The problems got a lot more obvious with ME2, that's for sure.
Not so much with the mumbo-jumbo, I would say, aside from the "hurr hurr human essence" bit in regards to the human Reaper. Aside from that, ME2 is mostly sci-fi action cheese. It was like Firefly met Guardians of the Galaxy and had a child.
Not so much with the mumbo-jumbo, I would say, aside from the "hurr hurr human essence" bit in regards to the human Reaper. Aside from that, ME2 is mostly sci-fi action cheese. It was like Firefly met Guardians of the Galaxy and had a child.
I really don't get this and those saying ME (1, 2, OR 3) had was "like" GotG or Interstellar when ME came BEFORE them.
that's like saying Han Solo's character was influenced by Malcolm Reynolds (sp?)
No offense to quoted poster but that is an absolutely stupid comparison and an asinine statement.
Mass Effect was a blend of Star Trek, which is more like interstellar (notice I said "more like") and Star Wars which is more like GotG (again "more like")
but to say ME is like GotG and Interstellar had a baby? My brain hurts at that statement....
While Star Trek certainly goes way off the rails at time (or more) it still at least bases it's science in hypothetical reality (most of the time) Whereas Star Wars is just downright Space Fantasy...it was that blend of Sci-Fi and Sci-Fantasy that lifted Mass Effect ABOVE both ST and SW (imo)
But please, let's not only get back on topic but also not make absolutely stupid statements about ME being like GotG or Interstellar when, if anything, it's the other way around...
....good god my head hurts.
I really don't get this and those saying ME (1, 2, OR 3) had was "like" GotG or Interstellar when ME came BEFORE them.
that's like saying Han Solo's character was influenced by Malcolm Reynolds (sp?)[
No offense to quoted poster but that is an absolutely stupid comparison and an asinine statement.
So? Badass things dont generally get less badass with time. Otherwise they weren't actually badass in the first place, and just novel.
Mass effect is badass. Bladerunner is badass. Mass effect drew inspiration from it. I dont see the problem here.
I was just making a statement. But I don't think Bladerunner would fit as much to what BW seems to be aiming for with ME:A.
I keep seeing people say it should just be "Mass Effect." What does that mean exactly? There where 3 games that all felt very different. The only thing that really tied them together was the main cast of characters, IMO.
Speaking of asinine statements, saying that two things are "like" each other just means that they're similar. It says nothing whatsoever about which one influenced the other, or even if there was any influence at all.
Is English maybe not your first language?
is it not yours? perhaps you'd like to reread the quote..I'll give you a hint, the part where it's stated ME was like GotG and Inters had a baby.
but nice try. Maybe try reading comprehension before you attempt to troll. I have no problem saying they're "like" each other.
so about that first language?
Star Wars
Star Trek (various incarnations)
Babylon 5
Terminator
BSG
2001 (the Prothean archive to an extent)
Lovecraft
Starship Troopers (the novel)
Aliens
Do I really need to list all the influences that can be tagged as inspiring Mass Effect? I'm betting I missed some.
Let Mass Effect be Mass Effect.
I really don't get this and those saying ME (1, 2, OR 3) had was "like" GotG or Interstellar when ME came BEFORE them.
that's like saying Han Solo's character was influenced by Malcolm Reynolds (sp?)
No offense to quoted poster but that is an absolutely stupid comparison and an asinine statement.
Mass Effect was a blend of Star Trek, which is more like interstellar (notice I said "more like") and Star Wars which is more like GotG (again "more like")
but to say ME is like GotG and Interstellar had a baby? My brain hurts at that statement....
While Star Trek certainly goes way off the rails at time (or more) it still at least bases it's science in hypothetical reality (most of the time) Whereas Star Wars is just downright Space Fantasy...it was that blend of Sci-Fi and Sci-Fantasy that lifted Mass Effect ABOVE both ST and SW (imo)
But please, let's not only get back on topic but also not make absolutely stupid statements about ME being like GotG or Interstellar when, if anything, it's the other way around...
....good god my head hurts.
