706 réponses à ce sujet

[Shad Croly]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The technology of Mass Effect, more so considering it's a soft science fiction setting, is just beyond our ability to properly comprehend (though Bioware does do an admirable job trying to explain things).

[GreyLycanTrope]

@ humes spork
Alright found what you're referring to "They never ventured outside the Perseus Veil, but no organic ship that entered their territory ever returned." Though this doesn't say the Geth actually destroyed the ships, again we've only see that the Heretics practice this sort of policy. Only group we've seen the Geth be hostile towards are the Quarians who they're at war with.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 février 2013 - 10:10 .

[o Ventus]

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

People really need to stop saying this. It makes no discernible sense whatsoever.

[chemiclord]

o Ventus wrote...

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

People really need to stop saying this. It makes no discernible sense whatsoever.

Then you probably need to take it up with the forefathers of science fiction who first made that observation.

[mvaning]

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

  It has also already been discussed in this thread.

Modifié par mvaning, 20 février 2013 - 10:46 .

[o Ventus]

RedBeardJim wrote...

The ME1 --> ME2 change is not, to my mind, so much a "rewrite" or "contradiction" as it is an *expansion*. As Ventus says, we get very little real information on the geth in ME1, apart from their origins and the fact that we see them fighting for Saren/Sovereign. Nothing presented in ME2 changes any of that, just adds to it in a way that I at least found plausible.

Cerberus, by contrast, is more of a rewrite as we are presented with them in ME1 as a "rogue Alliance black-ops group" which then changes to a "human-centric terrorist organization" with deep financial and organizational backing in ME2. You can handwave the change in lore (as the wiki does) by saying that Admiral Kahoku was simply wrong about them, but there was a definite *change* there.

This, since you already posted it.

Though in regards to Cerberus, I think the change was for the better. It doesn't make much sense with them existing as a rogue black op. I definitely prefer the newer Cerberus.

Modifié par o Ventus, 20 février 2013 - 10:19 .

[Wayning_Star]

chemiclord wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

People really need to stop saying this. It makes no discernible sense whatsoever.

Then you probably need to take it up with the forefathers of science fiction who first made that observation.

the 'makes no sense' statement is a popular 'text bomb'..  very deconstructive at close range..

[o Ventus]

chemiclord wrote...

Then you probably need to take it up with the forefathers of science fiction who first made that observation.

1. Arthur C. Clarke is the one who made that "law". He is not even remotely a forefather of science fiction.

2. I would if he were alive.

[mvaning]

chemiclord wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

People really need to stop saying this. It makes no discernible sense whatsoever.

Then you probably need to take it up with the forefathers of science fiction who first made that observation.

The definition of Science Fiction:  

"   Science fiction is a genre of fiction with imaginative but more or less plausible content such as settings in the future, futuristic science and technology, space travel, parallel universes, aliens, and paranormal abilities.  Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas."   "

Plausibility is important but that doesn't mean everything has to be plausible.    Also, the discussion is about the decent of ME into mysticism, which would be a move away from Science Fiction.   While Science Fiction has mysticism undertones, Science Fiction would not be Science Fiction if it dealt purely with mysticism and the paranormal.   It would then be fantasy.

Modifié par mvaning, 20 février 2013 - 10:27 .

[mvaning]

Wayning_Star wrote...
the 'makes no sense' statement is a popular 'text bomb'..  very deconstructive at close range..

Interesting point.  I may have to disarm my verbal airplanes in regard to this.

[chemiclord]

o Ventus wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Then you probably need to take it up with the forefathers of science fiction who first made that observation.

1. Arthur C. Clarke is the one who made that "law". He is not even remotely a forefather of science fiction.

2. I would if he were alive.

Well, the thing is... there is a proper use of the concept and a misuse of the concept.

The former is (for example) someone from a bronze age development cycle seeing a handgun in action.  They have no concept of bullet projectiles, gunpowder, or the like.  They just see someone pointing a funny looking stick and with a burst of magic power the target falling dead.  THAT is what Clarke (and other writers who co-opted the phrase) meant.

The latter is more akin to what Bioware did... a concept with no discernible (and sometimes contradicting) logic doing something that does not fit the setting being explained away as highly advanced technology that the writer won't try to explain because it's simply beyond our ability to grasp.

