127 réponses à ce sujet

[HBC Dresden]

Sorry, formatting errors, will fix them in a minute so what I'm saying is not confusing. Stupid BSN formatting!

[zingro]

Wall.. of text hurt eye's.. try.. to.. read.. arg

Interesting read.

[dannati]

FunstuffofDoom wrote...

3. Protagonist's death is acceptable, sometimes even necessary to create an enduring story and everlasting character. The ending we get, however, feels forced and not cohesive.

It's not what I consider a strong reason, because it's very personal in nature. But the inevitability of Shepard's death in the endings is the worst thing that happened, for me. It's the one that hurts the most. It's the one that's got me coming back to these forums and scanning sites for news and stalking BioWare execs on twitter. I can make lip service to Shepard as an individual all I want, but check my writing, again. There are plenty of times where I slip into first person when talking about game events, which only says to me that Shepard and I are, on some level, interchangeable. And I wanted a happy ending. I wanted to walk into the sunset and say, it's over, now let's start rebuilding. I could have lived with everything else happening, but I wanted to be there when it did.

Bowing to necessity, to the way things are, is a compromise. But giving your life, to do it? That's robbery. And, suffice it to say, some things you just shouldn't do to the hero.

Part of the reason the Shepard Dies endings don't work is that there was no specific, logical narrative reason why those endings required Shepard to die.

Destroy: set a bomb and leave.  Hell, just stand further back and call for a shuttle beforehand.
Control: Why does Shep need to die to say, "Go forth and do this, Reapers!"
Synergy: Space Magic is entirely outside the realm of normal logic and causal relationships.

If you're going to kill Shepard (which is fine by me, btw), you need a strong narrative case for it.  Someone has to light the target and it's within the blast zone...  Someone has to hold a position, no matter what... A paragon interrupt to take a bullet for a teammate...

When you kill Shepard, he has to go out like Mordin (or Victus' son).  It needs to be a situation with a clear connection between the inevitability of death and the goal at hand.  It you want to be a downer, Shepard doesn't even have to to succeed, but the logic behind the death needs to work.

Modifié par dannati, 21 mars 2012 - 07:39 .

[HBC Dresden]

@ FunstuffofDoom

Here is my response to your criticism: social-iconoclast.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d4tjq1w

And I have incorporated that Perfect Renegade Ending into my Alternate Ending(s). Check my sig for the updated version, but I pretty much outline it in my response to your criticism

[FunstuffofDoom]

Quick note: Killing quarians (siding with the Geth) isn't a Renegade action. It's less Paragon than managing to broker a peace, but if you can't make either check, it's the Paragon option you have left. Which makes sense. By the time you get to make the choice, Shepard is perfectly aware that the Quarians are trying to commit genocide (xenocide?) rather than admit they were wrong.

EDIT: Woohoo! Four pages!

Modifié par FunstuffofDoom, 21 mars 2012 - 08:13 .

[HBC Dresden]

Whoops, I meant the geth heretics in ME2 (I'll edit that to make it more clear), as that choice is more indicative of your stance. As you said, the time we learn the total truth in ME3, the circumstances have changed.

See, I saw that the Perfect Paragon Ending required so much for the player to have done "right" from ME1 and ME2 to allow the good options to show up in ME3 (cure under Wrex and peace with quarians and geth). So I similarly required the same measure of pure reputation for ME1 and ME2, but on the Renegade side.

EDIT: sorry for derailing your thread a little, but it is a nice bumb

Modifié par HBC Dresden, 21 mars 2012 - 08:32 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Big Push wrote...


That's an interesting quote, because this really means that if we take authorial intent seriously, Mass Effect absolutely failed as a work of art. It failed in the sense that it did not in any way successfully represent its creators' vision.

ME1 and ME2 are without a doubt space operas. Their tone, aesthetics, themes, and plots have almost nothing in common with "high" science fiction like Asimov or Lem and much more in common with Lucas or Roddenberry. The same is true of ME3 until the final moments when things abruptly swerve into strange territory.

You think Star Trek(Roddenberry) is a Space Opera?  I'm sorry, but I can't take anything you said seriously.  Especially the original star trek, they tackled serious issues that were relevent in modern society and comes no where close to a space opera.

From Wikipedia:

"Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space,
generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced
technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is
analogous to "soap opera"
(see below). Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that
settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very
large-scale."

While it may occasionally be melodramatic, it does not romanticise anything about the universe it is in, just read the codex.

In the first game alone, you have the option to commit xenocide with the touch of a button.  In the series you discuss genetic modification to improve ones self, Genetically wrecking another species, when should AI be treated like humans (Asimov),  effects of war on individuals (Steakly) even the Tron level has some Philip K Dick esquness to it.

