212 réponses à ce sujet

[Rasofe]

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.

A confirmation is still a change, it's a change that reinforces the idea and makes it less likely to change.
If there was evidence that contradicted it in the story, instead of being open minded towards it and expanding your interpretation of the AI in the story, you're more likely to just throw up your hands and shout "contradiction!"
Anyway, explanation or confirmation, it doesn't matter. It's still meta.

EDIT: If you wan't the most loyal experience of the Geth as an AI rather than a "near-living" entity, try getting just Legion killed on the Collector base - you get a very unique experience that way, as Shepard seems to struggle with the death of his former best friend robot and won't let go, constantly projecting on the "Geth VI" the traits of Legion, even though it constantly remarks "We are not Legion". The new version of the gestalt is COLD, machine cold compared to every AI in the game, from Reapers to EDI to that little stealbot caught on the Citadel.

Modifié par Rasofe, 18 janvier 2013 - 12:18 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

That's assuming I was open to other ideas to begin with and wasn't shouting "contradiction" before hand. A narrative is based upon previously establish material, when a new writer takes a different approach it is a contradiction of the previously established material not just me wanting to force an interpretation.
Let me put it like this way:
Grey: I've read/watch this material and arrived at a certain conclusion
Someone else: I've arrived at another conclusion
Grey:That conclusion doesn't seem to be reflected in the material.
Writer: I've written the material with an intent that reflects Grey's conclusion.
Grey: Well fancy that. *Smugly enjoys previously drawn conclusion*

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 18 janvier 2013 - 12:29 .

[Bad King]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Interesting stuff, I like the line 'There's absolutely no reason they should want to be organics They should be allowed to be strong enough to want to better themselves, not change themselves.'

Hearing stuff like that makes synthesis even more of an abomination. Maybe a last minute decision by Mac.

It makes the Rannoch arc an abomination.

[txgoldrush]

HomerIsLegend wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...



And guess which characters play the biggest role in the plot.....Ashley, Kaiden, and Wrex, all on Virmire. Garrus doesn't need his quest to develop and you can even do his quest without him. He is also a wasted oppurtunity. I wonder why Liara, Tali, and Garrus got more character development IN BETWEEN ME1 and ME2, than DURING ME1.

ME2 characters actually had more dialogue, and really are more fleshed out and have more development than Bioware's past characters. Because even if you think ME2 did not do a good job (which it did, especially the romance arcs), its sure of a hell a lot better than their games before that.

And no, EDI started her development in ME2. Nevermind her "Data" role fits the story of ME3 far better as she made her choice to turn against her creators, Cerberus and become loyal to the crew. This starts NOT in ME3, but ME2 when the Collectors kidnap the crew.

How was Garrus a wasted opportunity?  He became the most popular squadmate in ME1 by a country mile which is why he played such a bigger role in the latter games.  You can argue just because there were a larger cast of characters in ME2 that it did a better job at characterization ... but bigger doesn't necessarily equate better.  Half of the recruitment in ME2 was largely boring for me and except for my one completionist playthrough I rarely did all of the loyalty missions.

Jacob, Jack, Samara, and Grunt are characters I just cared little for and would been much happier if Wrex, Kaidan/or Ash, and Liara were all back aboard the Normandy.  As for the plot one of the posters above is correct that the narrative that drove the plot was stopping the Collectors... the recruitment missions were a part of the overall story but weren't exactly central except for the fact we were forced to recruit everyone by BW.

I didn't think anyone except for maybe Tali (because she did indeed get a bit long-winded) were a "codex-entry" in ME1 and I largely enjoyed the interactions.  Again I see the hate for Drew K. but he did a fantastic job creating much of the universe we saw set before us in the first game... along with L'Etoile and the other writers who handled the characters did a wonderful job in making ME1 an highly involving game.

The difference for me in the next two installments is they felt more "gamey" to me and less interactive in terms of telling the story.  Rather than drive the narrative I felt more or less like I was just along for the ride.

Wrong

Wrex was the most popular ME1 character by a country mile. I wonder why. He is the only one that truly got character development. And for obvious reasons, he is not a party member in ME2 because he was easily killable. Tali and Garrus were ME2 party members because they can't be killed in ME1 and they can be killied in ME2 because they aren't vital to the plot like dueteragonist Liara.

