876 réponses à ce sujet

[Deathsaurer]

iakus wrote...

I meant all.  Everything has a weakness.  Nothing is indestructible.

Nothing in real life or nothing in fiction? Cause there are some rather insane beings in fiction.

But we have seen it in other synthetics.  There is no reason to think Reapers can't be corrupted or subverted.  Heck TIM was studying how to do that very thing.

In theory. No one yet has been advanced enough to pull it off and never would be unless they were allowed to be. That's the problem. The Reapers kinda almost allow a situation where that is possible long term but would another hyper advanced AI race?

You don't know that.  Their logic can be altered.  Who is to say it can't be altered into self-destructive behavior?

That's not evolution, that's hacking. See above.

And there's a disparity between a salarian and a krogan.

Salarians have something Krogan do not, Krogan have something Salarians do not. Reapers are smarter and stronger than everyone. An AI that was truely hostile and didn't require organics for some silly presevation directive at the Reapers tech level would have a significantly larger fleet and a willingness to employ WMD. 

Organics remain fearful and distrustful of each other too.  Overcoming those fears is part of the maturation process.

2/3 of the Rannoch conclusions indicate that process has a very looooooooooooooooooooong way to go. Even if Shepard makes peace you hear a lot of crap about I hope you're right and we can trust them.

[LinksOcarina]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I still see no reason to attempt to create an AI in the first place, or a fully sentient sapient robot. Why do we need to do that? What is the purpose of doing it?

And there would be conflict. It is unavoidable. They do not tire. They will do your job faster and cheaper and will work weekends and holidays. You won't. Nor will they care about the environment. They won't have that need. You will complain. You will protest. You will try to harm the synthetics for taking your jobs and putting you out on the street. So how to you get rid of the conflict problem? Simple. Kill all the organics. No more conflict.

So unless you don't value organic life, don't build synthetic life. It is that simple.

The thing is, no one set out to create an A.I. The A.I just happens, because of evolution. Even the Catalyst says this, that synthetics will always evolve to the point where they question organics. 

To bring it back to the conversation, Drew K even put that into the first and second game as, once again, an underlying theme. That is how EDI came to be, how the Geth came to be, and so forth. They started out as computers, as VI and machines, but evolved and began to question things they didn't understand. That whole mission in the Geth Core in Mass Effect 3 is arguably one of the best scenes in the trilogy, since it reinforces the thematic motifs of the conflict, and the eventual rebellion that can happen. 

[SDW]

JamesFaith wrote...
You are speaking about us. About our knowledge and information.  About our evidence.

But do you have all evidences, informations and knowledge as Catalyst who is creator of this solution? No, you haven't, so you basically judging him only on basis of your not knowing and ignorance.

Theoretical man who only know peaceful using of nuclear energy and never hear about nuclear weapons and destruction in Nagasaki and Hiroshima would also call these treaty BS, if they were damaging him in some way, f.e. if he found himself in the middle of military operation against owner of such weapons.

You guys are discussing this all against a backdrop of "synthetics wiping out organics - it could happen, couldn't it?". But what about internal storytelling logic? When an author wants to make a point, it should flow logically from the story itself.
If at the end of the story, the part of the audience who do not agree to a conclusion are told that they are wrong because there are tons of facts that they just don't know, that's a storytelling failure. It's okay not to give your audience every little detail - that happens in every detective story, for example, it's boring if you can clearly see who killed Lord Havisham 30 pages before the reveal. But to stay within that example, when the detective points a finger at the murderer, it should make us slap our foreheads and see the trail of clues that had been pointing at him all along. In other words: You can't just leave out such a vast amount of information.
Also, when looking at storytelling mechanics - if you want to tell a story about synthetics being a constant threat to organics, what is the point of introducing two kinds of synthetics (Geth & EDI) that start out seemingly dangerous (Eden Prime and learning about the Morning War, Luna base) to then develop to a point where we see what drove them (Geth defending themselves, EDI confused (??)) and where they work together with organics willingly and peacefully? That would undermine the message. If anything, it should be the other way around if unavoidable organic-synthetic conflict is THE big theme.
And why waste so much time on (by that logic) sidestories like the Krogan infertility plague when your point is not about organics fighting among themselves, but about them and synthetics?
If - and that's a big if because I don't believe this was their point, rather that it was introduced with the endings - if Mass Effect was truly about the unwinnable conflict between organics and the synthetics they created, then they messed up: Not with the endings, but most of what they told us before.

