447 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Technically speaking an AI is also a glorified computer, how many AI characters do we have?

They are self-aware and sapient where VIs are not. Significant difference.

You realize could replace Anderson and Hackett in much the same fashion, they technically don't do much other than tell Shepard what to do and where to go, are they somehow no longer characters?

Not really.

Shepard taking orders from a calculator or being mentored by an answering-machine wouldn't really work, IMO.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Technically speaking an AI is also a glorified computer, how many AI characters do we have?

They are self-aware and sapient where VIs are not. Significant difference.

And the only difference between them and a computer is the ability to self-realize.

As far as technology goes, do we really need a computer that does that?

You realize could replace Anderson and Hackett in much the same fashion, they technically don't do much other than tell Shepard what to do and where to go, are they somehow no longer characters?

Not really.

Shepard taking orders from a calculator or being mentored by an answering-machine wouldn't really work, IMO.

That's why I prefer the idea of Shepard not taking orders or being mentored. He's given a goal, and he completes it in ME1. He's even more independent and working with TIM (even if he is a member of Cerberus) who gives him a mission and lets him do it in any way he pleases in ME2. And in ME3, to me, he should have been the guy in charge. He tells Hackett, the Council, everyone, etc. to get their stuff ready, to build the Crucible, and he'll go around and get the galaxy ready and unite them behind him.

[David7204]

Doesn't much matter if we 'really need' one or not. Soon as we're able to, someone will make one.

[GreyLycanTrope]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
They are self-aware and sapient where VIs are not. Significant difference.

This is prothean VI also signignificant as it's a bit more advanced. It tries to justify it's actions in shutting down the pods and speculates on the Reapers motives and the significants of that knowledge. Even your proposal of swaping Vigil out for a recording of a prothean for sake of exposition relys on a recorded character and not a datapad with info. In short it might  not be able to self realize but it has personality. That is what sets Vigil apart from Mira, Mira doesn't speculate nor does she try to justify her actions she just tells you when she has no data or that this is her programing.

Not really.

Shepard taking orders from a calculator or being mentored by an answering-machine wouldn't really work, IMO.

Why not? All they or just about any quest giving NPC do is tell you what to do and where to go. If we're allowed to swap out Vigil why not these as well? what's the different?

[Deathsaurer]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Technically speaking an AI is also a glorified computer, how many AI characters do we have?

Legion, EDI, Eva, Rannoch Prime, Sovereign, Harbinger, Rannoch Destroyer, Catalyst, gambling AI.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Even your proposal of swaping Vigil out for a recording of a prothean for sake of exposition relys on a recorded character and not a datapad with info.

Datapad with info works too, theoretically. I just didn't think of it.

Not really.

Shepard taking orders from a calculator or being mentored by an answering-machine wouldn't really work, IMO.

Why not? All they or just about any quest giving NPC do is tell you what to do and where to go. If we're allowed to swap out Vigil why not these as well? what's the different?

Umm... one leads a military, and the other is also a ranking-officer who leads men plus the added dynamic of being a mentor figure to Shepard since ME1. You can't replace those roles with inanimate objects. Not sensibly, anyway.

Vigil, OTOH, is not a person to begin with:

ME Codex wrote...

VIs are only used to assist the user and process data.... Though they appear to be intelligent, they aren't actually self-aware, just made with clever programming.

Using a VI that had the ability to engage in dialogue was a nice touch that enhanced the emotional gravity of the situation at hand. However, it was just that: a nice touch. We feel a personal connection to it and thusly may view it as a person because the writers heavily personified the object, but still remains a glorfied object, as the lore clearly establishes.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 10 novembre 2013 - 05:48 .

[Deathsaurer]

Prothean VI's have personality imprints, probably to make them more intelligent without risking the creation of an actual AI. Both Vigil and Vendetta tell us the name of the person their imprint came from.

[DuffyMJ]

Tsunami Chef wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't accept IT per se, but it's pretty strange that indoctrination is so looked down upon, considering how central it is to the Reaper story. Suddenly, we're all expected to not speak of it? I don't get it. Freaking BSN. Y'all are weird.

Obnoxious ITers + Obnoxious Anti-ITers + Obnoxious trolls in general + No clear admission of anything other than maybe "It's a valid interpretation" + content that appears to disprove IT = the current BSN attitude towards it

And well, yes, BSN being BSN. I remember back when this was all a separate Mass Effect 2 board. Yeah, people were always 'off'.

I think the biggest annoyance as someone who doesn't believe in the IT is people who put me in the "anti-IT" camp. Most people who don't believe that the IT was intended do not say because htey think it doesn't fit into the game, but because business wise, and practically it makes absolutely no sense for Bioware to have ended their game like that....I love the idea of IT, and would prefer it if bioware fleshed it out to a full ending.,...but it is so freaking obvious that Bioware didn't intend it.

