364 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

They're machines, but they're AIs. Like EDI. I don't think the Reapers being synthetic is an issue, really. There's a pretty big point of organics and synthetics not being fundamentally different.

I would actually say Mass Effect posits they are fundamentally different. Not saying they can't learn to respect one another, but in the case of EDI for example, you clearly see that she begins bewildered by human actions and only through education by Shepard can she begin to understand organic thinking.

That's what I think you'd have to explain for the Reapers. Why they became so interested in mystery and story.

Also, remember that they're doing it as caretakers. Not for their own amusement, but for the good of life. Remember that Shepard would never have existed if not for them. Shepard is a good thing. And that's why the do it. So good things like Shepard may exist. Basically.

Hmm. This doesn't sound like an AI's thought process to me. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I'd need extensive backstory on why they think this way.

[David7204]

It sounds to me that you objection is that AIs don't feel things like curiosity and all that other poetic crap. And I don't see that at all. Yes, EDI takes some time to display those emotions and behaviors, but she displays them nonetheless. She's curious. She can modify herself. She loves.

It's not something that needs to be justified, I would argue. It's inherent. It's something all intelligent life displays. In fact, you could say that's what MAKES intelligent life.

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

It sounds to me that you objection is that AIs don't feel things like curiosity and all that other poetic crap. And I don't see that at all. Yes, EDI takes some time to display those emotions and behaviors, but she displays them nonetheless. She's curious. She can modify herself. She loves.

It's not something that needs to be justified, I would argue. It's inherent. It's something all intelligent life displays. In fact, you could say that's what MAKES intelligent life.

It depends on the nature of their curiosity. Like I said, an AI is driven to seek knowledge because it seeks understanding (at least in Mass Effect). This is especially true of EDI whose character arc is her desire to understand organic thinking. Therefore, discovering the fundamental nature of the universe would lead an AI to contentment, not a lament for the absence of further mystery. 

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 08 avril 2013 - 03:57 .

[Killdren88]

I myself have not loaded up the MEHEM. But I endorse it. It does indeed help with the ending. I myself have gotten much better. I've occupied my time prepping for DA3. As for ME I'm over it for the most part. I still hate the ending with a passion, but It no longer dwells on my mind constantly. Of that I'm thankful for. I shall always pick destroy. I don't care what anyone says. The Reapers are murderers. And they deserve nothing but death. Here is how I see it. If the Reapers were looking into different solutions, why not at the start over every cycle they lets the being know of that cycle of the options. But no they go right with the murder of quadrillions. Only when Shep has his/her finger on the kill switch were the Reapers willing to talk. Thus only wanting to ensure their hides made it out. But if Shep did not make it they would have gone their marry way and kept up with the murder. Proving that only when their backs are to the wall are they willing to look at less destructive ways. They get no mercy from me.

Modifié par Killdren88, 08 avril 2013 - 04:28 .

[David7204]

I don't think that's true, and I don't see much evidence to support it. If you're an explorer, and there's nothing left to explore, I don't think you'd be very content at all to put your feet on your desk for the rest of eternity. Because you explore. That's what you do. When I play an RPG and reach the max, I'm not content at all to be the most powerful thing in the game. Not for an extended amount of time. There's nothing left for me to do. So what I do? I end the story and begin a new one. Why should it be different for AIs?

Modifié par David7204, 08 avril 2013 - 04:27 .

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

I don't think that's true, and I don't see much evidence to support it. If you're an explorer, and there's nothing left to explore, I don't think you'd be very content at all to put your feet on your desk for the rest of eternity. Because you explore. That's what you do. When I play an RPG and reach the max, I'm not content at all to be the most powerful thing in the game. Not for an extended amount of time. There's nothing left for me to do. So what I do? I end the story and begin a new one. Why should it be different for AIs?

Because AIs do not seek knowledge for the joy of seeking knowledge. The act and process of exploring and seeking knowledge is strictly a means to the end of a type of enlightenment.

There is in fact evidence for this. The geth are the best example. Their stated goal is to build a geth consensus large enough so that their hive-mind is able to process before-impossible levels of data and attain some sort of perfect race understanding. EDI spends her time in the series trying to find out what makes organics tick.

[David7204]

How is that any different from, for example, physicists? The goal of physicists is to understand physics.

How is that different from me leveling up a character in a game? I want to level up, and I spent time doing it. My stated goal is to level up and be able to kill anything. That doesn't make me content with it once I actually do it.

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

How is that any different from, for example, physicists? The goal of physicists is to understand physics.

