82210 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

SE JN wrote...

jtav wrote...

The problem is not so much Good is Dumb as Dumb IS Good. Shepard encapsulates everything I hate in heroes. There's no problem in ME that can't be solved by a liberal application of gunfire or a few pithy lines. Science? Infinitely more likely to create a problem than solve it. Politics? Useless. All we need is a charismatic leader who can kill things real good (sic) and our problems are gone. Give me a hero like Mordin or Miranda. But no. It's force and only force that carries the day. And corrupt oligarchies like the Council carry the day.

I hate the worldview espoused in Mass Effect. I want that world to burn. I'm only here for Miranda, Mordin, and Legion.

Guess I'm going to just have to disagree.  Force is sometimes all "Good" has.  It was gunfire that took out Osama bin Laden, it was gunfire that liberated Europe from the **** regime.  I don't think it matters what they use, a hero, to me, is someone who risks something for the betterment of others.  And Shepard isn't the infallible cliche hero I think you're arguing them to be here.  Arrival and the more distressing Suicide Missions, to me, kind of prove that.  There were no heroic forces or lines to stop the Batarian colony from being destroyed.  There is nothing Shep can say that would bring back the Virmire casualty.  Saving hostages leads to Balik (or whateverhisname is, lol) getting away.  Heck, the Reapers might even be more than a little succesful by the time ME3's credits roll.

That said, the Council is filled with idiots, and I'm totally on board with their comeuppance.

The problem isn't that gunfire and pithy lines carry the day, that's just how some things are. It's that science and politics do not carry any positive weight as a rule. Everything that requires you do to be intelligent, discerning and slow to judge ends in a physical, political or moral disaster. I'm getting a decidedly anti-intellectual vibe from Mass Effect, and I hate that beyond all measure. "A big gun and a confident attitude", as Kaidan says in ME1, are apparently all you need to win. It feeds the prevailing attitude in some circles that, as Asimov put it, "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".

I find this implied stance of "dumb is good" so insulting that I'd rather root for the antagonists, if they're only intelligent. So far, Miranda and Mordin (and Kate Bowman) have saved me from becoming a complete cynic. How it will turn out in ME3 depends on what options the game gives me.

When playing the games and following the story, I often feel somewhat like this:

For I am a soldier, though battle I abhor,
I wage my war with ignorance as through the void I soar.
I wear my heart out on my sleeve my dreams within my soul,
With wisdom I must lead these men as endless night unfolds.
-- from "The Hero's Song", by Julia Ecklar

The twist is that the ME universe seems determined to prove that, at least as far as Shepard is concerned, ignorance is desirable and knowledge detrimental to your health, your morality or the outcomes of your decisions, so that I have a very hard time imagining my Shepard as knowledgable and intelligent. But refuse to succumb to that dogma. In my eyes, wilful ignorance is the main flaw of the human species, and I applaud anyone who works to overcome it. That includes Miranda, but also TIM.

So the main reason my Shepard becomes more and more Renegade is not that I like the Renegade path so much more, but that I absolutely despise the Paragon path's attitude of "Don't think too much, just follow your heart and everything will be OK."

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 novembre 2011 - 08:50 .

[alxboss78]

@ieldra... and jtav

I must be playing a very different game than you guys otherwise i can not explain this. Where do you guys find all this stuff you mention?? Isn't Shepard the one who (by mistake admitedly) found out about the reapers? Isn't he the one yelling to not be ignorant (Council) and to learn their foes? A paragon Shepard does that. Also big guns?? A paragon Shepard in most dialogue options you are given solves the problems by diggin deeper KNOWING more about a situation and solving it by either convincing someone or offering a solution! That's a significant part of the game and one that is absent from most otehr games! But other than that you are playing a role-playing game that is mostly a Shooter! What did you expect would be the prevailing factor of gameplay??

Also your character is a soldier. So the story is told through this filter. Soldiers are men of action and since you're playing a game (and scientific research would be hard to include in the game play in an interesting way i imagine) you will be required to take action and be decisive.

Also for every Kaidan (with the quip you mentioned) there is a Liara (who is a researcher), for every Grunt or Zaeed there is a Mirand or Mordin.

What i'm saying is taking into account all the above i'd say the game goes into sufficient lengths to not be criticised of being dumb, or anti-intellectual or all about guns and killing things...

It's not a matter of good being brawns and muscle and evil being smart... that's a very simplified and immature take on the game in my opinion...

[Arijharn]

Heh, you can't really finish ME2 satisfactorily if you don't put the science behind it...

