649 réponses à ce sujet

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

If we look at the "main storyline" what we had in the trilogy is the first model. But there are parts of the narrative that does indeed branches off and these are of course part of the narrative too.  The fate of the krogan and Geth are part of the narrative and they are indeed following model no 2.

Part of the reason why people are upset is because we were under the impression that ME3 would have vastly different endings (would end as a branching narrative - hey its the ENDING). In some ways it was, (synthesis, destroy and control) its just it was not done in a nonsatisfying way without any notiable agency when too much stayed the same regardless of what we did because it ended in accordance with the catalyst going like: Sorry Frodo, but:
[snip]

You're right when you say that the Geth and the Krogan stories have branching narratives ... but they're not part of the main story of the game. Absolutely nothing you do in those narrative side-branches will significantly effect anything to do with the main quest, no? It's going to carry on in a relentlessly linear path progressed by your completion of linear "main" missions. That at best makes Mass Effect a linear game with a bunch of non-linear sidequests.

And that's fine if you like that kind of thing, I'm not claiming that kind of game is "wrong" or anything. But it doesn't allow for people to complain about having the impression that ME3 would have vastly different narratives based on what you do. Mass Effect has never had a branching narrative; it's not that type of game.

Its a was supposedly a action RPG-trilogy right?
No, it was not that type of a game, and that is probably one of the main reasons why we are upset, because we were under the impression that it was. Its very strange that there was no proper integration of "side stories" with "the main story" because it makes the game and the overall story feel less coherent and your actions/choices as less relevant.

[Subject M]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

Eh... I'm not sure Drew's dark energy plan is quite 'awesome'. Better than what we got? Maybe, but that one could have been pretty dang lame as well.

True, but at least the Dark energy plot was foreshadowed and thus integrated into the narrative structure properly.
But the real question is: How many specimens do the reapers need of a particular race? Obviously not all.

I think with the reaper creation it's a case of 'as many as it takes'. The process has never been clearly elucidated, but it's not flawless (they mention that many races can't be harvested).

Its really strange when you think of it, but its of course just a plot-device. (If the Reapers are so advanced and have time, why not just sample the population for the relevant genotypes, do some cloning, hybridization and splicing - done!)

Really they should have played the "we impose order on the chaos of organic evolution" - card, with the catalyst stating that organics are too dangerous to just leave alone and unchecked. That could have given rise to interesting solutions as you bargain with or plot against the catalyst  (the "Reaper consensus" or harbinger in disguise).

I personally don't feel that there was any way to pull this off effectively, based on prior established qualities of the reapers. The writers reiterated over and over that the reapers are unknowable, impossible to comprehend, and then shackled them down with an extremely basic motivation for what they do. The reapers - it turns out - are trying to save the universe through extreme methods.

By giving us that motivation they stripped away all of that cthuloid grandeur and reduced them significantly. The reapers are understandable. It's just we don't have all the information they do. It was never going to work with the way they were sold in ME 1 (re-listen to Sovereign's speech, just for kicks really) and in ME 3 (by Legion primarily). We shouldn't be able to have debates about whether or not their motivation 'makes sense'. We shouldn't be able to comprehend it at all. I feel that a lot of the backlash against star child is related to that exact issue. People liked what the reapers were, and I don't think many like what they now are.

Though if you absolutely had to explain their justification, I think you've got it right. This line we're thrown about how they're really doing it for our own good was a terrible decision. The reapers shouldn't care about us in the slightest.

Side note: the dark energy plot would have been a much better way to tackle that. I am 99% certain that I would still have had reservations, but at least then the threat would be something concrete, demonstrable, established in a prior game (as you pointed out) and it would have left options for our heroes to find evidence of another way to combat it. Reapers as saviours of the galaxy might always have made me queasy, but if it's a bonafide, established risk to the universe than I can at least run with it.

That would indeed have opened room for negotiation and could have - potentially - made for an awesome twist end.

People have been saying they would like the trial to be the prologue. What if the ending was the star child (I hate him to but I'm assuming that Bioware would always have had him in) putting the galaxy on trial, and Shepherd having to demonstrate that this cycle's life forms have found a way to combat dark energy?

That might have turned out interesting. I can certainly imagine how Bioware could pull it off. They've done good 'trial' scenes in previous games, after all. Maybe the 'best' ending is Shepherd negotiates x number of years for them all to find a solution, or the reapers come back. To keep the tone dark and stuff. Eh. Just a thought.

Really that wouldn't have worked either because people wanted action adventure where the bad guys die in the end, and had been trained to expect as much from the past two games. And promised as much, for that matter, in the trailers at least (and I'm certain everyone saw the trailers at the least).

A "trail" at the end, where all your work and achievements are "weighed", would work as one of the alternatives to an ending, (the "completionists ending") be it in a "dark energy" or our current ending - just as " I dont care what you have to say, I am just going to destroy you because that is what I want!!! - ending should also be an alternative.

I outlined a suggestion on how it could have been done here social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9961224

Modifié par Subject M, 15 mai 2012 - 04:56 .

