706 réponses à ce sujet

[MegumiAzusa]

CronoDragoon wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Legion tells you otherwise in ME2. Also its mission is based on the very premise that they got a virus, which made possible by the Reapers, that would introduce the very same change in other Geth programs they had.

I thought this was a change made evident in the ME2 heretic mission from ME1. Am I wrong?

There is no direct evidence in any way to support this.

I'm at work and my computer doesn't have a sound card so I can't check the scene on YT, but if you can link the scene in the heretic mission where Legion still suggests that Sovereign introduced a virus which altered the geth consensus and produced the heretics, I'd appreciate it. I was always under the impression that the heretics formed their own consensus which drove them to Sovereign, and since I played ME2 first I'm inclined to think it was info from the heretic mission which somewhat retconned ME1.

Yes I see what you mean, and yes it's impossible to tell who took the first step.
The Geth who went to Nazara for upgrades got changed, probably to ensure their loyalty and probably so every new Geth created has the same programming, which is a fact. Consensus doesn't mean every Geth has the same opinion. Legion itself left the choice to rewrite or destroy to Shep partly because the decision its consensus reached was very close, but that is what I meant it's based on the platform.
If you take the sum of all Geth and divide them randomly over identical platforms you will have most platforms vote the same, but there will always be a few that vote distinctively in favor of rewrite or destroy. Distribution isn't equal, if it were all platforms would actually be 100% identical. The Geth VI was a copy of Legion made prior to ME2, which means it has the same distribution of Geth, which means it acts exactly the same as Legion does.
It does not evolve, it learns maybe, but that isn't evolution.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 18 février 2013 - 05:40 .

[RedBeardJim]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
There is no evidence for this interpretation in the games. There is no evidence, in fact, for its far wider implication: that a personality cannot exist without being bound by hardware. Tali's explanations about how the geth - after having gained individuality - still download into the suits of quarians to help them adapt suggests that geth personalities exist independently from their hardware.

Download doesn't imply anything except download to me. That is, the geth copy their data into the suits, not transfer it.

If that interpretation works for you, fine, but that's not how its described in the conversation with Tali.

As for evidence that individuality comes from software remaining in platforms long enough, it's almost exactly what Shepard points out to Legion in the geth heretic mission.

No, the matter discussed in that conversation is separation from each other, not being tied to a specific platform.

Which actually could be used as a way to explain Legion's "uniqueness" -- the 1183 programs inhabiting that platform had established a sort of semi-separate "mini-consensus" that was distinct from the greater Geth collective.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
Went form Physics Plus to Science in Genre Only.

ME1 was more in the category "One Big Lie" - everything "magical" could be linked to eezo. Very neat, actually, even if a little overdone at times.

I agree, though when ME2 came on the scene we seemed to have shifted to physics plus(from my persepective anyway). Shepard's resurrection (which I head canoned as experimental medigel + cybernetics) and the human reaper (which Ied me to head canon the Reapers being a post singularity civilization that took cybernetics a few steps further) left some unanswered questions in terms of how they actually worked.

[MegumiAzusa]

RedBeardJim wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
There is no evidence for this interpretation in the games. There is no evidence, in fact, for its far wider implication: that a personality cannot exist without being bound by hardware. Tali's explanations about how the geth - after having gained individuality - still download into the suits of quarians to help them adapt suggests that geth personalities exist independently from their hardware.

Download doesn't imply anything except download to me. That is, the geth copy their data into the suits, not transfer it.

If that interpretation works for you, fine, but that's not how its described in the conversation with Tali.

As for evidence that individuality comes from software remaining in platforms long enough, it's almost exactly what Shepard points out to Legion in the geth heretic mission.

No, the matter discussed in that conversation is separation from each other, not being tied to a specific platform.

Which actually could be used as a way to explain Legion's "uniqueness" -- the 1183 programs inhabiting that platform had established a sort of semi-separate "mini-consensus" that was distinct from the greater Geth collective.

Yes, that's even what Legion says. The difference is just it's still a consensus and not a singular entity. It looks like one but is not.

[ruggly]

Wayning_Star wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
what energises an organic being?

food

as opposed to what energises an inorganic being?

batteries

go go luddite thinking.

not really.. Human Battery

joke
___________________________
you

or you just didn't understand my grunting.

I seen what you did there..lol sooo many luddites..so little spacetime.