It's "like" them in that it's similar to them. I would never have guessed that this would have been lost on somebody. the age of one relative to the other doesn't make them any less similar.
Also, the Guardians of the Galaxy, as they exist now, have been around since 2008. So you're not only being a pedant, but your pedantry is actually incorrect. Even going by your chronology, ME2 is "like" Guardians of the Galaxy since it released after them.
It's "like" them in that it's similar to them. I would never have guessed that this would have been lost on somebody. the age of one relative to the other doesn't make them any less similar.
Also, the Guardians of the Galaxy, as they exist now, have been around since 2008. So you're not only being a pedant, but your pedantry is actually incorrect. Even going by your chronology, ME2 is "like" Guardians of the Galaxy since it released after them.
Honestly, I'm expecting a bit of both.
If you were to ask me, a fairly consistent trend in Bioware games is their lack of consistency in terms of tone. They want their games to be dark and mature and contemplative and to tackle serious issues, but they also want to be self aware, to have a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor, to give the wink and the nod to the audience.
I don't know that that is inherently a bad thing. Games, by their nature, are longer than movies. In film, having a consistent tone - barring sudden tonal shifts for dramatic effect - is important because you have a limited runtime. I enjoyed both Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar, but forty+ hours of either of those movies would drive me insane. A game needs to be able to take you on a bit more of a rollercoaster so as not to become monotonous.
So I think you'll see influences of both in the game. If you're asking me which one I'd like to see more of, then I'd probably say Guardians because on a personal level I enjoyed that movie more and I like space cowboys.
You have to approach this not from the biologic point of view but from the cognitive and information processing POV. I don't disagree with your analysis of the biology and - in principle - that our particular cognitive architecture is in many ways an evolutionary holdover. It's just what happens when one system is built on another.This is true, and I agree with 100% of everything else that you have said, but I feel the need to point out that the only reason why this is true is because of the anatomy of the vertebrate brain. Our limbic system and dopaminergic pathways are inextricably linked and coupled to the motor control system of the basal ganglia (with the nucleus accumbens being the major link between the two, and the nigrostriatal pathway being the major source of dopamine from the substantia nigra to the corpus striatum of the basal ganglia).
The evolutionary reason for this, as you allude to, is to couple motivational behavior from perceived reward to motor behavior, the so called "seeking system". Without the motivation, an animal does not experience a drive to actually activate a given motor pathway. This makes perfect sense physiologically, evolutionarily, and anatomically.
However, one must recognize that just because a mammal *usually* cannot perform rational action in the absence of emotional input, that doesn't mean that you couldn't create a system of processing that could. So, as a neurologist I am going to have to say that I do foresee the possibility that someone could create an AI that is devoid of emotion, or at least so emotionally different that it could not relate to a human.
That said, I have trouble seeing how one could actually separate the emotion of motivation from choice preference, as this is the basic function of the dopamine system and basal ganglia. It is a basic means by which to prioritize actions. I know a hell of a lot about neurology, but little about computer programming. I'd be interested in input from someone more knowledgeable in that area than me, because I am willing to recognize that the reason why the brain is this way in a vertebrate is because, neurologically speaking, there actually is no other way to do it.
And in that circumstance, you would be right. It would be impossible to create an AI without at the very least a basic sense of motivation.
The notion of striving to actually create something better than human intelligence is terrifying to me, but that's probably just overexposure to science fiction.
But we do have stuff that's better. It's just also worse at other stuff. Often the fear in sci-fi isn't about AI, but essentially immortal disembodied ubermensch.
This is the voice of Colossus, the voice of Guardian. We are one. This is the voice of unity.-The Forbin Project.
That's even worse for your position. "Like GotG and Interstellar had a baby" is obviously a simile, and can't possibly imply any kind of causal relationship. Or indeed any relationship at all, except that the speaker thinks that the "baby" has things in common with both of the "parents."is it not yours? perhaps you'd like to reread the quote..I'll give you a hint, the part where it's stated ME was like GotG and Inters had a baby.