[The Razman]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

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

Here I assert that the developers claimed their product had multiple endings that are very different from one another, that the player crafts a unique story, that since this is the end of the trilogy, they have a lot more leeway in making more divergent endings, etc. etc. etc. None of that happened with the actual game, and therefore, we can conclude that at least in the marketing department, Bioware made a big mistake.

... sure?

I'm really tired of asking you how any of that is relevent to the discussion we're having about parallel and branching narratives and the different kind of emotional reactions to them. Are you telling me that you simply saw me post those pictures, and thought you'd come in arguing about "BIOWARE LIED!" ... when that argument has zero relevence to the discussion at hand?

The only way its relevent to that discussion, the one we were all having before you came in, is if people were basing their emotional expectations around those quotes. Which is why I keep asking you to prove that by showing me. Otherwise you're making an argument against something which nobody was talking about. Why?

Now, I don't know about other people, but I also made a mistake of believing there would be many divergent endings that depended on your past choices in the games. One mistake that I will not repeat in the future.

Why would you assume that ME3 was going to be drastically different to either of the previous two games? People don't generally change the mechanics of their games in the third title of the trilogy.

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

3 points.
1. You obviously did not read the post.  If you play through the main story, make certain choices wrongly, etc. you don't get the happy ending.  That's the polar opposite of working for it.

No ... Mass Effect is a game where if you simple do everything and don't pick the "LOL" options, you win. There's almost no complex choices in the game where you can make wrong decisions without meaning to and end up losing people. The choice between Paragon and Renegade is always clearly signposted in every conversation.

For things to "go wrong" you have to choose either to not do things in the game (side-quests, etc) or just purposefully screw up. You have total control. Unless you're playing like an idiot, you have to work for any bad endings.

2.  Saying you can't want a tragedy to happen is like saying you can't want to have pain inflicted upon you or you can't like brussle sprouts.  There are absolutely people who want to be sad.  If nobody wanted tragedy to happen in fiction there would be no tragedy in fiction.  Think about it, what are Shakespeare's most famous plays, "Hamlet," "Romeo and Julliette," The Scottish play, "Richard the Third,"  all of them tragedies.  Name 5 anciant Greek plays, I can garentee you if you ask 1000 people to do that most of them will only come up with, at most 1 comedy, and the rest will be tragedies.

We've been through this before in this thread.

There's difference between choosing to watch a tragedy, and choosing for the tragedy to happen. When you choose to watch Romeo and Juliet, yes ... you want to experience the emotions associated with tragedy. But when you're watching the narrative, you're not watching it eagerly wanting Romeo and Juliet to kill themselves and rooting for it to happen. If you were, you wouldn't be upset when it happened, now would you?

It's the same as people who work towards killing certain characters they don't like in Mass Effect. You may be really upset when a character tragically dies ... but if a character dies because you wanted them to and you chose it, then it's not sad for you; you wanted it to happen. Doesn't matter how sad or tragic it is within the narrative ... you wanted it to happen, therefore how is it sad for you?

We remember all those tragedies not because they ended tragically for the characters, but because we really didn't want the tragedy to happen. That's why Romeo and Juliet is so well remembered ... we all wanted them to end up together.

3.  If your second point was correct, then it was a stupid move.  If a customer wants a prodcut (counting a happy ending as one), and they don't get said prodcut, they no longer buy futher products from the company.  Your whole argument is dependant on Bioware being in the right by not giving people what they want, but in the end it's a stupid move for the company even if it is the right move artistically.  It's like selling lemonaide sans sugar.  People want sugar in their lemonaide.  It might nutritionally be the right choice, but financially, it's incredibly stupid.

Like you just said in your second point ... just because narratives are unhappy doesn't mean people don't buy them. Bambi is an incredibly sad movie from a company you go to to have happy movies from (Disney), yet it's one of their most well-remembered movies (hell, if you want even more depressing from Disney ... Old Yeller?). Tragic endings don't mean people don't want to see them.

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

Doesn't matter how sad or tragic it is within the narrative ... you wanted it to happen, therefore how is it sad for you?

We remember all those tragedies not because they ended tragically for the characters, but because we really didn't want the tragedy to happen. That's why Romeo and Juliet is so well remembered ... we all wanted them to end up together.

You still haven't proven that Bioware were even attempting to make the end tragic. Or attempted to, for that matter.

Compare the death (and story) of TIM to the death (and story) of Shepherd. 

Bioware themselves said that the ending was meant to be uplifting. They have done everything they can to remove elements of tragedy from the ending that the fans themselves inferred from the vanilla ending of ME 3. Until you can put forth a cohesive argument for how Bioware were attempting to forge a tragic ending, you're wasting words.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 15 mai 2012 - 05:48 .

[The Razman]

Subject M wrote...

Its a was supposedly a action RPG-trilogy right?
No, it was not that type of a game, and that is probably one of the main reasons why we are upset, because we were under the impression that it was. Its very strange that there was no proper integration of "side stories" with "the main story" because it makes the game and the overall story feel less coherent and your actions/choices as less relevant.

