657 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

That issue can be expanded to include a huge amount of popular science fiction out there though.  The conundrum being that, otherwise, the science fiction writer is tasked with solving these huge speculative issues science has "logically..." when the reality is that human science can't solve them yet in reality... and then the scientific public slams the writers for essentially not also being the "best" quantum physicists and engineers humanity has to offer.  It's a classic "rock and a hard place" scenario really. 

 

Yeah, but is the alternative really better?

 

Slamming usually occurs when the writers pull crap out of their asses without any consideration to established lore.

Everyone knows that Sci-Fi in general and "light" Sci-Fi in particular have to bend the rules in order to tell a story, but as long as the there is a certain

degree of logic and realism within the accepted rules of the setting, usually there is no problem.

 

In any case, this has very little to do with the original point, which was about "Ancient Technology" Vs. new inventions and achievements.

 

Humanity would have discovered Eezo at some point even without the Prothean ruins on Mars.

[straykat]

That issue can be expanded to include a huge amount of popular science fiction out there though.  The conundrum being that, otherwise, the science fiction writer is tasked with solving these huge speculative issues science has "logically..." when the reality is that human science can't solve them yet in reality... and then the scientific public slams the writers for essentially not also being the "best" quantum physicists and engineers humanity has to offer.  It's a classic "rock and a hard place" scenario really. 

 

Perhaps, but my favorite kind of sci-fi is about potential and thought experiments on the various trends in current science. Something that isn't too far fetched, so as long as the "trend" is real to us.

 

Mass Effect has this to an extent when it comes to speculating about the nature of AI, but the general narrative is more typical of fantasy.. it revolves around artifacts.

[UpUpAway95]

Perhaps, but my favorite kind of sci-fi is about potential and thought experiments on the various trends in current science. Mass Effect has this to an extent when it comes to speculating about the nature of AI, but the general narrative is more typical of fantasy.. it revolves around artifacts.

 

I agree with your assessment about the blend of science and fantasy in ME... and I don't mind it.

[straykat]

I agree with your assessment about the blend of science and fantasy in ME... and I don't mind it.

 

I do because it ultimately renders humans and organics as passive.

 

Humans wouldn't have even evolved in the first place if we were a scavenger race. We're far more inventive and resourceful than that. Why the sudden trend towards Reaper tech, when the eons upon eons of the species didn't move forward that way. And then the ME3 ending also urges just more of this nonsense. As if Destroy and developing on our own was a bad thing.

 

I could believe it in the case of Turians though. They look like they evolved from vultures While the Krogan are just cavemen who were given guns.

 

But ultimately, I dislike Cerberus the most because they betray all of this. They espouse widespread dependency.

[UpUpAway95]

I do because it ultimately renders humans and organics as passive.

 

Humans wouldn't have even evolved in the first place if we were a scavenger race. We're far more inventive and resourceful than that. Why the sudden trend towards Reaper tech, when the eons upon eons of the species didn't move forward that way. And then the ME3 ending also urges just more of this nonsense. As if Destroy and developing on our own was a bad thing.

 

I could believe it in the case of Turians though. They look like they evolved from vultures While the Krogan are just cavemen who were given guns.

 

But ultimately, I dislike Cerberus the most because they betray all of this. They espouse widespread dependency.

 

I think we're stepping away from an academic discussion on the structuring of video game dilemmas, so I'll just decline again to "get into" any sort of "reveal" about  whether or not I believe the specific groups constructed within the ME Trilogy are "vultures" or "cavemen" etc. OK.  They are really all just video game constructs to me.

[straykat]

I think we're stepping away from an academic discussion on the structuring of video game dilemmas, so I'll just decline again to "get into" any sort of "reveal" about  whether or not I believe the specific groups constructed within the ME Trilogy are "vultures" or "cavemen" etc. OK.  They are really all just video game constructs to me.

 

Definitely were cavemen with guns. That's what the uplifting problem was about. They weren't responsible enough for the power thrown into their hands. And the galaxy paid for it.

 

The vulture thing was merely cosmetic. After 3 games and side materials, I actually don't know much about the Turians.

[UpUpAway95]

Yeah, but is the alternative really better?

 

Slamming usually occurs when the writers pull crap out of their asses without any consideration to established lore.

