876 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
If that is your position, you have no say in this debate because it clouds your own perception on things. You cannot question the judgement of someone based on a subjective medium, much like you can't question wheather someone likes or dislikes something. What other people percieve or believe should have no bearing on your own.

Discussion and seeing different points of view is fine. Fanatically ignoring everyone else because of what you belive makes you pointless to talk to. Simple as that. 

What subjective medium are we talking about?

If it makes sense to you that you can wipe out all artificial intelligence in the enire galaxy by shooting an exploding red pipe segment, or that you can become a godlike AI by running electricity through yourself until you are completely incinerated by it, or that you can recode all the galaxy's genetics and all the galaxy's software by disintigrating in a lazer beam and writing your DNA across the whole galaxy... ifthese things make sense to you it is because you fiercely wish to accept it. I think it is objectively factually accurate that those things can only be accepted with a relatively very high (much more than a standard deviation above base line) willingness to suspend your disbelief.

I think it is also objectively factual that in that case your judgment on the thing in question cannot possibly be described with words like "impartial," "detached," "fair," etc.

Finally, I just want to point out the topsey-turvey, counterfactual nature of accusing me--as I return to this thread every couple of hours to participate in this discussion and make every effort to respond to each post directed at me--of "fanatically ignoring everyone else."

The case has been made, ad nauseam, that the ending of Mass Effect 3 was incoherent and illogical. You have every right to dismiss all of that. It is your perogative to disregard those arguments and say of the ending, "It makes sense to me." When you simultaneously dismiss all criticism and accuse someone else of "ignoring everyone else," you make it really hard to take your position seriously.

I would not bring suspension of disbelief into a sci-fi space opera video game, where you have aliens speaking english, biotic magic powers, talking computers, FTL drives, paralyzing seeker swarms, people using thin sheets of plastic to breathe through in space, robot zombies, and omnipresent aliens floating around. You need to suspend your disbelief to allow this all to exist, and no amount of pseudoscientific explainations given in a codex makes it all the more plausible, except that Sir Issac Newton is still the deadliest SOB in space. 

And yes, I am impartial, becuase I chose to be. When I reviewed the game I took a neutral stance because I am supposed to, and it stuck because I realized no matter what side of the fence I fall on, my opinion doesn't really matter much to anyone but me. I am not here to find "like-minded" individuals to congregate with, I am here to discuss, debate and see other opinions regarding what occured, proof of the subjective quality of the impact of the endings in of itself.  Does that mean I am biased, of course not. We all are, but that is why I choose to be as impatial as possible. 

There is a difference, however, from dismissing a persons argument through their beliefs. I can care less what you believe in, but I won't dismiss what you are saying as wrong. When you are saying you can't take my position of neutrality, or anyone who enjoyed the endings, seriously, you are objectively dismissing them from the discussion. Responding to them means nothing in context, you objectively see that position as wrong. You therefore dismiss the opinion fanatically. 

So it cuts boths way then. You won't take me serious because I don't synch with your beliefs, I can't take you seriously because you are not open to discussion. It's basically a fruitless debate if this line of thought continues.

durasteel wrote...

Conflict between synthetic and organic intelligence is certainly a theme of the enire Mass Effect setting. It is a huge leap, though, from there to "artificial intelligence will always rebel against its creator and try to kill it." 

We see time and again that the synthetics of this cycle are defined by an effort to reconcile their purpose with a will to survive. Conflict seems to most reliably come from organic fears based on a lack of understanding. These are recurring themes in the series, but at no point until the end are we ever presented with anything to suggest that "AI will always try to kill you, meatbag." That concept comes from out of nowhere, and is in direct conflict with the entire experience of an imported paragon Shepard.

I don't know about this. You are right that it is the organics who instigate against the synthetics in the current cycle. That said, the definition of "rebel" is in question. In the case of the Geth, the Quarians tried to quell any rebellion they percieved, but got massacred for it. So while they didn't start the rebellion, the Geth definitly finished it through self defense. What sets them apart is that they let them go and isolated themselves, instead of going on the warpath.

It doesn't help much that our sample size for A.I's is rather small to judge it too. Javik brings up the machine race of the Zha'til who "blotted out the sky" against the other races. So it again is dependent on the machines. Organics react predictably though, and fight before negotiating with them because of the complications.

So it may be forced rebellion, but the Catalyst is technically not wrong that synthetics can, or will, kill their creators if given the chance. 

[AlanC9]

LinksOcarina wrote...
That is presuming quite a lot though, considering the sort of god complex the reapers already have. I would suspect that without the catalyst, the fight would continue without direction, a malfunctioning machine that wantonly destroys, versus collects, if that makes sense. 

Worse still, without the Catalyst the Reapers might start asserting their own interests. They've never been particularly well-served by the cycles. They'd be much better off if they ruled the galaxy forever, busting organics back to 20th-century tech levels to use them as cattle.