I'm slightly baffled as to why though, because it's always been an action-RPG with a parallel narrative structure ... I went into ME3 expecting the same thing from the first two games, and that's what I got. I never expected a radical branching narrative from a series that's never shown any interest in doing as such.

People will point to quotes, but at the end of the day ...

"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you
approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it
continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a
classic game ending where everything is linear and you make a choice
between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different
choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for
everyone who plays it." - Casey Hudson

"You had a part in it. Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens." - Mike Gamble

“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome.” - Mac Walters

“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think
one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are
optimal for different people“ - Mike Gamble

“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.” - Mike Gamble

All the common quotes ... they're all just as valid if you look at them thinking they're about Mass Effect 1 or 2. They've said the same lines about the game's linearity the whole way through ... so I really don't see why people expected more this time round.

(Note: That's a sidenote. I don't believe most people based their expectations off any quotes anyway. But it's interesting to note.)

Modifié par The Razman, 15 mai 2012 - 05:48 .

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

You still haven't proven that Bioware were even attempting to make the end tragic. Or attempted to, for that matter.

Last time I used your own definition to show it was tragic, and you never refuted what I said on that. I don't see any need to go into any more depth unless you do.

Compare the death (and story) of TIM to the death (and story) of Shepherd. 

Bioware themselves said that the ending was meant to be uplifting. They have done everything they can to remove elements of tragedy from the ending that the fans themselves inferred from the vanilla ending of ME 3. Until you can put forth a cohesive argument for how Bioware were attempting to forge a tragic ending, you're wasting words.

You've made a baffling assumption that uplifting narremes and tragic ones can't co-exist within the same narrative path. The last scene of the crew stepping out of the Normandy into a very "New World"ish setting with the hopeful music and the sunset is quite obviously meant to be a scene depicting hope for the new future. Why does the presence of that uplifting scene negate the tragic nature of Anderson and Shepard's deaths?

[Subject M]

>The Razman

Its the END of the trilogy and the developers communicated that there would be many different endings.
People went like: Oh I guess DA2 was just a anomaly in the Bioware continuum after all, that's a relief...
Unfortunatly it was wrong. The ending is just the main problem being discussed because its the highest and lowest points you remember. The ending is the lowest point for many people, the thing that ruined their experience of the ME-saga (and that is why Bioware failed, unless their "artistc vision" was to ****** people of and ruin peoples experience of the story). There are of course other low, points, such as the lack of dialoge, lack of being able to screw up (such as reapers simple destroying your fleet over Earth) and so on.
What for many is the high point of ME3 also reflects how ME3 should have been in its totality, namely Priority: Tuchanka. Its choice driven and highly effetive, with a high cost profile.

Modifié par Subject M, 15 mai 2012 - 06:00 .

[The Razman]

Subject M wrote...

>The Razman

Its the END of the trilogy and the developers communicated that there would be many different endings.
People went like: Oh I guess DA2 was just a anomaly in the Bioware continuum after all, that's a relief...
Unfortunatly it was wrong. The ending is just the main problem being discussed because its the highest and lowest points you remember. Then ending is the lowest point for many people, the thing that ruined their experience of the ME-saga. These is of course other low, points, such as the lack of dialoge, lack of being able to screw up and so on.
What for many is the high point of ME3 also reflects how ME3 should have been in its totality, namely Priority: Tuchanka. Its choice driven and highly effetive, with a high cost profile.

They communicated the same thing about Mass Effect 2, and there was the same variety of endings to that game as there are to ME3.

In fact, the style of narrative has been consistent the entire way through.

Modifié par The Razman, 15 mai 2012 - 06:00 .

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

Last time I used your own definition to show it was tragic, and you never refuted what I said on that. I don't see any need to go into any more depth unless you do.

All I saw from your attempt was that you don't know the difference between a heroic sacrifice and tragedy. Until I've seen evidence that you do no argument is going to sway you because you'll continue to mis-use the word 'tragic'. It may be that you do understand the difference, but until I've seen the evidence you do I'm not going to assume.

You've failed to refute my initial point, so I don't see any need to go into any more depth until you do. It goes both ways, Raz.

The Razman wrote...

You've made a baffling assumption that uplifting narremes and tragic ones can't co-exist within the same narrative path. The last scene of the crew stepping out of the Normandy into a very "New World"ish setting with the hopeful music and the sunset is quite obviously meant to be a scene depicting hope for the new future. Why does the presence of that uplifting scene negate the tragic nature of Anderson and Shepard's deaths?

The fact they weren't tragic in the first place is a good place to start. I'm baffled by your insistent use of the word 'tragic' here. What was tragic about their deaths?

They were sad. That does not make them tragic.

TIM's death is a tragic end. Shepherd and Anderson's are not.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 15 mai 2012 - 06:06 .