As I have mentioned before, ME casts a very broad net when dealing with some of the more relevant sci fi issues today, and not a single one of them could be said to define ME, but is mearly an important part of it, for those that chose to look.

[FunstuffofDoom]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Big Push wrote...


That's an interesting quote, because this really means that if we take authorial intent seriously, Mass Effect absolutely failed as a work of art. It failed in the sense that it did not in any way successfully represent its creators' vision.

ME1 and ME2 are without a doubt space operas. Their tone, aesthetics, themes, and plots have almost nothing in common with "high" science fiction like Asimov or Lem and much more in common with Lucas or Roddenberry. The same is true of ME3 until the final moments when things abruptly swerve into strange territory.

You think Star Trek(Roddenberry) is a Space Opera?  I'm sorry, but I can't take anything you said seriously.  Especially the original star trek, they tackled serious issues that were relevent in modern society and comes no where close to a space opera.

From Wikipedia:

"Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space,
generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced
technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is
analogous to "soap opera"
(see below). Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that
settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very
large-scale."

While it may occasionally be melodramatic, it does not romanticise anything about the universe it is in, just read the codex.

In the first game alone, you have the option to commit xenocide with the touch of a button.  In the series you discuss genetic modification to improve ones self, Genetically wrecking another species, when should AI be treated like humans (Asimov),  effects of war on individuals (Steakly) even the Tron level has some Philip K Dick esquness to it.

As I have mentioned before, ME casts a very broad net when dealing with some of the more relevant sci fi issues today, and not a single one of them could be said to define ME, but is mearly an important part of it, for those that chose to look.

Simmer down, both of you, huh? This isn't a war, it's a debate. You needn't make it personal.

Mass Effect is soft science fiction. It uses a series of well-justified devices, which can make appear harder than it is, but if you look closely, there are few things in the game that can't be traced back to "science!magic" or "The authors just wanted it that way." Simple case in point: An astonishing number of races are vaguely humanoid. Why? Who knows. Another simple case: genetic modification is mentioned as fixing well, damn-near everything wrong with humans besides human nature. Except, it isn't in utero modification. People can do it whenever. How? Science!

You can say that the Mass Effect setting isn't as initially happy as it appears to be, but it's a positive setting. The galactic community at large works together, space travel is a great thing, and if left in a vacuum, society would try to better itself and those around it benevolently. That's the setting.

The story is much grimmer, as any potentially Galaxy-ending event would be. But it's an epic tale, with a larger-than-life hero, incredible actions, romance, drama, and excitement. It's a space opera, through-and-through.

[Ultra Prism]

This person got it right, ME1 and ME2 were happier while ME3 didnt give choice for happier ending, forced depressed

[Shaigunjoe]

Simmer down, both of you, huh? This isn't a war, it's a debate. You needn't make it personal.

I don't think anyone was attacking anyone else on a personel level.  I agree, this is a debate, and thats what we were doing.

Anyway, don't confuse romanticised with happy, there is a difference.

Maybe you can help me understand something you said, as I am confused:

You can say that the Mass Effect setting isn't as
initially happy as it appears to be, but it's a positive setting. The
galactic community at large works together, space travel is a great
thing, and if left in a vacuum, society would try to better itself and
those around it benevolently. That's the setting.

If left in a vacuum society would try to better itself? Do you mean to say that if society didn' thave any problems at all, then they would work to improve itself benevolently?....well....duh?  Unless you are flaughting your skills at forming a tautology, I don't know what you are trying to get across.

The setting is an enviornment where most things are decided by three (or four) species while the other species don't really have muc hof a voice.  It is a delicate balance, they work together because they have to, its not like lets all join hands a be a team.  There is nothing romanticised about the universe, vorcha pirates don't go around with an eye patch and a pijack on their shoulder (though that would be awesome).

Look at the Star Wars movies, those have a romanticised version of war.  People for the most part die cleanly, they do not touch on the effects of the war as a society, nor do they consider the number of independant contractors that died on the death star whether or not they deserve it.

What I am trying to say is that I liken the tone and setting to ME to something more like BSG than a space opera like Star Wars.

Should this be a point of contention?  Most certainly, as the definition of a space opera seems to be in constant flux, but personally when I try to think of the tone or themes of a space opera, I think of Star Wars.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 21 mars 2012 - 09:26 .

[FunstuffofDoom]

If left in a vacuum society would try to better itself? Do you mean to say that if society didn' thave any problems at all, then they would work to improve itself benevolently?....well....duh? Unless you are flaughting your skills at forming a tautology, I don't know what you are trying to get across.

The Citadel Council is not -conceptually- portrayed as destructive or limited. The councilors themselves are bullheaded and willfully blind, but that's part of story, not the setting. In the setting itself, nothing indicates that, ultimately the Citadel Council isn't a good thing. Proof: the groups that aren't affiliated with it are either criminals organizations, or racist, fascist governments responding poorly to interstellar policies that disapprove of both.