(differenciation, I get it

I think we hit the same wavelength for a second there.  Now I know what it is to be transcended.  Anyways, no more going off topic.

[Dr_Extrem]

very well written op and i have to agree to 100%.

the drift from relatively hard sf (biotics and ftl are only universe-adjustments in my books), over soft sf to pure fiction hurts.


i just cant accept your explanation (that the catalyst uses "babyspeech" on us) for myself. there are too many flaws and the descent it too obvious. project lazarus can be handwaved and with the cut dialogue, the explanation of the reaper would have been ok in me2.

but after legion, it goes down the drain. they created plotholes, having the size of a chevy, with this stuff. is "living" software different from "normal" one? ... is this a new kind of software? the whole nature of the geth is ignored in this moment, only to be reestablished moments later - like nothing happened. suddenly, geth are programs again, who are independant fron their platforms.

synthesis does not even make sense if we stretch the science of mass effect to its limits and beyond.


i gave your thread 5 stars.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 18 février 2013 - 06:01 .

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...
And you're not implying a conceptual difference because he's software, right? Just that the ME universe can't copy matter ( no Trek transporters) but can copy software.

Indeed. BTW, can Star Trek transporters *copy* matter?
 

How do you interpret Synthesis? The Catalyst's using a bad metaphor, but what's the reality?

I think that Synthesis will do what Shepard thinks it will do, within the constraints of the Catalyst's description. Shepard's thoughts and memories shape the Synthesis. I can think of no other interpretation that makes sense, since there is no information about what Synthesis could possibly do in anything else of Shepard. The Crucible uses the destructive analysis to analyze Shepard's thoughts and memories.

The problem, yet again, is that if this is what happens, why does the Catalyst not say it?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 février 2013 - 06:00 .

[David7204]

Read the original post, and it's ignoring a crucial element of storytelling and science fiction.

Science fiction has to introduce technology or other elements that the viewer or player isn't familiar with. It absolutely has to. That's the very definition of science fiction. If you don't have that, it isn't science fiction. It's just a story which happens to take place in the future.

The complaint that Lazarus Project isn't explained is therefore ridiculous. By it's very nature, science fiction has to include technology that is unknown. By it's very nature, we have to leave things like FTL travel somewhat ambiguous and unexplained. Because if we could actually fully explain FTL travel, we would be running to a patent office, not writing stories.

No. The real problem here is an unwillingness to accept that a surprising number of things are fundamentally impossible in stories, particularly stories in video games, no matter how able and intelligent the writers are. The real problem is that Mass Effect, for the very most part, does an excellent job with attention to detail and giving the player the opportunity to ask good questions and investigate, and players come to expect it all the time in all situations.

Modifié par David7204, 18 février 2013 - 06:03 .

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
And you're not implying a conceptual difference because he's software, right? Just that the ME universe can't copy matter ( no Trek transporters) but can copy software.

Indeed. BTW, can Star Trek transporters *copy* matter?
 

How do you interpret Synthesis? The Catalyst's using a bad metaphor, but what's the reality?

I think that Synthesis will do what Shepard thinks it will do, within the constraints of the Catalyst's description. Shepard's thoughts and memories shape the Synthesis. I can think of no other interpretation that makes sense, since there is no information about what Synthesis could possibly do in anything else of Shepard. The Crucible uses the destructive analysis to analyze Shepard's thoughts and memories.

The problem, yet again, is that if this is what happens, why does the Catalyst not say it?

One better, why didn't the Leviathan not say it.. or anything else really important. They designed the friggen thing..lol

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Read the original post, and it's ignoring a crucial element of storytelling and science fiction.

Science fiction has to introduce technology or other elements that the viewer or player isn't familiar with. It absolutely has to. That's the very definition of science fiction. If you don't have that, it isn't science fiction. It's just a story which happens to take place in the future.

The complaint that Lazarus Project isn't explained is therefore ridiculous. By it's very nature, science fiction has to include technology that is unknown. By it's very nature, we have to leave things like FTL travel somewhat ambiguous and unexplained. Because if we could actually fully explain FTL travel, we would be running to a patent office, not writing stories.

No. The real problem here is an unwillingness to accept that a surprising number of things are fundamentally impossible in stories, particularly stories in video games no matter how able and intelligent the writers are.

FTL in Mass Effect was explained. Element zero allows the 'm' in E=mc^2 to be altered, thus changing 'c,' the speed of light. This is acceptable in science fiction, per Magic A is Magic A. If you're going to establish the rules in a sci-fi universe, suspension of disbelief can be maintained so long as you adhere to those rules. Otherwise, we descend into Asspull territory, and that suspension is lost.