No, ME2 did a MUCH better job with characterization. How? because they SHOW character development, not just TELL about it. Other than Wrex, ME1 is all tell, and no show. Just like typical Drew Karpyshyn.

And wrong again, the characters are not only central to the plot, they are central to the theme of ME2.

And Drew K only knows how to create universes and make good villians...he sucks at everything else. His plots are contrived, his morality is all black and white, he plays it safe. and his characters lack involvment and development outside the main two or three. This is why characters like Garrus havd to be developed more in BETWEEN games than in ME1.

And which games from Bioware have the BEST character development other than ME2?

DA2 and ME3 Why? Becuase they show character development, not just tell you about it.

[rekn2]

who said wrex was most popular? i would say by the amount of posts in their fan threads that liara was most popular

[Fiery Phoenix]

Chris L'Etoile not being part of ME3 was part of what's wrong with the game. Quite literally, this guy was directly responsible for every single thing I loved about ME1 and 2. His absence really shows in ME3.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:01 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Wanted to weigh in on this one for a sec. Didn't really get a chance to last time.


~> As I said, if his goal was to avoid "Pinnochio," then he failed long before ME3 came out. ME2 EDI definitely had that vibe to her, resenting Joker's mistrust and claiming herself to be part of the rest of the crew.

~> I also didn't ever get the impression that geth were willing to "talk it out" as he believes he wrote. ME2 establishes that just setting foot in geth territory will get you shot down, quarian or not.

~> While L'Etoile did a good job establishing the characters (EDI, Legion, geth in general) I'm glad he didn't continue it. I don't like writers with an agenda, and he openly admits to having one. In truth, that agenda was quite apparent to me in ME2. I thought synthetic characters in ME3 were handled well overall.

~> Nonetheless, I'm glad he downplayed the "Shepard fanboy" aspect of Legion's character.

~> "Divorced from emotion" ... notice to all people claiming that they're just as emotional as any organic.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 19 janvier 2013 - 03:58 .

[Obadiah]

I think the original Geth motivation is still there in ME3. They don't want to be like organics, but are curious about the philosophical question of "alive" and "souls" - as they were in ME2.

The Reaper upgrades are technically just that, processing upgrades that allow them to overwhelm the new Quarian weapon, and allow the Geth runtimes to exist as single networks within a platform.

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 janvier 2013 - 04:28 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Wanted to weigh in on this one for a sec. Didn't really get a chance to last time.


~> As I said, if his goal was to avoid "Pinnochio," then he failed long before ME3 came out. ME2 EDI definitely had that vibe to her, resenting Joker's mistrust and claiming herself to be part of the rest of the crew.

One can be part of the crew and still without trying to make oneself resemble the crew. Refer to Legion integrating with the Normandy. She wasn't striving to be organic she was striving to be accepted as a crew member. Even if Shepard initially wants to shut her down she doesn't respond in a resentful manner.

~> I also didn't ever get the impression that geth were willing to "talk it out" as he believes he wrote. ME2 establishes that just setting foot in geth territory will get you shot down, quarian or not.

How do most people react to unannounced home invaders?

~> While L'Etoile did a good job establishing the characters (EDI, Legion, geth in general) I'm glad he didn't continue it. I don't like writers with an agenda, and he openly admits to having one. In truth, that agenda was quite apparent to me in ME2. I thought synthetic characters in ME3 were handled well overall.

Just about every writer had an agenda or idea he wanted to portray through out the story, this wasn't exclusive to L'Etoile.

~> "Divorced from emotion" ... notice to all people claiming that they're just as emotional as any organic.

The go emotional in ME3(when L'Etoile was no longer involved) this was a directional change and this contect must now be incorporated. So up to the end of ME2 AI's didn't have emotions as of ME3 they do.

[WhiteKnyght]

txgoldrush wrote...

HomerIsLegend wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...



And guess which characters play the biggest role in the plot.....Ashley, Kaiden, and Wrex, all on Virmire. Garrus doesn't need his quest to develop and you can even do his quest without him. He is also a wasted oppurtunity. I wonder why Liara, Tali, and Garrus got more character development IN BETWEEN ME1 and ME2, than DURING ME1.