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

>The Razman

Its the END of the trilogy and the developers communicated that there would be many different endings.
People went like: Oh I guess DA2 was just a anomaly in the Bioware continuum after all, that's a relief...
Unfortunatly it was wrong. The ending is just the main problem being discussed because its the highest and lowest points you remember. Then ending is the lowest point for many people, the thing that ruined their experience of the ME-saga. These is of course other low, points, such as the lack of dialoge, lack of being able to screw up and so on.
What for many is the high point of ME3 also reflects how ME3 should have been in its totality, namely Priority: Tuchanka. Its choice driven and highly effetive, with a high cost profile.

They communicated the same thing about Mass Effect 2, and there was the same variety of endings to that game as there are to ME3.

In fact, the style of narrative has been consistent the entire way through.

I think we both know that is is too resource expensive for most to make a branching main storyline in any other installment then the final chapter (if we wnat to be realistic). ME3 being the final chapter makes all the difference and it requires a branching storyline if you want to give the player a sense of agency and the choices/achievements being made having any significant meaning where it counts. That is, for example, why people wanted to see their war-assets in action, Krogans charging reaper lines alongside geth troopers and mercenary gunships etc. And its why people wanted to tell the godchild to stuff it when they had made peace between the geth and the quarians. Its the ending that needs to be diverging/branching (it already is, but its not successful as it is rushed crap and your agency or accomplishments is not reflected in it -the ending does not "come together" - "the points are not lining up").

Modifié par Subject M, 15 mai 2012 - 06:20 .

[Sgt Stryker]

The Razman wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

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

Here I assert that the developers claimed their product had multiple endings that are very different from one another, that the player crafts a unique story, that since this is the end of the trilogy, they have a lot more leeway in making more divergent endings, etc. etc. etc. None of that happened with the actual game, and therefore, we can conclude that at least in the marketing department, Bioware made a big mistake.

... sure?

I'm really tired of asking you how any of that is relevent to the discussion we're having about parallel and branching narratives and the different kind of emotional reactions to them. Are you telling me that you simply saw me post those pictures, and thought you'd come in arguing about "BIOWARE LIED!" ... when that argument has zero relevence to the discussion at hand?

The only way its relevent to that discussion, the one we were all having before you came in, is if people were basing their emotional expectations around those quotes. Which is why I keep asking you to prove that by showing me. Otherwise you're making an argument against something which nobody was talking about. Why?

Just doing my part to make sure people never forget. That's all.

Now, I don't know about other people, but I also made a mistake of believing there would be many divergent endings that depended on your past choices in the games. One mistake that I will not repeat in the future.

Why would you assume that ME3 was going to be drastically different to either of the previous two games? People don't generally change the mechanics of their games in the third title of the trilogy.

Couple of reasons, both intertwined with each other.. First, why not? It's the last game of Shepard's trilogy, and there's no need for further save transfers. Why not go crazy with all kinds of divergent endings, and truly make endings tailored to all kinds of fans? Second, I vastly overestimated Bioware's storytelling ability. Like I said, never again.

Yet another reason: I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that developers don't drastically change mechanics for a game's sequel. The sequel to Dragon Age: Origins is more of an action game than an RPG. The "sequel" (SW:TOR) to KOTOR 1 and 2 is an MMO, for pete's sake. Granted, EA has a history of changing mechanics for the worse, and I was expecting a change for the better. Silly me.

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

You've failed to refute my initial point, so I don't see any need to go into any more depth until you do. It goes both ways, Raz.

I used your definition. I played it by your rules. The definition of tragedy which you came up with was over-simplified to the point of erroneous anyway, but even in the form you used it, I showed that ME3 fits the criteria. That was my refutation of your initial point. The ball's in your court, and it has been ever since. There's really no point in either of us saying anything else until you decide to issue your own refutation.

[The Razman]

Subject M wrote...

I think we both know that is is too resource expensive for most to make a branching main storyline in any other installment then the final chapter (if we wnat to be realistic). ME3 being the final chapter makes all the difference and it requires a branching storyline if you want to give the player a sense of agency and the choices/achievements being made having any significant meaning where it counts. That is, for example, why people wanted to see their war-assets in action, Krogans charging reaper lines alongside geth troopers and mercenary gunships etc. And its why people wanted to tell the godchild to stuff it when they had made peace between the geth and the quarians. Its the ending that needs to be diverging/branching (it already is, but its not successful as it is rushed crap and your agency or accomplishments is not reflected in it -the ending does not "come together" - "the points are not lining up").

It's quite easy to stand on the outside and claim that ME3 should be doing things that the other two didn't do because its the last in the trilogy ... but what you're describing is a process too complex for any game of ME's production magnitude. That's why they haven't done it in either of the first two games ... it's nothing to do with the fact that they weren't the last games in the trilogy, it's that the production values are too high.

I never saw that changing in ME3. Same budget, even less production time ... why did people choose to have such outlandish expectations? Did reason go out the window?

[The Razman]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Just doing my part to make sure people never forget. That's all.

And no offence, but making yourself look a bit silly in the process. It had nothing to do with this thread, so why bring it up? Go make your own thread.