This all ties back into the overall theme of cooperation that shows up into the story. The Mass Effect universe is a place where cooperation can happen, does happen, will lead to 'good' things. In short, the universe is a fundamentally 'good' place. People, left to their own devices, tend towards doing 'good' things. Which is a romantic ideal.

Look at the Star Wars movies, those have a romanticised version of war. People for the most part die cleanly, they do not touch on the effects of the war as a society, nor do they consider the number of independant contractors that died on the death star whether or not they deserve it.

The only thing I see in Mass Effect that I don't see in Star Wars is bloodstains. Combat itself is detached, largely quick, clean, and efficient. Bodies of the wounded, the will-be-disfigured-for-life, and the horribly-broken aren't really ever shown. Yeah, sure. Mental stress is shown here and there. Of course it is. But for Shepard, it's almost always the stakes that are stressful, not the fighting.

Which, again, is clean. People fall over, or disintegrate without a sound. Ships blow up, but it's death is dealt with as a number.

[Shaigunjoe]

FunstuffofDoom wrote...

If left in a vacuum society would try to better itself? Do you mean to say that if society didn' thave any problems at all, then they would work to improve itself benevolently?....well....duh? Unless you are flaughting your skills at forming a tautology, I don't know what you are trying to get across.

The Citadel Council is not -conceptually- portrayed as destructive or limited. The councilors themselves are bullheaded and willfully blind, but that's part of story, not the setting. In the setting itself, nothing indicates that, ultimately the Citadel Council isn't a good thing. Proof: the groups that aren't affiliated with it are either criminals organizations, or racist, fascist governments responding poorly to interstellar policies that disapprove of both.

This all ties back into the overall theme of cooperation that shows up into the story. The Mass Effect universe is a place where cooperation can happen, does happen, will lead to 'good' things. In short, the universe is a fundamentally 'good' place. People, left to their own devices, tend towards doing 'good' things. Which is a romantic ideal.

Look at the Star Wars movies, those have a romanticised version of war. People for the most part die cleanly, they do not touch on the effects of the war as a society, nor do they consider the number of independant contractors that died on the death star whether or not they deserve it.

The only thing I see in Mass Effect that I don't see in Star Wars is bloodstains. Combat itself is detached, largely quick, clean, and efficient. Bodies of the wounded, the will-be-disfigured-for-life, and the horribly-broken aren't really ever shown. Yeah, sure. Mental stress is shown here and there. Of course it is. But for Shepard, it's almost always the stakes that are stressful, not the fighting.

Which, again, is clean. People fall over, or disintegrate without a sound. Ships blow up, but it's death is dealt with as a number.

I'm having trouble following you. Yes, I know the citidel council is not inherently good, and that is part of the setting.  The cooperation shown but the other racies in the story display the worse kind of cooperation. "Yes, civilization is going to be wiped out, but I need you to do this thing first".  Thats both in the main storyline and in all the various fetch quests.  My fleet will help you! (Only if you find a book for me).  Thats everywhere, story, setting, everywhere.

The only thing I see in Mass Effect that I don't see in Star Wars is bloodstains

To be clear, I am talking about the original star wars trilogy, I don't remember the new ones too well nor do I follow the expanded universe are invested in KOTOR.

I would agree with this statement if you had played the entire trilogy from beginning to end ignoring all subplots and sidequests.  If you did, then maybe you are right.

Though, taking ME in its entirety, are you really saying that Star Wars = Mass Effect - blood stains?

You missed my point earlier, I was not discussing how clean the actual fighting was, though there was considerable difference, peoples heads get blown off and they can completely exploded in a bloody mess!

The bigger issue was the effect on the war on society as a whole, which almost completely absent from star wars, except for the one scene when the ewok is sad his friend died.  Other than that, its like Yay fighting!  When we are done we can hang out with our friends in ghost form!

Mass effect goes the whole nine yards, you have an entire level of the Citadel devoted to war refuges, you can witness the effects of PTSD and amputee victems in the hospital.  And thats just the effects of war on society.  As far as the individual is concerned, there are other subplots there, shoot shep can't even let the image of that kid go....though there may be other reasons for that.

Anyway, I respect your views, I just have no idea how you came to those conclusions.  I don't think I have seen anyone say that the overall theme of ME is cooperation.  If you feel that ME themes and settings are like star wars with blood, and deals with death as a number and not on a personel level, that I feel that you have played the series with blinders on, and it is no surprise to me that you could not come to a satisfying conclusion from the ending that was presented.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 21 mars 2012 - 11:01 .

[FunstuffofDoom]

I'm having trouble following you. Yes, I know the citidel council is not inherently good, and that is part of the setting.