ME2 characters actually had more dialogue, and really are more fleshed out and have more development than Bioware's past characters. Because even if you think ME2 did not do a good job (which it did, especially the romance arcs), its sure of a hell a lot better than their games before that.

And no, EDI started her development in ME2. Nevermind her "Data" role fits the story of ME3 far better as she made her choice to turn against her creators, Cerberus and become loyal to the crew. This starts NOT in ME3, but ME2 when the Collectors kidnap the crew.

How was Garrus a wasted opportunity?  He became the most popular squadmate in ME1 by a country mile which is why he played such a bigger role in the latter games.  You can argue just because there were a larger cast of characters in ME2 that it did a better job at characterization ... but bigger doesn't necessarily equate better.  Half of the recruitment in ME2 was largely boring for me and except for my one completionist playthrough I rarely did all of the loyalty missions.

Jacob, Jack, Samara, and Grunt are characters I just cared little for and would been much happier if Wrex, Kaidan/or Ash, and Liara were all back aboard the Normandy.  As for the plot one of the posters above is correct that the narrative that drove the plot was stopping the Collectors... the recruitment missions were a part of the overall story but weren't exactly central except for the fact we were forced to recruit everyone by BW.

I didn't think anyone except for maybe Tali (because she did indeed get a bit long-winded) were a "codex-entry" in ME1 and I largely enjoyed the interactions.  Again I see the hate for Drew K. but he did a fantastic job creating much of the universe we saw set before us in the first game... along with L'Etoile and the other writers who handled the characters did a wonderful job in making ME1 an highly involving game.

The difference for me in the next two installments is they felt more "gamey" to me and less interactive in terms of telling the story.  Rather than drive the narrative I felt more or less like I was just along for the ride.

Wrong

Wrex was the most popular ME1 character by a country mile. I wonder why. He is the only one that truly got character development. And for obvious reasons, he is not a party member in ME2 because he was easily killable. Tali and Garrus were ME2 party members because they can't be killed in ME1 and they can be killied in ME2 because they aren't vital to the plot like dueteragonist Liara.

No, ME2 did a MUCH better job with characterization. How? because they SHOW character development, not just TELL about it. Other than Wrex, ME1 is all tell, and no show. Just like typical Drew Karpyshyn.

And wrong again, the characters are not only central to the plot, they are central to the theme of ME2.

And Drew K only knows how to create universes and make good villians...he sucks at everything else. His plots are contrived, his morality is all black and white, he plays it safe. and his characters lack involvment and development outside the main two or three. This is why characters like Garrus havd to be developed more in BETWEEN games than in ME1.

And which games from Bioware have the BEST character development other than ME2?

DA2 and ME3 Why? Becuase they show character development, not just tell you about it.

To be fair, Karpyshyn has had restraints on his past stories. The upcoming Children of Fire series, as he puts it, he has complete control over and has no "classic morality."

[Kabraxal]

txgoldrush wrote...

HomerIsLegend wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...



And guess which characters play the biggest role in the plot.....Ashley, Kaiden, and Wrex, all on Virmire. Garrus doesn't need his quest to develop and you can even do his quest without him. He is also a wasted oppurtunity. I wonder why Liara, Tali, and Garrus got more character development IN BETWEEN ME1 and ME2, than DURING ME1.

ME2 characters actually had more dialogue, and really are more fleshed out and have more development than Bioware's past characters. Because even if you think ME2 did not do a good job (which it did, especially the romance arcs), its sure of a hell a lot better than their games before that.

And no, EDI started her development in ME2. Nevermind her "Data" role fits the story of ME3 far better as she made her choice to turn against her creators, Cerberus and become loyal to the crew. This starts NOT in ME3, but ME2 when the Collectors kidnap the crew.

How was Garrus a wasted opportunity?  He became the most popular squadmate in ME1 by a country mile which is why he played such a bigger role in the latter games.  You can argue just because there were a larger cast of characters in ME2 that it did a better job at characterization ... but bigger doesn't necessarily equate better.  Half of the recruitment in ME2 was largely boring for me and except for my one completionist playthrough I rarely did all of the loyalty missions.