Couple of reasons, both intertwined with each other.. First, why not? It's the last game of Shepard's trilogy, and there's no need for further save transfers. Why not go crazy with all kinds of divergent endings, and truly make endings tailored to all kinds of fans?

Because this is technically and logistically unfeasible. Surely you knew that? 6 months less development time on a similar budget ... why were you expecting outlandishly superior narrative branching when everyone knows just how expensive and time-consuming that process is?

Second, I vastly overestimated Bioware's storytelling ability. Like I said, never again.

Sounds like you just vastly overestimated their logistical ability, not their storytelling ability. You shouldn't do that again, yes.

Yet another reason: I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that developers don't drastically change mechanics for a game's sequel. The sequel to Dragon Age: Origins is more of an action game than an RPG. The "sequel" (SW:TOR) to KOTOR 1 and 2 is an MMO, for pete's sake. Granted, EA has a history of changing mechanics for the worse, and I was expecting a change for the better. Silly me.

The mechanics of DA2 didn't change drastically from DA:O. It's definitely nothing remotely near an "action game". And how on earth is The Old Republic a "sequel" to KOTOR? That's like saying Halo Wars was a sequel to Halo: CE. Or that Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance was a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2.

Modifié par The Razman, 15 mai 2012 - 07:02 .

[iamthedave3]

Alright, if you insist.

The Razman wrote...

The primary literary definition of tragic goes along the lines of this: ". Relating to or characteristic of dramatic tragedy or tragedies:"

The primary definition of tragedy goes along the lines of this: " a. A drama or literary work in
which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow,
especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or
inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.b. The genre made up of such works.c. The art or theory of writing or producing these works."

So...
yeah, you're kinda wrong on this one. in fact nothing about the ending
of ME 3 has a tragic ring to it. It's completely in the vein of a heroic
sacrifice, which is partly why it fails so abjectly (because of a prior
mentioned issue where the structure of the ending robs the sacrifice of
all heroism).

... 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"?

Here's the interesting part. You are assuming that Shepherd dies in sorrow. Why would this be? 

Shepherd from the very beginning has been willing to die to defeat the reapers. As you said yourself, Shepherd said goodbye to everyone. As you've said repeatedly, Shepherd has been having the sense that he/she won't make it out of the fight at the end. Shepherd has in fact died once already in this struggle. Shepherd dies defeating the reapers.

So in other words Shepherd dies defeating the enemy Shepherd set out to defeat. Unless you buy into IT and I know you don't, all three endings fail to reach the level of tragedy because Shepherd wins.

Is Shepherd sad about dying? Yes. Nobody wants to die. But Shepherd was prepared to die. We knew that going in.

The fact that Bioware use sad music to get some tears out of us as Shepherd dies does not make Shepherd's death a tragedy. Or tragic. Shepherd is not brought low by his or her personality flaws, Shepherd is never on his or her knees bemoaning that things could have come to this wretched end. Shepherd does what needs to be done to defeat the reapers, the same as always. This is what Bioware meant by 'bittersweet' which is not tragedy. The entire thing is set up as a heroic sacrifice. It fails for other reasons, but that is what the ending was going for.

And all of that is assuming you didn't pick the Destroy ending and that Shepherd didn't survive. Which he/she can.

Anderson, meanwhile, dies in full belief that the war is over, earth is saved, the reapers have been destroyed and that - again - he won. Does he want to die? No. But he accomplished what mattered most to him: ensuring the survival of earth.

Compare that to the death of TIM: A man whom we learn is possessed of superior qualities in almost every regard. He is an incredible athlete, he is a sexual dynamo who sleeps with multiple famed Asari matriarchs, he is rich beyond the dreams of avarice, he is a man with dreams and vision of mankind's place in the universe. And through hubris and pride he becomes one of mankind's greatest enemies, very nearly causes the destruction of the entire galaxy and in his final moments the one thing he is able to do is shoot himself in the head to prevent the destruction of everything he ever believed in.

Which of these three deaths seems more like a tragic scenario to you?

You can pick out a tragic element or two and say that maybe Shepherd and Anderson fit, but you need to do a lot more than that to characterize their deaths as 'tragic'.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 15 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[JBONE27]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

3 points.
1. You obviously did not read the post.  If you play through the main story, make certain choices wrongly, etc. you don't get the happy ending.  That's the polar opposite of working for it.

No ... Mass Effect is a game where if you simple do everything and don't pick the "LOL" options, you win. There's almost no complex choices in the game where you can make wrong decisions without meaning to and end up losing people. The choice between Paragon and Renegade is always clearly signposted in every conversation.

For things to "go wrong" you have to choose either to not do things in the game (side-quests, etc) or just purposefully screw up. You have total control. Unless you're playing like an idiot, you have to work for any bad endings.

2.  Saying you can't want a tragedy to happen is like saying you can't want to have pain inflicted upon you or you can't like brussle sprouts.  There are absolutely people who want to be sad.  If nobody wanted tragedy to happen in fiction there would be no tragedy in fiction.  Think about it, what are Shakespeare's most famous plays, "Hamlet," "Romeo and Julliette," The Scottish play, "Richard the Third,"  all of them tragedies.  Name 5 anciant Greek plays, I can garentee you if you ask 1000 people to do that most of them will only come up with, at most 1 comedy, and the rest will be tragedies.

