82210 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
The new Council doesn't want to get too close to a regicide. Also, they're just human-led, not all human.

The human-lead Council  discrediting the Reaper threat makes no sense because it was the fear that this threat caused on the alien populations that allowed humans to seize power in the first place.

The humans want to paint it as a total victory for them.

[MisterJB]

Which still makes no sense. It's obvious that if the danger has passed, the other races will want us out of the power.
Making it seem like humanity is the galaxy's only hope against the coming threat would be much more productive.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Which still makes no sense. It's obvious that if the danger has passed, the other races will want us out of the power.
Making it seem like humanity is the galaxy's only hope against the coming threat would be much more productive.

Udina's strategy seems to be encouraging disunity among the other Council races over uniting everyone under humanity's banner. Humans are at the top of a disorganized heap.

[MisterJB]

What makes you think that? I don't remember seeing anything indicating that there is a new animosity between the three former Council races.

[Xilizhra]

I said he was trying to do it, not that he was succeeding. Ultimately, it's less about them than the Council itself, which he wants weak and disorganized.

[MisterJB]

Is that indicated in the game?
Well, one way or the other, it's a stupid way of trying to strengthen humanity's control. After Sovereign's defeat, we should have worked towards making ourselves essential to the other races.

Modifié par MisterJB, 11 décembre 2011 - 05:55 .

[Xilizhra]

Udina's not that good a politician. He's an excellent bureaucrat and facilitator, but not much of a leader.

[HiroVoid]

A joke character would probably be a better definition.

[feliciano2040]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Your mincing words does nothing to disprove the faux dualism imposed on any moral choice game systems. Sure it's not exactly light vs dark here. Mass Effect has shifted ever so slightly to one side. But the mechanics are the same.

Relax, I am not mincing words, I'm simply trying to make you see that there's not a faux dualism.

A few, isolated instances of mishandled writing are not deffinitive proof that the Mass Effect alignment system is "faux dualism".

CrutchCricket wrote...

And there's no denying that top choices are usually "good" whether morally good or simply "touchy-feely" good while bottom choices are usually  bad/douchebaggy. I might even say that for every "rachni queen", there's a "talk to your sister Miranda" though I doubt the ratios are that even.

Uh, yes there is.

ME 2 is, in terms of "moral issues" the exact same as ME 1, you make choices based on the paragon path, or the renegade path, neither is bad nor good, it's simply a path.

CrutchCricket wrote...

And why are you jumping to conclusions that I'm dissing Mass Effect and rushing to defend it like I'm about to bleitzkreig the **** out of it? I'm making a general point about all moral choice systems in all games that have them and I'm acknowledging that Bioware has taken a step in the right direction. Besides I'm a little kid with a pea shooter compared to the Bioware war machine, I think they have bigger fish to fry. Shepard would have better luck punching out a Reaper than I would in getting just one of their janitors to lose some sleep.

I wasn't trying to be offensive, I apologize, but I feel there's just an insane amount of whining in these forums, people sure love to nit-pick the living crap out of the Mass Effect series, sure, it's flawed, it's by no means a perfect series, but it's pretty frikkin' amazing !

CrutchCricket wrote...

Meh. Interesting question though. Is a dilemma still a dilemma if no one actually sweats it?

But people have sweated it, just because their arguments aren't in your league, doesn't mean there's something wrong with the game, again, I'm not trying to be offensive.

Modifié par feliciano2040, 11 décembre 2011 - 06:38 .

[CrutchCricket]

feliciano2040 wrote...

Relax, I am not mincing words, I'm simply trying to make you see that there's not a faux dualism.

A few, isolated instances of mishandled writing are not deffinitive proof that the Mass Effect alignment system is "faux dualism".

Right.... In the interest of expediency I'm going to quote your own words back at you.

, you make choices based on the paragon path, or the renegade path

Sounds like faux dualism to me. You should probably look into what dualism means though, I think that's where the hang-up is.

