3428 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[BloodyMares]

Protheans were winning by the action of forcing every living organic race above a certain technological level to join them empire at gun point.  Actively manipulating the Asari's genetic development to make a race worthy of being asked to join their empire rather then forced by threat of destruction. And the only way they were capable of doing that was thanks to the Reapers. They left the technological scrapes behind to allow them to advance. They created the Mass Relay Network that allowed them forcibly gather all organics to fight against them.

 

On a time scale claiming they have it under control is like going back in time to the early days of the Industrial Revolution and claiming they have the capacity to handle nano technology and all the possible dangers it presents.

Doesn't matter how they did that, only that they did. United the galaxy (not so peacefully)? Good. Mass Relays helped? Awesome. What's your point? Why did the Reapers harvest them instead of acknowledging that organics are capable of defending themselves? It sounds like you believe Reapers are punishing organics for their bad behaviour instead of trying to save them from synthetics.

[kal_reegar]

Maybe, OTOH caution is wise, but being ruled by fear turns you into a moron, lashing out against preceived threats, imaginary or otherwise and makes you easy prey for demagogues.

 

but I don't think that a genocidal AI has any problem being considered a paranoid demagogic moron

 

The catalyst said that tech singularity (very advanced synth will kill all organics) is inevitable (highly probable, close to 100% sure), but even if it had established that the probability is 50,000000000000001% against 49,999999999999999%, it's behaviour (trying to "solve" the problem - or delaying the inevitable until a permanent solution is found) wouldn't be illogic or stupid or crazy, especially for a machine build by some paranoid morons that observed tons of synth rebellions (and thus believed that phenomenon inevitable/highly probable) in order to solve that very problem...

[gothpunkboy89]

Doesn't matter how they did that, only that they did. United the galaxy (not so peacefully)? Good. Mass Relays helped? Awesome. What's your point? Why did the Reapers harvest them instead of acknowledging that organics are capable of defending themselves? It sounds like you believe Reapers are punishing organics for their bad behaviour instead of trying to save them from synthetics.

 

Actually it does matter how they did it. It matters a whole heck of a lot how they did it. Claiming they won and that is all that matters kind of ignores that they used a bike in a foot race and won because of that.  When it takes 1 vs 7 to actually start to win there is a problem. When 6 of those 7 are forcibly subjugated with the threat of join or we blow your planet up more problems start.

 

While no government system is 100% stable this is particularly unstable set up that would not last. As soon as it splinters or the Protheans are forced to wipe out a couple of species to maintain dominance that threat level from Synthetics increases. With a very very high chance of the various subjugated races researching AI simply so they can use it to break free and maintain their independence from the Prothean Empire.

 

And dare I need to repeat this again. The Reapers harvest the races before they reach the terminus point were they can create synthetics capable of wiping them out. So claiming anything is a lot like going back in time to the Model-T car and claiming that they have mastered all things about automotive and they will never create a better car.

[BloodyMares]

Actually it does matter how they did it. 
*Skipped rambling*
So claiming anything is a lot like going back in time to the Model-T car and claiming that they have mastered all things about automotive and they will never create a better car.

Why would the Reapers care? They built the Mass Relays, what does it matter if it helps organics survive? It's their goal, damn it.

Except they never will create a better car. Did Javik not make hmself clear about synthetics? Throw them out the airlock. With that kind of mindset it's really odd to think that there will be other synthetics in the unknown future. And the game didn't show the protheans that thought otherwise so it's okay for me to assume this mindset was universal.

[angol fear]

The development of the world and its rules is one part of the writing. You have to judge a fictional world by itself and not use the rules of the real world except where the fictional world is like the real world.

 

Objectivity requires distance in terms of me being personally invested in the work in some way, like knowing the author or having a financial stake in it. Some will argue whether or not those automatically preclude an objective analysis but they are factors to consider. However, one of the measures of good fiction is how well it can get the reader/viewer/player to become invested in the story, world, and characters. This is where drama comes from. If these things hadn't happened, there would be no point in allowing player choice and we certainly wouldn't be discussing this series still. There would have been no massive negative reaction to the endings.

 

It's one part of the writing, I agree but you focuse on it as if it was the writing itself. You totally ignore the overall writing : the narration itself. And then you think that you talk about narrative coherence while you are actually talking about one aspect of coherence.