If you believe the ME directors created IT you believe they made one of the mysterious, if not the most mysterious endings in gaming history....as well as basically the most incomplete ending in gaming history.

Does the writer' intention really carry that much weight in canon?  I seem to recall "the intentional fallacy" as major pillar of literary criticism.  For example Hamlet was written wayyyy before Freud was even born, that doesn't stop the play from being an exhibit A of psychoanalytical literary criticism and being a strongly/popularly interpreted with that lense.

I honestly think Bioware saying "no that's not what we meant, we meant X" is a waste of their breath.  The audience response and interpretation has already trumped their nonsense.

Halo is another great example of this... All the plot nonsense they've introduced in Halo 4, and the novels...  Anyone that had a clue when the original game of the series came out could see the writing on the wall that Humanity were the Forerunners based on the events of the game (the AI mistook you for a forerunner, said you did this before why reconsider now?, and said "oh look all of our lost history!" when going through the crashed human ship).  And now Halo has some goofy receding hair line forerunner demon looking thing? Puh-leeze.

Modifié par DuffyMJ, 10 novembre 2013 - 06:28 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Datapad with info works too, theoretically. I just didn't think of it.

The reason you didn't think of it is because it wouldn't work if you still wanted the party to comment on actions taken by the person in question and the datapad try and justify it's own actions.
"Conversation? Replace with a recorded message from a Prothean. All the same information is given. If you must have Shepard talk here, have the companions chime with their opinions on the matter, and have Shepardrespond to them."

A datapad is a poor substitute for a converstation. We already had a recorded message from the Protheans on Ilos a few mintues earlier, we have the same thing on Eden Prime when picking up Javik. There is a reason they didn't just give us an apocalyptic log instead of Vigil, log tend not to talk back.

Umm... one leads a military, and the other is also a ranking-officer who leads men plus the added dynamic of being a mentor figure to Shepard since ME1. You can't replace those roles with inanimate objects. Not sensibly, anyway.

Vigil, OTOH, is not a person to begin with:

Good than you understand that while character can provide exposition that's not necissairly the only quality to them. And you don't need to be a person to be a character. Saying you can't leaves the door open for saying EDI can also be labeled as not a person if you say take Dr. Chakwas' or TIM's perspective on the matter, leaving her character status suspect as well.

Using a VI that had the ability to engage in dialogue was a nice touch that enhanced the emotional gravity of the situation at hand. However, it was just that: a nice touch. We feel a personal connection to it and thusly may view it
as a person because the writers heavily personified the object, but still remains a glorfied object, as the lore clearly establishes.

Personified objects are very much characters, not much point in personifying them otherwise.

EDI literally gives voice to the Normandy as a character. Vigil similarly gives voice to the Protheans before Javik.

Also what Deathsaurer said:

Deathsaurer wrote...

Prothean VI's have personality imprints, probably to make them more intelligent without risking the creation of an actual AI. Both Vigil and Vendetta tell us the name of the person their imprint came from.

There's also the Shepard VI later on 

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 10 novembre 2013 - 07:29 .

[TheRealJayDee]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Unsatisfied?  Unhappy?  Watch this, it'll make everything better...

youtu.be/Yt8BTMtaYys

Am I satisfied with Mass Effect? No, and that isn't going to change. So I did what many folks told me to do over the year after ME3's release - I got over it. Shortly after finishing the Citadel DLC with my second character I realized that for me personally there just wasn't a point to it any longer, as unhappy as I was about it. The things that made ME3 an overall unpleasant experience are going to stay, and further discussion about them to me only means further headaches. 

As far as gaming series go the Mass Effect trilogy had the potential to be among my all-time favourites, but by now I have uninstalled ME2+3 (and Origin), and no interest to speak of in further Mass Effect games. Irreconcilable differences and all, I guess. Pity, but it happens.

Watching the N7 Day "Thank You!" video made me quite sentimental, though, reminding me of the good times I had with the games. Who knows, in a year or two I might try a new complete trilogy playthrough and see how it goes...

[FREEGUNNER]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If no ending is good, how can any ending be bad?

Cause ME1 and ME2 had good endings?

[Vicious]

I pick destroy. My armor doesn't have a blood stripe because i'm afraid of loss and sacrifice. Sorry Legion and EDI, i will always miss you guys. Wish it were different but it is what it is...

Besides, IMO EDI would have picked destroy too. She loved an organic after all...

Modifié par Vicious, 14 novembre 2013 - 03:33 .

