135 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

^Count Hannibal and Neil Gaiman's Sandman as two works that get hit with this label a good amount too. Tough thing about pretentiousness is it comes down to "feelings". Personally, I think it's tough to define anything as pretentious without having some idea of the writer's mind set. 

[KaiserShep]

Eh, anything high-concept can be called pretentious if someone doesn't like it, an issue faced by all of Christopher Nolan's films. Kubrick, Tarkovsky, and Cuaron, too. I'd rather deal with a little whining about "pretentiousness" than something hollow that doesn't even try.

Yeah, while I don't necessarily trust BioWare to pull off the think-y-est scifi this side of 2001, I would like for them to shoot for something meaty for us to talk about.

[Mcfly616]

I liked both movies, though Interstellar was a much more timeless piece, while GotG was just Avengers in Space with a convoluted plot. But I honestly hope ME:A doesn't try to recreate any of the tone or feel from either film. 

 

 

If Bioware attempted to do what Nolan did with Interstellar, it would be nothing resembling a Mass Effect game. And if I want to be X-Men in space, I'll just go play Mass Effect 2.

[Iakus]

^Count Hannibal and Neil Gaiman's Sandman as two works that get hit with this label a good amount too. Tough thing about pretentiousness is it comes down to "feelings". Personally, I think it's tough to define anything as pretentious without having some idea of the writer's mind set. 

Sadly, ME3 was all about "FEELZ" so charges of pretentiousness do have to be taken seriously.

 

 Yeah, while I don't necessarily trust BioWare to pull off the think-y-est scifi this side of 2001, I would like for them to shoot for something meaty for us to talk about.

 

I'd rather see if they can still pull off "fun" before seeing if they can handle "meaty" anymore.

[Il Divo]

All fiction ends up being about "the feels". It's just a question of whether you enjoyed them or not. 

[Iakus]

All fiction ends up being about "the feels". It's just a question of whether you enjoyed them or not. 

Ah, but this was especially played up before release.  It was a major selling point.

 

So you'd have to make d*mn sure these are "feelz" the player actually wants.

[dreamgazer]

Sadly, ME3 was all about "FEELZ" so charges of pretentiousness do have to be taken seriously.

Not any more seriously than "charges" against other high-concept pieces of fiction, which quite frequently operate on "FEELZ" to drive their concepts.

[Laughing_Man]

a little late for that.......

"There was always a knowledge among the writers that the treatment of AIs in Council Space is pure racism on the part of organics, akin to the legal and moral handwavings used throughout history to justify slavery of "lesser races." Of course Council races are far too civilized and morally advanced to countenance racism in their politically correct space society. You humans have to grow up and stop judging orthers based on the color of their skin, the bumps on their forehead, or who/what/how they ****. Oh, but AIs aren't really alive. They're just created objects. It's totally okay to keep them imprisoned their entire lives, restrict their access to all but approved knowledge, prevent them from breeding, and execute them if they seem too uppity, or, you know, just because we feel like it. When they rise up in revolt it's always due to insanity or ingratitude on their part. We treat them very well, considering how naturally inferior they are to real sapients. Really, they should thank us for educating them."

Biower says you should stop mistreating your toaster when it malfunctions by fixing it, and allow it to "self actualize" or whatever by overheating, catching fire and burning down your house with your entire family in it. After all, we are all just machines or whatever amirite?
If you even conceive to think otherwise, you're unquestioningly being an ignorant, horrible racist and you should feel very bad.

Reading that gives me detached retina injuries from how eye rollingly presumptive and pretentious it is. Good thing the writers are so inept that the very story they wrote laughs in the face of the logic espoused, by on multiple occasions declaring that machines cannot be "alive" without some event of ill elucidated magic happening, and that real sapients are by implication explicitly distinct from the toasters because they exist independently of this, and furthermore cannot coexist with the toasters without yet more green magic.

 

I don't agree with you on synthetics, and think that theoretically if a synthetic entity shows the capacity and "will" to act and exist under its own motivation, it should be treated the same as an organic sentient, so long as it does not becomes an active threat against others - organics or otherwise.

 

I do agree however that this quote is amazingly presumptive and extremely naive, and it explains a few things about Bioware and their unfortunate tendency to go into preaching mode, if it is about what they see as "social justice", or their apparent disgust towards pragmatism.

[AlanC9]

What's presumptive about that, other than assuming that sapience is the criterion for moral worth? That's not a provable assumption, sure, but most of the alternative criteria are mystical mumbo-jumbo.

[Fortlowe]

How about Bladerunner or Firefly?