I wasn't trying to be offensive, I apologize, but I feel there's just an insane amount of whining in these forums, people sure love to nit-pick the living crap out of the Mass Effect series, sure, it's flawed, it's by no means a perfect series, but it's pretty frikkin' amazing !

Hmm. Broad general point about a whole range of games=nitpicking Mass Effect series? That doesn't quite balance...

But people have sweated it, just because their arguments aren't in your league, doesn't mean there's something wrong with the game, again, I'm not trying to be offensive.

OK I'm going to assume we're not discussing in your first language, right? Because I believe you, you're not trying to be offensive. However "arguments not being in my league" is one word away from "arguments being out of my league" which is a phrase that means: the arguments are beyond me, and since the arguments are straightforward enough to be discussed on an internet forum, I am somehow of a lesser mind; in simpler terms I am stupid? But I belive that's not what you meant to say. You're also not reading my points right so please read the following very carefully:

1. All current games that have a moral choice system have it as a faux dualism (force everything on two sides). You cannot accurately represent more complicated situations in terms of two sides. Therefore this is limiting.
2. Moral choice in general is not put in games to accurately depict morality or provide choice, it is simply there to extend gameplay by forcing you to play it multiple times to see how it differs.
3. None of the above points say anything about Mass Effect in particular or comment on whether these games are good or bad

[Ieldra]

I have to disagree with your point 2, CrutchCricket. First, the choices to not force you to do anything. They might make you curious about the other path, but that's not the same thing. Second, the choices are there for emotional engagement in the story - at least in the ME games they tend to be. They enable you to play in a write-your-own-story kind of way. Roleplaying, in other words. The long debates wouldn't exist if people weren't emotionally invested in the choices, artificial as they may be, and even less would you see the kind of bullsh*t reasoning that only happens when passion subverts reason.

As for the dualism, yes, that's very limiting, but in some situations it works better than in others. Some decisions *are* dualistic in nature - I found the "save the Council or concentrate on Sovereign" choice rather convincing. The CB decision is not because there should be options like "let's study the thing now, but rig it with explosives so we can destroy it at any time in future", or "give the IFF to the Council".

[Ieldra]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I would like it even more if Mr.Lawson is a somewhat ambiguous figure, someone who, once he's explained his motivations, you could understand to a certain degree even while seeing that he must be stopped. I don't like black characters.

There's that "ambiguous" thing again... <_<

I refuse to not use a useful term just because you don't like it. Apart from that, I did qualify what I meant with it. You have no reason to complain.

But, truthfully I'm more interested in why you don't like "black" characters. I think they can be the most compelling, precisley when they're complete monsters yet you still see merit in their methods or at least their motivations.
Hence why I maintain Mr. Lawson should be like Viktor from the Underworld series when we finally meet him.

If they're Complete Monsters, their methods go beyond what's necessary. Which does exist in the real world, but it's stupid every single time. Why would anyone use excessive evil when a lesser one does the job just as well? That's stupid and bad for your reputation, even if only a few people come to know of it. Complete monsters present no challenge - they must be removed, killed, imprisoned, whatever and that's it. There's no point in asking why they're doing this because the evil is the point. Apart from that, I don't like stupid antagonists because they detract from my protagonist's achievements. If the antagonists are stupid, it shouldn't need a hero to deal with them.

How does that apply to Mr.Lawson? Well, he either killed or institutionalized some of his daughters - Miranda's older sisters. That has nothing to do with his goals. It's a side-effect to push him beyond the dark grey into the black. If he hadn't done that, his crimes would have been restricted to kidnapping Oriana and emotional abuse, which is bad enough but could be justified with a little effort, either with Niket's reasoning for Oriana ("he can still give her a better life") or for Miranda with what jtav put into his mouth:

Lawson: "You say I made you miserable. Oriana is normal and happy. But look at what you've accomplished. You've raised the dead. And you're the defective one. All your life, my shadow spurred you to prove yourself. Oriana has...had a crush on a boy. Say what you will, but I forced you to become a hero."