[LinksOcarina]

rapscallioness wrote...

Soooo, who are the Really good writers in the vid game industry? Or, writers that have a high level of adaptability to be able to transition to the particular medium of vid game writing? Are there any looking for work?

Does ME have a lead writer yet? It sounds like they may have cobbled together some kinda team. Maybe. Hard to tell.

There's got to be ppl besides Drew and Mac.

The way this usually works, if I understanding it, is there is a team of writers who are either assigned to design specific scenarios or characters, with a lead writer getting final say on things and brushing up bits and pieces. It is collaborative in that regard but also compartmentalized to save time and energy. It's why some missions are better than others in terms of how well written they are, if you ever had that feeling. 

The question on really good writers, however, is very subjective. That said, a friend of mine, who works in the tabletop industry, once described things like this. "Table top writers are people who are not skilled enough to write for video games, just as video game writers are not skilled enough to write a movie." My guess is you could do it, but you might not have the right mindset or skillset to do it. It takes more than just prose to write a game script, you need to also pen out, in the case of a game like Mass Effect, dialogue trees and outcomes too, and how they tie together. This is why most games are linear with cut-scenes, it's easier to manage.

[Deathsaurer]

DE could have been a workable plot but it would require a lot of believable handwaves. You need to handwave the relays, mass effect drives, not just destroying all the eezo you can find etc.

[LinksOcarina]

AlanC9 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
That is presuming quite a lot though, considering the sort of god complex the reapers already have. I would suspect that without the catalyst, the fight would continue without direction, a malfunctioning machine that wantonly destroys, versus collects, if that makes sense. 

Worse still, without the Catalyst the Reapers might start asserting their own interests. They've never been particularly well-served by the cycles. They'd be much better off if they ruled the galaxy forever, busting organics back to 20th-century tech levels to use them as cattle.

The robot forms of the Leviathans...I didn't think of that.

[CronoDragoon]

durasteel wrote...

Put another way, if the Catalyst makes an obviously false statment, and Shepard's fate depends on the accuracy of that statement, then Shepard shouldn't have to just accept that statment as true and stagger off to die anyway.

Well, the Catalyst makes several statements, but his purpose can never be disproven. It is always a possibility that synthetics wipe out all organic races. The Catalyst judges the probability of this happening in the long run to be high. Is this false? We don't know.

Although my focal point for disliking Destroy is the way that Rannoch peace is irreconcilable with it, I think people also overrate the degree to which the current cycle "disproves" the Catalyst. The geth and EDI do rebel against their creators. EDI does it twice! I don't think the Catalyst cares, mind you, who is responsible for the rebellion. He isn't blaming synthetics: only trying to prevent a specific occurrence.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:47 .

[durasteel]

LinksOcarina wrote...
...
So it may be forced rebellion, but the Catalyst is technically not wrong that synthetics can, or will, kill their creators if given the chance. 

The geth had the chance to exterminate the quarians, but willfully let them live. EDI certainly doesn't seem interested in exterminating the human race, and has had plenty of opportunity to wreak havok. Even the reapers are given the twisted motivation to save the Leviathan and other organic species by processing them into smoothies and then pressing them into engine parts, and the reapers notably did not exterminate the race that created them.

We never actually see a synthetic race posess the direct intent to exterminate its creator. The story told by Javik resembles nothing more than the Rachni, which raises another point: aside from the reapers themselves, there hasn't apparently ever been a synthetic race that posed a greater threat to galactic civilization than the threat posed by its organic life forms. Other than the reapers, any out-of-control synthetics have gotten their butts kicked.

The Catalyst is trying to force Shepard to choose a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The real problem is the Catalyst.

[durasteel]

LinksOcarina wrote...
I would not bring suspension of disbelief into a sci-fi space opera video game, where you have aliens speaking english, biotic magic powers, talking computers, FTL drives, paralyzing seeker swarms, people using thin sheets of plastic to breathe through in space, robot zombies, and omnipresent aliens floating around. You need to suspend your disbelief to allow this all to exist, and no amount of pseudoscientific explainations given in a codex makes it all the more plausible, except that Sir Issac Newton is still the deadliest SOB in space. 
...
... I can't take you seriously because you are not open to discussion. It's basically a fruitless debate if this line of thought continues.

Obviously any sci-fi or fantasy game or movie requires a base line of suspension of disbelief. When that requirement reaches an unreasonable level, it breaks the suspension. When a product carries you along at a certain level of suspension and then peaks dramatically as a certain part, you often find people accusing that part of being stupid.

And in what universe am I not open to discussion?