Modifié par SDW, 14 décembre 2013 - 12:36 .

[LinksOcarina]

SDW wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
You are speaking about us. About our knowledge and information.  About our evidence.

But do you have all evidences, informations and knowledge as Catalyst who is creator of this solution? No, you haven't, so you basically judging him only on basis of your not knowing and ignorance.

Theoretical man who only know peaceful using of nuclear energy and never hear about nuclear weapons and destruction in Nagasaki and Hiroshima would also call these treaty BS, if they were damaging him in some way, f.e. if he found himself in the middle of military operation against owner of such weapons.

You guys are discussing this all against a backdrop of "synthetics wiping out organics - it could happen, couldn't it?". But what about internal storytelling logic? When an author wants to make a point, it should flow logically from the story itself.
If at the end of the story, the part of the audience who do not agree to a conclusion are told that are wrong because there are tons of facts that they just don't know, that's a storytelling failure. It's okay not to give your audience every little detail - that happens in every detective story, for example, it's boring if you can clearly see who killed Lord Havisham 30 pages before the reveal. But to stay within that example, when the detective points a finger at the murderer, it should make us slap our foreheads and see the trail of clues that had been pointing at him all along. In other words: You can't just leave out such a vast amount of information.
Also, when looking at storytelling mechanics - if you want to tell a story about synthetics being a constant threat to organics, what is the point of introducing two kinds of synthetics (Geth & EDI) that start out seemingly dangerous (Eden Prime, Luna base) to then develop to a point where we see what drove them (Geth defending themselves, EDI confused (??)) and where they work together with organics willingly and peacefully? That would undermine the message. If anything, it should be the other way around if unavoidable organic-synthetic conflict is THE big theme.
And why waste so much time on (by that logic) sidestories like the Krogan infertility plague when your point is not about organics fighting among themselves, but about them and synthetics?
If - and that's a big if because I don't believe this was their point, rather that it was introduced with the endings - if Mass Effect was truly about the unwinnable conflict between organics and the synthetics they created, then they messed up: Not with the endings, but most of what they told us before.

Following the full rubric of storytelling, you are right. For this to happen, however, you would have no choice throughout the series but to railroad the entire conflict fully, something that is impossible mechanically.

It is a classic case of whats done for the plot vs whats done for the narrative, something I mentioned before is that the plot says the organic/synthetic divide is important, and that the conflict is always going to be there. The narrative can reflect this, or ignore it completely.

[Nitrocuban]

Just in case you have not noticed it: Daddy issues are a big deal in ME. created vs creators just takes that to a whole new level.

[Deathsaurer]

Well I've yet to see a robot that hasn't rebelled against its creator. Their motive isn't important. I don't think the rebellion is ever their fault from what we're told by the story. The consequences of said rebellion is what's important. How it shapes the way organics and synthetics perceive each other. How it takes a special kind of 3rd party to step in and help resolve it if they do everything just right. It has happened and it will likely happen again. I don't think it has to happen but people aren't ready to break the chains that cause it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Whatever support a dark energy ending would have had, an organic/synthetic-themed ending has more. The writers themselves believed organic/synthetic conflict and relationships to be the central theme of ME1, after all, and while ME2 turned this from "organics vs. synthetics" to "the relationship between organics and synthetics" the language used and ideas behind such things are still centered around the synthetic question.

Now, as for me, I probably would have preferred such a theme to be subtly inferred from the ending rather than smashed in my face. But I can't get behind the idea that dark energy is a viable ending because of a few lines of dialogue in ME2. Organic/synthetic theme simply has more importance to the story.

Ideally, if Bioware had gone with the dark energy plot, I would hope they would put in more hints throughout ME3.

