649 réponses à ce sujet

[Anjeel]

Subject M wrote...

Anjeel wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Anjeel wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I've seen people say that there would be no problem with just having a happy ending as one possible ending. This is incorrect.

The nature of a game, or at least how we play games at present, is that we will always try to "win". Even in a story-based game like Mass Effect, we will take what we perceive to be the "best possible ending" and take that as the "winning" one. If you have a happy ending ... people will take that as the best possible one, completely negating the point of having an unhappy ending at all. There's no real bittersweet feeling if you can simply choose to turn it off and have a happy situation instead. We've already seen this in ME3. The "secret ending" has been seized upon by many people as being the "perfect" one. If you give gamers a sniff of an ending that works out better for the player's goals than the others ... they'll take it as a loosely defined canonical one.

If you want to have an emotional, bittersweet ending ... you can't have a button which says "press here to have a happy ending instead".

EDIT: Sidenote - This is only a response to people who say "why can't we have a happy ending?" Not to sound harsh, but I really don't care about anyone who's going to come in and say "But it wasn't that it wasn't a happy ending, I didn't like it because ...". This thread wasn't for that.

Honestly, I would have been happy with an ending saying that everything you did is for naught and the cycle continues.  That would have made a lot more sense than what we got.

You are probably pretty lonely in that camp.

Aww... did it make you feel better about yourself to say that?  I love a good tragedy.  Sadly they have been very lacking lately.  Not a big deal that not a lot of people feel that way.  It's just something I enjoy.

I did not mean to come across as rude or mean.
I was simply trying to say that when you make a story, you need to know who you make it for if you want it to be appreciated. If you have a "large audience" with differing taste, and a game/story with varying ways of playing it, you need more then one type of ending.

I agree completely there.  I think with the way the story played out, a win, and a complete fail (tragedy), should have been options.

[XqctaX]

The Razman wrote...

XqctaX wrote...

 as ussuall you answer by shifting subject or writing total nonsence.

Nonsense*

Pro-tip: If you're going to accuse somebody of writing nonsense ... spell "nonsense" correctly. Otherwise you're typing nonsence.

first you want to change the subject, then you start talking about baby jesus <-- lol
and now you complain about my spelling.

it's okay razman i allready knew you didnt have any arguments that could stand on there own merit.
mabey it was childish of me to think that you might be able to admit your wrong like a grownup

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

You were the one who brought it up. The fact that player choice is taken away at the end of the game. That's a gameplay mechanic change.

No it isn't, it's a narrative change. The narrative of the game is based on player choice and always has been.

The Razman wrote...... Shepard being forced to sacrifice himself while he experiences flashbacks of all the people he loved (which he's been saying goodbye to before the battle) doesn't qualify as "the main character suffering extreme sorrow as a consequence of an inability to cope with unfavourable circumstances"?

Yeah ... sorry, but drop that one, please. It's tragic. The whole thing is a tragic narreme. I can draw a proper definition from an actual literary academic source (rather than a dictionary, which is never a good thing to be using in any debate) and compare them against other examples from various media, but I'd really rather not have to waste the time on something which is fairly obvious.

Now look who isn't making an argument. You can't tell the difference between a (failed) heroic sacrifice and a tragedy and you want to try and lecture me on this? Do you seriously think you can't have sadness without it being tragedy? The absolute worst you can say is that they were aiming for 'bittersweet' (note that Bioware themselves have said this).

Bittersweet isn't tragic either.

Do you remember the dark days after the game's release when the following was being touted as the game's ending?

1. All the relays are destroyed permanently
2. All significant technology is destroyed (in Destroy ending) triggering an intergalactic dark age
3. Tali and Garrus almost certainly die due to being unable to eat the food of the planet they are on, the rest become part of an incestuous colony.
4. The Quarians become essentially extinct.
5. The Krogan - wthout Wrex who is stranded on Sol - regress to violence thus rendering the Tuchanka arc redundant.
6. Earth is wiped out by the various fleets fighting for food or resources in an effort to get home.

That sounds a lot more like a tragic ending than what we actually got. Bioware has specifically rebutted almost every point on that list, and have actively removed tragedy from the ending at every point.