[SwobyJ]

Vicious wrote...

I pick destroy. My armor doesn't have a blood stripe because i'm afraid of loss and sacrifice. Sorry Legion and EDI, i will always miss you guys. Wish it were different but it is what it is...

Besides, IMO EDI would have picked destroy too. She loved an organic after all...

IMO an EDI that you do the full conversation path would have absolutely chosen Destroy.

The Geth, even Upgraded Geth.. I'm still not quite sure of. They cut that "There will be no more compromise with the Old Machines" line, didn't they?

[MattFini]

FREEGUNNER wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

If no ending is good, how can any ending be bad?

Cause ME1 and ME2 had good endings?

Didn't they?

I don't think I ever felt as *satisifed* as finishing ME1 for the first time. No, maybe the post-game wrap up once you beat Sovereign wasn't all that special, but it was memorable and left me wanting more. 

And ME2, with the awesome suicide mission that was the sum of everything I did (or didn't do) thoughout the game was somehow even more satisying. Again, it ends on a hook and so you can't really compare it to ME3, but again, I was damn satisifed at the end of it.

[SwobyJ]

I felt most satisfied after doing my 2nd Suicide Mission run, a Perfect one.

Ending of ME1 was more overall fun. Part of that though, was how boring Feros/Novaria/Therum. It was the rare example of a game which gets better in its storytelling as it continues, instead of degrades or seems lazy with it.

[Whitering]

How many times do we have the Geth choose the evil path or be re-written in the series?

1) Saren, oh let's invade and kill all the organics

2) Overwrite, or destroy, the Heretics

3) Oh another Reaper

I let the Geth die every time, they are like an unlocked firearm in a house with infants.

[SwobyJ]

Whitering wrote...

How many times do we have the Geth choose the evil path or be re-written in the series?

1) Saren, oh let's invade and kill all the organics

2) Overwrite, or destroy, the Heretics

3) Oh another Reaper

I let the Geth die every time, they are like an unlocked firearm in a house with infants.

I'm glad there are people like you sometimes. While I disagree about the geth, I'd agree with what the writers try to get us to understand sometimes - some thing are damn dangerous and if not handled perfectly, WILL backfire.

And I'd love for geth stuff to backfire, even as I chose Peace. Moral choices need not always be correct.

[Whitering]

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm glad there are people like you sometimes. While I disagree about the geth, I'd agree with what the writers try to get us to understand sometimes - some thing are damn dangerous and if not handled perfectly, WILL backfire.

And I'd love for geth stuff to backfire, even as I chose Peace. Moral choices need not always be correct.

It would be a world breakthrough in gaming if I got one game with a different antagonist and you got your game with a new Reaper empowered Geth as the enemy (all in the same game of course, just two different campaigns).

[SwobyJ]

Whitering wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm glad there are people like you sometimes. While I disagree about the geth, I'd agree with what the writers try to get us to understand sometimes - some thing are damn dangerous and if not handled perfectly, WILL backfire.

And I'd love for geth stuff to backfire, even as I chose Peace. Moral choices need not always be correct.

It would be a world breakthrough in gaming if I got one game with a different antagonist and you got your game with a new Reaper empowered Geth as the enemy (all in the same game of course, just two different campaigns).

I don't think that will happen. My guess so far, again if there is a sequel (I hate leaving disclaimers like this, but I can't assume BSN will read my mind), there would be:
-major antagonist, no matter what
-major super-antagonist, no matter what

But..
-unique levels, arcs, or at least 'flavors' of levels that would reflect our choice

Are we facing a rebuilt Geth, mech rebellion, a virus in peaceful geth? Who lives or dies based on this? What lessons or lore information do we learn (we would learn the least if it was the result of Geth Death in ME3)?

Same with Reapers. Reaper tech may very well still exist, in some form, to say the least. Would it be fully tapped into everyone? Would it just be around and doing its thing? Would it be a ressuraction of it by stupid organics wanting to control it Cerberus style? All would be similar levels, but different flavors, possibly combat scenarios (I'd want this in particular), rewards, and more.

So I don't think there would be different campaigns, but the would keep a core story that is impacted by our choices. Even if we somehow end up fighting Geth and Reapers in some form at times, Bioware would fluff up everything else around that (even up to how levels appear and function), to make it look like our choices did something. I mean, a Rannoch with only Raan and Geth VI, with Geth killed, FEELS quite different, even in general dialogue throughout the level, than Rannoch Peace with Loyal Legion and Tali.

[3DandBeyond]

SwobyJ wrote...

Whitering wrote...

How many times do we have the Geth choose the evil path or be re-written in the series?