Jacob, Jack, Samara, and Grunt are characters I just cared little for and would been much happier if Wrex, Kaidan/or Ash, and Liara were all back aboard the Normandy.  As for the plot one of the posters above is correct that the narrative that drove the plot was stopping the Collectors... the recruitment missions were a part of the overall story but weren't exactly central except for the fact we were forced to recruit everyone by BW.

I didn't think anyone except for maybe Tali (because she did indeed get a bit long-winded) were a "codex-entry" in ME1 and I largely enjoyed the interactions.  Again I see the hate for Drew K. but he did a fantastic job creating much of the universe we saw set before us in the first game... along with L'Etoile and the other writers who handled the characters did a wonderful job in making ME1 an highly involving game.

The difference for me in the next two installments is they felt more "gamey" to me and less interactive in terms of telling the story.  Rather than drive the narrative I felt more or less like I was just along for the ride.

Wrong

Wrex was the most popular ME1 character by a country mile. I wonder why. He is the only one that truly got character development. And for obvious reasons, he is not a party member in ME2 because he was easily killable. Tali and Garrus were ME2 party members because they can't be killed in ME1 and they can be killied in ME2 because they aren't vital to the plot like dueteragonist Liara.

No, ME2 did a MUCH better job with characterization. How? because they SHOW character development, not just TELL about it. Other than Wrex, ME1 is all tell, and no show. Just like typical Drew Karpyshyn.

And wrong again, the characters are not only central to the plot, they are central to the theme of ME2.

And Drew K only knows how to create universes and make good villians...he sucks at everything else. His plots are contrived, his morality is all black and white, he plays it safe. and his characters lack involvment and development outside the main two or three. This is why characters like Garrus havd to be developed more in BETWEEN games than in ME1.

And which games from Bioware have the BEST character development other than ME2?

DA2 and ME3 Why? Becuase they show character development, not just tell you about it.

I'd argue DA2 did a worse job than DAO.  ME3 had its moments, but then it had it's moments where characters went a bit OOC from previous games...

[Eterna]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

[spirosz]

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

Because they're now part organic?  

[Eterna]

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

Because they're now part organic?  

Synthetics don't become part organic in Synthesis. They just achieve full understanding of organic emotions and motivations. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:06 .

[Dean_the_Young]

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

Because they're now part organic?  

Since being organic doesn't grant understanding of organics by default... well, obvious conclusion should be obvious.

[spirosz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

Because they're now part organic?  

Since being organic doesn't grant understanding of organics by default... well, obvious conclusion should be obvious.

^

[spirosz]

Eterna5 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

Because they're now part organic?  

Synthetics don't become part organic in Synthesis. They just achieve full understanding of organic emotions and motivations. 

And EDI didn't before hand, right.  

[Dean_the_Young]

Bad King wrote...

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Interesting stuff, I like the line 'There's absolutely no reason they should want to be organics They should be allowed to be strong enough to want to better themselves, not change themselves.'

Hearing stuff like that makes synthesis even more of an abomination. Maybe a last minute decision by Mac.

It makes the Rannoch arc an abomination.

It makes it a difference of opinion on how they should have progressed.

It's not like the Geth were devoid of significant flaws and so warranted being static. They had a self-contradicting ideology in the first place, and were actively seeking to change themselves on various levels from the start.

[Eterna]

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

Because they're now part organic?  

Synthetics don't become part organic in Synthesis. They just achieve full understanding of organic emotions and motivations. 

And EDI didn't before hand, right.  

Not to the same degree. She operates on a system of positive and negative feedback. She can program herself to recieve positive feedback when interacting with Joker. It is a primitive and cheap substitute for true emotion. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

spirosz wrote...

And EDI didn't before hand, right.  

The same EDI who needs you to explaint to her why submission is not preferable to extinction human prisoners on Earth don't just rat each other out to the Reapers so they can save their own skin?

Yeah, sorry, but EDI's got a lot to learn.

[Dean_the_Young]

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Great, so it seems like ME3 screwed up his intentions for EDI and the geth. His comments also utterly ruin Synthesis for me. I'm probably going with Control now.

It's like you're Bipolar with your ending choice. Did you miss the Dialogue with Legion in ME2 where he cnstantly says the Geth seek understanding of their creators?

Guess what, Synthesis does just that. 

Because they're now part organic?  

Synthetics don't become part organic in Synthesis. They just achieve full understanding of organic emotions and motivations. 