Sorry but no, even without people complaining about the ending, we could discuss about Mass Effect because it was made to be disussed and interpreted.

 

 

I use a Youtube video because he explains it well. Let's try and focus on substance here.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. The "writing," through text, dialogue, and visuals, creates the setting (world) and the plot (events). Because the plot happens within the setting, there will be overlap. The Citadel and the Mass Relays are part of both the setting and the plot, for example. Establishing the setting establishes what is and is not possible in the fictional universe. We have to be informed about those things which are fantastical or we won't understand what's happening. This is part of why the very first thing that actually happens in Mass Effect is the Normandy going through a Mass Relay. This was done on purpose to start to establish how spaceships get around in this fictional universe. The setting also establishes what the different species are and how they interact, and the plot uses some elements from this.

 

What is the contradiction? Where is he wrong?

 

How do you know that he explains it well? You have to know more than he does to evaluate his knowledge and say that he does it well.

Once again, you decide to ignore the narration and only focuse on one part, which is not always the most important part.

 

 

Totally ignored? What needs explaining? He makes it by being the author, by writing. We enter it by reading and accepting the premise of the story. If people have a hard time suspending disbelief then they may not be able to enter and that work (and perhaps fiction in general) is not for them. "Where is it" is a ridiculous question. He says "your mind can enter." It's called imagination. It's obviously not creating a real place.  This is called Immersion. Without suspension of disbelief or immersion, we'd get hung up on the real world impossibility of lightsabers and the force, of Mass Relays, of FTL in any science fiction, etc.

 

So now you can't argue against Tolkien's point and you're trying to pick on his use of the word "magic." Yes, the storyteller IS like a magician in that way. He creates a fictional world out of his mind and lays it out for the audience to experience. A break in the established rules is like an obvious wire holding up the "levitating" object. Sure, we know going into the magic show that the magician isn't really levitating the box, but we ignore that in order to get caught up in the illusion because it's fun! But it's hard to get caught up in the illusion of the levitating box when instead of thin wire, the magician is using a red shoelace.

 

The writer does establish the rules through writing. If they don't, on things that are different from the real world, then they haven't done a proper job of world building. You really need to go study what "world building" is. At this point, you can't be taken seriously.

 

That's beautiful to understand how you want what is written and to consider that when someone show the importance of magic in Tolkien vision of writing it's showing that we can't argue against it. First, if you really have read some analysis in literature you should know that when words are used they are analyzed (there is also a specific analysis called genetic criticism in literature). When someone uses the words "spell" or "magic" there is a purpose, there is an idea. I've shown that his idea of writing is lose to magic. It's not that I can't argue against it, that's what he says! Anyway, I suggest you to read at least some real critics about the writing and the reception : you will see that what Tolkien says is absurd from a real critic point of view. But it's actually interesting to see how we can relate it to his own work. The problem is that, because you don't know enough about critic, you can believe whatever follow your idea. What Tolkien has written are not words from a critic, they are words from a writer that establishes his own aesthetic. I don't have to argue against him, just read structuralism and theory of reception, or anything about didactic (how people become readers, then expert readers) you'll see what I'm talking about.

If you want, I suggest you to watch some Penn and Teller show. These two magicians can show what they do, they can explain it and it still magic. Just like in Literature if you think that writer always try to create the illusion, then you are wrong. The illusion was broken before the XXth century and it will still be broken. That's an aesthetic that has always existed. You ignore it, then you can't talk about things in general. Once again you talk about one aspect.

[gothpunkboy89]

Why would the Reapers care? They built the Mass Relays, what does it matter if it helps organics survive? It's their goal, damn it.

Except they never will create a better car. Did Javik not make hmself clear about synthetics? Throw them out the airlock. With that kind of mindset it's really odd to think that there will be other synthetics in the unknown future. And the game didn't show the protheans that thought otherwise so it's okay for me to assume this mindset was universal.

 

Reapers care because if they slack off the apocalypse of sorts happens.

 

And yet in the case of Javik they were still using very advanced VI programs that seemed pretty close to what the Geth are.

 

You don't seem to understand this very basic concept. The more advanced and complicated a computer becomes the more and more it approaches that sentience barrier. That is exactly what happened to the Geth.

 

You keep looking only 1 step a head when to understand what is going on and why the Catalyst would do what it did. You need to look 3 or 4 steps a head.

