706 réponses à ce sujet

[Addictress]

mvaning wrote...

Addictress wrote...

mvaning wrote...

Addictress wrote...

And Star Trek teleportation is far more solid.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make here.    Are you inferring that I have anywhere stated that elements of Star Trek are more or less plausible than elements of Mass Effect?    I have not so your rheteoric falls on pointless goals.

Because you didn't have any stronger goal in the post I replied to in this conversation than mine in pointing out the weakness of the LP in real-life scientific terms.

Okay, so first you are saying that I am making a qualitative comparison between Mass Effect and Star Trek.  I refuted that claim.  Now your saying that I made this comparison because of something I was talking about in a different topic?   That makes absolutely zero sense.

The OP states that the Lazarus has strong mysticism undertones, which I agree with.   Acid_Wulf said that they are not mystic undertones because the LP is possible in real life.     I responded by stating that the LP is absolutely not possible in real life.   I also asked him to show proof of his claim.    But what is the point of this?

Addictress wrote...
You're just condescendingly pointing out what science is credible and what science is not credible. So what? 

I hate to be the bearer of badness but your the one being conescending right now.   So either make a counter arguement against something I have said that you don't agree with or don't.  This counter-arguement should be relavent to the OP's topic.   Otherwise, to me, you are just being argumentative for no reason at all. 

You are correct, and you said it well: being argumentative for no reason at all. That is exactly what I was. Because I was childishly mimicking your post in that instant, which was also being argumentative for no clear reason.

Though your other posts did have reasons.

That post, by itself, however, just seemed condescending and welled up all of my Internet rage!

This doesn't necessarily reflect on your other posts.

[Yate]

seriously you people are arguing about NOTHING

[mvaning]

I like Allegory's and I like the intro in ME2. It doesn't have to be real in life for me to like something but there is certainly a distinction. As far as rebirth is concerned, the topic is almost exclusively religious. Even the name "Lazarus" comes from a story out of the bible about a man named Lazarus who was resurrected. So I'm not sure how the rebirth scene could not be an allegory with mystic undertones. Maybe I'm wrong?

[Addictress]

Indy_S wrote...

Addictress wrote...

Lazarus was barely even an allegory. I didn't think of the phoenix myth for one second while watching the Lazarus Project montage. I thought, 'oh, this is a badass narrative event that explains the past two years both in meta-narrative (the game came out two years later) and in narrative.

Now if they had Commander Shepard in camera angles that suggested a re-birth, or a glorification of some kind, or some kind of deification lighting or terminology, that would be another story. Instead, the Illusive Man says, "See it that we don't (lose her)"

More than anything the retrieval of Shepard is like Shepard has become an objectified war asset in a larger game, rather than a Special Mystical Chose One who is aloof and unexplicably superior. Shepard's retrieval in this opening sequence gives me, the player, the viewer, the impression that a rich man is retrieving something precious.

For the record it's fine to like the Lazarus Project. The scene was cool and dramatic, it provided a radical shift on the story and it explains why you can change Shepard's face.

However, the phoenix myth is still present in it. There is a rebirth, the being involved is improved and their actions that follow can be attributed to revenge. This is also tied into the "You Are Special' cliche that some people are repulsed by, made all the more jarring by the fact that what Shepard does afterwards isn't special.

Typically the 'Special Chosen One" myth irritates me beyond belief. Like the Matrix. There is without a doubt NO reason why Neo is special. What exactly has he done to earned his place? Nothing.

Shepard, on the other hand, has adequate background to convince us that he/she is special. He/she saved the galaxy at the end of Mass Effect 1. Many ccomplishments in the background to support the specialness by the time of the beginning of ME2.

You know what REALLY qualifies as unfounded, un-earned specialness? The end of Mass Effect 1. Shepard miraculously emerges from the ruins of the citadel after a REAPER CRASHES INTO THEM, with the sun beams filtering through and rendering holy effects in the squadmates eyes. Yes, this is inexplicable - why should Shepard be so lucky.

Why should I congratulate this character on his luck, wihch he has not necessarily earned?  Oh, the reaper debris accidentally missed and didn't kill him/her. So? Is this cause for respect?

However, once someone has accomplished something, it goes on the resume. Once Mass Effect 2 starts, the resume is established.

[Indy_S]

The difference with ME2 is that you don't do anything special. You're brought back from the dead to accomplish what somebody else with a gun could do. In ME1, you were made special when you touched the beacon. In ME3, the 'you are special' bit at least gets used to explain finding the beacon on Thessia.

[Addictress]

LineHolder wrote...

Addictress wrote...