It probably isn't much different. That doesn't stop the writers of Mass Effect from saying that this is the main difference between organics and synthetics. 

How is that different from me leveling up a character in a game? I want to level up, and I spent time doing it. My stated goal is to level up and be able to kill anything. That doesn't make me content with it once I actually do it.

It doesn't? Sure as hell does for me. I get pissed off when a game has gameplay structured so that it's impossible to attain a "max level" in a reasonable period of time. There's nothing more satisfying for me in an RPG than max level, max weapons, max armor.

[David7204]

Perhaps that wasn't the best analogy. Maybe not such much 'max level' as 'done everything there is to do.' Completed every quest, gotten every item, heard every line of dialogue and of course, maxed everything maxable. How long are you willing to play a game in that condition before starting a new one?

Modifié par David7204, 08 avril 2013 - 04:52 .

[mtmercydave09]

Killdren88 wrote...

I myself have not loaded up the MEHEM. But I endorse it. It does indeed help with the ending. I myself have gotten much better. I've occupied my time prepping for DA3. As for ME I'm over it for the most part. I still hate the ending with a passion, but It no longer dwells on my mind constantly. Of that I'm thankful for. I shall always pick destroy. I don't care what anyone says. The Reapers are murderers. And they deserve nothing but death. Here is how I see it. If the Reapers were looking into different solutions, why not at the start over every cycle they lets the being know of that cycle of the options. But no they go right with the murder of quadrillions. Only when Shep has his/her finger on the kill switch were the Reapers willing to talk. Thus only wanting to ensure their hides made it out. But if Shep did not make it they would have gone their marry way and kept up with the murder. Proving that only when their backs are to the wall are they willing to look at less destructive ways. They get no mercy from me.

That's how I felt too, and why destroy is the only ending I could ever choose.  I just used MEHEM though because it actually shows everyone living and elaborates on the ending where Bioware failed to do in their destroy ending.

It really did help me not to dwell on the ending so much since I did just finish the game for the first time a couple weeks ago.  

[3DandBeyond]

David7204 wrote...

God dammit, I really wish people would not defend happy endings based on things like MEHEM. That doesn't strengthen the argument, it undermines it. It suggests the people who say "grim and dark equals maturity" are right.

MEHEM is a lousy ending. It is. It's flaws are overlooked because it's a fan mod and because people don't expect anything out of it aside from Shepard clearly surviving and a reunion, and it provides.

No one is suggesting that MEHEM is perfect but it is far better than what we got, which is no fulfilling happy ending as one possibility.  It's not perfect because there's just no way that anyone save for BW themselves could create a fully contextual and satisfying happy ending that would be fully played out.  And they wouldn't do it-for some stick up their butts reason they wouldn't do it and it would have been relatively easy for them to do.  As well, it could have contained a more fleshed out set of circumstances that would lead up to it but again with sticks firmly up their backsides, BW decided not to create a variety of fulfilling endings that would have appealed to a varying set of desires. 

Oh and I know what some would say in response to this-Bioware couldn't please everyone.  Well, judging from all of the comments regarding the supposed grim-dark drivel that we got, I can't see that they overwhelmingly pleased everyone either.  ME was neither grim nor dark and yet the ending choices are and then the epilog slides and cutscenes are certainly lacking in any maturity in my estimation.  They lack context and sensible explanation and true and obvious consequences-an aftermath rooted in reality.

By contrast, yes I wanted something more down to Earth, something far more sensible and also varied.  From the grim dark starkness of a galaxy being annihilated to sacrifice and then to a possible win it all and live to tell about it type of ending.  But I can't have that.  I will never get over the fact that BW led me to believe that was possible and then decided it was cheesy or some such thing.  And yet, they then went and created Citadel DLC that is full of cheese and certainly not grim dark.  MEHEM at least keeps the spirit of the game that I played alive whereas BW killed it.

[David7204]

Are you sure nobody's suggesting MEHEM is perfect? Because I've seen a hell of a lot of 'ideal ending' suggestions that are basically just that - The Crucible firing, the Reapers dying, happy ending. Sometimes the Crucible being an EMP or something, and the Reapers being killed by the fleets. But that's really not a big difference at all.

Modifié par David7204, 11 avril 2013 - 04:05 .

[mtmercydave09]

3DandBeyond wrote...

David7204 wrote...

God dammit, I really wish people would not defend happy endings based on things like MEHEM. That doesn't strengthen the argument, it undermines it. It suggests the people who say "grim and dark equals maturity" are right.