Of course the morally "right" choice would still be pretty clear. But the evil would have a point that you couldn't dismiss out of hand. Really, I can't understand why you decry the simplistic way games tend to handle morality and then find black characters compelling.

@jtav:
I would love to hear this in ME3. Probably futile to hope for it, though.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 décembre 2011 - 09:17 .

[Ieldra]

Hmm...is anyone else bugged out of proportion that Miranda has never used a cover name in spite of having two very good reasons: that she's a member of a controversial covert-ops group regarded as terrorists by some, and that her father is after her? Even small fish like Ish know her under her real name.

Why is this? Is it because the developers think Players Are Morons, unable to deal with the "complexity" of someone being known by different names? I can't believe none of the writers ever thought of this problem...

[naledgeborn]

I've noticed it before. Aliases are must haves. But I guess they'd find it confusing for us or (maybe themselves) to name a character twice. Meh... can't win them all. Another gem of a BioWare lesson by the way.

[Ieldra]

naledgeborn wrote...
I've noticed it before. Aliases are must haves. But I guess they'd find it confusing for us or (maybe themselves) to name a character twice. Meh... can't win them all.

Perhaps they've watched too many James Bond movies. He's another one who never uses an alias, if I recall correctly.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm...is anyone else bugged out of proportion that Miranda has never used a cover name in spite of having two very good reasons: that she's a member of a controversial covert-ops group regarded as terrorists by some, and that her father is after her? Even small fish like Ish know her under her real name.

No, surely the reason she doesn't need to use an alias is that her father knows full well that she has joined Cerberus and knows it wouldn't be wise to try and take them on.

[Ieldra]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm...is anyone else bugged out of proportion that Miranda has never used a cover name in spite of having two very good reasons: that she's a member of a controversial covert-ops group regarded as terrorists by some, and that her father is after her? Even small fish like Ish know her under her real name.

No, surely the reason she doesn't need to use an alias is that her father knows full well that she has joined Cerberus and knows it wouldn't be wise to try and take them on.

I'd say it's still better to be safe than sorry, especially given Miranda's preference for meticulous planning. And it doesn't change that small fish like Ish shouldn't know her under her real name. Even more to the point, "Miranda Lawson" shouldn't be her real name in the first place.

[feliciano2040]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm...is anyone else bugged out of proportion that Miranda has never used a cover name in spite of having two very good reasons: that she's a member of a controversial covert-ops group regarded as terrorists by some, and that her father is after her? Even small fish like Ish know her under her real name.

Why is this? Is it because the developers think Players Are Morons, unable to deal with the "complexity" of someone being known by different names? I can't believe none of the writers ever thought of this problem...

Didn't she have a codename in Jacob's Iphone game ? I'm not sure.

Even then, do they really need one unless in field operations ? After all, they only communicate amongst themselves and only report directly to TIM, not much for broad, open-channel communications.

Though It's most likely an oversight issue from the writers !

[naledgeborn]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Perhaps they've watched too many James Bond movies. He's another one who never uses an alias, if I recall correctly.

To be fair Ian Fleming was from the WWII era. About the same time the big agencies were just starting out.

[The Elder King]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm...is anyone else bugged out of proportion that Miranda has never used a cover name in spite of having two very good reasons: that she's a member of a controversial covert-ops group regarded as terrorists by some, and that her father is after her? Even small fish like Ish know her under her real name.

I agree. Before the leaked script I hoped that her real name was different, and that "Miranda Lawson" was a alias. Sadly Bioware decided to go on another route. At least they could've changed the surname, if they didn't want to change her name. I find it stupid that every person that have met Miranda in the years didn't realize that she could be the daugther of the richest human in the galaxy, and maybe (it depends on the interpretation of that line in Miranda's LM) the riches man in the galaxy.

[Ieldra]

hhh89 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm...is anyone else bugged out of proportion that Miranda has never used a cover name in spite of having two very good reasons: that she's a member of a controversial covert-ops group regarded as terrorists by some, and that her father is after her? Even small fish like Ish know her under her real name.