Furthermore, there is no evidence at all that Bioware were even going for a tragic ending. Can you find a Bioware source which says that they were? I can find one that involves the word 'uplifting' inside five minutes, and I bet you can too.

Time for you to make an argument, Raz, or drop it, because right now you sound like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The ending of ME 3 doesn't pass even basic muster as a tragic ending, especially not in the literary sense. It wasn't intended to be one, it wasn't written as one, and it doesn't even play out as one. It was intended to be a bittersweet heroic sacrifice that could potentially be a pyrrhic victory if your EMS was too low, as earth would be scorched in the process.

It was not intended to be a tragedy and it possesses next to no hallmarks of one.

My Shepherd, at least, stood tall and walked towards the console shooting the crap out of it until it blew up in her face. She wasn't on the floor, unable to stand, bemoaning that things could have come to this due to her own foolishness and hubris.

Can you seriously not tell the difference between 'sad' and 'tragic'?

The Razman wrote...Um ... I know you think that was some kind of rebuttal ...

And you thought that was a rebuttal originally, and it wasn't.

The Razman wrote...I'm only applying the exact same ridiculous standard you were. If you've abandoned the conversation in favour of ... whatever that mental breakdown of a response was, this line of conversation is probably done with.

As I said, if you're not even going to try, why should I? Not one of those examples was comparable in any way. I can explain in detail why each of them - with the exception of Independence Day - isn't faintly relevant, but you don't read long explanations so what's the point?

The standard you were applying wasn't mine, it was some random BS that you spewed out at the end of your reply. I didn't see any reason to dignify it with a serious response. And if you meant that seriously... that's unfortunate.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 13 mai 2012 - 10:46 .

[3DandBeyond]

jeweledleah wrote...

I still don't understand why tragedy is supposedly the only valid possible fitting end to mass effect franchise. first 2 games were not built as tragedies. they were built as heroic uplifting sci-fi, and tragic moments that happened were there to make the uplifting feel more uplifitng. third game.. has its ups and downs but general seems to lead up to uplifting.

so why is the tragedy the only fitting end? we CAN'T we win? please, could someone explain to me, when did Mass Effect suddenly turn into a Lars von Trier movie?

You can't understand it because it isn't the only valid fitting end-it isn't even the best end.  If only from a business standpoint.  If you take a look at the past, say almost 35 years or since Star Wars was released, how many blockbuster films that created super franchises had sad, sacrificial endings?  How many had triumphant, hard fought happy ones?  How many billions of dollars (US, but name your currency) were earned by depressing, hero dies movies and how many by hero lives after almost certain death?

True art is not something that reveals the expected, but that unveils the least or never expected.  Most people went into ME3 figuring, expecting, having been told, this was the end of Shepard.  What did that mean?  Shepard would die.  One very touching scene (Liara's gift) all but seals Shepard's fate.  You know Shepard will die.  They said goodbye.  But we get a possibility that rejects that as a fated ending.  We just don't get anything to feel really good about that itty bitty gasp.

And, no matter what color choice you pick, there is not overwhelming "hell, yeah!" kind of triumph over the reapers.  We are left with ambiguity.  Make no mistake, I want to at least have the choice of a full blown happy ending (life already is hard enough, entertainment needn't be), but nothing is worse than this ambiguity.  People may die, the mass relays may or may not have destroyed much of the galaxy, Geth/Quarian/Joker/love interest/friends-no idea really what happened or will happen to them.  EDI, no idea.  Even the reapers, no real idea.  They may come back or something else may one day take their place or whatever.  Ambiguity-stupidest ending ever. 

Give me happy done well every time-it's authentic, it fits this tale of Shepard who rose from the ashes after defeating Saren and Sovereign, Shepard who came back from the dead, Shepard who faced the suicide mission (mine survived with all her teammates), and Shepard who was way larger than life.

Depressing, morose, cheap sacrifice is just that, cheap.  I want Shepard and friends to be honored and not posthumously.

[Subject M]

Anjeel wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Anjeel wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Anjeel wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I've seen people say that there would be no problem with just having a happy ending as one possible ending. This is incorrect.