[Natureguy85]

Actually it does matter how they did it. It matters a whole heck of a lot how they did it. Claiming they won and that is all that matters kind of ignores that they used a bike in a foot race and won because of that.  When it takes 1 vs 7 to actually start to win there is a problem. When 6 of those 7 are forcibly subjugated with the threat of join or we blow your planet up more problems start.

 

While no government system is 100% stable this is particularly unstable set up that would not last. As soon as it splinters or the Protheans are forced to wipe out a couple of species to maintain dominance that threat level from Synthetics increases. With a very very high chance of the various subjugated races researching AI simply so they can use it to break free and maintain their independence from the Prothean Empire.

 

And dare I need to repeat this again. The Reapers harvest the races before they reach the terminus point were they can create synthetics capable of wiping them out. So claiming anything is a lot like going back in time to the Model-T car and claiming that they have mastered all things about automotive and they will never create a better car.

 

Did you miss the part where Javik describes their setup as a weakness or just purposefully ignore it?

 

 

 

It's one part of the writing, I agree but you focuse on it as if it was the writing itself. You totally ignore the overall writing : the narration itself. And then you think that you talk about narrative coherence while you are actually talking about one aspect of coherence.

Sorry but no, even without people complaining about the ending, we could discuss about Mass Effect because it was made to be disussed and interpreted.

 

You're making distinctions that don't exist. What exactly am I supposedly ignoring?

No, if people didn't become invested in the series, few would bother talking about it, certainly not as strongly and for this long. Nobody would care. It would just be a game we all played years ago.

 

 

 

How do you know that he explains it well? You have to know more than he does to evaluate his knowledge and say that he does it well.

Once again, you decide to ignore the narration and only focuse on one part, which is not always the most important part.

 

Because I understood his point and understood/ now understand the topic. How do you know anything you've ever read is right?

 

 

That's beautiful to understand how you want what is written and to consider that when someone show the importance of magic in Tolkien vision of writing it's showing that we can't argue against it. First, if you really have read some analysis in literature you should know that when words are used they are analyzed (there is also a specific analysis called genetic criticism in literature). When someone uses the words "spell" or "magic" there is a purpose, there is an idea. I've shown that his idea of writing is lose to magic. It's not that I can't argue against it, that's what he says! Anyway, I suggest you to read at least some real critics about the writing and the reception : you will see that what Tolkien says is absurd from a real critic point of view. But it's actually interesting to see how we can relate it to his own work. The problem is that, because you don't know enough about critic, you can believe whatever follow your idea. What Tolkien has written are not words from a critic, they are words from a writer that establishes his own aesthetic. I don't have to argue against him, just read structuralism and theory of reception, or anything about didactic (how people become readers, then expert readers) you'll see what I'm talking about.

If you want, I suggest you to watch some Penn and Teller show. These two magicians can show what they do, they can explain it and it still magic. Just like in Literature if you think that writer always try to create the illusion, then you are wrong. The illusion was broken before the XXth century and it will still be broken. That's an aesthetic that has always existed. You ignore it, then you can't talk about things in general. Once again you talk about one aspect.

 

The poor English made this really hard to actually understand but you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop name dropping and actually explain something for a change. Make an actual point.

 

Yes, "spell" and "magic" was used on purpose. Just like the illusion comparison I used. Apparently you also need to go study what "suspension of disbelief" is.

[gothpunkboy89]

Did you miss the part where Javik describes their setup as a weakness or just purposefully ignore it?

 

 

 

No but apparently you missed it by a mile.

 

Javik was specifically talking about how ever race in the Prothean Empire conformed to a single unified military strategy. So once the Reapers adapted to that everyone was screwed. Compared to the current galaxy were every race has their own military doctrine. AKA Turian and Korgan are heavy infantry, Salarians are spies and saboteurs, Humans are light infantry, Asari are Calvary, etc.

 

Or to put this another way in video game terms the Protheans pulled the equivalent of an entire team going Bastion on Overwatch. Once the Reapers figured out the weakness they drilled them hard and beat them. Current cycle has a full balanced team of each group. thus making it harder for the Reapers to adapt to a single attack strategy.

 

His statement on weakness had nothing to do with the social and political set up of the Empire nor the fact they would have to accept a stagnation of technology to prevent any synthteic creation and uprising.