[Ieldra]

@alxboss:
Here are examples of what I'm talking about:

(1) Shepard not spending one second to ask how they pulled off that miracle of bringing him back from the dead, just but blithely accepting it as if it was nothing special

(2) Shepard not spending one second to regret the knowledge lost when he's starting the preparations to blow the CB up before TIM shows up. And then his follow-up "I'll blow this place sky-high". Ugh. the interesting thing is Shepard does say "I hate to lose this thing. We need to know all we can about the Reapers." at the derelict Reaper. Why not say the same about the CB?

(3) Scientific research we come into direct contact with either being shown in the worst possible light or not at all. Its bad side gets overblown beyond all plausibility right into the territory of incompetence and gets drastic depiction, while the good side is just mentioned and not shown at all. Case in question: the information that Reaper technology has been used for good in EDI and that this has actually saved the mission is only available on request and easily overlooked, while Overlord's research is shoved into our faces as blatantly as possible.

(4) The decision in Tali's trial being purely motivated by empathy for Tali, where it should be, at least as much, about the bigger question of whether the Admiralty Board should know what happened on the Alarei. And then they have the gall to make a perfectly Paragon decision - giving over the evidence - into a Renegade decision because they envisioned it having bad consequences. Someone at Bioware deserves a hit on the head for that alone.

Tbh, the Renegade side isn't better with its often angry stance, it's only preferable because it isn't a fairy-tale path. It's all a problem of your decisions being depicted as impulse-driven where they shouldn't be. The main problem is this: I do not take Paragon actions because I of empathy or because they feel like the right thing to do, and I do not take Renegade decisions because I am angry or a human supremacist. As a rule, anyway. I take either decision because I think, after careful deliberation, that they are the best considering the circumstances, influenced by my Shepard's character and motivations. Where I do not, as in the decision about the Rachni queen, I berate myself occasionally for letting my emotions get the better of me. Yet, the game consistently depicts my decisions as being impulse-driven, which many paraphrases on the dialogue wheel are a clear indication of. That, and the depiction of science, gives me that anti-intellectual vibe.

Edit:
Admittedly it's in some part just a presentation failure that is greatly mitigated if you start to look under the surface. Shepard's actual lines are often not nearly as bad as the paraphrase would suggest. and of course without Mordin's Seeker Swarm defense and without EDI's Reaper parts the mission would have failed. But I resent this one-sided presentation because it appears to rule many players' impression of the universe, and the examples above show instances where it's more than that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 novembre 2011 - 11:17 .

[aiDvEoN]

Ieldra2 wrote...
(4) The decision in Tali's trial being purely motivated by empathy for Tali, where it should be, at least as much, about the bigger question of whether the Admiralty Board should know what happened on the Alarei. And then they have the gall to make a perfectly Paragon decision - giving over the evidence - into a Renegade decision because they envisioned it having bad consequences. Someone at Bioware deserves a hit on the head for that alone.

Apologies to all the Miri fans for the forthcoming OT diversion, but I've seen Ieldra2 bring this up before, and I really can't stay quiet any longer.

First up, its a loyalty mission.  That means Tali is the mission, or did you miss the part where Jacob stated after Horizon that we need to clear out everyone's baggage and get them focused on the mission?  Secondly, if the admirals want to know what happened on the Alarei, they can hop a shuttle and take a look for themselves.  Not handing over the evidence means nothing more than simply not publically outing him, it doesn't cause the Alarei to disappear into the ether.  Rael's research is all there still; Daro'Xen didn't send her gloriously 'bwa-ha-ha' email about finding Rael's recipe for chilli con carne.  And you can tell Han'Gerrel what happened anyway.

And what colour is the sky where revealing the evidence is a paragon decision?  Pouring kerosene on a political fire, betraying the trust of a young woman who's had her entire world ripped out from under her, and publicly disgracing a leader and hero?

I now return you to your scheduled programming

Modifié par aiDvEoN, 01 novembre 2011 - 12:43 .

[flemm]

jtav wrote...

I totally agree with you. She's fantastic in combat. You get a little of her 2IC status in the Jack, Grunt, and Legion debriefings, but not enough.

Th SM itself is really the best for 2IC type stuff. More would certainly be good, though.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Where I do not, as in the decision about the Rachni queen, I berate myself occasionally for letting my emotions get the better of me.

I guess I don't fully understand why you feel so strongly on this point. Not as far as real life decisions are concerned, I have no trouble seeing why, philosophically, you would feel that emotion and intuition are unreliable guides for big strategical decisions in real life.

But the game is not trying to mimic reality in this area (or really any other area).The whole point, really, as CrutchCricket pointed out earlier, is precisely that it is not a reality simulator, i.e. you get to make rash, impulsive decisions and that's ok, because it's a game.