Everyone knows that Sci-Fi in general and "light" Sci-Fi in particular have to bend the rules in order to tell a story, but as long as the there is a certain

degree of logic and realism within the accepted rules of the setting, usually there is no problem.

 

In any case, this has very little to do with the original point, which was about "Ancient Technology" Vs. new inventions and achievements.

 

Humanity would have discovered Eezo at some point even without the Prothean ruins on Mars.

 

Me thinks letting a little bit slide definitely beats out 4 years of being "butt hurt" over an ending in a sci-fi video game... and then continuing to slam another game pre-release on the mere speculation as to how the writers might "not connect" that game to the previous one they were "butt hurt" over.   The thing is every individual has a different standard as to what the "accepted rules" are... and the "gang" on this forum seems to try to chew alive anyone who dares to express the notion that they, heaven forbid, even remotely like ME3... and before you get all uppity over that last statement, I'm going to add that even that doesn't bother me a whole heck of a lot.

 

ME had some reasonably well constructed moral dilemmas and some not so well constructed moral dilemmas, IMO.  The good ones, I felt, were the ones I couldn't resolve both ways at the same time (i.e. no win, win evident).

 

SInce both Eezo and Prothean ruins on Mars are merely constructs of the authors of the series... can you actually say with any certainty that Humanity would have discovered Eezo, etc.... unless the author constructed their story framework to make it so?  I would argue that "no, you can't" because the author retains control over whatever it is they make up... whether the reading public interprets it as being logical or not.  Basic reason is that it IS made up in the first place.  I'm more able to get my head into a POV that would suggest that the Protheans are symbolic of the Aztec civilization and go from there to discuss the effects their philosophies may have had in contributing to the downfall of their civilization even though that has little to do with "science-fiction" accuracy.

[Laughing_Man]

Me thinks letting a little bit slide definitely beats out 4 years of being "butt hurt" over an ending in a sci-fi video game... and then continuing to slam another game pre-release on the mere speculation as to how the writers might "not connect" that game to the previous one they were "butt hurt" over.   The thing is every individual has a different standard as to what the "accepted rules" are... and the "gang" on this forum seems to try to chew alive anyone who dares to express the notion that they, heaven forbid, even remotely like ME3... and before you get all uppity over that last statement, I'm going to add that even that doesn't bother me a whole heck of a lot.

 

ME had some reasonably well constructed moral dilemmas and some not so well constructed moral dilemmas, IMO.  The good ones, I felt, were the ones I couldn't resolve both ways at the same time (i.e. no win, win evident).

 

SInce both Eezo and Prothean ruins on Mars are merely constructs of the authors of the series... can you actually say with any certainty that Humanity would have discovered Eezo, etc.... unless the author constructed their story framework to make it so?  I would argue that "no, you can't" because the author retains control over whatever it is they make up... whether the reading public interprets it as being logical or not.  Basic reason is that it IS made up in the first place.  I'm more able to get my head into a POV that would suggest that the Protheans are symbolic of the Aztec civilization and go from there to discuss the effects their philosophies may have had in contributing to the downfall of their civilization even though that has little to do with "science-fiction" accuracy.

 

...

 

So you liked ME3's ending and you are salty that most people do not agree with you?... Tough luck.

 

Words like "butt hurt" or "whining" are just something you call a complaint or criticism that you do not agree with, they have no meaning.

It is certainly not making your position any more righteous.

 

You are in good company, the most staunch defenders of the ME3 ending immediately after, used the same condescending language against those that dared to criticize it. I mean, if you can't defend the issue itself, you can always attack those that criticized it, right?

 

 

Once something enters the public domain, be it a novel, a song, or a video game, it becomes open to criticism.

 

And the actual thing that is being judged by the public is not what the writer could have written, or thought about writing but didn't in the end,

what is being judged is the actual work that was published.

 

Some of the ideas of ME3 had potential, but the execution was terrible enough to unite most people that actually played it under the opinion that the ending was bad.

 

If you use the established lore of ME as a base and apply logic to the ending, you encounter many problems, some of which can be easily classed as plot holes.

 

But hey, you can still like the ending, no one is stopping you, and no one really cares.

 

 

As far as reasonably constructed moral dilemmas, again, the ideas had potential, but more often than not we ended up with idiotic Blue / Red choices that had very little subtlety or grayness about them. As was pointed out repeatedly in this thread.