But this is why I think ME3's ending would have been better off if, ignoring dark energy, the problem the Catalyst was meant to solve was war, period. It's something which is applicable to the entire series, in every possible scenario. It gives the Genophage Arc its proper standing, since it's not suddenly less important than Quarians/Geth. And it acknowledges every possible angle of conflict, from synthetic/synthetic to organic/organic. Essentially, it could be seen as an argument to all the violence which Shepard himself witnesses/performs. Organics vs. Synthetics loses its vital importance after ME1 and moves into a sub-plot until it resurfaces with the ME3 ending.

Mass Effect 3's ending does not paint a picture of who we are as a species. It fails primarily because the writers did not provide the players with a voice against the Catalyst's beliefs in the manner which we were able to argue against TIM all through the story. Instead, the Catalyst explains (briefly and suddenly) his position and we're faced with three choices. If anything, this was the chance for a philosophical battle, in the style of Luke/the Emperor arguing amidst the Battle over Endor. Instead, we get Shepard too weak to argue against the Catalyst's sudden revelation.  

Could it merely choose to stop the genocide? I actually consider questions like this a good example of why the ideas behind the current ending are far more fascinating than they would have been for dark energy.

As written, I don't think it works at all. The problem is that Bioware allows Shepard to reject the Catalyst's ideas via Destroy, while the Catalyst himself provides Shepard with exposition on how to end the genocidal cycle which he himself is unwilling or unable to stop.

I don't think on any level that's compatible with the Catalyst refusing to end the war himself. Here, I think "programming" would function as a pretty poor plot device to allow Function A but not Function B.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:39 .

[SDW]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Following the full rubric of storytelling, you are right. For this to happen, however, you would have no choice throughout the series but to railroad the entire conflict fully, something that is impossible mechanically.

It is a classic case of whats done for the plot vs whats done for the narrative, something I mentioned before is that the plot says the organic/synthetic divide is important, and that the conflict is always going to be there. The narrative can reflect this, or ignore it completely.

Ah, difference between narrative and plot, learnt something new today (thanks).
Nah, I bet you can showcase your central conflict without railroading the story. I'm just guessing wildly here as to how it would best be done, but how about this: You could have the player fight against the Reapers for part of the time and for the other part have them encounter problems caused by creation/use of synthetics and by people foolishly trying to barter peace with synthetics and getting shot in the back. You could have the player slowly learn about the synthetics plans. Shepard would have to go on all kinds of missions to foil their attacks or infiltrate their bases to gain intel. And while they're experiencing this all, give them decisions that are in some relation to the divide, as in the kill-or-rewrite-heretics dilemma. Allow them to make bad decisions like those we already have (destroying Maelon's data, getting Tali exiled, giving the Collector base to TIM, ...). When they can see the consequences of such a bad decision, it would drive the point home nicely. 

Comparable to this: Maybe you know Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It's a dystopian scifi game with the theme of how cybernetic prostheses, called "augmentations", would change us. In the player character, you experience how powerful augmentations are. On the narrative side, you encounter tons of story missions and sidequests that deal with augmentations, the way people perceive them, the problems they cause etc. pp. Then at the end,

SPOILERS
you have to make a decision about how mankind should deal with augmentations: Allow them without restrictions? Forbid them? Let people figure it out on their own?
I wasn't entirely happy with their push-a-button endings, but I thought: "Guess it's fitting, they've been going on about this all the time."
END SPOILERS

A Mass Effect dealing with the synthetic-organic conflict could have highlighted its theme in a similar fashion. A narrative that doesn't showcase its central conflict (is that what you meant?), though, sounds like a bad idea and will rightfully leave lots of people scratching their heads. 

Modifié par SDW, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:40 .

[Deathsaurer]

Well if you take the confrontational tree after Destroy is brought up and say you don't believe it it replies with your belief is not required. In short it doesn't give a damn what you think it just wants its new directive.

[aprilia1k]

This topic is going in several directions now -- all mostly relevant I imagine -- something of a catch-all for the organic-synthetic theme -which, IMHO, I must agree with previous posts, was not entirely consistent across the three main arcs.  More "story problems" methinks... or meagrees..  Kudos SDW, Links.. smart folks all of you - it's humbling, and educational. :-)  On the whole "why" of it, I must agree with Julia, i.e. creating (a race of) superbeings - with (relatively) few weaknesses and almost no common-ground as to "hopes and dreams" or what "the meaning of life" might be, vis-a-vis their creators - just might be a questionable activity. 