Modifié par flemm, 01 novembre 2011 - 12:43 .

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
(1) Shepard not spending one second to ask how they pulled off that miracle of bringing him back from the dead, just but blithely accepting it as if it was nothing special

He did. He asked Miranda almost as soon as he met her "I'd like to know more about the Lazarus Project from the person in charge." She shot him down and there was no time to ask Mordin to perform a full body exam during the mission.
You can argue that after he gains Miranda's trust, Shepard could have asked again. Fair enough but the point still stands, Shepard did ask about his resurrection.

(2) Shepard not spending one second to regret the knowledge lost when he's starting the preparations to blow the CB up before TIM shows up. And then his follow-up "I'll blow this place sky-high". Ugh. the interesting thing is Shepard does say "I hate to lose this thing. We need to know all we can about the Reapers." at the derelict Reaper. Why not say the same about the CB?

C'mon, do you really want to start a "Should the Collector Base be destroyed" debate here?
Let's just say that Shepard did not have time to spend regretting the knowledge lost while his squad is still fighting.

Instead, you could talk about how, on the Normandy, all squadmates support destroying the base when they didn't before.

(3) Scientific research we come into direct contact with either being shown in the worst possible light or not at all. Its bad side gets overblown beyond all plausibility right into the territory of incompetence and gets drastic depiction, while the good side is just mentioned and not shown at all. Case in question: the information that Reaper technology has been used for good in EDI and that this has actually saved the mission is only available on request and easily overlooked, while Overlord's research is shoved into our faces as blatantly as possible.

Fair enough but there are other examples where science is what "saved the day", Mordin's countermeasures and the Thanix Cannon (more reaper tec) for example, and they even managed to invert a trope with Legion and it's geth.

Personally, I think that politics are what got the short end of the stick on ME. Politicians are depicted as backstabbers (Udina) and idiots (The Council) while the military seems to be the only ones capable of solving the galaxy's problems.
Yes folks, you heard it right. Mass Effect promotes fascism.

This is why I'm still hoping that the Council does believe in the Reapers and just was unwilling to share their plans with a Cerberus agent and why I thank God for ambassador Goyle.

(4) The decision in Tali's trial being purely motivated by empathy for Tali, where it should be, at least as much, about the bigger question of whether the Admiralty Board should know what happened on the Alarei. And then they have the gall to make a perfectly Paragon decision - giving over the evidence - into a Renegade decision because they envisioned it having bad consequences. Someone at Bioware deserves a hit on the head for that alone.

Since people tend to get too caught up in doing what's Paragon and vice-versa, I am of the opinion that major decisions should be on neutral sides on the dialogue wheel.
However, you can't say that the decision on Tali's trial is motivated solely by empathy for her since you can elaborate somewhat on why Shepard made that call back on the Normandy and you can encourage the Quarians to use the data.

Tbh, the Renegade side isn't better with its often angry stance, it's only preferable because it isn't a fairy-tale path. It's all a problem of your decisions being depicted as impulse-driven where they shouldn't be.

Being impulse driven does not make it a fairy-tale. The decisions of a Paragon Shepard carry consequences, just like the Renegade’s. Let Balak go to save 3 people but he will still be at large in ME2. Give Bathia his wife’s body back but the Alliance has trouble recruiting.
That’s not to say that Renegades don’t get the short end of the stick on many major choices (there should have been a human lead Council in ME2, giving Veetor to Cerberus should have yielded more information) but I’m willing o wait until ME3 to see what happens. Will there be resentment towards Shepard in Alliance Space because of him saving the Council? Will the Rachni queen be indoctrinated?
The real problem, IMO, is that ME2 was sorely lacking in Paragade decisions and by that I mean, pick a Renegade option and then give a Paragon reason or vice versa.
Shepard’s line about letting Kate’s face keep him awake at night so that other humans can sleep safely is still one of my favorites from ME1 and when you compare it with lines like “I won’t let fear compromise who I am”… I almost always destroy the base but that was certainly not the explanation I wanted to give.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 novembre 2011 - 01:27 .

[CrutchCricket]

I was previously arguing from a simple game experience perspective but if that is not satisfactory I can go deeper. The suggestion that the game favors ignorance has also piqued my debating instinct. If you want the quick version I completely disagree.