I agree. Before the leaked script I hoped that her real name was different, and that "Miranda Lawson" was a alias. Sadly Bioware decided to go on another route. At least they could've changed the surname, if they didn't want to change her name.

Yes, I, too, assumed that "Lawson" wasn't her real name. And after the Eldfell-Ashland connection appeared in the LotSB files, I was almost convinced her father must be some Eldfell. That fanfics (jtav's and Elyvern's) picked up on that but Bioware's writers ignored a nice hook I find weird.

I find it stupid that every person that have met Miranda in the years didn't realize that she could be the daugther of the richest human in the galaxy, and maybe (it depends on the interpretation of that line in Miranda's LM) the riches man in the galaxy.

That's another aspect. This man should be reasonably famous. But the name "Lawson" isn't that uncommon, so I'd let that slide.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 décembre 2011 - 04:43 .

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have to disagree with your point 2, CrutchCricket. First, the choices to not force you to do anything. They might make you curious about the other path, but that's not the same thing. Second, the choices are there for emotional engagement in the story - at least in the ME games they tend to be. They enable you to play in a write-your-own-story kind of way. Roleplaying, in other words. The long debates wouldn't exist if people weren't emotionally invested in the choices, artificial as they may be, and even less would you see the kind of bullsh*t reasoning that only happens when passion subverts reason.

Well "force" was a poor choice of words. A game can't force you to do anything since you can just stop playing. But in lesser examples it is just a game padding mechanic. Also given how ME3 apparently invalidates a lot of our choices anyway, I still maintain this system is not here for choice but only for the illusion of choice. Which is certainly working as we're all here. And obviously emotional investment goes a long way towards keeping us engaged in the story. I believe my original point was calling out those situations that are transparent in their "emotion-mongering" with no merit otherwise.

On ambiguity: If Lawson's explained his motivations (or had his motivations explained) then by definition he is no longer ambiguous. The term as used on here means nothing. Like I said before I'm fine with it being used as a placeholder  but what I dislike is the praise associated with it. You of course have the right to keep using it, but I also have the right to keep despising it.

Moving on, I do not agree with your reasoning that Complete Monsters= stupid because they're more "evil" then they have to be. First off you assume that their sole motivation is "for the evulz" which is not necessarily the case. They are simply without redeeming features of any kind. Furthermore one is more effectively monstrous if they believe their monstrous ways are the natural way of things and it is right for them to do what they do. While the type you mention certainly exist and are rather boring and cartoonish there are also the other kind that are far more interesting.

As example I again reference Darth Bane. A lot of the Sith actually fit this bill including Palpatine (considered even by me to be an embodiment of evil) who the EU implies is doing what he does partly to prepare for the Yuuzhan Vong invasion. In general certain portrayals of sociopaths and psycopaths also fit this trope. Dean Koontz is also good at writing these types of characters, antagonists who are a very real threat but who operate on an entirely different system of values and to them, they are the only ones in the right while everyone else is weak/deluded etc. I find such characters far more fascinating than those with "boo hoo my parents never loved me" or similar "sympathizing factors" and the former make for much scarier villains.

Also "for the evulz" itself seems to imply that characters that subscribe to it have evil as their goal but also seem to get amusement or entertainment out of it. It can then be argued that this amusement is in fact their actual goal and that no one seeks evil just to get more evil into the world (but this can go either way).

But there's a right way to do complete monsters and there's a wrong way. I guess you're only referring to the wrong way.

[Dean_the_Young]

MisterJB wrote...

Is that indicated in the game?

Nope.

Well, one way or the other, it's a stupid way of trying to strengthen humanity's control. After Sovereign's defeat, we should have worked towards making ourselves essential to the other races.

Congratulations: you're better at presenting a coup-autocracy than Bioware.

[Friera]

Does anyone know if her romance is being transfered to ME3? And if she will be a pernament squad member in ME3?

[jtav]

Yes and no, respectively.