No, no. That's kinda the exact opposite of what I'm saying. The Council, some particularities be damned, is a good thing. And the setting backs this up.

"Yes, civilization is going to be wiped out, but I need you to do this thing first". Thats both in the main storyline and in all the various fetch quests. My fleet will help you! (Only if you find a book for me). Thats everywhere, story, setting, everywhere.

I don't think sentiment is particular to the setting- just the story. And I must emphasize, again, my position that the setting is important when considering what genre something falls into.

Though, taking ME in its entirety, are you really saying that Star Wars = Mass Effect - blood stains?

Of course not. That'd be ludicrous.

The bigger issue was the effect on the war on society as a whole, which almost completely absent from star wars, except for the one scene when the ewok is sad his friend died. Other than that, its like Yay fighting! When we are done we can hang out with our friends in ghost form!

Star Wars doesn't have a movie where people are fighting on anything close to the stakes of Mass Effect. There was a five-year book series where they were, and it was, at times, far darker than Mass Effect.

Mass effect goes the whole nine yards, you have an entire level of the Citadel devoted to war refuges, you can witness the effects of PTSD and amputee victems in the hospital. And thats just the effects of war on society. As far as the individual is concerned, there are other subplots there, shoot shep can't even let the image of that kid go....though there may be other reasons for that.

Mass Effect 3 does, certainly. One and Two? Less so. And it would be unsound to dictate that no part of a series is a particular genre because one part of it fails a particular criterion of that genre- We're still debating romanticism as means of a refutation for Space Opera, yes?

So, let's take it from the top. Per your quote from Wikipedia, we need romantic/melodramatic conflict, a setting largely in space, lots of advanced technology, and an epic scale.

Now, my argument is that the true devastation and horror of the Reaper invasion, and war in general, are glossed over. Furthermore, the society Shepard is fighting to preserve is portrayed as a positive enough one that the setting is a romantic one. But, ignoring that, the story is riddled with dramatic pauses, big speeches to sweeping orchestrals, knuckle-biting action and tension galore. Emotions are big, larger-than-life. The stakes couldn't be bigger. The conflict involves literally everyone who can giving absolutely everything they could. It's a melodrama. I don't think I need to defend advanced technology, space, or epic scale, do I?

So, if you accept that, then you're going to need to accept that Mass Effect is a space opera. The ending... is not. It's speculative SciFi to the core. In a speculative science fiction work, it probably would've done just fine.

I just have no idea how you came to those conclusions. I don't think I have seen anyone say that the overall theme of ME is cooperation.

How can you not? No, seriously. The very first game has you assembling a multi-special team, and you in fact defend that choice on at least two occasions. The second game has you playing ball with anyone who'll help you stop Collectors. The point of the third game is, you need to rally the galaxy, and everyone in it, or you're all going to die. To quote Lost, stand together, or you're all going to die alone.

If you feel that ME themes and settings are like star wars with blood

I do wanna say that, thematically, I don't think Star Wars and Mass Effect have much in common. Simply as degrees of "Space-Opera-ness", I find them comparable. I grew up with the Star Wars franchise, I was an EU geek as a kid, and I love it deeply. But I could drive Star Destroyers through all the philosophical inconsistencies they have running around. Hell, Jedi alone would give me ammo for a Master's thesis.

Anyway, I respect your views

And I, yours.

Modifié par FunstuffofDoom, 21 mars 2012 - 11:34 .

[Shaigunjoe]

I realize I used ME3 a lot whent pointing out examples of why war was not romanticized in in the mass effect trilogy, but in all fairness there is not all out war in  ME 1 and 2.

You don't have to dig to deep to find it, but you have to go deeper than than what would be the bare minimum to complete those games.

And I must emphasize, again, my position that the setting is important when considering what genre something falls into.

Lets talk about the setting. In the universe it takes place in, you have slavery, indentured survitude, organizations that capture children and force them to fight each other for science.  You have a galaxy when faced with extinction break the prime directive and raise up a race to help them fight, when they have finished the battle and realize the krogan are too unwieldy, they smack them down buy causing the vast majority of their children to be born stillborn.  What is romantic about that?  Where is the cooperation? It isn't cooperation, it is survival.  I would agree that survival is a major theme.  There are other examples to be sure, one more for good measure, the quarians make an AI that drives them from their planet, because the quarians did not want to cooperate with them.  The rest of the galaxy refuses to help the quarians reclaim their world, and on top of that they are treated as outcasts. There is specieism, bigotry, all sorts of nasty things that are not just hinted at, but are in full view, in all three ME games.  That is the setting.  Hardly romantic by any stretch.  It isn't all doom and gloom as I'm sure you will point out, but I think there is enough to go around that it is a outright positive setting for the world, it is very, very grey.