The nature of a game, or at least how we play games at present, is that we will always try to "win". Even in a story-based game like Mass Effect, we will take what we perceive to be the "best possible ending" and take that as the "winning" one. If you have a happy ending ... people will take that as the best possible one, completely negating the point of having an unhappy ending at all. There's no real bittersweet feeling if you can simply choose to turn it off and have a happy situation instead. We've already seen this in ME3. The "secret ending" has been seized upon by many people as being the "perfect" one. If you give gamers a sniff of an ending that works out better for the player's goals than the others ... they'll take it as a loosely defined canonical one.

If you want to have an emotional, bittersweet ending ... you can't have a button which says "press here to have a happy ending instead".

EDIT: Sidenote - This is only a response to people who say "why can't we have a happy ending?" Not to sound harsh, but I really don't care about anyone who's going to come in and say "But it wasn't that it wasn't a happy ending, I didn't like it because ...". This thread wasn't for that.

Honestly, I would have been happy with an ending saying that everything you did is for naught and the cycle continues.  That would have made a lot more sense than what we got.

You are probably pretty lonely in that camp.

Aww... did it make you feel better about yourself to say that?  I love a good tragedy.  Sadly they have been very lacking lately.  Not a big deal that not a lot of people feel that way.  It's just something I enjoy.

I did not mean to come across as rude or mean.
I was simply trying to say that when you make a story, you need to know who you make it for if you want it to be appreciated. If you have a "large audience" with differing taste, and a game/story with varying ways of playing it, you need more then one type of ending.

I agree completely there.  I think with the way the story played out, a win, and a complete fail (tragedy), should have been options.

Not only that, but there should have been different ways of "winning" (the complete failure would of course be if you failed at gathering a strong enough force in retaking Earth- resulting in the Normandy as well as the rest of sword getting destroyed over Earth). There should have been variables such a "time vs resources/readiness" (kinda like in ME2 before the suicide mission with the crew abducted, where you weigh the cost of lives on Earth against your level of preparedness, so that for example players who think saving as many as possible and engage the Reapers as quickly as possible but with the expense of Shepard having lower chances of surviving can do that, and players who want Shepard to follow the line of thought that that being prepared is paramount can take that road) as well as a "paragon" and a "renegade" way of winning regardless of preparations.

People who objects to Shepard and Friends making it through in one piece should remember that if Anderson dies, it will not be a "faceless" death, and it would cast a shadow on your victory, especially if cut-scenes and cinematics; like showing  the team standing quiet and resolute before a huge memorial wall after the battle, the camera panning over the devastated landscape of Earth (with a few still living trees left standing) to Shepard reaching out his hand and Touching the name of David Anderson before quietly saying "Its over. We did it". followed by the camera panning further and further out until you see the view of the entire planet with wreckages in orbit - fade to black and epilogue pictures and text telling us what happened in the aftermath, like "After the defeat of the Reapers/neutralization of the Reaper threat, Shepard and team stayed a couple of years on Earth, helping with the reconstruction effort. bla.bla.bla. eventually, retiring from active service and together with Tali the two built themselves a home on Rannoch" And so on an so forth. the end

Or something like that. 

Modifié par Subject M, 13 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[Windninja47]

What is the 'secret ending'? Is that the green ending?

[Subject M]

Windninja47 wrote...

What is the 'secret ending'? Is that the green ending?

This is the spoiler free forum, remember. I think it is referring to a certain thing you can only get if you have +5000 EMS and chooses a specific option in the end.

[Ninja Mage]

The ending is bad because it presents three choices that have the same outcome, a tragic ending. If you have the same result it is not a choice. Like someone said the game just stops after making a choice with the same result for you. It has nothing to do with happy or sad. If I had to kill shepherd to save earth and the relays I would have done it. But everything is destroyed anyway

[ile_1979]

What's wrong with happy endings? ONE WORD......A-R-T-I-S-T-I-C I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y.......wait...those are two words....this brandy is getting a hold of me....here is to artistic integrity!

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

No it isn't, it's a narrative change. The narrative of the game is based on player choice and always has been.

Um ... I don't think you understand the difference between narrative and gameplay, which is unfortunate. Mass Effect is a linear narrative. Any choices the player makes are a gameplay mechanic. And any changes the player can make to the narrative of the game are purely cursory.