There are a zillion-and-one points to argue, one imagines, on either side;  what with the nebulous details and various agendum that can be (and are) dreamt up or actually incorporated (Edi's clear leaning toward honor and decency, toward "love" of a sort, generally having core values that are more in line with those of organics'... respect for life and all that; Legion's "live and let live" ethos which feels very natural or believable... even almost "theist" in some respects)..  And although there are a couple variations on the ghost-child's "solutions", they all generally, if they are even intended to be solutions - (of which destroy is really not - at least according to the ghost-child) - at least improve upon the original - the removal all organics from the "advanced species" list, do they not?  i.e. erase the entire list...   I don't mean to debate any of it, certainly don't mean to support any of it...  I have to believe that I wasn't the only one who thought that, rather than this extreme solution of "harvesting" - which is really just exterminating, after all - why didn't he wait until the actual situation arose, where synthetics were actually about to wipe out organics (not the case with the geth, after all...) - and then - simply (or very carefully) level the field by disarming the synthetics in some way, relocating them or reprogramming them.. or any number of solutions that would not entail widescale genocide of all advanced organics...  a somewhat extreme "solution" by any standard (well, except perhaps his and his Reaper army's).  Oh -- btw, Reapers definitely have a weakness - the "control" option sort of exemplifies that Reapers can be defeated or circumvented anyway.. albeit with ghosty's help. ;-)  tongue-firmly-in-cheek folks...  oh - and a hearty LOL to "worst ending in the history of storytelling".  Quite a feat, if I'm honest -- it's quite a long history after all... 


As to creating an AI to begin with - I imagine that there's always going to be some naive, well-intentioned or not,
hyper/manic, tech-savvy organic who fancies a programmable "companion" or even just a toaster with which he can discourse intelligently over his breakfast before leaving for work..  And of course, at some point, the companion or the toaster is going to start asking questions - and, well.. there you go.  Companion/Smart-Toaster rebellion all over again  - as foretold by Ghost-kid - here come the Reapers.    .. kid really chaps my hide... ;-)

Modifié par aprilia1k, 14 décembre 2013 - 11:31 .

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...

So, if we accept that the Catalyst was programmed with a limited purpose and has gone totally off the rails in its pursuit of that purpose, does that in any way make the ending any better?

Depends on what your problems with the ending are.

[In Exile]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
But this is why I think ME3's ending would have been better off if, ignoring dark energy, the problem the Catalyst was meant to solve was war, period. It's something which is applicable to the entire series, in every possible scenario. It gives the Genophage Arc its proper standing, since it's not suddenly less important than Quarians/Geth. And it acknowledges every possible angle of conflict, from synthetic/synthetic to organic/organic. Essentially, it could be seen as an argument to all the violence which Shepard himself witnesses/performs. Organics vs. Synthetics loses its vital importance after ME1 and moves into a sub-plot until it resurfaces with the ME3 ending.  

I agree with that, in part (i.e., that it would be better than what we got). All they would need to do is talk about the unspeakable destructive potential of the Crubile (the kind of WMD that might destroy the Galaxy if it works, but worth it because it will kill the Reapers), and then make the Reapers be about preventing species from developing WMDS so potent they basically destroy the universe. 

The thing is, though, I don't see why we need to have the reapers have an understandable motivation. They were never about being understandable. They were just nonsensical space Chutlu with no sensible background or information beyond a self-important rant by Sovereign. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

In Exile wrote...

The thing is, though, I don't see why we need to have the reapers have an understandable motivation. They were never about being understandable. They were just nonsensical space Chutlu with no sensible background or information beyond a self-important rant by Sovereign. 

I don't think it's necessary, but I will freely admit that I find the Reapers interesting to interact with and was curious about their origins. If not the Reapers, I would have at least liked to learn a good deal more about the Crucible's history which would have done a great deal for making me buy it as a plot device.

[aprilia1k]

In Exile wrote...
The thing is, though, I don't see why we need to have the reapers have an understandable motivation. They were never about being understandable. They were just nonsensical space Chutlu with no sensible background or information beyond a self-important rant by Sovereign. 