How can you not? No, seriously. The very first game has you assembling a
multi-special team, and you in fact defend that choice on at least two
occasions. The second game has you playing ball with anyone
who'll help you stop Collectors. The point of the third game is, you
need to rally the galaxy, and everyone in it, or you're all going to
die. To quote Lost, stand together, or you're all going to die alone.

But, ignoring that, the story is riddled with dramatic pauses, big
speeches to sweeping orchestrals, knuckle-biting action and tension
galore. Emotions are big, larger-than-life. The stakes couldn't be
bigger. The conflict involves literally everyone who can giving
absolutely everything they could. It's a melodrama. I don't think I need
to defend advanced technology, space, or epic scale, do I?

I know you didn't say those things in order, but I just wanted to point out that despite what you said about establishing the setting, all the big points you list for cooperation come from the story.

I mentioned before, anyone who just looks at the main story would probably (and I think rightfully) agree that ME is a space opera.  You definitly miss many many details about the setting you are in and other conflicts in the periphery.

At least we agree that Mass Effect does not have that much incommon with Star Wars thematically (we also agree that star wars is awesome).  I feel like it has more so in common with battlestar galactica.

What do you think of Dr. Who?  I think it has all those things you listed that a space opera has, action, speeches, big space battles, but I don't count it as a space opera.

To try and bring things full circle, and to expediate the agree to disagree conclusion that this is inevitably heading toward.  I think to this all boils down to a matter of perspective.

The main story in ME has never been my main draw, it was good enough in ME1, and I enjoyed the convo with sovereign.  ME2 lost me at the point when EVERYBODY piled into the clown shuttle, seriously, wtf?  As far as main story was concerned, that set the bar pretty low for me and I almost laughed my ass off when the human reaper appeared.  I always enjoyed the side stories, understanding why krogans hated salarians.  Squad mate past issues, and the topics they touched on.  I was honestly expecting the ending to be one of star wars parade style proportions.  When it wasn't, I sat up and took notice, even my wife, who sometimes just tolerates my video game playing, was looking up indoc theory videos on youtube because she thought it was an interesting idea.  Thats why, to me I feel like ME3 is not a space opera.  You obviously have more invested in the main story and the outcome of the reaper conflict, with little consideration to the rest of the universe, I can see why you feel it is a space opera.

You and I definitly enjoy ME for different reasons, I am truley sorry you feel betrayed, gilted and/or ripped off by the ending and whatever expectations you may have had for it.  Hopefully you and your fellow liners can get some closure and go back to supporting bioware.  After the ME3 ending, I can't wait to see what other expectations they exceed.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 mars 2012 - 02:53 .

[HBC Dresden]

Cool, civil and thorough discussion/analysis of Mass Effect!

[FunstuffofDoom]

You have a galaxy when faced with extinction break the prime directive and raise up a race to help them fight

Before anything else, a moment of formal logic. (The LSATs make me do it. Don't mourn for me.) If breaking the prime directive is bad, then upholding it must be good. Which would be a point in favor of Star Trek being Space Opera, as you denied so long ago, wouldn't it?

Lets talk about the setting. In the universe it takes place in, you have slavery, indentured survitude, organizations that capture children and force them to fight each other for science. You have a galaxy when faced with extinction break the prime directive and raise up a race to help them fight, when they have finished the battle and realize the krogan are too unwieldy, they smack them down buy causing the vast majority of their children to be born stillborn. What is romantic about that? Where is the cooperation? It isn't cooperation, it is survival. I would agree that survival is a major theme. There are other examples to be sure, one more for good measure, the quarians make an AI that drives them from their planet, because the quarians did not want to cooperate with them. The rest of the galaxy refuses to help the quarians reclaim their world, and on top of that they are treated as outcasts. There is specieism, bigotry, all sorts of nasty things that are not just hinted at, but are in full view, in all three ME games. That is the setting. Hardly romantic by any stretch. It isn't all doom and gloom as I'm sure you will point out, but I think there is enough to go around that it is a outright positive setting for the world, it is very, very grey.

None of this is wrong. I mean, I disagree with your conclusions, but every point of proof you have is factually correct. What we need to talk about, isn't just action, it's portrayal. That is, yeah, all of these things happened, but are any of them portrayed to be good? No, of course not. Paragon Shepard immediately repudiates every example you listed, out of hand. Renegade Shepard is more lenient, but Renegade Shepard uses an "I did what I had to/It was necessary" justification. Expand that out, and what's being said is, "I would like to fix the problem, but I don't have the time/resources/whatever to resolve it satisfactorily, so I'll do what I can, instead." Either way, the implication stands, that every one of those actions is wrong. On a basically-galactic scale. Which means, given time, resources, and opportunity, the galaxy wouldn't have any of those things present. Which is a positive message.