Now look who isn't making an argument. You can't tell the difference between a (failed) heroic sacrifice and a tragedy and you want to try and lecture me on this? Do you seriously think you can't have sadness without it being tragedy?

No, I don't. And my never having said anything of the sort invalidates the wall of text you wrote attacking that straw man.

Your clue that you shouldn't have been writing anything that you were should have been when you saw me use your own definition (basic though it was) of tragedy, apply it flawlessly to ME3's ending, and you thought "No ... I'll delete that, I don't want to respond to that". If you can't even cross that first hurdle, what's the point in my saying anything else?

The Razman wrote...Um ... I know you think that was some kind of rebuttal ...

And you thought that was a rebuttal originally, and it wasn't.

... that didn't even make sense. <_<

The standard you were applying wasn't mine, it was some random BS that you spewed out at the end of your reply. I didn't see any reason to dignify it with a serious response.

... so you chose to dignify it with a childish one. Makes sense. <_<

The moment I started turning your own definitions and standards back on you, you've turned very childish and defensive. You were actually doing very well before in carrying off a good argument, I was agreeing with you on several points. It's a shame you threw that all away.

Modifié par The Razman, 13 mai 2012 - 05:40 .

[The Razman]

Ninja Mage wrote...

The ending is bad because it presents three choices that have the same outcome, a tragic ending. If you have the same result it is not a choice. Like someone said the game just stops after making a choice with the same result for you. It has nothing to do with happy or sad. If I had to kill shepherd to save earth and the relays I would have done it. But everything is destroyed anyway

The Virmire mission in ME1 gives you two choices, both with the same outcome; a tragic result.

Is that not a choice either?

[Subject M]

>The Razman

I think you exaggerate when it comes to the narrative being linear and that choices are pure gameplay.
Of course there is much that is linear, but I do consider anything that produce a different outcome in terms of the fate of characters, entire races or the general political situation as an example of diverging storylines and thus a non-linear narrative.

But it is true that of the common complaints is just that it the story IS too linear in this final installment.

Modifié par Subject M, 13 mai 2012 - 05:53 .

[Grimwick]

The Razman wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

No it isn't, it's a narrative change. The narrative of the game is based on player choice and always has been.

Um ... I don't think you understand the difference between narrative and gameplay, which is unfortunate. Mass Effect is a linear narrative. Any choices the player makes are a gameplay mechanic. And any changes the player can make to the narrative of the game are purely cursory.

Cursory? The entire ending of the genophage arc is dependent upon your actions in the game and previous games, the whole ending and outcomes of the Rannoch arc are dependent upon your choice at the end - and are affected by other choices such as those in ME2. You can two have games with very different narratives and very different events with different choices. The only things that are very similar at all are the set pieces - the story surrounding these is quite different.  

ME has focused heavily on decisions which change the narrative. Emphasis that player choice matters is what drove the developers when they made the game and so arguing that player choice is cursory is not a defence. In fact it proves that ME3 and the ending forgot another aspect of the trilogy which it promised to provide.

[Sgt Stryker]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Do you remember the dark days after the game's release when the following was being touted as the game's ending?

1. All the relays are destroyed permanently
2. All significant technology is destroyed (in Destroy ending) triggering an intergalactic dark age
3. Tali and Garrus almost certainly die due to being unable to eat the food of the planet they are on, the rest become part of an incestuous colony.
4. The Quarians become essentially extinct.
5. The Krogan - wthout Wrex who is stranded on Sol - regress to violence thus rendering the Tuchanka arc redundant.
6. Earth is wiped out by the various fleets fighting for food or resources in an effort to get home.

I don't mean to nitpick, but #2 is only true for low-EMS Destroy.

[iamthedave3]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

Do you remember the dark days after the game's release when the following was being touted as the game's ending?

1. All the relays are destroyed permanently
2. All significant technology is destroyed (in Destroy ending) triggering an intergalactic dark age
3. Tali and Garrus almost certainly die due to being unable to eat the food of the planet they are on, the rest become part of an incestuous colony.
4. The Quarians become essentially extinct.
5. The Krogan - wthout Wrex who is stranded on Sol - regress to violence thus rendering the Tuchanka arc redundant.
6. Earth is wiped out by the various fleets fighting for food or resources in an effort to get home.