Ieldra2 wrote...
(1) Shepard not spending one second to ask how they pulled off that miracle of bringing him back from the dead, just but blithely accepting it as if it was nothing special

On my playthroughs (even subsequent ones where I know all the information) I still pick all the "Investigate" options of every dialogue, even if they're redundant. The fact that these investigative options are there at all should be telling. And on the specifics of Lazarus, my Shep always checks every computer log on the station, even though he's in a criticial situation, has no idea who any of the people at his back are etc. Simple headcannon- he wakes up under fire, he's gotta get out but he's pulling up every unguarded terminal he can find in an effor to piece together what happened to him. He grills Jacob for as much as he knows. He would grill Miranda too, except she's not as talkative (something you and others have praised in the past). Why doesn't he ask more than he does? I would say priorities. After he learns its Cerberus he's dealing with and he's being taken to their leader, he's willing to wait until he's face to face with TIM to get answers. Only the meeting isn't what he expected. The point here is you are given some option to investigate and beyond that you can easily come to the conclusion that other priorties take over namely stopping the Collectors.

(2) Shepard not spending one second to regret the knowledge lost when he's starting the preparations to blow the CB up before TIM shows up. And then his follow-up "I'll blow this place sky-high". Ugh. the interesting thing is Shepard does say "I hate to lose this thing. We need to know all we can about the Reapers." at the derelict Reaper. Why not say the same about the CB?

We've been over this, regarding tech in the base. I stick to that argument.

(3) Scientific research we come into direct contact with either being shown in the worst possible light or not at all. Its bad side gets overblown beyond all plausibility right into the territory of incompetence and gets drastic depiction, while the good side is just mentioned and not shown at all. Case in question: the information that Reaper technology has been used for good in EDI and that this has actually saved the mission is only available on request and easily overlooked, while Overlord's research is shoved into our faces as blatantly as possible.

The fact that EDI exists and is an example of beneficial AI research
serves to directly balance averse effects of Overlord. And what other
overt examples are there? Legion and the True Geth- a force that is feared and misunderstood sure, but not by Shepard and co. Not anymore. The quarians creating the geth may be what ends up saving us all from the Reapers as they are an unforseen consequence the Reapers never predicted (and they have the numbers to make a difference as well). Yes the quarians fear/hate/want to control them. Yes everyone else blames quarians for unleashing the geth menace. Yet ME2 shows us they're wrong. How is this communicating that science is bad? It's actually communicating the exact opposite. Who cares if the rest of the galaxy is derping on this now. Shepard (and by extension you) is about to show them they're wrong. Notice also that these examples all revolve around AI. What other scientific reaserch do we see in Mass Effect? It's all applied phlebotinum that everyone takes for granted and doesn't question and surprise, suprise, this turns out to be the root of all their problems. If anything, Mass Effect is anti-ignorance, blatantly showing you the dangers of complacency and fear of new ideas.

(4) The decision in Tali's trial being purely motivated by empathy for Tali, where it should be, at least as much, about the bigger question of whether the Admiralty Board should know what happened on the Alarei. And then they have the gall to make a perfectly Paragon decision - giving over the evidence - into a Renegade decision because they envisioned it having bad consequences. Someone at Bioware deserves a hit on the head for that alone.

I defer to idDvEoN for this one. I agree completely and emphasize the part where you throw their political system in disarray, in case you're not particularly moved by Tali's plight.

Yet, the game consistently depicts my decisions as being impulse-driven, which many paraphrases on the dialogue wheel are a clear indication of. That, and the depiction of science, gives me that anti-intellectual vibe.

I don't think the game does. I think you merely interpret it this way. It's not perfect, presentation failure may play a part. But even if the game pushes you towards that edge I don't think it pushes you over.

All that aside I think my initial question still stands- what do you want to get out of this game?

Edit-Damn it JB you beat me to it<_< We have some differing points however I very much agree with this:

MisterJB wrote...
The real problem, IMO, is that ME2 was
sorely lacking in Paragade decisions and by that I mean, pick a Renegade
option and then give a Paragon reason or vice versa.

Forcing me to always pick paragon or renegade is still a sore spot. And like with most "moral choice" systems it's either "save kitties- good" or "kill kitties, ****** on them and shove them in the face of a crying child-bad". Ok maybe not really, but there's hardly ever something in between, a good middle ground, a place of moderation- and one that is as effective if not more, than the extreme options.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 01 novembre 2011 - 01:44 .

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Where I do not, as in the decision about the Rachni queen, I berate myself occasionally for letting my emotions get the better of me.

I guess I don't fully understand why you feel so strongly on this point. Not as far as real life decisions are concerned, I have no trouble seeing why, philosophically, you would feel that emotion and intuition are unreliable guides for big strategical decisions in real life.

But the game is not trying to mimic reality in this area (or really any other area).The whole point, really, as CrutchCricket pointed out earlier, is precisely that it is not a reality simulator, i.e. you get to make rash, impulsive decisions and that's ok, because it's a game.