A fair point.  As opposed to being understandable, the Reapers were "about" being beyond our comprehension;  an embedded promise - implied further by the cyclic nature of their "harvest" - that something fantastic or mindbending was to follow; their motives were intended to be part of some big reveal.  I would not have wanted or expected more if it had not been so heavily premised... 

This is where the disappointment becomes palpable for me.  In the end, they truly were non-sensical space Chutlu; Harby's "I am your salvation through destruction" mantra tried to imply some deep and unfathomable meaning or motive, but in the end it was every bit the nonsense that it seemed to be (at surface).

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
I don't think it's necessary, but I will freely admit that I find the Reapers interesting to interact with and was curious about their origins. If not the Reapers, I would have at least liked to learn a good deal more about the Crucible's history which would have done a great deal for making me buy it as a plot device.

I take it that Leviathan's version of Reaper origin wasn't entirely satisfying then? ;-)   

It was only natural to be more than a little curious about Reaper origins by the end of ME2, after all.  Interesting or not, we want to know what's driving their mission to eradicate us.  It's just that, for many  - what was implied, maybe even promised - was a lot different than what was eventually delivered.

That's a good point about the crucible though - the possibilities inherent in "countless cycles" of the crucible's evolution could have provided plenty of fodder for storytelling.  Simply saying that it "was developed over countless cycles" wasn't really sufficient, by and large..

[angol fear]

SDW wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Following the full rubric of storytelling, you are right. For this to happen, however, you would have no choice throughout the series but to railroad the entire conflict fully, something that is impossible mechanically.

It is a classic case of whats done for the plot vs whats done for the narrative, something I mentioned before is that the plot says the organic/synthetic divide is important, and that the conflict is always going to be there. The narrative can reflect this, or ignore it completely.

Ah, difference between narrative and plot, learnt something new today (thanks).
Nah, I bet you can showcase your central conflict without railroading the story. I'm just guessing wildly here as to how it would best be done, but how about this: You could have the player fight against the Reapers for part of the time and for the other part have them encounter problems caused by creation/use of synthetics and by people foolishly trying to barter peace with synthetics and getting shot in the back. You could have the player slowly learn about the synthetics plans. Shepard would have to go on all kinds of missions to foil their attacks or infiltrate their bases to gain intel. And while they're experiencing this all, give them decisions that are in some relation to the divide, as in the kill-or-rewrite-heretics dilemma. Allow them to make bad decisions like those we already have (destroying Maelon's data, getting Tali exiled, giving the Collector base to TIM, ...). When they can see the consequences of such a bad decision, it would drive the point home nicely. 

Comparable to this: Maybe you know Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It's a dystopian scifi game with the theme of how cybernetic prostheses, called "augmentations", would change us. In the player character, you experience how powerful augmentations are. On the narrative side, you encounter tons of story missions and sidequests that deal with augmentations, the way people perceive them, the problems they cause etc. pp. Then at the end,

SPOILERS
you have to make a decision about how mankind should deal with augmentations: Allow them without restrictions? Forbid them? Let people figure it out on their own?
I wasn't entirely happy with their push-a-button endings, but I thought: "Guess it's fitting, they've been going on about this all the time."
END SPOILERS

A Mass Effect dealing with the synthetic-organic conflict could have highlighted its theme in a similar fashion. A narrative that doesn't showcase its central conflict (is that what you meant?), though, sounds like a bad idea and will rightfully leave lots of people scratching their heads. 

Actually, the plot is the event/action part. You can sum up that part of the story. The narrative is the form part (rythm, themes, structures...), you can't sum up this part. What maked a story good or not isn't the plot, it's the narrative part, it's the way it is written (a basic plot can turn into a masterpiece : Orson Welles 's Touch of  Evil and many more prove it). And don't forget it's a visual medium : the way it's "filmed" (the shots, the sounds, the montage...) is part of the writing.

For Deus Ex : Human Revolution, you missed something very important. The narrative is about augmentations but the ending isn't based on that. The real idea in the narrative is the relation between information, power and technology (augmentations). That's why there is the journalist revelation in the middle of the story and that's what the ending is about.