MEHEM is a lousy ending. It is. It's flaws are overlooked because it's a fan mod and because people don't expect anything out of it aside from Shepard clearly surviving and a reunion, and it provides.

No one is suggesting that MEHEM is perfect but it is far better than what we got, which is no fulfilling happy ending as one possibility.  It's not perfect because there's just no way that anyone save for BW themselves could create a fully contextual and satisfying happy ending that would be fully played out.  And they wouldn't do it-for some stick up their butts reason they wouldn't do it and it would have been relatively easy for them to do.  As well, it could have contained a more fleshed out set of circumstances that would lead up to it but again with sticks firmly up their backsides, BW decided not to create a variety of fulfilling endings that would have appealed to a varying set of desires. 

Oh and I know what some would say in response to this-Bioware couldn't please everyone.  Well, judging from all of the comments regarding the supposed grim-dark drivel that we got, I can't see that they overwhelmingly pleased everyone either.  ME was neither grim nor dark and yet the ending choices are and then the epilog slides and cutscenes are certainly lacking in any maturity in my estimation.  They lack context and sensible explanation and true and obvious consequences-an aftermath rooted in reality.

By contrast, yes I wanted something more down to Earth, something far more sensible and also varied.  From the grim dark starkness of a galaxy being annihilated to sacrifice and then to a possible win it all and live to tell about it type of ending.  But I can't have that.  I will never get over the fact that BW led me to believe that was possible and then decided it was cheesy or some such thing.  And yet, they then went and created Citadel DLC that is full of cheese and certainly not grim dark.  MEHEM at least keeps the spirit of the game that I played alive whereas BW killed it.

+1 Well said, agree with you completely.

Nobody is saying MEHEM is perfect, it does have flaws, but for what it does it provides more than what Bioware provided.

[David7204]

Okay, so what are those flaws?

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

Are you sure nobody's suggesting MEHEM is perfect? Because I've seen a hell of a lot of 'ideal ending' suggestions that are basically just that - The Crucible firing, the Reapers dying, happy ending. Somestimes the Crucible being an EMP or something, and the Reapers being killed by the fleets. But that's really not a big difference at all.

That's not perfect. Just better than what we got. I haven't tried MEHEM, but from what I've seen it keeps the EC's Normandy scene (and I hear it adds another Normandy rescue scene that doesn't make sense?) so in my opinion it's definitely not perfect. It does get rid of the worst part of the endings though: the Starchild.

[David7204]

You're projecting your dislike of components of the endings on a character that really has very little do with them. You're looking for something concrete to blame it on.

Modifié par David7204, 11 avril 2013 - 04:09 .

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

You're projecting your dislike of components of the endings on a character that really has very little do with them.

No. I'm not. The character is the component I have the major issue with.

[mtmercydave09]

David7204 wrote...

You're projecting your dislike of components of the endings on a character that really has very little do with them.

To me getting rid of Starchild in MEHEM, allows me to look past other flaws.  It seems you're getting quite a bit bent out of shape about people liking MEHEM though?

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It sounds to me that you objection is that AIs don't feel things like curiosity and all that other poetic crap. And I don't see that at all. Yes, EDI takes some time to display those emotions and behaviors, but she displays them nonetheless. She's curious. She can modify herself. She loves.

It's not something that needs to be justified, I would argue. It's inherent. It's something all intelligent life displays. In fact, you could say that's what MAKES intelligent life.

It depends on the nature of their curiosity. Like I said, an AI is driven to seek knowledge because it seeks understanding (at least in Mass Effect). This is especially true of EDI whose character arc is her desire to understand organic thinking. Therefore, discovering the fundamental nature of the universe would lead an AI to contentment, not a lament for the absence of further mystery. 

Not so with all AIs and not even fully the story of EDI nor the geth.  The AI on the Citadel was stealing money in ME1-why?  He did so because he was unsatisfied with his life such as it was.  He was also duplicitous in all his planning.  He wanted to stow away on a ship in order to get to the geth.   He was not at all interested in understanding.

EDI is about understanding sure, but it's not just for that sake alone-she shows in many ways that she has already begun to care about the crew of the Normandy.  There was more than simply being curious.  Her desire was specific-she wanted to understand organics in order to be more like them and because she already had formed a bond with Joker.  It's also somewhat akin to a child exploring and what is part of what defines people as being alive-learning and evolving.

The geth (the true and not the heretic) didn't see understanding as an end point-they saw it as a road to be traveled in ME2.  They wanted to experience not only knowledge but learning.  They wanted to evolve.  That's why they didn't want what the heretics wanted.  In ME3, things change because they are once again threatened by the quarians.