I feel so strongly because when I immerse myself in the story, it's real for me. I cannot accept a universe as real - even as fictional reality - which is so fundamentally different from the real one that impulsive decisions by fiat of providence never backfire. My Shepards decided to let the Rachni queen go because of empathy. That's ok for them, really, they're not robots - but they are also keenly aware that this sentimentality might be considered a character flaw. If the decision turns out to be for the best in the end, that's definitely luck and not Shepard's merit.

Which is OK for one decision. Heroes are lucky more often than not. But a persisent pattern of "follow your heart and everything will be OK" appears fundamentally wrong to me. In reality, it's a delusion, and seeing it appear so consistently in fiction not only feeds that delusion, but it makes the whole fictional universe implode because suspension of disbelief cannot be upheld

You're saying that the game does not mimic reality in they way the consequences of impulsive decisions are depicted. That's right. As opposed to you, however, I claim that it should mimic this aspect of reality if there's to be any meaning to the stories told. If it doesn't do that, it becomes just another piece of meaningless drivel reinforcing comfortable delusions that shouldn't exist in the first place.

This was a long OT excursion. I hope I can balance this by posting one of my favorite Miranda pictures.

[Ieldra]

[quote]CrutchCricket wrote...
I don't think the game does. I think you merely interpret it this way. It's not perfect, presentation failure may play a part. But even if the game pushes you towards that edge I don't think it pushes you over.[/quote]
If it pushed me over, I wouldn't be playing it. So...you're right in that. I say, however, that the presentation failure I mentioned serves to hammer home, with the utmost brutality, a kind of morality I often disgree with and on occasion, hate.

[quote]All that aside I think my initial question still stands- what do you want to get out of this game?[/quote]
I want to play a protagonist I can identify with, in a world I can believe in within the constraints of its altered physics. Most notably, I want the world to be interpretable as being devoid of the supernatural. The Paragon favoritism makes that really hard.

[quote]Edit-Damn it JB you beat me to it<_< We have some differing points however I very much agree with this:
[quote]MisterJB wrote...
The real problem, IMO, is that ME2 was sorely lacking in Paragade decisions and by that I mean, pick a Renegade option and then give a Paragon reason or vice versa.
[/quote]
Forcing me to always pick paragon or renegade is still a sore spot. And like with most "moral choice" systems it's either "save kitties- good" or "kill kitties, ****** on them and shove them in the face of a crying child-bad". Ok maybe not really, but there's hardly ever something in between, a good middle ground, a place of moderation- and one that is as effective if not more, than the extreme options.[/quote][/quote]
I agree with this.

I don't have the energy to reply in detail to your other points now. Let's say you have a point here and there, but that the positive aspects tend to get overshadowed by the presentation. More perhaps later.

And to get back to Miranda (and Mordin): I like them because they represent a kind of thinking I can agree with. I'd hate to see that change in ME3. And I wish the game gave me better options to play a Shepard who thinks along the same lines. Instead, I have the choice between a babe and a dick. OK, that's an exaggeration, but you get what I mean. I want more meaningful middle options.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 novembre 2011 - 02:15 .

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Instead, I have the choice between a babe and a dick. OK, that's an exaggeration, but you get what I mean. I want more meaningful middle options.

This made me wonder what would happen if you played through selecting only the middle options- what kind of Shepard would result. An indifferent one?

I'm also thinking deciding a course of action shouldn't always be top or bottom (ie paragon or renegade) but rather left and right. I think that would go a long way towards mitigating some of your concerns by simply removing the moral connotations.

Anyway back to Miranda- I'd post a pic but I don't have amazing ones and the one time I tried it scaled it down for some reason. But I was playing through Illium the other night, doing the Liara missions. I had Miranda with me. Sadly the squad doesn't react in her office but I'm wondering what she's thinking during those conversations, particularly when the conversation turns to how Liara handed Shepard over to Cerberus. Do you think Miranda knew about that? Or was she brought in afterwards. What does she make of all this?

[jtav]

Oh, she knows. She was Liara's handler in Redemption. Hence why I have such a hard time romancing both.

[Ieldra]

CrutchCricket wrote...
I'm also thinking deciding a course of action shouldn't always be top or bottom (ie paragon or renegade) but rather left and right. I think that would go a long way towards mitigating some of your concerns by simply removing the moral connotations.

That might help, yes.

Anyway back to Miranda- I'd post a pic but I don't have amazing ones and the one time I tried it scaled it down for some reason. But I was playing through Illium the other night, doing the Liara missions. I had Miranda with me. Sadly the squad doesn't react in her office but I'm wondering what she's thinking during those conversations, particularly when the conversation turns to how Liara handed Shepard over to Cerberus. Do you think Miranda knew about that? Or was she brought in afterwards. What does she make of all this?