[Obadiah]

It seems the Reapers value the whole system of organic life over individual organics or even unique races, and seek to preserve its existence over our own.

Its an interesting evaluation. Certainly we're having that conversation in the real world with respect to climate change and how it affects the environment (should it be maintained in some more perfect state for the benefit of nature) vs our own well-being, or the sacrificed we'll have to make. I suppose it is a perspective that can come with distance and time.

[Natureguy85]

No but apparently you missed it by a mile.

 

Javik was specifically talking about how ever race in the Prothean Empire conformed to a single unified military strategy. So once the Reapers adapted to that everyone was screwed. Compared to the current galaxy were every race has their own military doctrine. AKA Turian and Korgan are heavy infantry, Salarians are spies and saboteurs, Humans are light infantry, Asari are Calvary, etc.

 

Or to put this another way in video game terms the Protheans pulled the equivalent of an entire team going Bastion on Overwatch. Once the Reapers figured out the weakness they drilled them hard and beat them. Current cycle has a full balanced team of each group. thus making it harder for the Reapers to adapt to a single attack strategy.

 

His statement on weakness had nothing to do with the social and political set up of the Empire nor the fact they would have to accept a stagnation of technology to prevent any synthteic creation and uprising.

 

They are directly related. The Protheans forcibly subjugated and assimilated every race they encountered.

[angol fear]

You're making distinctions that don't exist. What exactly am I supposedly ignoring?

No, if people didn't become invested in the series, few would bother talking about it, certainly not as strongly and for this long. Nobody would care. It would just be a game we all played years ago.

 

Sure I make distinction that don't exist. Coherence has nothing to do with the relation between form and content, it has nothing to do with the relation between macrostructure and microstructure, it has nothing to do with the relation between the intentions of the author and the aesthetic used.

But sure we don't write with words, and in storytelling the purpose isn't to tell a story, it's to create a world. The narration itself comes after the fictional world created. Only the world created is the narrative coherence? Then the narration itself has nothing to do with your narrative coherence.

Seriously, don't you see the problem? Your definition doesn't integrate the narration in the coherence (and for the youtuber, it's even worst because he is supposed to talk about narrative coherence but never consider the narration as a structure).

 

 

Because I understood his point and understood/ now understand the topic. How do you know anything you've ever read is right?

 

So just because you understand it you think it's right. Ok then let's go back to something you will deny : if you were in the antiquity, and you were listening to Aristotle saying that Earth can't be moving, otherwise the bird would not be able to go back to their nest. From a logical point of view he is right. From a sensitive he is right too (we don't feel Earth moving, and don't see it moving). So that would be enough to say that he is right. But we both know that he was wrong. So how do you know that he is wrong?

If you have really read some books written by critics, you would know that he is talking about one aspect.  What he thinks to be the totality is actually a part. His ignorance is obvious. And he never care about the narration itself, otherwise he would be analyzing the structure. He've already shown you the line that goes through the trilogy and how the catalyst isn't incoherent with what was set in the game, that was just an example of how the narration is coherent.

 

 

The poor English made this really hard to actually understand but you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop name dropping and actually explain something for a change. Make an actual point.

 

Yes, "spell" and "magic" was used on purpose. Just like the illusion comparison I used. Apparently you also need to go study what "suspension of disbelief" is.

 

Advice : stop internet and Hollywood products. Open books. Take a look at what are considered to be masterpieces of literature, and try to understand why they are masterpieces.

 

So as I said, you should read directly (and not using internet or any other indirect way to create the illusion that you know something) things about structuralism. You will learn that a text is a potential. Reading things about semiology will teach you basically three level : poiesis (creation, neutral and aesthesis (reception). You will see that there is no magic in there. There is no fictional world that appears magically. Reading things about reception will help you learning the fact that the reader is actually active. The reader creates the meaning that is a potential. It has nothing to do with entering a fictional world. You will also learn that imagination is actually one of the process of reading. It is created by reading. Reading is a complex process. Teachers try to make their student some good readers. Just like Umberto Eco was thinking, it's actually a cooperation that makes someone a good reader. Following the text, accepting the text, that's the basis of an analysis. Basically that's what you will see. You will probably say that what I wrote is a mess, you can't understand it but it's just because it's from the beginning that we should have to start the discussion about it. Your vision of a text is wrong, your vision of the reception is wrong, so yes I can understand that you believe some random guy on internet if they say what you want to hear. The same goes for Tolkien's quotation : I've already said it, what he said is interesting if we want to understand his aesthetic and those who write in this aesthetic, but no it's not a serious theory about writing. There are real critics who developed theories, you should rely on them instead of some magic.

