736 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

Why would one need a singular artificial intelligence to control every facet of a mechanical system like a ship? Reaction times are irrelevant when the margins for error are so comparatively huge. Everyone isn't going to suffocate because the oxygen supply goes .01% leaner than it needs to be for a few seconds, or get hit by an enemy projectile because Joker took .23 of a second to react.

 

That scenario is actually very realistic when you have projectiles traveling at high enough speeds:

 

Assume that the engagement occurs at a long enough distance that will require the projectile to travel through space for a few seconds or less before hitting the target.

 

In this scenario the reaction time of the pilot in a highly maneuverable ship like a frigate is crucial (a dreadnought for example will just have to take the hit), and also his ability to calculate trajectories quickly, especially if more than one projectile was fired in his direction, or a "shotgun blast" was fired in order to account for evasive maneuvers.

 

An AI would probably be the most effective on a job like this.

 

And then there are high precision FTL jumps that probably require high processing power and precision, and in general, an advanced space-faring battleship is going to be less like the Millennium Falcon and more like a highly advanced science lab, I mean, just think of the kind of science that involves going into FTL...

 

(hmmm... is there a "light barrier" similar to the sonic one? It would suck if the first space ship to jump to the speed of light will generate a Gamma Ray Burst as a "light boom" and fry the entire solar system...)

 

As for the rest, It seems to me like too many assumptions considering we don't have AI yet and are probably not even close to the Sci-Fi definition of one.

I don't necessarily say that you are wrong, but still...

 

Are you actually working in this field?

[In Exile]

True, but when for some reason you find yourself disappointed with a game developer time and again, wouldn't you feel a certain amount of skepticism?

I don't actually think that ME:A is going to be bad per se, I mean, it is the first in a trilogy and that's always easier, even my expectations are rather low, so it's not like I expect too much from it to ever be able to be good enough, still, I can't help but feel a little skeptic due to my experience with Bioware since DA2.

I really do want them to prove me wrong.

Yeah, but there's a difference between "I think [X] will make a crap product" and "[X] will suck because of this plot point that exists only in my head".

I'm sceptical about the gameplay. Not sure how an open world shooter will work, and the Mako in ME1 was an abomination.

[In Exile]

Thanks. Though I don't think we can take the consciousness part of that too seriously until we have a solid explanation for what caused organic brains to evolve consciousness; if it's useful for us then why isn't it ever useful for AIs? Of course, we could just go all-in on the "zombie problem" and say that consciousness has zero utility in either AIs or organics, and is just an accidental byproduct of brain development, but then that leaves the door open for accidentally conscious AIs too.

It's also not very convincing to point out that current AI research isn't about building artificial people. We're in no position yet to actually do that, so people not attempting it doesn't prove much.

In any event, this has only limited relevance to science fantasy like ME; it'd barely relate to hard SF.

AI is about designing a human-like mind IRL (in the way people usually use it), and in fiction it's mean to be an exploration of human nature - what it is about us that makes us human versus this sufficiently different or similar intelligence. It's also an absurd obsession with the "Right Stuff" argument - the idea that human brains are special because they're made out of meat. An argument as idiotic as the idea that cars are capable of locomotion because they're made lit of metal.

[Spacepunk01]

More importantly, you put absolutely no sock in new locations. Why does this new setting have to be so much less exciting than the old ones? Sure, there's no foreshadowing for any of these locations, but why do they need it? I doubt many fans care that we're leaving the Milky Way; either they don't a particular attachment to it or they believe ME3's ending was that galaxy's definitive ending. I suspect many more are even excited at the prospect of seeing something completely new.

 

It's interesting to consider the events of the original trilogy to be the end of our time in the MWG. BioWare definitely messed up, but it would've been much more appealing if this had been the plan all along. The original trilogy was just a prequel telling us the story about why humanity and the different races had to find a new home in another galaxy, basically setting the stage for the future of Mass Effect. Sadly, BioWare never really had any long term plans beyond the first game, so they had to improvise and we ended up both confused and disappointed as a result.

 

I  would like to add that I think some people don't have a problem with the move to Andromeda simply because they're ignorant about the implications of intergalactic travel. People are different and I think some of us have the need for a more comprehensive or reasonable explanation for how we got there. I've also noted before that BioWare has to find a way to "transport" the vital information to Andromeda and then incorporate it in a way that makes sense. There has to be a sense of continuity, otherwise it'll end up looking like a reboot.

 

To be clear.. I don't want BioWare to copy the MWG. I expect lots of new species, expansion of lore, new themes and advances in technology (particularly explaining the revolution that allowed us to make the journey to Andromeda in the first place). However, this information has to be incorporated in a way that is both consistent and coherent with everything we know about Mass Effect.

