Seems you confuse your unability to discriminate between obvious BS and verisimilitude with a lack of difference between them.
I haven't played through all of it obviously but of all the bad things there are just as many good things. Awesome character dialogue, cool bossfights, horses,etc. Nothing is perfect but it's a step in the right direction.
A step in the right direction? Huh, no, not really. I mean, Warden Alistair was a good thing about DAI, but otherwise; it's a game full of empty sidequests that you have to do. It's really quite boring in all honesty.
In my (never humble opinion) the last two Bioware games that lived up to the hype were Mass I and DA:O. Since then they seems to have staggered from one near miss to the next. None of them bad enough to kill off the series but poor enough to disappoint long time fans. Problem is where else are you going to go for these kinds of character/companion stories. They are the only studio that really does this type of thing and does it well. No one else seems to either want to or be able to write secondary characters that you come to love (cried like a baby when Morton dies). So while the over all stories will probably tend to be trite and the game play meh. Most of us will still play them till we have teased out every conversational option and them replay them for those little moments when Varric calls Merril "Daisy" and we find out that our no nonsense Dwarf has been protecting her from herself or we get to consummate our Bro-mance with Garris on top of the Citadel. Heck no one writes even really minor characters with the love and attention that Bioware does - to the point where I was literally stalking a couple of Krogan in shopping district of ME:2 to hear what they were going to say next.
So while I'm not "hyped' for the game - I will still buy it and even if the game play is meh - I'll still play the crap out of it.
Yeah, its too bad we unlikely again get the best of both worlds.
The premise is wrong. The basic physical science underlying AI needn't be like brain architecture at all, because AI is a different kind of information processing problem. That's the very nature of AI, and the reason why we rely on it. It's not an attempt to clone the human mind: it's an attempt to solve discrete information processing problems. If the goal is to clone a human mind it might be that we use the same architecture - but that's only true if there is only one architecture that can support a mind we recognize as human. Even that is a leap at present.
On an analytical level this premise assumes that there's only one way to design minds - but that's an absolutely radical assumption. It may well be true - but there's no evidence for it (and our own information processing theories suggest the opposite).
As for Integrated Information Theory, there are a lot of issues. The basic analytical problem is that it takes consciousness for granted. It doesn't help us explain why conscious exist because it's an underlying premise of the system that it exists. This is helpful for humans - we know we are conscious (without jumping into solipsism or radical scepticism). This is not helpful for machine intelligence at all. Anyway, to discuss this further would be to launch into a fun intellectual debate that may be outside this thread but I'm game for it.
IIT theory doesn't predict consciousness - it assumes it and tries to create a theory around its existence. A lot of it is based on entrenched assumptions about human neural architecture. But AI is about information processing - it's an entirely different way of approaching human cognition. Just assuming phenomenology of consciousness leads to total gibberish.
This is why I referenced E'Toile in this thread, and addressing the thread title, why I wish he was still around. Distributed consciousness and Thane addressing things like solipsism I find fascinating, and a good break from "what am I going to kill next".
This and other posts about AI's, IIT, and some of the philosophy behind the concepts even more so..
I miss him too, even if he probably wouldn't have changed the endings. I think him and Kindregan were the best writers. Even if the endings remained the same, both the Geth and Krogan would have been cooler.. not to mention all of their characters.
So we gonna hate DAI because of the side quests? I'll admit DLC wasn't great, they could learn something from the Witcher in that department, but it seemed pretty cool with story and characters.A step in the right direction? Huh, no, not really. I mean, Warden Alistair was a good thing about DAI, but otherwise; it's a game full of empty sidequests that you have to do. It's really quite boring in all honesty.
So we gonna hate DAI because of the side quests?
It's as good a reason as any.
But I don't really hate it myself. I can't even put my finger on what it is I dislike, other than it's boring.
So we gonna hate DAI because of the side quests? I'll admit DLC wasn't great, they could learn something from the Witcher in that department, but it seemed pretty cool with story and characters.
Pretty much what Kat has stated.
I'm also one of those people who liked DAI. And sure there is a lot not to like about it. Overall, I have enjoyed it. It was also fun to be part of the beta patch testers for a while. Anyway, back to MEA.