[Ieldra]

@David7204:
Read my OP again. I EXPLICITLY said that remaining unknown, in itself, does not constitute a problem, as long as it's described as being intrinsically understandable. Lazarus in ME2 was that, after ME3 it wasn't any more.

FTL and biotics are, strictly spoken, space magic. They're not a problem because they're introduced as part of this fictional setting, are described as being comprehensible as part of the natural universe by the people living in it and have their own rules. On the other hand, life was always described to be pretty much as we see it. No "organic energy" exists in this fictional setting. I don't take crap like this even from a god-like entity unless it actually explains what it means. "All the information that makes up what and who you are" would have been acceptable. The use of the term "essence" or "organic energy" suggests there's something that cannot be described in those terms. It suggests a redefinition of the universe in mystical terms. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 février 2013 - 06:12 .

[Wayning_Star]

David7204 wrote...

Read the original post, and it's ignoring a crucial element of storytelling and science fiction.

Science fiction has to introduce technology or other elements that the viewer or player isn't familiar with. It absolutely has to. That's the very definition of science fiction. If you don't have that, it isn't science fiction. It's just a story which happens to take place in the future.

The complaint that Lazarus Project isn't explained is therefore ridiculous. By it's very nature, science fiction has to include technology that is unknown. By it's very nature, we have to leave things like FTL travel somewhat ambiguous and unexplained. Because if we could actually fully explain FTL travel, we would be running to a patent office, not writing stories.

No. The real problem here is an unwillingness to accept that a surprising number of things are fundamentally impossible in stories, particularly stories in video games, no matter how able and intelligent the writers are. The real problem is that Mass Effect, for the very most part, does an excellent job with attention to detail and giving the player the opportunity to ask good questions and investigate, and players come to expect it all the time in all situations.

but, isn't that exactly what they're (fans) doin on the BSN, asking good quetions?(eventhough about stuff they cannot understand to be science in a fictional universe..full of that science..) How is that a problem?

[David7204]

Really? Is that why you make accusations that the "rationalization in terms of in-world science was shoddy, sometimes nonsensical"? Because it's "not a problem"?

You're going to tell me with a straight face that "rationalization in terms of in-world science was shoddy, sometimes nonsensical" has no implication of dumb stupid writers writing dumb stupid kiddy stories who don't know science? And that LOLZ REAL WRITERS are so much smarter?

Modifié par David7204, 18 février 2013 - 06:12 .

[David7204]

It's not a problem at all for fans to discuss parts of the the story on forums. It is absolutely a problem when fans make accusations based on misleading, hypocritical, irrelevant or simply incorrect standards.

Modifié par David7204, 18 février 2013 - 06:16 .

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@David7204:
Read my OP again. I EXPLICITLY said that remaining unknown, in itself, does not constitute a problem, as long as it's described as being intrinsically understandable. Lazarus in ME2 was that, after ME3 it wasn't any more.

It was to me tho, I didn't quibble a bit over the 'essence' of synthesis, or it's groundings in reality. Green beams are no biggy in science fiction. The math however is quite advanced. Einstein suggested that imgination trumps actuality, in the manner of where you're at the time,yet was highly religious. Other (astro) physist proclaim religion as a symbol of curiosity. But cannot explain infinity in most theoreticals of black holes. Some Stuff just cannot be figured out...yet, lol.

[humes spork]

Let's not assume technobabble (which is what would replace thus-called "mystical" verbiage) is any more plausible or credible by merit of its own existence.

Also, I call BS on Shepard being the "omnidisciplinary scientist" it would require in-universe to understand in character the mountain of technobabble that would be heaped on the player at every corner were it not for "mystical" language. Shepard's a career soldier, not a scientist.

[Wayning_Star]

David7204 wrote...

It's not a problem at all for fans to discuss parts of the the story on forums. It is absolutely a problem when fans make accusations based on misleading, hypocritical, irrelevant or simply incorrect standards.

we cannot assume writer standards are the same as science standards... it's a matter of perspective and wide audience..isn't it?

[Wayning_Star]

humes spork wrote...

Let's not assume technobabble (which is what would replace thus-called "mystical" verbiage) is any more plausible or credible by merit of its own existence.