We've been through this before in this thread.

There's difference between choosing to watch a tragedy, and choosing for the tragedy to happen. When you choose to watch Romeo and Juliet, yes ... you want to experience the emotions associated with tragedy. But when you're watching the narrative, you're not watching it eagerly wanting Romeo and Juliet to kill themselves and rooting for it to happen. If you were, you wouldn't be upset when it happened, now would you?

It's the same as people who work towards killing certain characters they don't like in Mass Effect. You may be really upset when a character tragically dies ... but if a character dies because you wanted them to and you chose it, then it's not sad for you; you wanted it to happen. Doesn't matter how sad or tragic it is within the narrative ... you wanted it to happen, therefore how is it sad for you?

We remember all those tragedies not because they ended tragically for the characters, but because we really didn't want the tragedy to happen. That's why Romeo and Juliet is so well remembered ... we all wanted them to end up together.

3.  If your second point was correct, then it was a stupid move.  If a customer wants a prodcut (counting a happy ending as one), and they don't get said prodcut, they no longer buy futher products from the company.  Your whole argument is dependant on Bioware being in the right by not giving people what they want, but in the end it's a stupid move for the company even if it is the right move artistically.  It's like selling lemonaide sans sugar.  People want sugar in their lemonaide.  It might nutritionally be the right choice, but financially, it's incredibly stupid.

Like you just said in your second point ... just because narratives are unhappy doesn't mean people don't buy them. Bambi is an incredibly sad movie from a company you go to to have happy movies from (Disney), yet it's one of their most well-remembered movies (hell, if you want even more depressing from Disney ... Old Yeller?). Tragic endings don't mean people don't want to see them.

Counter to your counter
1.  Shooting Wrex... it might seem like the "lol you dun fuked up option," but it is the only way to get both the salarians on your side.  Also, it is nigh impossible to get the best ending in ME3 as is because of how it was programed, so does not owning an Iphone or a gold membership seem like an lol option... not really considering neither was needed for the previous two games.

2.  I think we have to agree to disagree on that one, every time Leonardo DeCrappio dies in a movie I cheer my voice horse.

3.  That doesn't counter my third point at all.  It's like a creationist talking about abiogensis during a discussion of evolution.  I can't argue against that because it's a completely unrelated topic.

[Sgt Stryker]

The Razman wrote...

Couple of reasons, both intertwined with each other.. First, why not? It's the last game of Shepard's trilogy, and there's no need for further save transfers. Why not go crazy with all kinds of divergent endings, and truly make endings tailored to all kinds of fans?

Because this is technically and logistically unfeasible. Surely you knew that? 6 months less development time on a similar budget ... why were you expecting outlandishly superior narrative branching when everyone knows just how expensive and time-consuming that process is?

In hindsight, I now recognize that. At the time, I suppose that was one of those rare times when my heart gets the better of my head. Oh well, lesson learned.

Second, I vastly overestimated Bioware's storytelling ability. Like I said, never again.

Sounds like you just vastly overestimated their logistical ability, not their storytelling ability. You shouldn't do that again, yes.

Nah, in light of the ending debacle, I'm quite confident I overestimated both. I'll tell you what else I won't be doing again - spending money on a new Bioware game for the foreseeable future.

Yet another reason: I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that developers don't drastically change mechanics for a game's sequel. The sequel to Dragon Age: Origins is more of an action game than an RPG. The "sequel" (SW:TOR) to KOTOR 1 and 2 is an MMO, for pete's sake. Granted, EA has a history of changing mechanics for the worse, and I was expecting a change for the better. Silly me.

The mechanics of DA2 didn't change drastically from DA:O. It's definitely nothing remotely near an "action game". And how on earth is The Old Republic a "sequel" to KOTOR? That's like saying Halo Wars was a sequel to Halo: CE. Or that Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance was a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2.

Actually they did. A silent protagonist was replaced with a Mass Effect-style pre-established fully-voiced one. Listed dialogue options were replaced with an ME-style dialogue wheel. You can no longer equip whatever armor you like on your companions, just weapons and some other stuff (jewelry? my memory is hazy). Those are all significant gameplay changes. As far as TOR is concerned, it takes place in roughly the same pre-film time period as the KOTOR games. There are also numerous in-game references to the events of KOTOR (Revan, the Taris world). In my eyes, that's as close to a sequel as a Star Wars MMO can get.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 15 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Here's the interesting part. You are assuming that Shepherd dies in sorrow. Why would this be?

His last thoughts are flashes of everyone he loves and how he'll never get to see them again. That's not someone who wants to go.

In fact, it's strongly reminiscent of this. Ahh ... nobody does tragedy in sci-fi quite like Doctor Who.

