for an AI these means are virtual, software, code structures in the memory.

[Indy_S]

That's a pretty cool security system it appears you're designing. I like the idea of the computer determining the user's habits and checking it against the previous recorded habits. Probably not suitable for a domestic computer given that these user's are fairly inconsistent and patterns are more difficult to determine. Also the fact that there's multiple users, I guess. But in a government or corporate scenario, I can definitely imagine it working.

I also appreciate the discussion of the relationship between chemicals, emotions and the brain's processes.

Kudos to you, Cypher_CS

[Cypher_CS]

It's what happens when a wannabe writer is a systems designer/programmer by trade and a psychology major by degree (getting there)

[txgoldrush]

CronoDragoon wrote...

HomerIsLegend wrote...

The evolution of the series is pretty damn clear in my eyes... ME1 they cared about the story/characters and their interactions within a beautifully crafted universe and you can tell that was it's top priority. In ME2 they shifted to having the gameplay/action being the forefront while not completely ignoring the story/characters/rpg aspect. The mix actually was very well done and didn't completely do away with what made the first game so special in the first place.


...and then we got to ME3. While it definitely has it's shining moments it's pretty evident that whatever had made the series special in the first place was completely ignored in favor of cinematics/dramatization and complete focus on the action/shooter dynamics... story be damned.

They might have planned that from the beginning so who knows... but ME1 will always be the game I love the most and for good reason -- writing/story were given top priority over everything else.

ME1 is the game with the most underwhelming characterization. Half your squadmates are walking codex entries. It's only in ME2 and 3 that the characters begin to flesh out and evolve.

THIS...by a mile.

In fact Wrex is the only real character with characterd evelopment.

Hell, look at Joker...who had ONE talk tree in ME1...but gets more fleshed out in ME2 and mE3.

Good riddance to Drew Karpyshyn...he sucks at characterization and involving characters into the plot. If only Bioware can hire Chris Avellone and pair him with the better ME writers.

Look at what Drew K did with Revan and the Exile...wow...good riddance.

[xsdob]

Kahlee Sanders.

[CynicalShep]

txgoldrush wrote...

Look at what Drew K did with Revan and the Exile...wow...good riddance.

This I kind of agree with

[Fixers0]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ME1 is the game with the most underwhelming characterization. Half your squadmates are walking codex entries. It's only in ME2 and 3 that the characters begin to flesh out and evolve.

Define a "walking codex entry".

[Indy_S]

Fixers0 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

ME1 is the game with the most underwhelming characterization. Half your squadmates are walking codex entries. It's only in ME2 and 3 that the characters begin to flesh out and evolve.

Define a "walking codex entry".

I assume he means that they deliver only exposition, all of which is unrelated to the conflict at hand. They were intended for world-building and never left that role for a lot of players, except to shoot a gun for ten to thirty minutes.

[txgoldrush]

Indy_S wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

ME1 is the game with the most underwhelming characterization. Half your squadmates are walking codex entries. It's only in ME2 and 3 that the characters begin to flesh out and evolve.

Define a "walking codex entry".

I assume he means that they deliver only exposition, all of which is unrelated to the conflict at hand. They were intended for world-building and never left that role for a lot of players, except to shoot a gun for ten to thirty minutes.

yep, just like most Bioware characters....

Look right at Tali in ME1, and Joker as well.

DAO absolutely reeks of this.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:56 .

[Fixers0]

Indy_S wrote...

I assume he means that they deliver only exposition, all of which is unrelated to the conflict at hand. They were intended for world-building and never left that role for a lot of players, except to shoot a gun for ten to thirty minutes.

You mean Characters, like Thane, Samara, Grunt and Jack in Mass Effect 2?

[Liamv2]

Damn screwed up formating

Modifié par Liamv2, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:58 .

[CR121691]

I like the Geth and EDI as ''just'' machines, not as machines with emotions.

[txgoldrush]

Fixers0 wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

I assume he means that they deliver only exposition, all of which is unrelated to the conflict at hand. They were intended for world-building and never left that role for a lot of players, except to shoot a gun for ten to thirty minutes.

You mean Characters, like Thane, Samara, Grunt and Jack in Mass Effect 2?

No, because they develop in the story itself and in ME2, they are the story.

I am talking about the whole KOTOR cast outside Bastila and Carth, the whole DAO party outside of Alistair and maybe Morrigan (she isn;t that important as well and I consider Loghain more of a villain than a true party member), and all ME1 cast outside Wrex and Saren, because Wrex does get a moment in the plot where he develops as a character, or he dies.

Contrast with doing it right, such as KOTOR II, where every member in the game has a role in the plot, even playable roles, or DA2 which each character hasTHREE character quests, and most of the team is important to the plot, while Fenris and Merrill, who aren't...thematically play a role in the central conflict. ME3, another game in which most characters develop through the plot, not because the PC talked to them a certain amount of times and did a small favor. James and Cortez are the exceptions...although Cortez does get into battle and play story roles there.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:05 .