And EDI didn't before hand, right.  

That she didn't is a pretty major part of her character arc, and nothing at the end indicates that she's any more all-understanding than she was at the beginning.

EDI's arc is great at tracking her own progression, at how she understands things for herself and develops her own perspective, but it's filled with examples and admissions that she doesn't understand organics. Even her approach to it, the whole 'I only require one iteration for understanding a new concept', is far from encouraging on her actual understanding of how organics think and feel.

[spirosz]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

And EDI didn't before hand, right.  

The same EDI who needs you to explaint to her why submission is not preferable to extinction human prisoners on Earth don't just rat each other out to the Reapers so they can save their own skin?

Yeah, sorry, but EDI's got a lot to learn.

So we should take shortcuts to to this "pinnacle" state?

I don't like it. 

[Dean_the_Young]

spirosz wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

And EDI didn't before hand, right.  

The same EDI who needs you to explaint to her why submission is not preferable to extinction human prisoners on Earth don't just rat each other out to the Reapers so they can save their own skin?

Yeah, sorry, but EDI's got a lot to learn.

So we should take shortcuts to to this "pinnacle" state?

I don't like it. 

Okay, so don't take it: as long as you're willing to accept the opportunity costs (that synthetics will continue to misunderstand organics and have trouble co-existing with them: that organics will live in fear and danger of the physically superior and faster-developing), it's perfectly fine to make that decision.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I didn't see this reply to me.

Greylycantrope wrote...

One can be part of the crew and still without trying to make oneself resemble the crew. Refer to Legion integrating with the Normandy. She wasn't striving to be organic she was striving to be accepted as a crew member. Even if Shepard initially wants to shut her down she doesn't respond in a resentful manner.

Well when the whole crew is organic, and the primary concern with EDI is that she's an artificial-intelligence...

~> I also didn't ever get the impression that geth were willing to "talk it out" as he believes he wrote. ME2 establishes that just setting foot in geth territory will get you shot down, quarian or not.

How do most people react to unannounced home invaders?

Those planets are not their homes. IIRC, they acknowledge that living in space is more practical for them, and they build the 'Dyson accordingly.

The council tried to make contact, but the geth did not respond to a radio-hail and shot down the contact team.

Why they would feel the need to defend a place like Haestrom is also bizzare.

~> While L'Etoile did a good job establishing the characters (EDI, Legion, geth in general) I'm glad he didn't continue it. I don't like writers with an agenda, and he openly admits to having one. In truth, that agenda was quite apparent to me in ME2. I thought synthetic characters in ME3 were handled well overall.

Just about every writer had an agenda or idea he wanted to portray through out the story, this wasn't exclusive to L'Etoile.

... which is a problem, depending on how far they go to incorporate/push that message in the story.

It was definitely felt on this subject, and I did not appreciate it.

~> "Divorced from emotion" ... notice to all people claiming that they're just as emotional as any organic.

The go emotional in ME3(when L'Etoile was no longer involved) this was a directional change and this contect must now be incorporated. So up to the end of ME2 AI's didn't have emotions as of ME3 they do.

I felt they were about the same between both, personally.

Minus the overdone portrayal of shame with Legion.

[Scorpion1O1]

Holy crap this is awesome

As far as this goes
“As for the Reapers, whether you go by the officially mandated vision of them (cybernetic amalgams of organics and technology), or the version I'd hoped to see (post-Singularity evolution of organic races), it's clear that they're not AIs in the sense that EDI or the geth are”

If he was trying to stay away from Star Trek's Borg then to make the Reapers a post–singularity race would be the wrong direction.

I always thought Blade Runner's theme ran heavily with the Geth, this confirms that
“Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.” Roy Batty

The Geth are easily my favorite civilization of the entire Mass Effect universe.
He also has an interesting viewpoint on the comparison of Legion and Data. I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree and Data might be a weaker character then Data.
Yea also I hated that one of my favorite characters Legion came so much later in the game.

But I believe synthesis and the Geth's development remained tru in Mass Effect 3. It gave a repect to the stuid organic for the Synthetics. Out of forcefulness yes, but how else would a singulairty happen with AIs also in existance.

Modifié par Scorpion1O1, 19 janvier 2013 - 10:07 .