At least we agree that Mass Effect does not have that much incommon with Star Wars thematically (we also agree that star wars is awesome). I feel like it has more so in common with battlestar galactica.

What do you think of Dr. Who? I think it has all those things you listed that a space opera has, action, speeches, big space battles, but I don't count it as a space opera.

I've never seen either version of either show. My roommates swear by it, and I'm familiar with David Tennant and John Barrowman, but that's about the extent of my awareness. With either show.

I know you didn't say those things in order, but I just wanted to point out that despite what you said about establishing the setting, all the big points you list for cooperation come from the story.

I mentioned before, anyone who just looks at the main story would probably (and I think rightfully) agree that ME is a space opera. You definitly miss many many details about the setting you are in and other conflicts in the periphery.

I'm aware of the periphery. Mass Effect is in no small part exactly what it is, because BioWare did such a wonderful job creating and fleshing out an entire galaxy. And, yeah. There's gonna be drama. You don't classify Star Trek as Space Opera, but I do, and it had drama out the wazoo. Not just on the local level, but on the Intergalactic Politics level. But that's probably a debate left elsewhere. To lay it all out, since it does seem we're going to agree to disagree, the Mass Effect universe has plenty of dark and unpleasant things in it, but it's ultimately a positive, hopeful setting. To tie that back to my original post, oh-so-long ago, I don't feel the ending had either a positive message, or hope. Which is bad.

Hopefully you and your fellow liners can get some closure and go back to supporting bioware.

I do support BioWare. How could I not? They've been an integral part of my life for basically as long as I've played video games. I imagine they're in no small part guilty for the fact that I study philosophy. Beyond that, they do good work. Mass Effect is an incredible experience, except for the last five minutes. Does it have a few flaws, here and there? Of course. I don't mind, because it builds to something so much more than the sum of its parts. I want an ending worthy of that, is all. And if BioWare is willing to give me that, well, I can only love them all the more for it.

[Shaigunjoe]

Before anything else, a moment of formal logic. (The LSATs make me do
it. Don't mourn for me.) If breaking the prime directive is bad, then
upholding it must be good. Which would be a point in favor of Star Trek
being Space Opera, as you denied so long ago, wouldn't it?

You are making too many logic leaps.  The prime directive is mearly a rule (one that, as far as I know, does not exist in the ME universe)  Is the rule good or bad? I know I am generalizing, but from your argument it sounds like you are saying rules are good and breaking them is bad?  I'm sure the crew of the enterprieses don't always play by the rules.  As an ST fan, you should know this, just look at the kobayashi maru.  Ok, we need to be careful to avoid spilling over into other discussion for other forums.

All those events I listed mearly describe the setting.  I'm not going for this is a negative setting, just this is a grey world.

The following statement is what you said in regardings to setting:

What we need to talk about, isn't just action, it's portrayal

Now I feel like you are trying to shift the argument from setting in general, to the protrayal of the setting. But I am still unsure.  Do you mean the portrayal of the universe to shepard?  As in not reading the codex? I would say everything I said still falls under the portrayal of the setting.  I listed the events and characters that have influenced the setting of the universe that shepard lives in.  It is most certainly portrayed by the actions of those around you.  You say those all things were portrayed as wrong, I'm not so sure.  Some were yes, specifically the cerberues expirements.  Some are too complex to just say (as example) genophage was wrong (Look how much Moridin struggle with just that in ME2)!.

That is, yeah, all of these things happened, but are any of them portrayed to be good?
No, of course not. Paragon Shepard immediately repudiates every example
you listed, out of hand. Renegade Shepard is more lenient, but Renegade
Shepard uses an "I did what I had to/It was necessary" justification.
Expand that out, and what's being said is, "I would like to fix the
problem, but I don't have the time/resources/whatever to resolve it
satisfactorily, so I'll do what I can, instead."

It sounds to me like you are confusing perception with portrayal.  Shepards percepiton depends soley on the player.  And based on what you have written, I've gotta say you must be a hopeless optimist.  Listen to what you said about renegade shep!

Expand that out, and what's being said is, "I would like to fix the
problem, but I don't have the time/resources/whatever to resolve it
satisfactorily, so I'll do what I can, instead."

No, absoulutly not, for starters, renegade shep pretty much operates under the same time/resource constraints as paragon shep.  On Ferros, in ME1, my renegade shep did not slaughter an entire colony of thorium controlled colonists because he didn't have time to throw a magic cure all grenade at them, he did it becuase he had a softball game the next morning and didn't want to risk throwing out his pitching arm.  I can honestly tell you that when my Renagade shep was presented with a problem he didn't want to solve, his first thought was not "I would like to help, but..."

The point I am trying to make here is that BW's portrayal of the setting they built should not be confused with the players perception of the themes they are presenting.  BW is saying this world is grey, not this world is good.  That ME is a space epic, not a space opera.