 

And as I said, "suspension of disbelief" depend on the aesthetic. There are books in the XVIIIth century that break the illusion. Same for the XXth century. It seems that you have never read some book like this.

And what about those magician Penn and Teller who actually explain how they do their cup and balls while doing it. That's real magic, without the illusion. Those guys are really famous and world champions of magic. If you reador listen what they say about magic you will have a real suprise (basically nothing magical in magic, it's all about work, misdirection etc... so an intellectual process).

[dorktainian]

Back to the old question then.

 

When you get to star jar he offers you three choices.  Please note that these are HIS choices.

 

After playing through 3 games, with an understanding of the reapers and how they work, why would anyone choose red blue or green?

(trust me, as someone who advocates destroying the reapers this isn't an easy question to ask)

 

These three are shown in advance on thessia by the Prothean VI as the three cycles of extinctions, ergo the Crucible is a Reaper tool.

 

Why would you use it?  

[gothpunkboy89]

They are directly related. The Protheans forcibly subjugated and assimilated every race they encountered.

 

No they are not.  You can forcibly subjugate and assimilate every race they encountered and still keep a varied military doctrine. They got everyone to conform to a silgular doctrine. So when the Reapers adapted they could take on everyone.

 

Javik's comment was from a pure military stand point about their tactics against the Reapers.

[KrrKs]

I have to agree with Gothpunk on this one. The question and Javik's answer were purely about military strategies, and not connected to the other dialogue branch about the prothean civilisation.

 

But I still fail to see how this affects BloodyMares' point: That the Protheans were

1. (At the verge of ) Successfully eliminating all synthetics in their cycle

2. Pretty much guaranteed to not build any AIs in the future.

 

Even if we take Gothpunkboy's argument that the prothean society favours the creaton of AIs because of the suppressive regime. The result is a small rebellion, with a small synthetic force against a galaxy spanning Empire that will not tolerate either of those.

 

So we are back at: "Why were the reapers needed at that point?"

Even if somehow there was a Synthetic force, that grew aggressive and large enough to threaten the empire -Reapers leave a scout behind. It would be sufficient to intervene at that point.

But no, the Reapers favour to turn up just as the protheans were winning against such a thread!

[Obadiah]

Seems like as the AI became more desperate, they might have turned to more drastic solutions, like launching an attack to wipe out all organic life - as the Council races are close to doing against Synthetics with the Crucible in this cycle.

[rossler]

Back to the old question then.

 

When you get to star jar he offers you three choices.  Please note that these are HIS choices.

 

After playing through 3 games, with an understanding of the reapers and how they work, why would anyone choose red blue or green?

(trust me, as someone who advocates destroying the reapers this isn't an easy question to ask)

 

These three are shown in advance on thessia by the Prothean VI as the three cycles of extinctions, ergo the Crucible is a Reaper tool.

 

Why would you use it?  

 

I do believe the Crucible is a Reaper trap as hinted at earlier in the game. However, I don't believe that all the choices presented benefit the Reapers. Destroying the Reapers is something they do not want. The dialogue says as much. 

[gothpunkboy89]

I have to agree with Gothpunk on this one. The question and Javik's answer were purely about military strategies, and not connected to the other dialogue branch about the prothean civilisation.

 

But I still fail to see how this affects BloodyMares' point: That the Protheans were

1. (At the verge of ) Successfully eliminating all synthetics in their cycle

2. Pretty much guaranteed to not build any AIs in the future.

 

Even if we take Gothpunkboy's argument that the prothean society favours the creaton of AIs because of the suppressive regime. The result is a small rebellion, with a small synthetic force against a galaxy spanning Empire that will not tolerate either of those.

 

So we are back at: "Why were the reapers needed at that point?"

Even if somehow there was a Synthetic force, that grew aggressive and large enough to threaten the empire -Reapers leave a scout behind. It would be sufficient to intervene at that point.

But no, the Reapers favour to turn up just as the protheans were winning against such a thread!