Shepherd from the very beginning has been willing to die to defeat the reapers. As you said yourself, Shepherd said goodbye to everyone. As you've said repeatedly, Shepherd has been having the sense that he/she won't make it out of the fight at the end. Shepherd has in fact died once already in this struggle. Shepherd dies defeating the reapers.

So in other words Shepherd dies defeating the enemy Shepherd set out to defeat. Unless you buy into IT and I know you don't, all three endings fail to reach the level of tragedy because Shepherd wins.

Is Shepherd sad about dying? Yes. Nobody wants to die. But Shepherd was prepared to die. We knew that going in.

The fact that Bioware use sad music to get some tears out of us as Shepherd dies does not make Shepherd's death a tragedy. Or tragic. Shepherd is not brought low by his or her personality flaws, Shepherd is never on his or her knees bemoaning that things could have come to this wretched end. Shepherd does what needs to be done to defeat the reapers, the same as always. This is what Bioware meant by 'bittersweet' which is not tragedy. The entire thing is set up as a heroic sacrifice. It fails for other reasons, but that is what the ending was going for.

And all of that is assuming you didn't pick the Destroy ending and that Shepherd didn't survive. Which he/she can.

Re: The bolded part, that's irrelevent to tragedy. William Wallace in Braveheart went in prepared to die. It doesn't make it not tragic; the reasons behind the death are what make it tragic.

The important part for it being tragedy has nothing to do with Shepard "winning", and modern tragedy is not dependent on the protagonist in a position of power being brought down by his character flaws; only classical tragedy depends on that. Modern tragedy just as easily depends on characters displaying nobility and virtue being brought down by circumstance. Is the tragic end of Titanic a result of Jack and Rose's character flaws leading them to destruction, or just circumstances working against their love? Is Ned Stark's tragic fate in Game of Thrones a result of his character flaws, or because of his nobility being brought down by the scheming actions of those around him? Your assertion that we need a tragic hero to have a tragedy is archaeic.

The main part which makes it tragedy is to do with the peripety which Shepard experiences after beating The Illusive Man. Shepard comes through the impossible odds, gets to the Citadel, defeats the Illusive Man and survives ... and then finds out he has to die to accomplish his goal. The reversal is very classically tragic in Aristotelean theory. He's the noble hero who beats the odds, thinks he's survived ... and then finds out he must sacrifice his chance to go home to everything and everyone he wanted to in order to save Earth. How is that not tragedy?

Compare that to the death of TIM: A man whom we learn is possessed of superior qualities in almost every regard. He is an incredible athlete, he is a sexual dynamo who sleeps with multiple famed Asari matriarchs, he is rich beyond the dreams of avarice, he is a man with dreams and vision of mankind's place in the universe. And through hubris and pride he becomes one of mankind's greatest enemies, very nearly causes the destruction of the entire galaxy and in his final moments the one thing he is able to do is shoot himself in the head to prevent the destruction of everything he ever believed in.

Which of these three deaths seems more like a tragic scenario to you?

I don't know where all the "sexual dynamo" stuff came in ... I can only assume its in those TIM comics I never read. Adding that backstory to his character definitely makes him tragic. Without it, he's just a misguided villain justifying his actions to himself through whatever means necessary, ala Wallace Breen in Half Life 2. Except that it turns out that TIM is just Indoctrinated, which I thought took away a lot of the depth of his character. I far preferred when he was a misguided villain rather than a puppet-of-evil villain.

Regardless, I'm not sure how the tragedy of The Illusive Man somehow invalidates the tragedy of Shepard's sacrifice. TIM is a tragic character. Shepard is the victim of a tragic situation.

You can pick out a tragic element or two and say that maybe Shepherd and Anderson fit, but you need to do a lot more than that to characterize their deaths as 'tragic'.

You just picked out a couple of elements with TIM and claimed he was tragic. What rules are we playing by here?

Not all of Mass Effect will fit Aristotle's theories on poetics, but then pretty much no modern narrative does, that's impossible in modern culture. Which is why I said this is pointless using a simplistic dictionary definition of the word "tragedy" before.

Modifié par The Razman, 15 mai 2012 - 08:19 .

[Zolt51]

Hmm, 25 pages to this thread, but I don't really feel the subject deserves that much discussion.

Considering the enormity of the Reaper threat, any outcome where humanity isn't completely extinct counts as a happy ending in my book.

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

Counter to your counter
1.  Shooting Wrex... it might seem like the "lol you dun fuked up option," but it is the only way to get both the salarians on your side.  Also, it is nigh impossible to get the best ending in ME3 as is because of how it was programed, so does not owning an Iphone or a gold membership seem like an lol option... not really considering neither was needed for the previous two games.

It's clearly highlighted as a "You don't wanna do this if you're not evil option". You ever have to jump through the equivilent of conversational "Are you sure?" checkboxes to do it. Following the Paragon path leads you to success pretty much all the time in Mass Effect. There's a very clear "this is right" and "this is wrong" pathway.

2.  I think we have to agree to disagree on that one, every time Leonardo DeCrappio dies in a movieI cheer my voice horse.