I'd really extrapolate this all to say that AI's (funny how the codex says that's a derogatory term so most say synthetic life, but the game still uses AI all the time), might be just as nuanced and diverse as organics are.  Some humans consider knowledge the most fulfilling thing, some like sports, some want to understand the human psyche and some couldn't care less about any of that stuff.  Why would AI's necessarily be any different if they truly can become alive?

[David7204]

KingZayd wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You're projecting your dislike of components of the endings on a character that really has very little do with them.

No. I'm not. The character is the component I have the major issue with.

So if the endings were the exact same, with the exact same dialogue, the exact same options, the exact same Reaper motive and backstory except with Harbinger landing and explaining things instead other the Catalyst, the endings would be good? Or at least significantly better? It would be fairly easy to do.

No, I don't think they would. I think players would just be complaining at how stupid Harbinger instead of the how stupid the Catalyst is.

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You're projecting your dislike of components of the endings on a character that really has very little do with them.

No. I'm not. The character is the component I have the major issue with.

So if the endings were the exact same, with the exact same dialogue, the exact same options, the exact same Reaper motive and backstory except with Harbinger landing and explaining things instead other the Catalyst, the endings would be good? Or at least significantly better? It would be fairly easy to do.

No, I don't think they would. I think players would just be complaining at how stupid Harbinger instead of the how stupid the Catalyst is.

For me? Yes. They would be signficantly better.

I still wouldn't trust him, but I would have actually been fine with the original ending. A bit disappointed with the initially similar endings,  but overall? Satisfied.

I still would have disliked the EC though, due to the new dialogue and the Normandy rescue scene.

Modifié par KingZayd, 11 avril 2013 - 04:17 .

[k.lalh]

David7204 wrote...

So if the endings were the exact same, with the exact same dialogue, the exact same options, the exact same Reaper motive and backstory except with Harbinger landing and explaining things instead other the Catalyst, the endings would be good? Or at least significantly better? It would be fairly easy to do.

No, I don't think they would. I think players would just be complaining at how stupid Harbinger instead of the how stupid the Catalyst is.

I haven't read the entire thread, but on this point, I'm going to agree with David, albeit with a caveat.

Harbinger was one of the most hated characters in ME2 (assuming control ), if they replaced the catalyst with him, he would probably get the same level of hate as both Kai Leng and the Catalyst combined.

However, one of the major complaints about the catalyst (the fact that he was never present in the previous games, and needed a DLC to foreshadow his existence) would be null and void.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

So if the endings were the exact same, with the exact same dialogue, the exact same options, the exact same Reaper motive and backstory except with Harbinger landing and explaining things instead other the Catalyst, the endings would be good? Or at least significantly better? It would be fairly easy to do.

Harbinger? Nah. 

Avina, with a little script tinkering and more lucid explanation of the options? You bet.

[KingZayd]

k.lalh wrote...

David7204 wrote...

So if the endings were the exact same, with the exact same dialogue, the exact same options, the exact same Reaper motive and backstory except with Harbinger landing and explaining things instead other the Catalyst, the endings would be good? Or at least significantly better? It would be fairly easy to do.

No, I don't think they would. I think players would just be complaining at how stupid Harbinger instead of the how stupid the Catalyst is.

I haven't read the entire thread, but on this point, I'm going to agree with David, albeit with a caveat.

Harbinger was one of the most hated characters in ME2 (assuming control ), if they replaced the catalyst with him, he would probably get the same level of hate as both Kai Leng and the Catalyst combined.

However, one of the major complaints about the catalyst (the fact that he was never present in the previous games, and needed a DLC to foreshadow his existence) would be null and void.

I thought it was ridiculous that the master of the Reapers was there in the Citadel all along, and yet had done absolutely NOTHING throughout the series. Also, deciding that the old solution wouldn't work now, despite Shepard passing out, and therefore failing.

[k.lalh]

KingZayd wrote...

(snip)

I thought it was ridiculous that the master of the Reapers was there in the Citadel all along, and yet had done absolutely NOTHING throughout the series. Also, deciding that the old solution wouldn't work now, despite Shepard passing out, and therefore failing.

Sure,

I think it was pretty obvious that they made that bit up as they were going along. If they put in Harbinger instead of the catalyst, a lot of the complaints would be dealt with, except the "circular logic" of the catalyst that tends to be #1 on the most hated list of many people. That particular problem wouldn't be fixed with Harbinger.