LineHolder wrote...

Addictress wrote...

mvaning wrote...

Addictress wrote...

And Star Trek teleportation is far more solid.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make here.    Are you inferring that I have anywhere stated that elements of Star Trek are more or less plausible than elements of Mass Effect?    I have not so your rheteoric falls on pointless goals.

Because you didn't have any stronger goal in the post I replied to in this conversation than mine in pointing out the weakness of the LP in real-life scientific terms. You're just condescendingly pointing out what science is credible and what science is not credible. So what?

Why are you comparing Star Trek's in-world science with Mass Effect's in-world science? Mass Effect abandons its own in-world science in favor of space magic and yuck ... allegory. That's what the thread is about. 

Why do people hate allegory?  Is this a sudden textbook idea in literature classes that actually criticizes allegory? Allegory is a common literary device that can either be executed well or not. Just because the allegories in religious texts point to myths or ideas which don't suit us because of our times doesn't mean the allegory wasn't powerfully meaningful to the people of those authors' times. An allegory can be much more powerful depending on context and audience than literal face-value methods.

I mean, if this is a new thing which I'm just not educated on in which allegory is disregarded as a poor writing device to use by some International Panel of Writers, then excuse my being out of touch. <-- horrible syntax, I know

I addressed this earlier but it was hidden in a sea of David and Spork's inanities.

What I am about to say is possibly vulnerable to vicious intellectual attack:

Isn't the Battle of Thermopylae itself an allegory? If all of history is written from one point of view as opposed to another, maybe this piece of history has been remembered by audiences from the point of view of the winners, and therefore certain elements of the story are emphasized to promote a kind of higher ideal.

Modifié par Addictress, 20 février 2013 - 05:53 .

[Addictress]

Indy_S wrote...

The difference with ME2 is that you don't do anything special. You're brought back from the dead to accomplish what somebody else with a gun could do. In ME1, you were made special when you touched the beacon. In ME3, the 'you are special' bit at least gets used to explain finding the beacon on Thessia.

But but you did do something special. You saved the galaxy in ME1! And you showed leadership skillz

[Indy_S]

Addictress wrote...

But but you did do something special. You saved the galaxy in ME1! And you showed leadership skillz

Saving the galaxy in the first game isn't some special done in the second. And to be honest, Shepard's leadership is frankly lacking. His order gets his ship wrecked at the end of the game.

[ZLurps]

mvaning wrote...

Yate wrote...

frankly the game crossed over from science to mysticism the moment you activated the beacon on Eden Prime so I don't see why you're all getting your panties in a twist

More paranormal than mysticism.  Paranormal themes in science fiction are part of the science fiction genre.

I don't see paranormal angle was intended there at all.

We have adverticing displays that activate when someone gets close to them and next step would be make those displays show tailored content for different kind of consumers. Man could see car ad and woman ad for handbag for example. Those interactive adverts on ME2's Citadel were pretty much what marketing is looking for, this is also nice example of real sci-fi in ME2 by the way.

However, if you take concept bit further, think of beings that communicate differently, have different perception, something interfacing directly in your mind isn't paranormal concept at all.

[Oransel]

Oransel wrote...

I think ME1 did a good job in sci-fi department because it just told you one big lie (zero element is the cornerstone sci-fi mechanic in the ME universe, but does not exist IRL), you accepted it by suspending your disbelief and every new techno marvel was connected to said zero element or given usual sci-fi justifications, which are accepted by default - we are used to it. Even the Reapers failed to break the immersion. It was soft sci-fi, but good one and not immersion breaking.

Later they introduced two new big lies. First - "Reapers are so advanced, they can do everything, even if it can't happen period"; second - "genes store everything - personality, consiousness and memories included". They are not mystical, but unlike zero element they are too far fetched to have any connection to players and our reality and as a result make no sense at all. Also they do contradict ME1.

1. Lazarus Project used "genes" card. So, Miranda remade your body and brain as accurately as possible, made it live through artificial ventilation/blood stream and voila! Your genes made the trick! Shepard is back!

2. Human Reaper is the same - unload a lot of genes in a machine and it's suddenly combined human consiousness, "their essense". This is wrong on so many levels, it's not funny.

3. Legion shows us that Reapers are so advanced, they can ignore core geth technology and do what they want, including giving geth individuality.

4. Synthesis is the pinnacle of the both cards combined nonsense, because it manages to contradict even them.

Still stays the truth.

[Ieldra]

@all:
Please note:

(1) This thread was not intended as a criticism of the use of allegory in a science fiction story.