The former is something that can be explained in a rational manner, even if you don't understand exactly how it works (for example, I doubt there are too many here who could construct their own handgun, even though we know the general principles involved).  The latter defies any explanation that can be provided, and I don't think Bioware can provide one... mostly because they don't know themselves.

Modifié par chemiclord, 20 février 2013 - 10:44 .

[ZLurps]

Reorte wrote...

The whole problem with emotionless geth is that they simply won't do anything that they're not actively forced into (by being reprogrammed). With no emotion there's not even a self preservation instinct; lack of emotion and intelligence simply don't work together. Even a hardwired self preservation mechanism is not really any different from how it works in organics.

I don't think purely synthetic being would experience anything like biological one, no hormones, no pain receptors, etc. Plankton have self preservation mechanics, so do plants, they adapt to their environments, though it takes lot of time. Does that mean they have emotions?

Personally I found some Richard K. Morgan's ideas regarding AI's pretty interesting.

Modifié par ZLurps, 21 février 2013 - 09:24 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The technology of Mass Effect, more so considering it's a soft science fiction setting, is just beyond our ability to properly comprehend (though Bioware does do an admirable job trying to explain things).

There's also such a thing as "swallowing too much bullcrap from a writer." aka breaking the willing suspension of disbelief that makes a story work.

There have been *several* 'sufficiently advanced' things already in Mass Effect: Medigel. Project Lazarus. "uploading" conciousness into virtual worlds. (project overlord, geth server mission).

These are all things that we take to be possible in mass effect, because we can conceptualize how these things work. Even eezo and biotic effects are, within the Mass Effect universe, consistent in application throughout ME. In ME 2, this starts breaking down with the new biotic powers like Reave and Dominate (which should be Asari only).

The 'destructive analysis' dialog that was cut in ME 2 actually made sense for how the Reaper was being built; the process was *destroying* DNA during the analysis in order to create the 'reaper larva' in the human pattern. Mostly human pattern.

But Mass Effect 3? Multiplayer is full of biotic WTF powers that are inconsistent with the gravitic/mass changing properties of eezo and biotics. And the Synthesis ending breaks physics. Completely. It's not a matter of 'sufficiently advanced' it's a matter of "what the f... is organic energy? wtf is 'the essence of all that you are?' Where the he** does the Crucible get _more energy than has ever existed in the universe_ to do the imprinting of circuitry on all life everywhere in the galaxy?"

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 20 février 2013 - 10:57 .

[Obadiah]

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The technology of Mass Effect, more so considering it's a soft science fiction setting, is just beyond our ability to properly comprehend (though Bioware does do an admirable job trying to explain things).

I think the issue is that the Catalyst described Synthesis in a literal manner using allegorical terms. We players aren't given a hint of what the science at work here is, and so it comes off as mysticism. The only reason we take it as technology is that ME is a Sci Fi game. It doesn't help that when the Crucible is fired it actually looks like a magic spell.

[mvaning]

Obadiah wrote...

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The technology of Mass Effect, more so considering it's a soft science fiction setting, is just beyond our ability to properly comprehend (though Bioware does do an admirable job trying to explain things).

I think the issue is that the Catalyst described Synthesis in a literal manner using allegorical terms. We players aren't given a hint of what the science at work here is, and so it comes off as mysticism. The only reason we take it as technology is that ME is a Sci Fi game. It doesn't help that when the Crucible is fired it actually looks like a magic spell.

Could you say the same about control or destroy?

[StarcloudSWG]

Destroy is comprehensible. The "Intelligence" is aware of the possibility that the Reapers might go rogue on it or deviate from their purpose. The solution; install a killswitch in the Reapers, the technology they use to create monsters, and Reaper-based code.

Control is comprehensible, and is also foreshadowed; Destructive analysis to upload Shepard's consciousness (but why can't Shepard remain alive using a non-destructive analysis like in the Geth mission oh right artistic integrity) to replace/overwrite the "Intelligence".

Synthesis? "Use your organic energy (nonsense concept, e=mc2 does not care about the form the mass takes) and the essence of who you are (what the hell is that? Define please. Oh, you can't since you don't want to use the word soul? Uh huh.) and instantly (!) create organic circuitry (!!) in all life (!!!) in the galaxy. (e=mc2, and there isn't enough m or e to spontaneously generate this in the entire universe, not to mention the problems discriminating between matter that's 'alive' and matter that is not alive.)

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 21 février 2013 - 01:44 .

[Fayfel]

humes spork wrote...