 

Can BioWare do this? I believe they can, but I'm still a sceptic.

 

AI is about designing a human-like mind IRL (in the way people usually use it), and in fiction it's mean to be an exploration of human nature - what it is about us that makes us human versus this sufficiently different or similar intelligence. It's also an absurd obsession with the "Right Stuff" argument - the idea that human brains are special because they're made out of meat. An argument as idiotic as the idea that cars are capable of locomotion because they're made lit of metal.

 

Most people don't realize how often their intuitions betray them: Humans (we) are special because we're "natural". Sentient machines are worth less, because they're not "natural" like us." This is actually a very common intuition and it reveals that the subject hasn't thought very deeply about the concept of consciousness. We cannot be defined by what we're made out of, but rather by our ability to think, experience and feel.

[themikefest]

But his history isn't important, save to redefine Prothean society and a reminder of the price of letting the Reapers win.  He has no insights into the Reapers save how the Protheans failed against them.  Ilos was a legend to him, he knew nothing of the Crucible, or even the Citadel.  There was little we didn't already know.

He did add a few comments when taken on missions. It was interesting what his species did with the Rachni. Get to learn the asari's so-called goddess is really a prothean.
 

This is why I don't understand complaints that Javik should have been in the base game.  He's an interesting character and all, but he adds nothing of real value to the game unless you think you need another biotic.

That applies to other characters as well.
 

I don't mind the idea of a spinoff.  But a spinoff needs to retain elements of the base show to connect the two.  MEA seems to be the exact opposite:  attempting to shed as much baggage as possible while keeeping the Mass Effect name for marketing purposes.

You don't believe its a Mass Effect game except in name only? The trailer shows the N7 logo. Though I would be curious why its in a different spot vs what is seen on Shepard's armor. Maybe the game will give a reason. The armor seen in the trailer is similiar looking to what was seen in the trilogy. It shows a new looking Mako. At the end shows the omniblade.  
 

You've heard me complain before about how ME1, ME2, and ME3 feel like separate games which just happen to have a protagonist named "Shepard", right?  MEA strikes me as that taken to eleven.  It doesn't even have "Shepard" (not that I want Commander Shepard to return, mind you.  After ME3, Shep's pretty much ruined as far as I'm concerned)

What would you do? Make a sequel? Remake ME3? Reboot/redo/rewrite the trilogy? My personal preference is to redo the trilogy.
 

I'd love to be wrong.  Believe it or not, I hope I am.  I'd rather enjoy a new game than pine for what's gone.  But history tells me I am most likely in the right here, and a year from now I'll be saying "I told you so"

Yeah you could be right. Don't be surprised if a lot of folks have marked your post to be shown in a year to prove you were wrong. I believe the game will do well. Time will answer how well. I'm preordering the game. That's mostly due to the how, why and when.

[straykat]

 

You don't believe its a Mass Effect game except in name only? The trailer shows the N7 logo. Though I would be curious why its in a different spot vs what is seen on Shepard's armor. Maybe the game will give a reason. The armor seen in the trailer is similiar looking to what was seen in the trilogy. It shows a new looking Mako. At the end shows the omniblade. 

 

No Casey Hudson either.. I'm sure he compromised and set this new one on it's course, but the whole idea goes against how he viewed Mass Effect. This is a whole rethinking of the idea.

 

I expect it to be much very like Mass Effect in look and feel though. I don't know why that matters though.

[In Exile]

If we're talking about the heart of the series was Chris L'Etoile.

[straykat]

If we're talking about the heart of the series was Chris L'Etoile.

 

Well, Legion DID suck in ME3. He wasn't even the same type of character L'Etoile wrote.

 

 

And to think... my iconic memory of ME2 is him and Jack helping fight the Collectors... the balcony fall and the ship leap and Legion saving my ass.

[The Elder King]

I reall reading he was back in Bioware/EA. Though I'm probably wrong.

[straykat]

I reall reading he was back in Bioware/EA. Though I'm probably wrong.

 

He did some MOBA for EA. His linkedin says he's at Wizards of the Coast now.

 

edit: It was Dawngate. It never panned out.

[The Elder King]

He did some MOBA for EA. His linkedin says he's at Wizards of the Coast now.

 

edit: It was Dawngate. It never panned out.

Ah, understood. Thanks for the clarification,

[Seraphim24]

It's pretty unusual to think of the heads or CEOs or whatever being at the heart of the creative process, but quite honestly that's exactly how my guess on the situation with ME. I mean sure, all kinds of people had important roles, but just my random speculation is Muzyka and Zeschuk were kind of super influential in various ways.

 

The next most influential would of been Casey Hudson, my guess, anyway.