I am criticizing the transfer of allegorical meaning as literal into the fictional world, which a science fiction story should not do. Example: the fact that someone gives his life for something, in itself, should not have an ontological meaning. It has meaning to the player/reader and to those who witness, but that's all psychological. By default, i.e. unless explicitly set up as one of the fundamental truths of this universe, there is no such think as "life energy" in a believable science fiction universe, and the story should not act as if there were.

(2) This thread was not intended as a criticism of the use of "impossible" technologies in general, nor of the practice of leaving them unexplained.

I am criticizing (a) the use of mystical terms in the in-world rationalization of a technology, and ( leaving things unexplained in situations where leaving them unexplained suggests that an allegorical or mystical explanation hinted at through context is meant to be taken as the literal truth. The reason I am criticizing this is that these practices suggest that mystical explanations are somehow more technically appropriate than technical ones in describing the world, redefining the universe in mystical terms.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 09:33 .

[78stonewobble]

Hmm I think I sorta agree on the overall point, but...

The first tear in reality: The Lazarus Project
The first hint that this principle of rationalization in in-world terms was about to break came with ME2's Lazarus project. Shepard was dead, and if he hadn't been "clinically brain dead" as was later explained in ME3, the word "dead" wouldn't have been used. It was always clear that Shepard was dead, not "almost dead". Also, anyone who knows the least bit about medicine knows that the brain deteriorates after a few minutes without oxygen. So where did the information come from used to reconstruct Shepard's memory and identity? There have been a few rationalizations by players like "Shepard's brain was frozen" or "He carried a greybox which stored his identity", but anyone who noticed the symbolic significance of Shepard's resurrection would also notice the suggestion of a more mystical explanation: that the information was stored "somewhere else".

We actually have very little knowledge of how exactly consciousness works. We know that brain cells start dying from a lack of oxygen quite quickly and we cannot "restart" or "revive" dead cells.

Presumably consciousness/thougths/memories are a delicate balance of electrical charges, chemical balances and the physical structure (wiring) of neurons and nerve pathways.

There is nothing however, that I know of, that prevents this stuff from leaving an imprint on the physical remains.

Conceivably it could be possible to accurately read this information from the dead tissue and recreate it.

Like a dead harddrive where even the plates are scratched. It's still possible to "manually" reconstruct the information because it left an imprint (in this case a magnetic one).

[Ieldra]

Oh my. I shouldn't have mentioned the Lazarus project. Everyone going on about that totally misses the point.

@StoneWobble:
The problem is that the physical remains deteriorate fast. But as I said, leaving that unexplained, in itself, is not necessarily a problem.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 09:36 .

[ZLurps]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@all:
Please note:

(1) This thread was not intended as a criticism of the use of allegory in a science fiction story.

I am criticizing the transfer of allegorical meaning as literal into the fictional world, which a science fiction story should not do. Example: the fact that someone gives his life for something, in itself, should not have an ontological meaning. It has meaning to the player/reader and to those who witness, but that's all psychological. By default, i.e. unless explicitly set up as one of the fundamental truths of this universe, there is no such think as "life energy" in a believable science fiction universe, and the story should not act as if there were.

(2) This thread was not intended as a criticism of the use of "impossible" technologies in general, nor of the practice of leaving them unexplained.

I am criticizing (a) the use of mystical terms in the in-world rationalization of a technology, and ( leaving things unexplained in situations where leaving them unexplained suggests that an allegorical or mystical explanation hinted at through context is meant to be taken as the literal truth. The reason I am criticizing this is that these practices suggest that mystical explanations are somehow more technically appropriate than technical ones in describing the world, redefining the universe in mystical terms.

Something regarding this topic in general.

To put in bluntly, Shep's death scene in beginning of ME2 was done mostly because of shock value and distinguish it from competition. More I think of it, more I come to conclusion that calling marketing stunt like that "mysticism" is flattering it.

[Dr_Extrem]

Oransel wrote...

Oransel wrote...

I think ME1 did a good job in sci-fi department because it just told you one big lie (zero element is the cornerstone sci-fi mechanic in the ME universe, but does not exist IRL), you accepted it by suspending your disbelief and every new techno marvel was connected to said zero element or given usual sci-fi justifications, which are accepted by default - we are used to it. Even the Reapers failed to break the immersion. It was soft sci-fi, but good one and not immersion breaking.

Later they introduced two new big lies. First - "Reapers are so advanced, they can do everything, even if it can't happen period"; second - "genes store everything - personality, consiousness and memories included". They are not mystical, but unlike zero element they are too far fetched to have any connection to players and our reality and as a result make no sense at all. Also they do contradict ME1.