 

 

No empire is eternal.  Eventually uprising would happen fracturing or even dissolving the empire leaving  dozens of races  scattered and suspicious of each other out of fear another oppressive empire builds up. This adds to the trouble that the oppressed groups would inevitably look for any advantage to allow them to break away. This includes attempting to create and control AIs. Which would give them massive advantages in the battle against Protheans.

 

Problem is those AI's armed with high grade military technology go rouge after they Prothean Empire is gone then it will simply be them verse individual races that have already sustained large casualties in the attempt to get free from the Prothean Empire. And would be very hesitant for any one group to be in charge of everyone else out of fear of another Empire starting up.

 

The key set up about understanding this is that history repeat's it self. Much like how lets say sitcoms repeat the same set ups. Different people in different locations but it plays out the exact same way.

[BloodyMares]

This includes attempting to create and control AIs. Which would give them massive advantages in the battle against Protheans.

So basically you mean people never learn, right? No matter what monstrosities happen, they will inevitably happen again? Well...with that kind of mindset the living seems pointless indeed. I guess I can understand now how people with that kind of outlook can justify the Reapers.

 

Now I need a hug.

Edit: And now I learned that the forums are closing...ruined my day. I have one wish. Let's all spend this last month like friends. Because no matter how hot the conversations got, they were always interesting. Thanks everyone. 

[Natureguy85]

Sure I make distinction that don't exist. Coherence has nothing to do with the relation between form and content, it has nothing to do with the relation between macrostructure and microstructure, it has nothing to do with the relation between the intentions of the author and the aesthetic used.

But sure we don't write with words, and in storytelling the purpose isn't to tell a story, it's to create a world. The narration itself comes after the fictional world created. Only the world created is the narrative coherence? Then the narration itself has nothing to do with your narrative coherence.

Seriously, don't you see the problem? Your definition doesn't integrate the narration in the coherence (and for the youtuber, it's even worst because he is supposed to talk about narrative coherence but never consider the narration as a structure).

 

I see we're at the "use big words to sound smart but don't explain anything" point in the conversation. There's nothing to react to in there.

 

 

 

So just because you understand it you think it's right.

 

You didn't ask about right or wrong. You asked about how well it was explained.

 

 

 

Advice : stop internet and Hollywood products. Open books. Take a look at what are considered to be masterpieces of literature, and try to understand why they are masterpieces.

 

So as I said, you should read directly (and not using internet or any other indirect way to create the illusion that you know something) things about structuralism. You will learn that a text is a potential.

 

Oh, so I need the Angol Fear approved list of source material? Yeah, Tolkien isn't serious because you say so.  I'll pass. Movies can be masterpieces too. They are just another art form and closer to video games than books are, being visual media. But I still read literature, though I've read more non-fiction lately. And I haven't said anything about structuralism.

 

 

 

 

And as I said, "suspension of disbelief" depend on the aesthetic. There are books in the XVIIIth century that break the illusion. Same for the XXth century. It seems that you have never read some book like this.

And what about those magician Penn and Teller who actually explain how they do their cup and balls while doing it. That's real magic, without the illusion. Those guys are really famous and world champions of magic. If you reador listen what they say about magic you will have a real suprise (basically nothing magical in magic, it's all about work, misdirection etc... so an intellectual process).

 

All the first part says is that some genre's don't require as much suspension of disbelief as others.

 

Everybody knows that about magic. Getting lost in that illusion is what makes it fun.

 

 

 

 

No they are not.  You can forcibly subjugate and assimilate every race they encountered and still keep a varied military doctrine. They got everyone to conform to a silgular doctrine. So when the Reapers adapted they could take on everyone.

 

Javik's comment was from a pure military stand point about their tactics against the Reapers.

 

 

I have to agree with Gothpunk on this one. The question and Javik's answer were purely about military strategies, and not connected to the other dialogue branch about the prothean civilisation.

 

Sure you theoretically could, but that's not what I got from Javik's comments when looked at together. You do have one thing going for your view, which is that Javik says their Empire building was in order to fight the Metacon War before the Reapers showed up. But Liara says her research showed that the Protheans were the only species capable of space travel. That's when Javik makes the comment about everyone calling themselves Prothean. These two lines tell you that the researcher couldn't differentiate Javik's species from any other in the Empire. Also remember that she thought the Protheans to be a peaceful, intelligent, and philosophical species. She wasn't focused on their military capabilities.