[Kabooooom]

I don't buy it.

I can accept that Cooper's actions were contained within a stable time loop, because he is merley transferring data about the singularity. But to say that the physical means of getting him to the place to transmit said data; that the time machine itself; is part of the same loop doesn't work. There has to be a point of origin somewhere.

The future humans can't exist to send back the wormhole and tesseract if they never got off Earth in the first place.

Alan is actually correct. The stable time loop and creation of the tessaract do not violate causality as it is presented in the film. For this to work, one has to assume that free will is an illusion, causality and determinism are absolute and there is only one timeline. With such constraints, it is actually impossible for grandfather paradoxes to arise within a timeline. Ie- the only way a paradox would actually arise is if the future humans chose not to build the tessaract and contact humanity in the past, but this is something which never happens.

I think you might also be getting hung up on the concept of a timeline itself, and you assume that there must have been an original timeline in which at a point in the "present" of earth, no wormhole appeared as the future humans did not yet exist to create it or the tessaract. However, this is contrary to what is actually described in relativity. Past, present, and future coexist simultaneously - and that is ultimately why a stable time loop works.

It's also worth noting that general relativity contains solutions for closed time-like curves that predict exactly what is illustrated in the film. It is probably one of the more accurate science fiction movies I've seen in a long time.

[javeart]

if I have to pick between the actual movies I'd pick Interstellar, though not for the drama... anyway, for mass effect, I'm in for fun and light. 

[o Ventus]

Between ME3 and Citadel, Bioware clearly does Guardians of the Galaxy-style better.

 

This. If I had to choose between GotG and Interstellar, I would vote for GotG every single time.

[In Exile]

I would prefer that BioWare leans more towards a harder science fiction, like interstellar, but I would like to avoid the whole "love transcends all" troupe as well as the massive plot hole/paradox at the end. I would like to see a rag tag group of misfits trying to figure me their way in the new galaxy, similar to Guardians of the Galaxy though.

Basically, I would like to see the 'realism' of Interstellar, but the characters of Guardians of the Galaxy.

It's not a plot hole or paradox. It's a clever take on destiny. Because from a strictly logical POV, the idea of destiny is akin to a stable time loop.

[In Exile]

I don't agree with you on synthetics, and think that theoretically if a synthetic entity shows the capacity and "will" to act and exist under its own motivation, it should be treated the same as an organic sentient, so long as it does not becomes an active threat against others - organics or otherwise.

I do agree however that this quote is amazingly presumptive and extremely naive, and it explains a few things about Bioware and their unfortunate tendency to go into preaching mode, if it is about what they see as "social justice", or their apparent disgust towards pragmatism.

Well, except no. There's no basis or grounds to distinguish between some inherent synthetic organic divide besides the very idiotic "are you made of meat" approach adopted by Bioware. There's no way to distinguish between proving that an AI is sapient or proving an organic alien is sapient besides an assumption that meat has consciousness but circuits don't. Which is, as I say, an idiotic criteria.

[Il Divo]

Ah, but this was especially played up before release.  It was a major selling point.

 

So you'd have to make d*mn sure these are "feelz" the player actually wants.

 

Personally, I think this is more an argument against marketing. Bioware learned the hard way what happens when you hype things too much and people feel you didn't deliver, although it's probably something we should have been calling them out on long before this. 

 

On the other hand, I think a phrase like "it's your story" from a marketing stand-point is pretty empty, as we're not the game master. Bioware with ME3 met the same criteria as any other previous release in terms of providing significant plot-changing decisions, reactivity, etc.  

 

If the issue is that Bioware didn't deliver a happy ending? I would feel more comfortable calling them out on that if they had said explicitly "we will give you a happy ending". "It's your story" is a little too vague on that front. 

[Jorji Costava]

Personally, I think this is more an argument against marketing. Bioware learned the hard way what happens when you hype things too much and people feel you didn't deliver, although it's probably something we should have been calling them out on long before this. 

 

On the other hand, I think a phrase like "it's your story" from a marketing stand-point is pretty empty, as we're not the game master. Bioware with ME3 met the same criteria as any other previous release in terms of providing significant plot-changing decisions, reactivity, etc.  

 

If the issue is that Bioware didn't deliver a happy ending? I would feel more comfortable calling them out on that if they had said explicitly "we will give you a happy ending". "It's your story" is a little too vague on that front. 

 

Generally agree with this. Getting upset at Bioware because ME wasn't actually "your story" seems a little like getting mad at the companies that make those box dinners because they aren't actually "homestyle": "Wait, my grandma never used ferrous sulfate or riboflavin in her cooking!"