I don't mean to nitpick, but #2 is only true for low-EMS Destroy.

No, you may be misremembering. The claim was put forth based on the Catalyst's line about 'most of the technology you rely on will be destroyed'. Or are you mixing me up with the 'wave of annihilating fire' ending?

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

Your clue that you shouldn't have been writing anything that you were should have been when you saw me use your own definition (basic though it was) of tragedy, apply it flawlessly to ME3's ending, and you thought "No ... I'll delete that, I don't want to respond to that". If you can't even cross that first hurdle, what's the point in my saying anything else?

I saw you fail to use my own definition of tragedy spectacularly. You didn't apply it flawlessly to anything, let alone the ending of ME 3. This is why I asked the question 'can you not tell the difference between a (failed) heroic sacrifice and a tragedy'?

Continuing to misuse the word 'tragic' over and over doesn't strengthen your case. It just means you're mis-using the word over and over, as you did in that 'first hurdle'. I can't cross a hurdle that doesn't exist.

Unless you're referring to a different passage than the one I think you're referring to.

Also, the previous post - that you seem to have tried to dismiss by casually throwing out the word 'strawman' - clearly outlines that Bioware not only weren't attempting to craft a tragic ending but have actively moved to remove tragic elements at every point. This would seem a fairly relevant issue given what you've been arguing for five+ pages.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 13 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[Sgt Stryker]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

Do you remember the dark days after the game's release when the following was being touted as the game's ending?

1. All the relays are destroyed permanently
2. All significant technology is destroyed (in Destroy ending) triggering an intergalactic dark age
3. Tali and Garrus almost certainly die due to being unable to eat the food of the planet they are on, the rest become part of an incestuous colony.
4. The Quarians become essentially extinct.
5. The Krogan - wthout Wrex who is stranded on Sol - regress to violence thus rendering the Tuchanka arc redundant.
6. Earth is wiped out by the various fleets fighting for food or resources in an effort to get home.

I don't mean to nitpick, but #2 is only true for low-EMS Destroy.

No, you may be misremembering. The claim was put forth based on the Catalyst's line about 'most of the technology you rely on will be destroyed'. Or are you mixing me up with the 'wave of annihilating fire' ending?

Since this is the non-spoiler forum, let's take it to private messages?

[The Razman]

Grimwick wrote...

Cursory? The entire ending of the genophage arc is dependent upon your actions in the game and previous games, the whole ending and outcomes of the Rannoch arc are dependent upon your choice at the end - and are affected by other choices such as those in ME2. You can two have games with very different narratives and very different events with different choices. The only things that are very similar at all are the set pieces - the story surrounding these is quite different.

Seriously, how can people spend all their time moaning about how all the endings are "the same", and then use the word "different" to describe the exact same thing?

There's no "very different narratives" going on. Either the Genophage is cured, and a set sequence of events happen, or the Genophage isn't cured and a set sequence of events happen ... with neither set of events having any effect on the progress of the narrative as a whole. It doesn't matter what you do with the Genophage. It doesn't matter what you do on Rannock or Thessia. You're still going to Priority Mission Earth with the Crucible with the same sequence of events happening. That's what makes any changes you can make purely cursory. The narrative is going to play out the exact same way, every single time, waiting for you to just do the next priority mission so you can progress the narrative on another step. Just because they've given you the ability to choose the side-details, you think you're having any impact on the narrative?

You never had any control over any major plot point in the Mass Effect narrative. It's a linear narrative wrapped in non-linear gameplay mechanics.

Modifié par The Razman, 13 mai 2012 - 07:44 .

[Grimwick]

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cursory? The entire ending of the genophage arc is dependent upon your actions in the game and previous games, the whole ending and outcomes of the Rannoch arc are dependent upon your choice at the end - and are affected by other choices such as those in ME2. You can two have games with very different narratives and very different events with different choices. The only things that are very similar at all are the set pieces - the story surrounding these is quite different.