 

Also keep in mind Liara's response to the comment about conforming to "one doctrine, one strategy":

 

"Most races cooperate, but they still remain unique."

 

She isn't just talking about their military. Military strategy and approach to problem solving are two differences in the species of the galaxy, but not the only ones.

[kal_reegar]

So basically you mean people never learn, right? No matter what monstrosities happen, they will inevitably happen again? Well...with that kind of mindset the living seems pointless indeed. I guess I can understand now how people with that kind of outlook can justify the Reapers.

 

Now I need a hug.

Edit: And now I learned that the forums are closing...ruined my day. I have one wish. Let's all spend this last month like friends. Because no matter how hot the conversations got, they were always interesting. Thanks everyone. 

 

 

exactly. People never learn. Every human being must learn what is wrong and what is right from zero (or almost zero, if we accept that some level of experience is genetically inherited).

You daddy can tell you not to eat very hot food. He can explain you that it will hurt, he can try to persuade you, or even threat you. You'll truly learn not to eat very hot food only when you'll burn your tongue. 

 

Dude, do you live in a bubble? Don't you see that every generation has it's dictators, it's genocide, it's wars, it's massive violation of human rights? Somewhere in the world, there are people and nations that are doing the worst things mankind is capable of, and they fimrly convinced that they are doing the right thing.

 

 

In ME, we see it with the quarians. ME2 tali's side quest. The quarian learned from their mistake? Yes, they establish rules, they don't allow geth experiment, or geth components on the fleet. Then what? Generation after generation, the direct experience of the danger fade. A scientist thinks he knows better. He thinks he is super-cool and can handle it. And he repeat the mistake the quarian believe they've learned to avoid.

 

On the long run, societies change, percepetion of good and evil change, and the same mistake are done again

[BloodyMares]

exactly. People never learn. Every human being must learn what is wrong and what is right from zero (or almost zero, if we accept that some level of experience is genetically inherited).
You daddy can tell you not to eat very hot food. He can explain you that it will hurt, he can try to persuade you, or even threat you. You'll truly learn not to eat very hot food only when you'll burn your tongue.

Dude, do you live in a bubble? Don't you see that every generation has it's dictators, it's genocide, it's wars, it's massive violation of human rights? Somewhere in the world, there are people and nations that are doing the worst things mankind is capable of, and they fimrly convinced that they are doing the right thing.


In ME, we see it with the quarians. ME2 tali's side quest. The quarian learned from their mistake? Yes, they establish rules, they don't allow geth experiment, or geth components on the fleet. Then what? Generation after generation, the direct experience of the danger fade. A scientist thinks he knows better. He thinks he is super-cool and can handle it. And he repeat the mistake the quarian believe they've learned to avoid.

On the long run, societies change, percepetion of good and evil change, and the same mistake are done again

Your analogy about hot stuff is valid. So, erm...did you burn your house because you played with fire as a kid? Did you try drugs as a teen? Or maybe killed people? Because you never learn not to do something stupid unless you learn it from experience, right? There are things that can be explained and you just not try it. 

 

No, I'm all aware of that. It's just the society didn't advance beyond Middle Ages. We have fancy toys but in its core the society stays the same. These things wouldn't keep happening if certain someones didn't benefit from them. 

 

And what do you mean by repeated mistake? Please elaborate. Who repeated what? It didn't happen in my game.

[gothpunkboy89]

So basically you mean people never learn, right? No matter what monstrosities happen, they will inevitably happen again? Well...with that kind of mindset the living seems pointless indeed. I guess I can understand now how people with that kind of outlook can justify the Reapers.

 

Now I need a hug.

Edit: And now I learned that the forums are closing...ruined my day. I have one wish. Let's all spend this last month like friends. Because no matter how hot the conversations got, they were always interesting. Thanks everyone. 

 

 

No but people in situations will look at any opportunity to get out of it. Including making deals with the devil so to speak if they think they can get away with it.

[Dantriges]

I see we're at the "use big words to sound smart but don't explain anything" point in the conversation. There's nothing to react to in there.

 

We are back to criticism of literature as some kind kind of pretentious pretend that it´s science thing. i worked in soft sciences, seems my field of study was honest enoughnot to think of itself as hard as physiscs.Let´s ignore that it´s a new medium, because mr.critic say it doesn´t matter and ignore that it´s borrowing from RPGs to pretend that whatever mr.critic says has any relevance. It doesn´t. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is an attempt to apply " I am a critic of literature" to new media, beacuse uh well "what is your field good for, it´s obsolete." It seems ,someone missed the memo, we are not in Cannes.