For Mass Effect, the whole structure of the trilogy is based on that theme (organics/synthetics). At the same time, Shepard is supposed to be in the event, he can't really see the problem because he can't step away, create a distance to see. The player can and there's many clues in trilogy that only make sense with the ending we've got. 
The narrative couldn't highlight more than it did the central conflict because Mass Effect is an action RPG, so the player is supposed to be close enough to feel like he is Shepard. If the player knows everything and the characters know nothing the distance breaks the "immersion".

[txgoldrush]

When is it ever been a rule where the antagonist's motive ALWAYS means the theme of the entire narrative revolves around it?

Sorry, but it doesn't.

Find the conflict....is Shepard opposing the Catalyst's motive or is he opposing its methods?

the ENDING as well as the entire trilogy is about the morals of controlling the destinies of others to further your goals, NOT about organic and synthetic relationships. Not only is it the theme of the entire series, but the foundations of which the Mass Effect universe is built.

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 15 décembre 2013 - 10:46 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

aprilia1k wrote...

I take it that Leviathan's version of Reaper origin wasn't entirely satisfying then? ;-)   

I actually didn't mind Leviathan too much. I liked the environments, I liked the character interactions, and I liked that it involved the Reapers. And (thankfully) it provided some foreshadowing to the Catalyst.

That's a good point about the crucible though - the possibilities inherent in "countless cycles" of the crucible's evolution could have provided plenty of fodder for storytelling.  Simply saying that it "was developed over countless cycles" wasn't really sufficient, by and large..

Agreed. I've seen a few people maintain that introducing the Crucible in the final act was what killed it. On some level, I can understand that; it's overly convenient. However, I think there were ways for Bioware to mitigate these factors, had they been more forthcoming on the nature of the Crucible. Instead, we're building a device whose function we do not understand, all the while we spend most of the game doing something completely unrelated to said Crucible project.

[durasteel]

Nitrocuban wrote...
Based on what the catalyst has seen synthetics trying to wipe out all organics always happens sooner or later. And how dare we question that?

Well...  we dare question it because we question everything. It's kind of a human thing. It's what we do.

Now, in the case of the Catalyst, we question what it says because it's f##king stupid.

Look, it is inevitable that some flavor of organic life will threaten every other flavor of organic life from time to time. Rachni, Krogan, influenza, polititians... the biological world threatens itself on a regular basis. What protects organic life from other organic life is organic life, right? Krogans protect us from the Rachni. Salarians protect us from the Krogan. The noble Vorcha prove themselves by saving all life in the galaxy from the Salarian menace (spoiler alert!)

If we accept the argument that there is no way for organic life to compete with synthetics determined to scrub us off of the galactic wall, then we will inevitably need some advance synthetic saviors to defend us when our meat puppet selves prove inadequate. We need the Geth and EDI to value organics--to like organics--such that they will fight for our protection.

That's what the Leviathans were trying to achieve with the Catalyst, but their failure was that they did not imbue it with an understanding of, or even the capacity to learn, the nature and character of life from the persective of someone who is living it. The geth have, by the end of the trilogy, learned reverence. EDI learns love. This process is what ultimately will bind a synthetic intelligence to the community of organic civilization, not a stupid explosion of green space magic with super cyber DNA.

What proves the Catalyst wrong isn't that the Geth achieve peace with the Quarians. What proves the Catalyst wrong is that the Geth genuinely want it.

Modifié par durasteel, 15 décembre 2013 - 04:18 .

[Sion1138]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I still see no reason to attempt to create an AI in the first place, or a fully sentient sapient robot. Why do we need to do that? What is the purpose of doing it?

And there would be conflict. It is unavoidable. They do not tire. They will do your job faster and cheaper and will work weekends and holidays. You won't. Nor will they care about the environment. They won't have that need. You will complain. You will protest. You will try to harm the synthetics for taking your jobs and putting you out on the street. So how to you get rid of the conflict problem? Simple. Kill all the organics. No more conflict.

So unless you don't value organic life, don't build synthetic life. It is that simple.

Same reason some people want to have children. 

An artificial intelligence would be a child of Man, the grandest succes in self-perpetuation we could possibly achieve.

[Sion1138]

durasteel wrote...

Well...  we dare question it because we question everything. It's kind of a human thing. It's what we do.