There's no "very different narratives" going on. Either the Genophage is cured, and a set sequence of events happen, or the Genophage isn't cured and a set sequence of events happen ... with neither set of events having any effect on the progress of the narrative as a whole. It doesn't matter what you do with the Genophage. It doesn't matter what you do on Rannock or Thessia. You're still going to Priority Mission Earth with the Crucible with the same sequence of events happening. That's what makes any changes you can make purely cursory. The narrative is going to play out the exact same way, every single time, waiting for you to just do the next priority mission so you can progress the narrative on another step. Just because they've given you the ability to choose the side-details, you think you're having any impact on the narrative?

Yes, I am and I do.

I would explain the variety in the narrative in more detail if it weren't a non-spoilers thread.
Whether or not the main reaper story is similar or not doesn't mean the narrative is the same in all cases. In ME1 the reaper story was dotted with side-stories or side-choices which you could affect. Did you help or kill Parasini? Did you save/kill the Feros colony? etc

This is added upon by the council choice at the end as well as choices within the numerous side-quests.

Then comes ME2 where a very large number of the missions present a choice. Samara or Morinth? Save Tali from being exiled? Destroy Maelon's data? All of these decisions change the story, they make the story different in each playthrough and change the narrative history of the game.

If you believe that curing and not curing the genophage is the same narrative then be my guest, but that does not justify taking choice away from players who do feel the narrative changes.

[The Razman]

Subject M wrote...

>The Razman

I think you exaggerate when it comes to the narrative being linear and that choices are pure gameplay.
Of course there is much that is linear, but I do consider anything that produce a different outcome in terms of the fate of characters, entire races or the general political situation as an example of diverging storylines and thus a non-linear narrative.

That's a matter of opinion. Do you consider parallel narratives to be non-linear narratives? Because I don't think we should ever be aiming for those as a paragon of "non-linear storytelling". They're pseudo-non-linear, giving the illusion of consequences while feeding us a standard linear story. Here, this is something I used in my undergraduate dissertation to explain this point. Mass Effect is this:



When we want this:



The former gives only illusion. The latter is an actual non-linear narrative.

[iamthedave3]

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cursory? The entire ending of the genophage arc is dependent upon your actions in the game and previous games, the whole ending and outcomes of the Rannoch arc are dependent upon your choice at the end - and are affected by other choices such as those in ME2. You can two have games with very different narratives and very different events with different choices. The only things that are very similar at all are the set pieces - the story surrounding these is quite different.

There's no "very different narratives" going on. Either the Genophage is cured, and a set sequence of events happen, or the Genophage isn't cured and a set sequence of events happen ... with neither set of events having any effect on the progress of the narrative as a whole. It doesn't matter what you do with the Genophage. It doesn't matter what you do on Rannock or Thessia. You're still going to Priority Mission Earth with the Crucible with the same sequence of events happening. That's what makes any changes you can make purely cursory. The narrative is going to play out the exact same way, every single time, waiting for you to just do the next priority mission so you can progress the narrative on another step. Just because they've given you the ability to choose the side-details, you think you're having any impact on the narrative?

Yes, I am and I do.

I would explain the variety in the narrative in more detail if it weren't a non-spoilers thread.
Whether or not the main reaper story is similar or not doesn't mean the narrative is the same in all cases. In ME1 the reaper story was dotted with side-stories or side-choices which you could affect. Did you help or kill Parasini? Did you save/kill the Feros colony? etc

This is added upon by the council choice at the end as well as choices within the numerous side-quests.

Then comes ME2 where a very large number of the missions present a choice. Samara or Morinth? Save Tali from being exiled? Destroy Maelon's data? All of these decisions change the story, they make the story different in each playthrough and change the narrative history of the game.

If you believe that curing and not curing the genophage is the same narrative then be my guest, but that does not justify taking choice away from players who do feel the narrative changes.

Agreed.

I would say, in the spirit of good argument, that Raz isn't completely wrong. The events are laid out and occur regardless, which is the point I think he was making.

However, the choices you make grandly affect the character of those events and drastically shape the emotive impact they have on the player. Bioware are not rigidly controlling the events to create specific emotional resonances in all players as is the case in a JRPG or most Survival Horror games etc. etc.