Haven't you read - or heard about -  ME:Redemption (the comic book)? Miranda knows all about it, since she's been instrumental in the whole plot. She met Liara, IIRC even set her on the track to get Shepard's body back, and she was the one to whom it was given. And then she doesn't even acknowledge Liara when they re-meet. You could rationalize it as not wanting to reveal her part,  but after Liara tells Shepard Miranda should comment. That she doesn't has been a frequently-voiced source of disappointment.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 novembre 2011 - 02:39 .

[jtav]

Especially by me, because it makes me think poorly of a romanced Miranda if Shepard also romanced Liara. I hang out with Liara fans, and the #1 reason given for cheating was not understanding why she was distant. Miranda could resolve that, but doesn't. Conversely, Redemption is why I romantically pair the two of them so often. Miranda is kinder in the closing pages than I'd normally give her credit for and I think she'd admire Liara's willingness to go above and beyond for loved ones.

[CrutchCricket]

I have not read Redemption (but have heard of it). I've only played the games. I'll see what I can do about getting a copy.
So even though she stays silent during that encounter what is she thinking?

[diamondedge]

I mean. I want more meaningful middle options.

F*ck that, I am one of the people that severely dislike the dialogue system because it's freaking meaningless and if you want to be at least partly sucessefull player you have to either extreme, which naturally sucks.

What I want - are just choices. There doesn't have to be immediate consequence to what we do, it doesn't necessarily have to be a "good" or "bad" decision, especially because the reasons given in the game are often outrigh retarded. Like the Collector base. That crap "I won't sacrifice our humanity blah blah?" Stupid. I destroyed the base simply to spite TIM who pissed me off royally, why does a game force me into certain moral stand on how I want to approach things? It's same as not giving me a choice in the matter so in all honesty  the "choices" have no real meaning at all, becasue the game is doing it for it's own reasons, not my own.

I too, would like more shades of grey. It makes everything so much more interesting. I want options without knowing "this one is gonna make my blue bar go up, which I need to keep Miranda and Jack on my crew, so yeah". <_<
WITCHEEEERRRR!

Modifié par diamondedge, 01 novembre 2011 - 03:02 .

[naledgeborn]

jtav wrote...

Especially by me, because it makes me think poorly of a romanced Miranda if Shepard also romanced Liara. I hang out with Liara fans, and the #1 reason given for cheating was not understanding why she was distant. Miranda could resolve that, but doesn't. Conversely, Redemption is why I romantically pair the two of them so often. Miranda is kinder in the closing pages than I'd normally give her credit for and I think she'd admire Liara's willingness to go above and beyond for loved ones.

It's not cheating.  Don't know what else to type to put your mind at ease. I never had that problem because I was never into Liara and Ash got Virmired. So I guess it's just easier for me to RP a Shep who wasn't all about having "blue children" with her. Some people do have casual sex. Liara feeling obligated or obsessed with recovering Shepard's body can be chalked up to the connection via mind meldings.

Shepard and Miranda don't have to be sleezy to make it work. 

Modifié par naledgeborn, 01 novembre 2011 - 03:09 .

[Labrev]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(2) Shepard not spending one second to regret the knowledge lost when he's starting the preparations to blow the CB up before TIM shows up. And then his follow-up "I'll blow this place sky-high". Ugh. the interesting thing is Shepard does say "I hate to lose this thing. We need to know all we can about the Reapers." at the derelict Reaper. Why not say the same about the CB?

Unlike the CB, the Derelict Reaper is already being actively studied. The only focus of the O4 mission is to stop the Collectors, and destroying the base of operations simply presents the best (and only) known solution at the time.

Even for Shepard to say reflectively that "too bad, we could've used this thing" about the base is unfounded thinking, there'd have to be some plausibility to the idea of keeping it for study in the first place, which there isn't until TIM presents it (to which, Shepard can then supportively entertain the idea of it).

I'm not completely sure I agree with the post in general. Shepard/Kelly both praise EDI, even Joker eventually ends up defending her in response to criticism from Miranda, so that EDI is overlooked is not exactly correct. Overlord, to me, was a Cerberus thing. What do you expect from an organization with no accountability? Archer cut corners and did rash things. But the option of restarting the project is on the table at the end of the mission. A large part of the mission revolved around Mordin's scientific work helping counter the seekers.

Personally I never got the feeling that BW tries to push an anti-information/science vibe. I do get other ones, but I don't see this claim.

[Labrev]

diamondedge wrote...

I mean. I want more meaningful middle options.