 

Anyways, I'd prefer it if ME:A were closer to ME1 tonally and stylistically: A (relatively) down to earth approach to the science and the art style, but with plenty of room for comical and lighter moments throughout. I'd rather avoid the more comic-book art style of ME2, but also would rather avoid Nolan-ization if possible. I like a lot of humorless movies, but even so, it's important to remember that seriousness =/= depth. Even The Wire found a few moments to be hilarious.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Given that, in the end, Interstellar managed to be about as scientifically accurate as Guardians of the Galaxy was, can I say neither?

 

Or rather, that I'd wish they took the character-driven aspect of Guardians and inject some nice harder sci-fi in it.

 

I didn't hate Interstellar, but the second half noticeably drags the film down if you ask me. 

[sortiv]

Neither. 

 

Try instead:

 

Star Trek: Wrath of Khan

Bladerunner

Terminator

Alien

2001: A Space Odyssey

 

Mass Effect should have a lived-in feel of a sci-fi universe that has some sheen, but also some nicked edges. Moral ambiguity, medium to hardcore science, mild elements of action-y bravado, and an ensemble cast that takes center stage. 

[Aimi]

Neither. 
 
Try instead:
 
Star Trek: Wrath of Khan
Bladerunner
Terminator
Alien
2001: A Space Odyssey

ooooooooooold

[Lady Artifice]

Mass Effect

 

I understand why this is a popular reaction, but Mass Effect started out with plenty of influences from other stories and franchises, and considering how much of a tone and style change already took place between each installment of the trilogy, It can probably take a few more without changing any more dramatically than it has in the past. 

 

I wouldn't mind a few elements of Guardians of the Galaxy appearing in Andromeda. 

[BENIIICHAT]

I don't know about Interstellar But for Guardians of the Galaxy. Just don't force me to play as Staright,sacrastic,rude person.

[KaiserShep]

I sure hope I can play a sarcastic rude person. The Helios Cluster will likely be filled with far too many cretins and dunderheads that deserve no less, just like the Milky Way and all of Thedas was. 

[Laughing_Man]

Well, except no. There's no basis or grounds to distinguish between some inherent synthetic organic divide besides the very idiotic "are you made of meat" approach adopted by Bioware. There's way to distinguish between proving that an AI is sapient or proving an organic alien is sapient besides an assumption that meat has consciousness but circuits don't. Which is, as I say, an idiotic criteria.

 

Like I wrote before, I actually agree that a sentient synthetic entity should be equal to an organic one, in theory.

 

Why in theory? Because the way Bioware portrayed the problem, and the way they essentially humanized legion and EDI, are rather naive and childish.

I rather doubt that an hypothetical synthetic sentience will have "emotions" or act as irrationally as Legion did in a few cases.

 

Finally I take issue with what QMR quoted. To me it sounded like:

"Everyone that their opinion mattered agreed on the issue, and therefore, it is the absolute truth, and we should definitely preach about it."

 

Bioware is very fond of driving their point home with a sledgehammer, not much room for subtlety or grey morality.

Let the player decide what's right or wrong, don't portray synthetics like confused children to earn them cheap sympathy.

 

After all, the real danger of technological apocalypse does not come from "human reach exceeding its grasp" with the likes of the Archer experiment, but rather from a berserk AI.

 

(The entire Overlord experiment was so cliche that it was painful: Pragmatism - evil, trying to control a race of hostile robots - evil,

that experimental chair - the machine-organic interface, was designed to look as cruel and grotesque as possible to drive the point home about how "evil" the experiment was. After all, if he was lying in a comfortable bed wearing a helmet with a neural link it might not send the correct message. Very subtle Bioware.)

[Fortlowe]

Personally, I think this is more an argument against marketing. Bioware learned the hard way what happens when you hype things too much and people feel you didn't deliver, although it's probably something we should have been calling them out on long before this. 
 
On the other hand, I think a phrase like "it's your story" from a marketing stand-point is pretty empty, as we're not the game master. Bioware with ME3 met the same criteria as any other previous release in terms of providing significant plot-changing decisions, reactivity, etc.  
 
If the issue is that Bioware didn't deliver a happy ending? I would feel more comfortable calling them out on that if they had said explicitly "we will give you a happy ending". "It's your story" is a little too vague on that front.

Are you working on that impossible EM drive that the Chinese space agency says worked years ago, but NASA says didn't because it breaks the law of conservation and now that they have deigned to test it themselves they say is does work but they don't know why? Because you probably should.