I don't know that that is inherently a bad thing. Games, by their nature, are longer than movies. In film, having a consistent tone - barring sudden tonal shifts for dramatic effect - is important because you have a limited runtime. I enjoyed both Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar, but forty+ hours of either of those movies would drive me insane. A game needs to be able to take you on a bit more of a rollercoaster so as not to become monotonous..
So I think you'll see influences of both in the game. If you're asking me which one I'd like to see more of, then I'd probably say Guardians because on a personal level I enjoyed that movie more and I like space cowboys.
Speaking of space cowboys, I'm replaying through the StarCraft games' campaigns, and Jim Raynor (along with the rest of the terrans affiliated with him) is another big space cowboy. Seeing how Blizzard is making a movie for Warcraft, I would actually like to see them branch out with StarCraft a bit too. A TV space western focusing on Raynor and Raynor's Raiders would be pretty sweet.
The space cowboy idea is taken to 11 in StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty especially, since the main hub area aboard Raynor's ship has a saloon, country music that plays on an old school jukebox, Western ambiance, and Raynor's main sidearm being a revolver.
In all seriousness I was just watching this and I'm like holy cornflakes that was COOL
It's been awhile since I really remembered the ME trilogy but yeah seriously screw GofG and Interstellar, ain't got nothin on ME.
Does it obey all the laws of physics? Does it make sense? Who knows! It's COOL, it has battle, sacrifice, vigor, all the things that make these things tick in the first place.
The laws of physics and all that are just arbitrary anyway.
They should be going for this:
You have to approach this not from the biologic point of view but from the cognitive and information processing POV. I don't disagree with your analysis of the biology and - in principle - that our particular cognitive architecture is in many ways an evolutionary holdover. It's just what happens when one system is built on another.
But what we have is a situation where we understand thought to be a particular kind of thing. Any form of thought that we study in nature - other animals - share that basic architecture. We have a particular prejudice as to what might count as thought and consciousness - see the Turing test.
My point isn't that to design AI we would need to copy our mode of thought or architecture. Rather its that to create what we would recognise as AI we would want to create something that's fundamentally similar to ourselves. And once we set our aim to be a facsimile of human cognition, suddenly the fictions we invent about what non-human thought would look like have to be scrutinised a bit more.
My advice is to just read up on machine learning. I could recommend some texts if you're interested.
Does it obey all the laws of physics? Does it make sense? Who knows! It's COOL, it has battle, sacrifice, vigor, all the things that make these things tick in the first place.
The laws of physics and all that are just arbitrary anyway.
I wholly agree with this, but it does raise problems when people try to analyze stuff. Of course, this just proves that such analysis is a waste of time.
For instance, why isn't the whole MEU powered by perpetual motion machines? Make something light and lift it -> drop it while making it heavy -> capture the kinetic energy it picks up from falling -> PROFIT.
Just think of everyone's surprise when they open up the reapers to discover how they've been able to function for so long.
I wholly agree with this, but it does raise problems when people try to analyze stuff. Of course, this just proves that such analysis is a waste of time.For instance, why isn't the whole MEU powered by perpetual motion machines? Make something light and lift it -> drop it while making it heavy -> capture the kinetic energy it picks up from falling -> PROFIT.
But we do have stuff that's better. It's just also worse at other stuff. Often the fear in sci-fi isn't about AI, but essentially immortal disembodied ubermensch.
I read that to mean that the laws of physics are arbitrary insofar that Mass Effect may occasionally abandon one or two to advance the plot or to feature certain technologies/abilities. It's sort of like the lighter in WALL-E. After 700 years, the fuel in a Zippo lighter would have long since dried out, but there's a meaningful effect of it still being able to do so for the character.
I read that to mean that the laws of physics are arbitrary insofar that Mass Effect may occasionally abandon one or two to advance the plot or to feature certain technologies/abilities. It's sort of like the lighter in WALL-E. After 700 years, the fuel in a Zippo lighter would have long since dried out, but there's a meaningful effect of it still being able to do so for the character.
My sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, and it doesn't help that I don't have a very thorough understanding of physics, but do you really wholly agree that physics is completely arbitrary?.
Retour en haut