Hence why people have such a wide variety of emotional responses to the Mass Effect games. You don't see quite such a variety in Red Dead Redemption, for example. Players either got into the atmosphere and ended up feeling more or less the same (because the narrative is tightly controlled and aims from the beginning for a specific emotional reaction) or they didn't and either stopped playing or stuck around for Western-style fun.

Players cannot reshape the narrative structure, but can drastically alter the emotional resonance of the events of the narrative.

@Raz: Because it's not worth a full reply... is that Heavy Rain I see there?

Modifié par iamthedave3, 13 mai 2012 - 07:57 .

[Sgt Stryker]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

>The Razman

I think you exaggerate when it comes to the narrative being linear and that choices are pure gameplay.
Of course there is much that is linear, but I do consider anything that produce a different outcome in terms of the fate of characters, entire races or the general political situation as an example of diverging storylines and thus a non-linear narrative.

That's a matter of opinion. Do you consider parallel narratives to be non-linear narratives? Because I don't think we should ever be aiming for those as a paragon of "non-linear storytelling". They're pseudo-non-linear, giving the illusion of consequences while feeding us a standard linear story. Here, this is something I used in my undergraduate dissertation to explain this point. Mass Effect is this:



When we want this:



The former gives only illusion. The latter is an actual non-linear narrative.

In that case Casey Hudson made a big boo-boo, by advertising the game as the latter, when in reality we got the former.

[The Razman]

[quote]Grimwick wrote...

[quote]Whether or not the main reaper story is similar or not doesn't mean the narrative is the same in all cases.[/quote]
Stop right there. Not similar. The same. I could, and would if I had the time, string together all the cutscenes for the major plot points in all the Mass Effect games and they would, in almost all of the cases, be identical for all players of the game no matter what their choices are. The only differences may be a character being replaced by a different one, or a small optional piece of dialogue occuring or not occuring. That's not non-linearity. That's the illusion of it.

[quote]In ME1 the reaper story was dotted with side-stories or side-choices which you could affect. Did you help or kill Parasini? Did you save/kill the Feros colony? etc

This is added upon by the council choice at the end as well as choices within the numerous side-quests[/quote]
For any of those to prove your point you have to name something, anything, which affects the major plot points of the narrative. Does it matter to the battle with Sovereign if you kill Parasini? Or save the Feros colony? Or, rather ironically considering it's something I was going to bring up myself but you did for me ... what does killing or saving the Council change in the game's major storyline?

Nothing. Nothing changes. Everything happens pretty much exactly as it did before. Any change within the narrative is entirely in the imagination.

[quote]Then comes ME2 where a very large number of the missions present a choice. Samara or Morinth? Save Tali from being exiled? Destroy Maelon's data? All of these decisions change the story, they make the story different in each playthrough and change the narrative history of the game.[/quote]
Mass Effect 2, I'll give you, seeing as the narrative of the game is about the characters more than anything else. That has more in common with a non-linear storyline than not. Of course, it all goes on to prove the game's categorical linear nature in the end by making sure that even missions in ME3 which heavily involve characters which have died merely replace them with a placeholder character and carry on as normal. Another point I was going to bring up to demonstrate.

[The Razman]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

>The Razman

I think you exaggerate when it comes to the narrative being linear and that choices are pure gameplay.
Of course there is much that is linear, but I do consider anything that produce a different outcome in terms of the fate of characters, entire races or the general political situation as an example of diverging storylines and thus a non-linear narrative.

That's a matter of opinion. Do you consider parallel narratives to be non-linear narratives? Because I don't think we should ever be aiming for those as a paragon of "non-linear storytelling". They're pseudo-non-linear, giving the illusion of consequences while feeding us a standard linear story. Here, this is something I used in my undergraduate dissertation to explain this point. Mass Effect is this:



When we want this:



The former gives only illusion. The latter is an actual non-linear narrative.

In that case Casey Hudson made a big boo-boo, by advertising the game as the latter, when in reality we got the former.

What? All three Mass Effect games have followed this formula. Not just ME3.

Modifié par The Razman, 13 mai 2012 - 08:04 .