[oddball_bg]

"Advice : stop internet and Hollywood products. Open books. Take a look at what are considered to be masterpieces of literature, and try to understand why they are masterpieces."

 

Don't bother with Natureguy85 about that!I've tried it as well.A person needs to have a sense of self awareness to be able to do it.

[angol fear]

I see we're at the "use big words to sound smart but don't explain anything" point in the conversation. There's nothing to react to in there.

 

First, I'm not using big words. Second, I only say that your definition of "coherence" is wrong because it's incomplete (you only focuse on one aspect of coherence, and with your definition you're going to ignore the other aspects). I won't explain anything because you will not try to understand what I say. For example, you only focus on few words in order to complain about the lack of explanation but if you really had taken two second to understand them you would have see my point.

 

 

You didn't ask about right or wrong. You asked about how well it was explained.

 

It was well explained but you were thinking that what it was wrong that's why you have posted this video. Do you think that it's what you have done? I think that if you use this video it's because you think that he is right about narrative coherence and you use him as an argument (he gives his arguments so why should we argue and explain our point of view if someone has already made it?). So I think that now you are playing with words because you know that if you have posted it it's because you think that he is right. When we "explain well" something like "what is narrative coherence?" it means that we explain it entirely, we give a valid explanation. My point about the video is that he is wrong because it's incomplete, so when I ask how do you know he explains well this concept, it's actually implicit that it's related to "right or wrong".

But I understand that you could have simplified my question and turned it into "his explanation was clear?".

 

 

Oh, so I need the Angol Fear approved list of source material? Yeah, Tolkien isn't serious because you say so.  I'll pass. Movies can be masterpieces too. They are just another art form and closer to video games than books are, being visual media. But I still read literature, though I've read more non-fiction lately. And I haven't said anything about structuralism.

 

You don't need me to give you a list (I know you were ironic here). Tolkien as a critic is not serious no. You want me to say that Tolkien isn't a seirous writer but I have never said that. While I repeated that I like tolkien (as a writer) you try to change what I said into Tolien isn't serious.

Sure there are masterpieces in cinema but I honestly doubt that you have seen Godard's films, Bela Tarr's film, Luis Bunuel's films, Jose Mojica Marins films etc...

If I talked about structuralism it's because it's a very good basis to analysis. But it's only a basis which has to completed with other aspect of analysis, different approach of a text (in his general meaning).

If you read literarure, you should pay attention to the words used, to the punctuation, the rythm of the sentences etc... The more you get into it, the more you understand what narration is. And in a visual media, it's quite the same : the music, how it is shot, the structure of the images etc... these are part of the narration.

 

 

All the first part says is that some genre's don't require as much suspension of disbelief as others.

 

Everybody knows that about magic. Getting lost in that illusion is what makes it fun.

 

I agree. But what I meant is that it depends on what is the purpose of the wirter. If the reader has some expectations that are very different to what the writer wants, sure there will be a problem and the reader won't follow the writing, he will break with the "immersion", he will refuse it. Sometimes, maybe it's not the "fun" that the writer wants and that's what the reader is looking for, and here the problem doesn't come from the narration.

 

 

 

We are back to criticism of literature as some kind kind of pretentious pretend that it´s science thing. i worked in soft sciences, seems my field of study was honest enoughnot to think of itself as hard as physiscs.Let´s ignore that it´s a new medium, because mr.critic say it doesn´t matter and ignore that it´s borrowing from RPGs to pretend that whatever mr.critic says has any relevance. It doesn´t. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is an attempt to apply " I am a critic of literature" to new media, beacuse uh well "what is your field good for, it´s obsolete." It seems ,someone missed the memo, we are not in Cannes.

 

Mmmmh... did you read the beginning of our discussion? It all started with Natureguy85 saying :  "I'm doing critique and pointing out its objective problems."(post 3285)  so thanks for you irrelevant post. Do you really think that video game is a new medium? You must be very young to think that. Video game has tried to be like cinema for a long time. Do you know Dragon's Lair (1983)? And what RPG has to do with the narrative coherence? Complaints and complaints...