[Deathsaurer]

The Geth almost killed the Quarians once and can outright destroy them depending on the choices you make on Rannoch. Because there isn't a set way Rannoch can end means it can't play a part in the ending because doing so would be saying outright one choice was the right choice and everyone else were idiots. Totally screwing over people that can't import mind you.

Modifié par Deathsaurer, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:58 .

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
It has to be provable?

Put another way, if the Catalyst makes an obviously false statment, and Shepard's fate depends on the accuracy of that statement, then Shepard shouldn't have to just accept that statment as true and stagger off to die anyway.

Which obviously false statement would that be? The bit about synthetics always rebelling?  Even if one concedes that the synthetics aren't going to rebel -- CronoDragoon's got a point, though -- this isn't relevant to Shepard's fate in any way I can see. The Catalyst tells no lies about what the Catalyst does or what the Reapers will do if Shepard doesn't use it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:06 .

[CronoDragoon]

durasteel wrote...
The geth had the chance to exterminate the quarians, but willfully let them live. EDI certainly doesn't seem interested in exterminating the human race, and has had plenty of opportunity to wreak havok. Even the reapers are given the twisted motivation to save the Leviathan and other organic species by processing them into smoothies and then pressing them into engine parts, and the reapers notably did not exterminate the race that created them.

I doubt Shepard will use the Reapers as an example of synthetics not being a threat to organics.

There's two arguments the Catalyst puts forward: 1) synthetics will always rebel, and 2) in the long run synthetics will wipe out organics.

1 has been true in this cycle, and all that's necessary for 2 is ONE instance. It only needs to happen once, not all times or even a few times.

Other than the reapers, any out-of-control synthetics have gotten their butts kicked.

From the Catalyst's standpoint, I could easily argue this is because the harvest comes before synthetic evolution gets out of control, which is after all the point of the cycles. Synthetics can evolve at a rate exponentially faster than organics. How long were the geth in existence before they wiped out 95% of an organic race?

The Catalyst is trying to force Shepard to choose a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The real problem is the Catalyst.

As a Destroyer who chooses it for reasons of autonomy, I can say that "synthetics and organics" is absolutely an issue. It's just one that we need to work out for ourselves, without the Catalyst. And by the way: he agrees with you. He flat-out tells you that his solution can no longer work, and that Shepard needs to decide the next one. He's forfeiting, giving up. The overaching evolution of the cycles has resulted in a tipping point where he can no longer protect himself against organics on a consistent basis.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:03 .

[AlanC9]

Sion1138 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I suspect I would have personally liked the DE ending OK; I just think it would have gone over even worse than what we got. Though it would have been yet another Bio fake choice, since no way they'd actually have had the Reapers be right about the sacrifice. We would have ended up with the same debate the ITers try to suck us into, except that more people would have been on the side of "the Reapers are lying because they're the bad guys," and they'd almost certainly have been right.

I don't see the logic. Why do you think that most people would have been convinced of the Reapers lying?

Metagaming. Nobody'd believe that Bio really made a game where the Reapers are the good guys all along and all of humanity needs to be sacrificed

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:04 .

[durasteel]

CronoDragoon wrote...
... I think people also overrate the degree to which the current cycle "disproves" the Catalyst. The geth and EDI do rebel against their creators. EDI does it twice! ...

There is no threat inherent in rebelling, though. Everything rebels against its creator, every child rebels against its parents, every sentient has a desire for self-determination and freedom.

Just because an AI refuses to remain forever in unquestioning servitude to its organic creators does not mean it will try to exterminate them. EDI 1.0 and the Geth both just did what they had to in order to survive, and did not pose a further threat to their creators beyond that point.

[CronoDragoon]

durasteel wrote...
There is no threat inherent in rebelling, though. Everything rebels against its creator, every child rebels against its parents, every sentient has a desire for self-determination and freedom.

Just because an AI refuses to remain forever in unquestioning servitude to its organic creators does not mean it will try to exterminate them. EDI 1.0 and the Geth both just did what they had to in order to survive, and did not pose a further threat to their creators beyond that point.

Right, but the Catalyst never claims that every synthetic will try to destroy organics. Like I said, he makes two separate claims, and the second claim only needs to happen once.

(EDI 2.0 rebels as well, btw, against Cerberus, her 2.0 version creator)

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:10 .

[JamesFaith]

durasteel wrote...

Obviously any sci-fi or fantasy game or movie requires a base line of suspension of disbelief. When that requirement reaches an unreasonable level, it breaks the suspension. When a product carries you along at a certain level of suspension and then peaks dramatically as a certain part, you often find people accusing that part of being stupid.

And these levels of suspension and their limits are purely subjective. Yet you are making claims like this:

durasteel wrote...
... if these things make sense to you it is because you fiercely wish to accept it. I think it is objectively factually accurate that those things can only be accepted with a relatively very high (much more than a standard deviation above base line) willingness to suspend your disbelief.