F*ck that, I am one of the people that severely dislike the dialogue system because it's freaking meaningless and if you want to be at least partly sucessefull player you have to either extreme, which naturally sucks.

What I want - are just choices. There doesn't have to be immediate consequence to what we do, it doesn't necessarily have to be a "good" or "bad" decision, especially because the reasons given in the game are often outrigh retarded. Like the Collector base. That crap "I won't sacrifice our humanity blah blah?" Stupid. I destroyed the base simply to spite TIM who pissed me off royally, why does a game force me into certain moral stand on how I want to approach things? It's same as not giving me a choice in the matter so in all honesty  the "choices" have no real meaning at all, becasue the game is doing it for it's own reasons, not my own.

I too, would like more shades of grey. It makes everything so much more interesting. I want options without knowing "this one is gonna make my blue bar go up, which I need to keep Miranda and Jack on my crew, so yeah". <_<
WITCHEEEERRRR!

Co-sign.

There are lots of situations throughout the game that can be approached with 3-4 different solutions. But because BW insisted on differentiating everything in terms of Paragon and Renegade, it all gets pigeonholed into 2 choices, which are often contradictory with prior decisions within the same assigned morality.

They did actually utilize the other half of the dialogue wheel, one time, for decision-making (discounting special persuation-dialgoue) on Mordin's LM. You can keep the genophage data or destroy it, and there are two different rationale for encouraging him to do one or the other. So, you can keep the genophage data without explicitly telling him what he did was wrong, the krogan should be cured, blah blah blah...

That was a rarity though. If you want Shepard to be charming, make him a flaming idealist. If you want him to be intimidating, make him a total jerk-off.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I feel so strongly because when I immerse myself in the story, it's real for me. I cannot accept a universe as real - even as fictional reality - which is so fundamentally different from the real one that impulsive decisions by fiat of providence never backfire.

 
Well, I approach it differently, which probably explains why our perceptions of this issue are different. I don't need to suspend my disbelief to that extent in order to enjoy the story. That's not to say that I don't agree with a lot of what's been said by you and others about breaking up the Paragon/Renegade system and providing more interesting choices. That I tend to agree with. But not because that will help the game mimic reality better, just because that will make the whole fantasy experience more satisfying and diverse.

Ieldra2 wrote...
You're saying that the game does not mimic reality in they way the consequences of impulsive decisions are depicted. That's right. As opposed to you, however, I claim that it should mimic this aspect of reality if there's to be any meaning to the stories told. If it doesn't do that, it becomes just another piece of meaningless drivel reinforcing comfortable delusions that shouldn't exist in the first place.

I think this point raises a lot of big questions that we can't really hash out here in a thorough manner. I'm sure it's true that fiction in general does shape our view of reality, and always has, especialy fiction as a huge mass of culture going back to prehistoric times. That said, distinguishing between how fiction and fantasy works, as opposed to reality, is the responsability of the individual imo, not the fiction (or, in this case, the game). Or, I guess, if too many people have a hard time telling the difference, then it's the culture as a whole that's having a problem, or the educational system.

But I don't think a fantasy game that doesn't present itself as anything other than a (sci-fi based) fantasy game has to try to mimic the way reality works for fear of reinforcing people's delusions or whatever. That's not the game's responsibility.

Nice pic

Modifié par flemm, 01 novembre 2011 - 03:45 .

[CrutchCricket]

flemm wrote...
I think this point raises a lot of big questions that we can't really hash out here in a thorough manner. I'm sure it's true that fiction in general does shape our view of reality, and always has, especialy fiction as a huge mass of culture going back to prehistoric times. That said, distinguishing between how fiction and fantasy works, as opposed to reality, is the responsability of the individual imo, not the fiction (or, in this case, the game). Or, I guess, if too many people have a hard time telling the difference, then it's the culture as a whole that's having a problem, or the educational system.

But I don't think a fantasy game that doesn't present itself as anything other than a (sci-fi based) fantasy game has to try to mimic the way reality works for fear of reinforcing people's delusions or whatever. That's not the game's responsibility.

Boy is this ever true. There needs to be a clear divide between fiction and reality. I've personally experienced both sides of the coin. Treating reality as fiction tends to make reality disappointing (Reality is Unrealisitic) if you're invested in the fiction, and treating fiction as reality tends to ruin the fiction for...well reasons that have already been mentioned. That's why I kept asking what people want out of this. If you want to see real, look out a window.  But if you want to see things you can't or just plain don't see in real life, then you turn to fiction. That's escapism, that's why I'm here. I play Mass Effect because I want to see certain things I can't see in real life, and these things aren't just about spaceships and lasers.