1. Lazarus Project used "genes" card. So, Miranda remade your body and brain as accurately as possible, made it live through artificial ventilation/blood stream and voila! Your genes made the trick! Shepard is back!

2. Human Reaper is the same - unload a lot of genes in a machine and it's suddenly combined human consiousness, "their essense". This is wrong on so many levels, it's not funny.

3. Legion shows us that Reapers are so advanced, they can ignore core geth technology and do what they want, including giving geth individuality.

4. Synthesis is the pinnacle of the both cards combined nonsense, because it manages to contradict even them.

Still stays the truth.

nope ... mass effect started was relatively hard sci-fi .. at least at the beginning.
 
"hard sci-fi" is a sub-genre, based on hard science - physics, astronomy ... and its (altered) funktions in the created universe. its focus lies on explaining things with science and tech. (asimov, clarke, raumpatrouille orion)

"soft sci-fi" is a sub-genre based on soft science - philosophy, politics ... and its (altered) influence on the created universe. its focus lies on interactions between societies, its funktion and the characters in this universe. (herbert, lem, star wars)

over the course of the series, mass effect drifted away from the style of hard sci-fi (explaining things with in-universe tech), to philosophical stuff. tech became a part of the setting only (like in star wars) and is even ignored in some places.

i dont like this drift. the worse thing is, that it resorts to the "anything goes" principle more and more often.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 20 février 2013 - 09:57 .

[EnvyTB075]

LineHolder wrote...

Picking up Space Pizza is cheaper than having it delivered. 

As a delivery driver on the odd weekend, i approve of this statement.





Seriously, go pick it up you lazy buggers.

[Oransel]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Oransel wrote...

I think ME1 did a good job in sci-fi department because it just told you one big lie (zero element is the cornerstone sci-fi mechanic in the ME universe, but does not exist IRL), you accepted it by suspending your disbelief and every new techno marvel was connected to said zero element or given usual sci-fi justifications, which are accepted by default - we are used to it. Even the Reapers failed to break the immersion. It was soft sci-fi, but good one and not immersion breaking.

Later they introduced two new big lies. First - "Reapers are so advanced, they can do everything, even if it can't happen period"; second - "genes store everything - personality, consiousness and memories included". They are not mystical, but unlike zero element they are too far fetched to have any connection to players and our reality and as a result make no sense at all. Also they do contradict ME1.

1. Lazarus Project used "genes" card. So, Miranda remade your body and brain as accurately as possible, made it live through artificial ventilation/blood stream and voila! Your genes made the trick! Shepard is back!

2. Human Reaper is the same - unload a lot of genes in a machine and it's suddenly combined human consiousness, "their essense". This is wrong on so many levels, it's not funny.

3. Legion shows us that Reapers are so advanced, they can ignore core geth technology and do what they want, including giving geth individuality.

4. Synthesis is the pinnacle of the both cards combined nonsense, because it manages to contradict even them.

Still stays the truth.

nope ... mass effect started was relatively hard sci-fi .. at least at the beginning.
 
"hard sci-fi" is a sub-genre, based on hard science - physics, astronomy ... and its (altered) funktions in the created universe. its focus lies on explaining things with science and tech. (asimov, clarke, raumpatrouille orion)

I thought hard sci-fi meant using only proved technologies that can exist IRL. Null element is not from the same category, I think, but I can be wrong about definition. Either way, that's not the point, because I agree with you, regardless of what it was in the beginning it got only softer onward, however, I have not seen any pure mystical elements, only space magic (impossible science).

Modifié par Oransel, 20 février 2013 - 10:03 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Oransel wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Oransel wrote...

I think ME1 did a good job in sci-fi department because it just told you one big lie (zero element is the cornerstone sci-fi mechanic in the ME universe, but does not exist IRL), you accepted it by suspending your disbelief and every new techno marvel was connected to said zero element or given usual sci-fi justifications, which are accepted by default - we are used to it. Even the Reapers failed to break the immersion. It was soft sci-fi, but good one and not immersion breaking.

Later they introduced two new big lies. First - "Reapers are so advanced, they can do everything, even if it can't happen period"; second - "genes store everything - personality, consiousness and memories included". They are not mystical, but unlike zero element they are too far fetched to have any connection to players and our reality and as a result make no sense at all. Also they do contradict ME1.

1. Lazarus Project used "genes" card. So, Miranda remade your body and brain as accurately as possible, made it live through artificial ventilation/blood stream and voila! Your genes made the trick! Shepard is back!