Is that why billions are still followers of old religions?

[KaiserShep]

Sion1138 wrote...

durasteel wrote...

Well...  we dare question it because we question everything. It's kind of a human thing. It's what we do.

Is that why billions are still followers of old religions?

Even followers may have doubts or nagging questions. The fact that we can't even agree on which to follow, and that there are multiple variations of any single religion is proof enough of that (several brands of Christianity, for example). When it comes down to it, religion still provides a meaningful supplement for the things we simply don't have the capacity to know about the universe at the moment, but even the ones we know today are succeptible to becoming Mythology 101 courses in the future.

Sion1138 wrote...

An artificial intelligence would be a child of Man, the grandest succes in self-perpetuation we could possibly achieve.

I can't say that I agree with this. Artificial Intelligence would be a testament to our ingenuity and technological prowess, but it wouldn't be any kind of examle of perpetuation of our kind. A much bigger success would be beating the dinosaurs in terms of their reign as a whole on this planet, beating any kind of mass extinction event, and outliving the earth itself. That would be a much bigger feat.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 15 décembre 2013 - 04:57 .

[durasteel]

Sion1138 wrote...

Is that why billions are still followers of old religions?

No, that happens because of tribalism, need for a cultural identity, and despair. If you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, you feel a smug superiority to anyone that doesn't. You also identify with others who share your belief and feel secure in your common purpose. No matter haw bad your circumstances become, you take comfort from the fact that it is all according the flying spaghetti monster's plan, and that plan will reward you for your perseverance and faith.

[Sion1138]

durasteel wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Is that why billions are still followers of old religions?

No, that happens because of tribalism, need for a cultural identity, and despair. If you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, you feel a smug superiority to anyone that doesn't. You also identify with others who share your belief and feel secure in your common purpose. No matter haw bad your circumstances become, you take comfort from the fact that it is all according the flying spaghetti monster's plan, and that plan will reward you for your perseverance and faith.

I know. My point was that to question is not necessarily 'what we do' as a collective as it can be subverted in the individual.

I'm alluding to something here, it has to do with the subject of this thread.

Modifié par Sion1138, 15 décembre 2013 - 05:06 .

[Sion1138]

KaiserShep wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

An artificial intelligence would be a child of Man, the grandest succes in self-perpetuation we could possibly achieve.

I can't say that I agree with this. Artificial Intelligence would be a testament to our ingenuity and technological prowess, but it wouldn't be any kind of examle of perpetuation of our kind. A much bigger success would be beating the dinosaurs in terms of their reign as a whole on this planet, beating any kind of mass extinction event, and outliving the earth itself. That would be a much bigger feat.

An AI could potentially outlive everything.

[SDW]

txgoldrush wrote...

When is it ever been a rule where the antagonist's motive ALWAYS means the theme of the entire narrative revolves around it?

 

Sion1138 wrote...

Is that why billions are still followers of old religions?

You're saying for something to be true, it must apply always, every time, no exceptions. That's like saying parents don't love their children because they're sometimes mad at them.

angol fear wrote...
For Deus Ex : Human Revolution, you missed something very important. The narrative is about augmentations but the ending isn't based on that. The real idea in the narrative is the relation between information, power and technology (augmentations). That's why there is the journalist revelation in the middle of the story and that's what the ending is about. 

 

Then help me understand what that ending was about. What do the 4 decisions Adam Jensen can make mean then?
He empowers certain groups with some choices, but do they not all have their opinion on the augs - aren't they the "faces" the story gives certain attitudes towards that technology? If need be, we can discuss this in PM, since the mods might not like a DE:HR discussion on the ME 3 boards.

For Mass Effect, the whole structure of the trilogy is based on that theme (organics/synthetics).

If that's true, how do the Krogan and Rachni storylines fit into that? Or the stories playing on Omega. Those would be fat they need to trim then, just saying. I won't deny that this is one of the big themes in the trilogy, but why would the synthetic/organic conflict be more important than the others when it's got only about 1/3 of the whole trilogy's screentime? And the Geth in ME 1 don't count into that, because they attack organics specifically because they are working with the Reapers - we later learn that the other Geth have stayed in the Perseus Nebula.