Obviously there needs to be some overlap between reality and fiction to relate not just the two, but us as well. It's just that lines are drawn in different places depending on what people want. Anything can be believable if you can/are willing to support the suspended disbelief structure that makes it so.

[Ieldra]

CrutchCricket wrote...
Obviously there needs to be some overlap between reality and fiction to relate not just the two, but us as well. It's just that lines are drawn in different places depending on what people want. Anything can be believable if you can/are willing to support the suspended disbelief structure that makes it so.

Exactly. But what structure makes Paragon decisions always get the best results in the end? It's no in-universe structure, and that's why I cannot believe in it. Suppose this were a fantasy story where some godlike power influenced events according to its own notions of how people should act. I would have no problems accepting that world and playing in it on its own terms. In ME, there is no supporting structure for such a pattern, it's pure and simple author appeal of the most unsubtle sort.   

I have no problems with the physics of the ME universe, and even though I frequently complain about the biology of a certain species in the end it doesn't destroy the world for me. However, I want to play a Shepard who *occasionally* gets the best results from being coldly pragmatic against all empathy, instead of always getting the short end of the stick. The supporting structure of the universe, revealed by what other characters do in it - like Miranda and Mordin - and general knowledge about this universe, leads to me believe that this is possible. And yet the game doesn't let me. I think that's a flaw I can lay at the feet of a game that prides itself on making your decisions have consequences.

We're getting seriously OT here even though Miranda figures into the topic, especially for those like me who don't want her pragmatic streak to vanish and generally want as many aspects of her to go against the conventional (including but not limited to her attitude to her genetic engineering).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 novembre 2011 - 04:40 .

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
We're getting seriously OT here even though Miranda figures into the topic, especially for those like me who don't want her pragmatic streak to vanish and generally want as many aspects of her to go against the conventional (including but not limited to her attitude to her genetic engineering).

A bit off-topic, I guess, though I think the whole issue does play into why people tend to see Miranda so differently.

In the end, I guess we all just want a story and a character that pushes the right buttons for us and is fun for us. But fans differ wildly in their tastes.

In theory, the game's RP system should provide a lot of different types of players with satisfying outcomes, but the somwhat rigid Paragon/Renegade system tends to work against that. Earlier in the thread it was pointed out that ME3 will allow the player-character's overall charm/intimidate score to build up simultaneously, opening up both types of options later in the game. That should help a lot with flexibility, so I hope that's accurate.

Modifié par flemm, 01 novembre 2011 - 05:07 .

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Oh she is So Stunningly Beautiful in this pic:wub:.

Every time Miri smiles I'm in Heaven:wub:.

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 01 novembre 2011 - 05:10 .

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Exactly. But what structure makes Paragon decisions always get the best results in the end? It's no in-universe structure, and that's why I cannot believe in it. Suppose this were a fantasy story where some godlike power influenced events according to its own notions of how people should act. I would have no problems accepting that world and playing in it on its own terms. In ME, there is no supporting structure for such a pattern, it's pure and simple author appeal of the most unsubtle sort.   

I have no problems with the physics of the ME universe, and even though I frequently complain about the biology of a certain species in the end it doesn't destroy the world for me. However, I want to play a Shepard who *occasionally* gets the best results from being coldly pragmatic against all empathy, instead of always getting the short end of the stick. The supporting structure of the universe, revealed by what other characters do in it - like Miranda and Mordin - and general knowledge about this universe, leads to me believe that this is possible. And yet the game doesn't let me. I think that's a flaw I can lay at the feet of a game that prides itself on making your decisions have consequences.   

I wasn't referring to in-game structures, the way the Force would be in Star Wars, nor was I really talking about Paragon favoritism. You've made that claim before and while it hasn't bothered me as much I certainly saw your point. But the paragon-renegade dynamic and the, let's say "emotional-logical" split are two different albeit interrelated concepts. You can just as easily reason your way to a Paragon solution as you can blindly rage your way to a Renegade one and vice versa.
The idea I was talking about was just a fancy way of saying "if you want to enjoy a fantasy with x y and z, you must suspend your disbelief about x y and z" and that this applies not just to big things like faster-than-light ships or telepathic aliens but to much more subtle things that either aren't obvious or get taken for granted. To be fair I was aiming this more at jtav's brand of discontent (why can Shepard just shoot/talk all his problem away) then yours. But to respond to you in particular I believe paragon-renegade and logical-emotional are too tangled up in each other and neither of either should necessarily come out on top. So I...kinda agree with you...?

Edit: Ah nuts. I didn't mean to derail the topic or ignore Miranda pictures. I would never! Please post more!

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 01 novembre 2011 - 05:10 .