1) Saren, oh let's invade and kill all the organics

2) Overwrite, or destroy, the Heretics

3) Oh another Reaper

I let the Geth die every time, they are like an unlocked firearm in a house with infants.

I'm glad there are people like you sometimes. While I disagree about the geth, I'd agree with what the writers try to get us to understand sometimes - some thing are damn dangerous and if not handled perfectly, WILL backfire.

And I'd love for geth stuff to backfire, even as I chose Peace. Moral choices need not always be correct.

The only problem with all that is that every time the geth turn on anyone and go with the reapers is because of how they're misused.  First, the quarians own what they did to them and how it backfired on the quarians-it was the geth and not the organics that felt remorse and the geth that awaited their creators return, acting as caretakers for them.  The heretics were enticed and misused not mainly by Saren but by Sovereign whom they thought was a god.  He promised them a future using augmented code upgrades and was all too willing to dispose of them when he might need to-his disgust was not just for organics but for lower level synthetics as well.

Then, once again in ME3, the quarians with all due braininess decide in spite of a possible galactic annihilation event (you know reapers) going on which would make any geth/quarian/"I got Rannoch" situation meaningless, that it was a good idea to attack the geth. 

In the void created by people otherwise occupied (said possible galactic annihilation thing), the geth had no one to help them and were again enticed by the only ones that might save them.  We're meant to dislike that situation-and those seeking reaper help are again seen as BAD.  So, these BAD geth turn to the reapers to save their lives when threatened with annihilation.  They choose survival no matter the cost.  Legion represents the soul of the geth that says the cost is too high and the geth are pulled back from reaper pollution and this only one path idea.

Then, in their infinite wisdom the writers decide that the game must end on an organic (Shepard) deciding on survival no matter the cost.  Refuse is seen as the one way out of that but is a non-choice.

[SwobyJ]

Yes. One way or another, our hero is faltering. They show him on his knees many times since Arrival for a reason imo.

Just because you have a soul, it doesn't mean it can't be corrupted. They view the Reapers with awe now. They are just cut off from them enough to not be overwritten by Reaper orders.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Greylycantrope wrote...

The reason you didn't think of it is because it wouldn't work if you still wanted the party to comment on actions taken by the person in question and the datapad try and justify it's own actions.
"Conversation? Replace with a recorded message from a Prothean. All the same information is given. If you must have Shepard talk here, have the companions chime with their opinions on the matter, and have Shepardrespond to them."

Keyword: if. Strictly speaking, no squad dialogue was necessary, only acquiring the information is.

A datapad is a poor substitute for a converstation. We already had a recorded message from the Protheans on Ilos a few mintues earlier, we have the same thing on Eden Prime when picking up Javik. There is a reason they didn't just give us an apocalyptic log instead of Vigil, log tend not to talk back.

Jacob's loyalty mission did it.

He picked up a datapad (crew logbook) and describes what happened. Shepard can react.

Umm... one leads a military, and the other is also a ranking-officer who leads men plus the added dynamic of being a mentor figure to Shepard since ME1. You can't replace those roles with inanimate objects. Not sensibly, anyway.

Vigil, OTOH, is not a person to begin with:

Good than you understand that while character can provide exposition that's not necissairly the only quality to them. And you don't need to be a person to be a character. Saying you can't leaves the door open for saying EDI can also be labeled as not a person if you say take Dr. Chakwas' or TIM's perspective on the matter, leaving her character status suspect as well.

AI personhood is left for the player to decide.

So YES, one could dimiss EDI's personhood and go as far as to claim she's not a character. It's debatable, though.

VI are not. It is established in the Codex that they're just clever computer programming.

Personified objects are very much characters, not much point in personifying them otherwise.

I FRICKIN LOVED THAT MOVIE!!!

... but no, that's an alternate fictional universe with different rules, and a fantasy one rather than a sci-fi.

In that setting, appliances can be sapient and sentient. In this one, VIs are neither, lest they cross into AI territory. And even in that story, appliances and humans can not be used interchangeably, because it breaks the established lore.


To steer this back to the original point, the Catalyst as an expository plot-device (as opposed to character) simply fits the scenario that takes place in the ending in a more seamless and sensible manner. Not coincidentally, you'll notice that the people treating it like a character (usually of the "bad guy" variety) are those who struggle to make sense of the ending. When in doubt, you go with Occam's razor, especially when conventional-wisdom doesn't help make sense of things.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 16 novembre 2013 - 09:18 .

[Deathsaurer]

It doesn't work as an info dump because of who and what it is. You can't detach it from the Reapers and it doesn't even try to do so. It simply doesn't have and credibility. This is why it was a mistake to not have an interaction with it prior to the ending so it could speak for itself without the rush job of everyone dying.