2. Human Reaper is the same - unload a lot of genes in a machine and it's suddenly combined human consiousness, "their essense". This is wrong on so many levels, it's not funny.

3. Legion shows us that Reapers are so advanced, they can ignore core geth technology and do what they want, including giving geth individuality.

4. Synthesis is the pinnacle of the both cards combined nonsense, because it manages to contradict even them.

Still stays the truth.

nope ... mass effect started was relatively hard sci-fi .. at least at the beginning.
 
"hard sci-fi" is a sub-genre, based on hard science - physics, astronomy ... and its (altered) funktions in the created universe. its focus lies on explaining things with science and tech. (asimov, clarke, raumpatrouille orion)

I thought hard sci-fi meant using only proved technologies that can exist IRL. Null element is not from the same category, I think, but I can be wrong about definition. Either way, that's not the point, because I agree with you, regardless of what it was in the beginning it got only softer onward, however, I have not seen any pure mystical elements, only space magic (impossible science).

harald lesch made some crazy fun-calculations on "conventional" space travel and gamma radiation.

gamma radiation destroys everything - sensores, tissue, metals ... everything suffers.

and gamma radiation can only be reduced/absorbes by mass. more mass = better protection. you cant deflect or neutralise an em-wave. on earth, our atmosphere absorbes the harmfull energy of em-waves - our magnetic field redirects chared particles - helium-ions and free electrons (alpha and beta particles). this particle radiation can be blokced by 3mm of aluminiun anyway.

this means, that our starships would look like flying bricks with a small cell inside - we could not even see what is on the outside, because sensors get destroyed by radiation. to move a mass like this, you need a proportionally big engine - that has to be shielded as well (with mass that has to be moved) .. its a "catch-22"-situation.


if we take this knowledge into account, every sci-fi setting that involves conventional deep space flight, is space magic.


hard sci-fi uses tech and science to explain its own universe. those rules can (and most of the time will) vary from our rl-tech/science. its is the approach, to explain its function with tech/science, that makes it hard-sci-fi ... not its actual accuracy.
if eezo would just be an element of the story, wich is not scientifically explained, it would be like the force in star wats and therefore only a mystical element of the story, to make things convenient. eezo and its function is explained in the universe with science and tech - this makes it a hard-sci-fi element of the universe.

[Ieldra]

ZLurps wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@all:
Please note:

(1) This thread was not intended as a criticism of the use of allegory in a science fiction story.

I am criticizing the transfer of allegorical meaning as literal into the fictional world, which a science fiction story should not do. Example: the fact that someone gives his life for something, in itself, should not have an ontological meaning. It has meaning to the player/reader and to those who witness, but that's all psychological. By default, i.e. unless explicitly set up as one of the fundamental truths of this universe, there is no such think as "life energy" in a believable science fiction universe, and the story should not act as if there were.

(2) This thread was not intended as a criticism of the use of "impossible" technologies in general, nor of the practice of leaving them unexplained.

I am criticizing (a) the use of mystical terms in the in-world rationalization of a technology, and ( leaving things unexplained in situations where leaving them unexplained suggests that an allegorical or mystical explanation hinted at through context is meant to be taken as the literal truth. The reason I am criticizing this is that these practices suggest that mystical explanations are somehow more technically appropriate than technical ones in describing the world, redefining the universe in mystical terms.

Something regarding this topic in general.

To put in bluntly, Shep's death scene in beginning of ME2 was done mostly because of shock value and distinguish it from competition. More I think of it, more I come to conclusion that calling marketing stunt like that "mysticism" is flattering it.

Perhaps, but it doesn't matter whether this dipping into mystical memes was accidental or intentional, except that it may reflect differently on the writer. The work stands as it is.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 février 2013 - 11:10 .

[78stonewobble]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Oh my. I shouldn't have mentioned the Lazarus project. Everyone going on about that totally misses the point.

@StoneWobble:
The problem is that the physical remains deteriorate fast. But as I said, leaving that unexplained, in itself, is not necessarily a problem.

My point was more and I'm sorry for not getting that across. That even a scientifically based explanation, for pretty much anything, will be based on our own still quite lacking scientific understanding of the universe.

There is plenty of room for alot of things between what we know is possible and what is really impossible (or rather very improbable if you subscribe to that line of thinking).

PS: The normandy crash site does look cold enough to preserve biological material allmost eternally. Ie. mammoths frozen for thousands of years.

[Indy_S]

78stonewobble wrote...

PS: The normandy crash site does look cold enough to preserve biological material allmost eternally. Ie. mammoths frozen for thousands of years.

Of course, being that cold raises other issues as well. I hate Lazarus so much.