The geth are explicitly exposited by Legion in ME2 of having extreme curiosity of organics and organic behavior, going so far as to screw with them to see what they do (the entire point of the geth's little "joke" on the salarians, that Legion recalls). This is not rational, and contradictory, to their extreme isolationist nature and little reason to interact with organics.

Neither is Legion's characterization in ME2 of having an irrational interest in Shepard.  Nor is their explicitly exposited caretaking of, and reverence for, Rannoch and other quarian colony worlds that Legion rationalizes (another irrational behavior) as memorializing and respect for the dead (both irrational behaviors).

That characterization is already there as of ME2. That does not contradict ME3; in fact, it sets the stage and foreshadows the events of ME3. Now, if ME2's characterization of the geth doesn't contradict ME1's, and ME3's doesn't actually contradict ME2's, then what's the problem?

I think you missed the point of the "joke". It was actually an experiment geth were running to assist in modeling organic behavior. Geth had been attempting to mathematically model organic intelligence so that they could accurately predict organic behavior. They don't understand why their creators freaked out when geth *choose* to do what the quarians wanted them to do. They do know, however, that this lack of understanding is dangerous to both themselves and organics. That's why they isolate themselves from organics; to protect both sides.

Also, geth maintain the quarian worlds because it's what they were created to do. It's really that simple. They may have eventually evolved to a point where they decided to stop, but for the time being, they've had no reason to stop this behavior.

[Indy_S]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Destroy is comprehensible. The "Intelligence" is aware of the possibility that the Reapers might go rogue on it or deviate from their purpose. The solution; install a killswitch in the Reapers, the technology they use to create monsters, and Reaper-based code.

I must say, the Reaper-based code bit is headcanon. Shepard doesn't have Reaper-based code but he is 'partly synthetic' and will be affected by Destroy.

I hate that line. It cuts into so much.

[StarcloudSWG]

The "Intelligence" implies Shepard will die, heavily, but it's wrong, since Shepard can survive the blast.

The killswitch in reaper code and reaper hardware is the only reason I can think of that Geth and Edi would be affected, but not the computers and VI's that run the galaxy's ships.

The thing about Legion's interest in Shepard was that it was forced by the ME 2 lead writer. Chris L'Etoile, who wrote *every* in game codex and planet description in Mass Effect, and wrote Legion, most of Edi's dialog, and the Geth entries in Mass Effect 2, has said that he was pushed *strongly* to trying to make Legion more 'human' in terms of its responses, and that the line "No data available" was the way he pushed back against it.

Chris was marginalized due to his insistence on keeping things more science fiction than science fantasy, and left the company entirely before development on Mass Effect.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 21 février 2013 - 04:27 .

[Indy_S]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

The "Intelligence" implies Shepard will die, heavily, but it's wrong, since Shepard can survive the blast.

The killswitch in reaper code and reaper hardware is the only reason I can think of that Geth and Edi would be affected, but not the computers and VI's that run the galaxy's ships.

I can understand that, but it's still headcanon. What we're told in the story is "All synthetics will die". We're not told how.

[Obadiah]

mvaning wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Shad Croly wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The technology of Mass Effect, more so considering it's a soft science fiction setting, is just beyond our ability to properly comprehend (though Bioware does do an admirable job trying to explain things).

I think the issue is that the Catalyst described Synthesis in a literal manner using allegorical terms. We players aren't given a hint of what the science at work here is, and so it comes off as mysticism. The only reason we take it as technology is that ME is a Sci Fi game. It doesn't help that when the Crucible is fired it actually looks like a magic spell.

Could you say the same about control or destroy?

To some degree they do have the same problem, but they suffer less because their explanation is more on the effect of the blast than how it actually works.

Modifié par Obadiah, 21 février 2013 - 05:17 .

[Fayfel]

LineHolder wrote...

Do we know what L'Etoile is working on, now?

Most likely the Elder Scrolls Online

[Indy_S]

Amakiir wrote...

LineHolder wrote...

Do we know what L'Etoile is working on, now?

Most likely the Elder Scrolls Online

Yes, he now works for Zenimax Studios. And this game is what they're making. Here's hoping it'll be great.

[AlanC9]

o Ventus wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Then you probably need to take it up with the forefathers of science fiction who first made that observation.

1. Arthur C. Clarke is the one who made that "law". He is not even remotely a forefather of science fiction.

2. I would if he were alive.

What's the cutoff for being a forefather?