To conclude in a similiar way, I feel that ME is greater than the sum of its parts.  Does it have elements of space opera?  Sure, but most science fiction will share elements with other forms.  BSG has big space battles,   but I feel like its non space opera elements outweight the elments it shared.

On another note, what about the destroy ending (or any ending for that matter) Did you not find full of hope?  The star child said if shep destroys the reapers, he/she will dieto, but we see that she infact lives?  Why do you feel like you have to believe what the villain is telling you is true?  The geth and edi may also live.   Even in space opera's villains lie.  I certainly don't find any of the endings as soul crushing as foxnews would make you believe.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 mars 2012 - 09:31 .

[FunstuffofDoom]

On another note, what about the destroy ending (or any ending for that matter) Did you not find full of hope? The star child said if shep destroys the reapers, he/she will dieto, but we see that she infact lives? Why do you feel like you have to believe what the villain is telling you is true? The geth and edi may also live. Even in space opera's villains lie. I certainly don't find any of the endings as soul crushing as foxnews would make you believe.

The prominence of the idea of taking the Star Child at anything less than its word rose long after I wrote this. When I did, I assumed the Star Child was more-or-less telling the truth, to Shepard, as it saw it could. My problems were with the underlying logic of this 'truth', but I faulted the writers, not the characters.

Additionally, any ending where you have to assume the main expositor is lying -utterly- is problematic, because from that point you can basically conclude whatever you want. Which could ultimately lead to the Penny Arcade proposed ending. Is it likely? No. But under the lying paradigm it's no less impossible then anything else.

But, well, if there aren't newer, or more satisfying, or more conclusive endings, on future playthroughs, that's the ending I'll pick. And I'll tell myself that EDI and the Geth made it through, because the stupid Star Child was a manipulative liar who was trying to pull a fast one at the last minute.

On Ferros, in ME1, my renegade shep did not slaughter an entire colony of thorium controlled colonists because he didn't have time to throw a magic cure all grenade at them, he did it becuase he had a softball game the next morning and didn't want to risk throwing out his pitching arm. I can honestly tell you that when my Renagade shep was presented with a problem he didn't want to solve, his first thought was not "I would like to help, but..."

If that's how your Shepard justified using gas grenades, fine. But you got Paragon points for using them, all the same. There are plenty of things you can argue, here, but this isn't one of them. Renegade actions are pragmatic. Paragon actions are idealistic. The consequence of holding to pragmatism is you will occasionally have to sacrifice the nice thought for the necessary action.

Shepards percepiton depends soley on the player. And based on what you have written, I've gotta say you must be a hopeless optimist.

In person, I'm not. It might be why I enjoy playing idealists in games, though. They can hold out for the absolute right thing, and actually get it. We've got to settle for what we can get.

Now I feel like you are trying to shift the argument from setting in general, to the protrayal of the setting. But I am still unsure. Do you mean the portrayal of the universe to shepard? As in not reading the codex? I would say everything I said still falls under the portrayal of the setting. I listed the events and characters that have influenced the setting of the universe that shepard lives in. It is most certainly portrayed by the actions of those around you. You say those all things were portrayed as wrong, I'm not so sure. Some were yes, specifically the cerberues expirements. Some are too complex to just say (as example) genophage was wrong (Look how much Moridin struggle with just that in ME2)!.

I was concerned about this when I wrote it, and I suppose I'm glad you called me on it. I'm not trying to redefine the terms of the argument so that I can't be refuted. I'm trying to defend the idea that there isn't any one thing that definitively makes something part of a genre, or not. The setting influences the story. The story dictates the actions. The actions have context, which is the setting. You see?

I'm not talking about the portrayal of the universe, to Shepard. All of these things- actions, story, setting, these are important to the player. It's how the player decides things. Shepard is... the vehicle for the decision to be enacted. And an important thing to understand about everything you've brought is, there's either an explicit or implicit judgement about the morality of the action. The game will present you opportunities to argue, and the Paragon option is universally refutation. The idealist says, those things were bad, and shouldn't have been done. The Renegade option says, those things were necessary. For the greater good, we did those things. 'Necessary' and 'Greater Good' or both indicators. They indicate that you're talking with a moral relativist, (Not a bad thing! I'm one, myself.) and they indicate that whatever you're talking about it bad, but something else might've been worse.

That ME is a space epic, not a space opera.

Could you lay out the difference between one and the other?

[Baronesa]

Wonderful read FSD.


What else can I say?

I completely agree

[Shaigunjoe]

If that's how your Shepard justified using gas grenades, fine. But you
got Paragon points for using them, all the same. There are plenty of
things you can argue, here, but this isn't one of them. Renegade actions
are pragmatic. Paragon actions are idealistic. The consequence of
holding to pragmatism is you will occasionally have to sacrifice the
nice thought for the necessary action.