Each new title in the ME franchise has improvements, however some things that some liked were lost. It is hard to satisfy both. I can only assume that MEA won't be different in that regard. Many have voiced their opinions and critique in the past. By now I don't think much will be changed to what they have now.
I'm not hyped (which I think is silly anyway), but I like to see what MEA has in store for us. I don't blindly endorse everything they'll do, because I think that as a customer being skeptical is a good approach to a commercial product's life cycle.
I'm also one of those people who liked DAI. And sure there is a lot not to like about it. Overall, I have enjoyed it. It was also fun to be part of the beta patch testers for a while. Anyway, back to MEA.
Each new title in the ME franchise has improvements, however some things that some liked were lost. It is hard to satisfy both. I can only assume that MEA won't be different in that regard. Many have voiced their opinions and critique in the past. By now I don't think much will be changed to what they have now.
I'm not hyped (which I think is silly anyway), but I like to see what MEA has in store for us. I don't blindly endorse everything they'll do, because I think that as a customer being skeptical is a good approach to a commercial product's life cycle.
I really disagree.. I could have used an ME3 that was more like ME2 and been happy.
The combat was cooler and all that, but still. It wasn't nearly the improvement that just makes me forget about the old one. As I did with ME1 > ME2.
Same goes for DAI.. for all it's improvements to environment, I'd still take the damn copy/paste crap of DA2. Because they didn't copy/paste the protagonist. The whole game is practically an origin story. I value this more than bells and whistles. And DAO wasn't shabby either, for the multiple origins.. People still talk about those fondly to this day. They really shape the experience. DAI is soulless in comparison.. and it's origin is more like a TES game (random prisoner). Without any of plusses of their games.
I really disagree.. I could have used an ME3 that was more like ME2 and been happy.
The combat was cooler and all that, but still. It wasn't nearly the improvement that just makes me forget about the old one. As I did with ME1 > ME2.
Same goes for DAI.. for all it's improvements to environment, I'd still take the damn copy/paste crap of DA2. Because they didn't copy/paste the protagonist. The whole game is practically an origin story. I value this more than bells and whistles. And DAO wasn't shabby either, for the multiple origins.. People still talk about those fondly to this day. They really shape the experience.
I think that (not including combat mechanics) ME1 > ME3 (up until Marauder Shields) > ME2. Some, like you, will disagree with me. Does that invalidate the rest of what I wrote? Just curious, though.
Edit: Let me be more precise. After each title the team got feedback and based on that made their changes. Those were implemented. So there is progression, whether you and I like those changes or not.
I miss him too, even if he probably wouldn't have changed the endings. I think him and Kindregan were the best writers. Even if the endings remained the same, both the Geth and Krogan would have been cooler.. not to mention all of their characters.
I think that (not including combat mechanics) ME1 > ME3 (up until Marauder Shields) > ME2. Some, like you, will disagree with me. Does that invalidate the rest of what I wrote? Just curious, though.
I don't want to invalidate anything of yours actually.. I'm just sort of musing. It's not even that I think DAI is a terrible game per se. It's something else.. Bioware used to be my go to... I could always count on them on a rainy day, and play their games multiple times. DAI took that away from me. lol. It's too boring for me to care about... and I'm finding I don't care about the setting as much now either. I really wish that wasn't the case.
As for ME2, I just missed all the characters and urban feel... There's something about it that makes me feel the most Spectre-like... even if I'm not a Spectre. There's a casual-ness about it, even though it's part of an epic story. I miss that and it's squad in 3. I would have taken a little more of it over the improved combat anyday.
Luckily, Bioware smartened up a little and made the Citadel DLC (and Omega). It kind of brought back some of that feel. Albeit in a new way.
I don't want to invalidate anything of yours actually.. I'm just sort of musing. It's not even that I think DAI is a terrible game per se. It's something else.. Bioware used to be my go to... I could always count on them on a rainy day, and play their games multiple times. DAI took that away from me. lol. It's too boring for me to care about... and I'm finding I don't care about the setting as much now either. I really wish that wasn't the case.