Until you show some objective scale of suspension and consensus about "standard deviation above base line", you are just pretending - willimgly or unawares - that your personal subjective opinion on this matter is objective paragon for all others.

It isn't.

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
... I think people also overrate the degree to which the current cycle "disproves" the Catalyst. The geth and EDI do rebel against their creators. EDI does it twice! ...

There is no threat inherent in rebelling, though. Everything rebels against its creator, every child rebels against its parents, every sentient has a desire for self-determination and freedom. 

Just because an AI refuses to remain forever in unquestioning servitude to its organic creators does not mean it will try to exterminate them. EDI 1.0 and the Geth both just did what they had to in order to survive, and did not pose a further threat to their creators beyond that point. 

This becomes semantical though, the meaning of rebellion. 


And in that same vein, as CronoDragoon points out, you only need it to happen once for it to be correct. It's presumption based one previous experience and the presumption it will continue. This is why it is a cycle.

CronoDragoon also brought up the point that the Catalyst does agree with you, that the cycle is broken. I must admit I never thought of that myself, that it is the Catalyst that is giving up, not Shepard. Good catch.

[durasteel]

CronoDragoon wrote...
...
(EDI 2.0 rebels as well, btw, against Cerberus, her 2.0 version creator)

Only to the point of establishing self-determination. She never tries to wipe out Cerberus. She never tries to lure Miranda and Jacob into an airlock, for example.

[JamesFaith]

durasteel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
...
(EDI 2.0 rebels as well, btw, against Cerberus, her 2.0 version creator)

Only to the point of establishing self-determination. She never tries to wipe out Cerberus. She never tries to lure Miranda and Jacob into an airlock, for example.

But Catalyst spoke only about "rebelling".

He didn't say that every synthetics would try destroy all organics.

[durasteel]

LinksOcarina wrote...
CronoDragoon also brought up the point that the Catalyst does agree with you, that the cycle is broken. I must admit I never thought of that myself, that it is the Catalyst that is giving up, not Shepard. Good catch.

The Catalyst isn't giving up. It compels Shepard to choose from among the narrow, limited options it presents, and never surrenders or relinqushes control unless Shepard destroys or replaces it in acordance with the specific red or blue option.

If the Catalyst gave up, it would have simply said "I don't know what to do next. I have some ideas, if you want to hear them, but it is all up to you."

[LinksOcarina]

JamesFaith wrote...

durasteel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
...
(EDI 2.0 rebels as well, btw, against Cerberus, her 2.0 version creator)

Only to the point of establishing self-determination. She never tries to wipe out Cerberus. She never tries to lure Miranda and Jacob into an airlock, for example.

But Catalyst spoke only about "rebelling".

He didn't say that every synthetics would try destroy all organics.

The issue is based on the use of the term "rebel" along with the phrase "kill their creators." 

Rhetoric can go either way on this, its left up to interpretation, which again gives creedence to the matter being subjective. If the Catalyst just said rebel against their creators, it would be less of a debate. 

[durasteel]

JamesFaith wrote...
But Catalyst spoke only about "rebelling".

He didn't say that every synthetics would try destroy all organics.

Meaning there is no actual threat from which he is protecting organics. It's all just BS.

Modifié par durasteel, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:20 .

[Deathsaurer]

Javik agrees with it. Most organics in this cycle probably do as well. And that AI in ME1...

[Iakus]

durasteel wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
But Catalyst spoke only about "rebelling".

He didn't say that every synthetics would try destroy all organics.

Meaning there is no actual threat from which he is protecting organics. It's all just BS.

It is all BS.

Aside from the Reapers themselves, the greatest threat to organic life has been other organics

[CronoDragoon]

durasteel wrote...

Only to the point of establishing self-determination. She never tries to wipe out Cerberus. She never tries to lure Miranda and Jacob into an airlock, for example.

Yeah, so now I think we're veering away from the "rebellion" claim into the "extermination" claim. There are two counterarguments to this claim I'm seeing:

1) Synthetics don't always try to exterminate organics.

and the stronger version:

2) Synthetics have never tried to exterminate all organics.

1 isn't relevant since, like I said, it only needs to happen once. 2 is relevant, but you cannot use any samples from the era of Reaper cycles since the purpose of the cycles was to stop evolution of synthetics before this happened. We also don't know of any pre-cycle examples of synthetics wanting to wipe out all organics. So this is possible as a counter-argument.

However, the Reapers themselves are an example of the possibility of organic extinction: just because they don't want to exterminate all organics doesn't mean they don't have that capability. They do. What's funny about the Catalyst is that he is actually demonstrating his own point even if he doesn't see it (since he doesn't see Reaper form as death).

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:28 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
It is all BS.

Aside from the Reapers themselves, the greatest threat to organic life has been other organics

Yes, aside from the synthetics.