Also, I call BS on Shepard being the "omnidisciplinary scientist" it would require in-universe to understand in character the mountain of technobabble that would be heaped on the player at every corner were it not for "mystical" language. Shepard's a career soldier, not a scientist.

he/she will be, it's inevitable..

[Wayning_Star]

astronauts are uneducated non science officers..etc

(just kidding

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
Really? Is that why you make accusations that the "rationalization in terms of in-world science was shoddy, sometimes nonsensical"? Because it's "not a problem"?

You're going to tell me with a straight face that "rationalization in terms of in-world science was shoddy, sometimes nonsensical" has no implication of dumb stupid writers writing dumb stupid kiddy stories who don't know science? And that LOLZ REAL WRITERS are so much smarter?

Eezo reduces mass, right? Well then, let's talk about how mass reduction puts a ship into FTL, naturally. You can't avoid stating the impossible at some point when you want to have the kind of FTL that exists in the ME universe, but I'd say it is better, from a point of view of believable worldbuilding, not to claim methods which can't do what you want them to do according what we actually know, in a rather obvious way recognizeable by everyone.

In those terms, the rationalization was shoddy. When I say it's not a problem, I am saying that I consider this flaw minor because I am accepting of the fact that the MEU is not a hard SF universe.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Great post. I very much agree.

I started the trilogy with ME2, myself, and I thought it was the greatest thing ever.

After playing ME1, though, my opinion of ME2 came down to Earth a bit. There was some regression in 2 from the storytelling of 1, and the shift to mysticism definitely stood out as one of those things -- especially with Project Lazarus and the revelation of the Reapers' nature.

*edit*

I can theoretically accept the nature of the Reapers, based on EDI's cut dialogue. However, it was all but ignored and, like Lazarus, you were kind of asked to just accept it for what it is.

You should include Javik's "I read your physiology" magic as well! xD

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 18 février 2013 - 06:34 .

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Indeed. BTW, can Star Trek transporters *copy* matter?

Copy plain matter, yes. There's a fair explanation about how replicators don't have the resolution to replicate living matter. A transporter stores things in their actual quantum state - they don't read the state, just move it from the physical being to the "pattern buffer" via destructive analysis in its most literal sense. You can't examine the state to copy it without altering it, so you can only have the one version of the person in his original state. Presumably attempting to copy the state results in a pattern so degraded that the output could not live, which is convenient.

Note that there have been several transporter accidents that do get around this. Kirk gets replicated as two copies with "good" and "evil" personality traits divided between the copies. Reversing that, Tuvok and Neelix get merged together into a single new being. ( Yep, Trek indulges in mystical nonsense fom time to time too)

And Riker actually gets duplicated; he both does and does not beam up. The Riker duplicates both live past the episode, apparently indefinitely. Fortunately, Federation technology can't duplicate the feat.

[David7204]

I tell you what.

You've crowned yourself an expert on this, so I want you to explain to me in full and complete detail why the FTL travel seen in ME is impossible not just in ME, but an any 'realistic' fiction.

Modifié par David7204, 18 février 2013 - 06:34 .

[Ieldra]

humes spork wrote...
Let's not assume technobabble (which is what would replace thus-called "mystical" verbiage) is any more plausible or credible by merit of its own existence.

Perhaps not, but it's less suggestive of mysticism.

Also, I call BS on Shepard being the "omnidisciplinary scientist" it would require in-universe to understand in character the mountain of technobabble that would be heaped on the player at every corner were it not for "mystical" language. Shepard's a career soldier, not a scientist.

I don't question at every turn. Critical events surrounding the protagonist, however, I feel justified in trying to understand in in-world terms. Also my main Shepard isn't just some grunt, he's a military engineer with a solid grounding in electronics and electrical engineering. And lastly, I'm not a scientist either and I can deduce the nature of the Reapers just fine from the information given in ME2 and explain them without having to use expressions suggestive of mysticism. ME2's writers knew how to phrase it that way, too, as evidenced by the cut dialogue. So why didn't they? They WANTED this to be suggestive of mysticism. They wanted their universe to be interpretable in those terms, in spite of that obviously being nonsensical (in the case of Reaper creation) and in spite of more appropriate phrasings being available. That's what I find galling.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 février 2013 - 06:39 .

[David7204]

That's an acceptable reason for criticizing the Reapers and Synthesis. Which I agree with. But it's unacceptable to condemn FTL travel, biotics, Lazarus and such with.