I think you missed what I said, he did not use the grenades.  What is more or less pragmatic about using a benign gas grenade versus using a real one when dealing with saving colonists?  How does that fit into the renegade that whats to do the nice thing but doesn't have the time or resources?  The renagade is not totally pragmatic, what would be pragmatic about punching a reporter to end an interview early instead of just walking away?  Would he being trying to intemidate viewers? I don't think reapers watch the news.

I'm trying to defend the idea that there isn't any one thing that
definitively makes something part of a genre, or not. The setting
influences the story. The story dictates the actions. The actions have
context, which is the setting. You see?

I thought at the root of this was wether or not ME was a space opera, not the idea that  there isn't ONE thing that defines a sub-genre.  So really, I'm gonna step back to this:

Could you lay out the difference between one and the other?

I'm not sure why you would think they were the same to begin with, an epic is just a big long story...in space.  A space opera has some stipulations to it as mentioned earlier.  All space operas are space epics, but not all space epics are space operas sort of things

I regreat saying space epic, I think I would rather say science fiction epic.  But honestly, we both know the question here is what defines a space opera.  To me, the two important things are a romanticized universe and melodrama.  Yes, ME has drama, but I think, after researching some works, it is pretty much devoid of melodrama.  When a viewer engages one, they don't worry about negative ramificaitons of the good guys decisions, the more bad guys that die the better.  Nothing in the way of motive is really given for the bad guy aside from they are evil.  There are multiple conflicts in ME and this is usually not the case for any of them.  Personally I believe the star child is lying and we are set to find out some things regarding the reapers motives.  There is also no damsel in distress, no villain with crazy, over dramatic laugh, no yelling NOOOOOO when somebody dies.  Very un-melodramatic.  For melodrama, think flash gordon or star wars OT.

Earlier you said the the world is a romanticised sci fi universe because people left alone would be good, I then pointed out that even prior to the reapers it was hardly a place were everyone was committed to being excellent to one another...the later you backtracked to say they needed shepard's guidance to be good or something like that, to be honest you really lost me with your argument on how its a romantic or idealized universe simply because Shepard wants or makes people work together. She still can't get everyone to cooperate.  I would need some examples, for instance, Shepard gets the salarians to cooperate by lying to the krogans and not curing the genophage, but decieving them to believe it....hardly seems positive to me.

Back to the star child.  I feel like any one watching/reading fiction would at least have the suspicous that you are being lied to, especially from a villain.  I feel like this is so basic that we don't even need to touch on it.  As shepard you have the optoin to lie to people, and you are the good guy!

Additionally, any ending where you have to assume the main expositor is
lying -utterly- is problematic, because from that point you can
basically conclude whatever you want. Which could ultimately lead to the
Penny Arcade proposed ending. Is it likely? No. But under the lying paradigm it's no less impossible then anything else.

I would not agree with your statement of lying villain at the end being problematic.  You have other context clues to produce at least a framework of what is happening.  I look at this like a boundry value problem when dealing with differential equations, you have a start and an end point and you have to find a solution that fits.  It is a underdetermined system to be sure, but it gives the player something to work with.  There are all kinds of hints that Shep is indoctrinated anyway, and from dealing with saren in the first game we know that the indoctrinated are usually subjected to lies from the reapers.

I find you mentioning the PA article pretty funny, because his strip is pretty much (in PA's eyes anyway) what the hold the liner's are demanding.  The icecream because it is sweet and happy and few people would complain about getting ice cream.  The segway because its for lazy people that can't even bother to walk between two points.  And the cake for well...obvious reasons.  It is definatly insulting, but you thinking that the strip's is nothing but a fantasticly ridiculous ending they dreamed up to be funny underlines the issue that the ones who dislike the ending have difficulty interpreting fiction at anything other than face value.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 23 mars 2012 - 01:45 .

[Wolfsong27]

Kudos.
Well-written, and exactly how I felt, just articulated better than I could have managed.
Also, Garrus/F!Shep OTP

Modifié par Wolfsong27, 23 mars 2012 - 02:15 .

[FunstuffofDoom]

Also, Garrus/F!Shep OTP

Please remain where you are. The Murdertrons have been dispatched, and will be with you shortly.

Modifié par FunstuffofDoom, 23 mars 2012 - 02:46 .

[Wolfsong27]

*stands her ground*
8|

[Shaigunjoe]

Wolfsong27 wrote...
Also, Garrus/F!Shep OTP

Its totally worth it just to hear Moridin try and explain how turian/human sex would work.

[Wolfsong27]

Oh god xD
I remember very clearly snorting Sprite out of my nose the first time I saw that. I played ME2 blind, so I had no idea what to expect.
... But that wasn't it xD