As for ME2, I just missed all the characters and urban feel... There's something about it that makes me feel the most Spectre-like... even if I'm not a Spectre. There's a casual-ness about it, even though it's part of an epic story. I miss that and it's squad in 3. I would have taken a little more of it over the improved combat anyday.
Luckily, Bioware smartened up a little and made the Citadel DLC (and Omega). It kind of brought back some of that feel. Albeit in a new way.
I've edited that post with the following: "Let me be more precise. After each title the team got feedback and based on that made their changes. Those were implemented. So there is progression, whether you and I like those changes or not." I didn't see your response at the time, though.
As for ME2: I didn't like the start of the game, the story, and the ending. Especially everything Cerberus. I didn't feel like a spectre at all. No council support. The VS made a 180 degree turn. It still had enough improvements to make me replay it.
The start of ME3 was odd as well, but had to be vague like that, because not everyone played the DLCs. Somehow I was a spectre again, who had to obey the military. I never understood that part. But again ME3 made improvements. Not only in combat mechanics, but also in the story. Enough said about the end, though. That sure was a mess.
I was able to see the route that they have taken. However, I didn't like some of it.
I'm with you there. The whole premise of ME2, the beginning, etc.. it's absurd.
Yet it remains my favorite. Go figure. 
I guess it just captures what I want out of a Mass Effect game the most. The urban thing as I mentioned. Just being a dirty space cop.
Which brings me to MEA... I doubt think it'll tap into that fantasy either. The colonial/Andromeda thing doesn't sound conducive to it. It's playing into some other fantasy, which I never had.
I think that (not including combat mechanics) ME1 > ME3 (up until Marauder Shields) > ME2. Some, like you, will disagree with me. Does that invalidate the rest of what I wrote? Just curious, though.
Edit: Let me be more precise. After each title the team got feedback and based on that made their changes. Those were implemented. So there is progression, whether you and I like those changes or not.
Marauder Shields? You didnt like the epic endboss of the trilogy? 
Marauder Shields? You didnt like the epic endboss of the trilogy?
I think the Ark Initiative captured someone like our hero. All that we had to do to avoid the reapers, is to let someone follow him. We then just needed to go in the opposite direction. That's how we got in Andromeda. 
The start of ME3 was odd as well, but had to be vague like that, because not everyone played the DLCs. Somehow I was a spectre again, who had to obey the military. I never understood that part.
This is something i've noticed yet I don't necessarily know why.
The Mass Effect trilogy has been one of the more consistent trilogies in terms of quality (outside of ME3s hiccups) around in recent years yet for some reason the fanbase seems to have almost zero hope for Andromeda.
Franchises like Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, Witcher, Deus Ex still manage to conjure up hype yet they are way less consistent than the Mass Effect trilogy, what gives?
Is it modern Bioware or the game series itself? I would understand fears with Modern Bioware but not the game series itself, Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 are all legitimately fantastic games.
I look forward to MEA but I'm not hyped for it because it may turn out to be a terrible experience. Actually, my anticipation waned since hearing nothing more than promises of mighty exploration and how big the planets will be et al. I've heard nothing about the story except what seems to be a regurgitation of ME1 and Reapers. I also think that after DAI BW will just sanitize the living crap out of whatever story they tell from now on anyways so I'm not looking for MEA to give me a meaty world to chew on. However, I may still enjoy it. I'll just wait until I actually play it to get excited about it.
ME was one of the best sci-fi stories EVER told. Period.
Uh...
I wonder whether that massive estimation of the trilogy and the hype resulting from it will lead to a corresponding level of disappointment or make the game enjoyable no matter what?
Marauder Shields? You didnt like the epic endboss of the trilogy?
Isn't that just the logic of the situation, same as ME2? It's not like it makes sense for Shepard to blow off the Priority missions, and everything else is optional.
This is the logic of the situation...
You may get your spectre status back in ME2, but you probably lost it at the start of ME3 anyway, because reasons. Taking orders from Anderson and Hackett only makes sense after you got your military rank back and up until Shepard is reinstated as a spectre. Becoming a spectre again in ME3 breaks any military ties. Having a military rank is then useless and merely cosmetic. Military orders wouldn't have any meaning.
Retour en haut