In which case the narrative didn't work for you, because you hate Leonardo DiCaprio. You're the equivilent of the people who kill Jacob in the suicide mission because they hate him.

3.  That doesn't counter my third point at all.  It's like a creationist talking about abiogensis during a discussion of evolution.  I can't argue against that because it's a completely unrelated topic.

Um ... how? You said "if they make the product unhappy when people want a happy product they'll lose sales", and I gave examples of narratives which are depressing which sold bucketloads.

[The Razman]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Actually they did. A silent protagonist was replaced with a Mass Effect-style pre-established fully-voiced one. Listed dialogue options were replaced with an ME-style dialogue wheel. You can no longer equip whatever armor you like on your companions, just weapons and some other stuff (jewelry? my memory is hazy). Those are all significant gameplay changes. As far as TOR is concerned, it takes place in roughly the same pre-film time period as the KOTOR games. There are also numerous in-game references to the events of KOTOR (Revan, the Taris world). In my eyes, that's as close to a sequel as a Star Wars MMO can get.

Those are all peripheral things ... the combat mechanics are pretty much the same, the narrative technique is pretty much the same ... just because the dialogue options are changed and you can't equip your party with armour doesn't mean "it's an action game now"?

And like I said, being set in the same universe as something doesn't make it a sequel. Again ... Halo Wars, anyone?

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

Re: The bolded part, that's irrelevent to tragedy. William Wallace in Braveheart went in prepared to die. It doesn't make it not tragic; the reasons behind the death are what make it tragic.

The important part for it being tragedy has nothing to do with Shepard "winning", and modern tragedy is not dependent on the protagonist in a position of power being brought down by his character flaws; only classical tragedy depends on that. Modern tragedy just as easily depends on characters displaying nobility and virtue being brought down by circumstance. Is the tragic end of Titanic a result of Jack and Rose's character flaws leading them to destruction, or just circumstances working against their love? Is Ned Stark's tragic fate in Game of Thrones a result of his character flaws, or because of his nobility being brought down by the scheming actions of those around him? Your assertion that we need a tragic hero to have a tragedy is archaeic.

Can't comment on Titanic because I've never seen it, but Ned Stark's fate in Game of Thrones is absolutely a result of his character flaws. His stiff-kneed refusal to bend his own rules of honour are what bring him down. In fact that was what the people manipulating him were relying on. He had an out right up until the end, a point raised several times by several characters.

Martin almost always uses that format. Characters dig their own graves constantly.

The Razman wrote... The main part which makes it tragedy is to do with the peripety which Shepard experiences after beating The Illusive Man. Shepard comes through the impossible odds, gets to the Citadel, defeats the Illusive Man and survives ... and then finds out he has to die to accomplish his goal. The reversal is very classically tragic in Aristotelean theory. He's the noble hero who beats the odds, thinks he's survived ... and then finds out he must sacrifice his chance to go home to everything and everyone he wanted to in order to save Earth. How is that not tragedy?

Because it's a heroic sacrifice...

What do you think a heroic sacrifice involves, Raz? And for that matter, under what circumstances is a character/protagonist/hero/antihero death not tragic?

Why is this NOT a heroic sacrifice?

The Razman wrote...I don't know where all the "sexual dynamo" stuff came in ... I can only assume its in those TIM comics I never read.

It's in the comics and very heavily implied in his Shadowbroker file.

The Razman wrote...Except that it turns out that TIM is just Indoctrinated, which I thought took away a lot of the depth of his character. I far preferred when he was a misguided villain rather than a puppet-of-evil villain.

I agree, but that's a whole separate issue. Indoctrination ended up a little over-used, and I think it would have been far more interesting if Cerberus and TIM were on the hero's side in ME 3. You could still have sub-plots where they're maneouvring to take advantage or where they accidentally or unwittingly sabotage alliance war efforts if you wanted to go that way. But roads unwalked and all that.

The Razman wrote...You just picked out a couple of elements with TIM and claimed he was tragic. What rules are we playing by here?

No I didn't. TIM's story is a tragedy in every sense you can think of. You admitted it yourself. Even if it does require 'added backstory' that is the story of TIM as told by Bioware. Not being completely aware of it doesn't change things.

Just as my not being aware of Titanic doesn't mean it is or isn't a tragedy. I just don't know either way.

The Razman wrote...Not all of Mass Effect will fit Aristotle's theories on poetics, but then pretty much no modern narrative does, that's impossible in modern culture. Which is why I said this is pointless using a simplistic dictionary definition of the word "tragedy" before.

Actually modern definitions of tragedy haven't changed that much. Not that I've seen and not in the studies I did at university. The kinds of stories have changed, but the actual thematic elements of tragedy have not. Modern theatre still uses the same building blocks of tragedy that Shakespeare did, modern literature still uses the same building blocks as... well, pick a Grecian writer and go, really. Or Shakespeare for that matter since I think most modern writers have at least read Shakespeare.

Akira Kurosawa would be a good director to look at, or the Coen brothers, in No Country for Old Men and others.

I concur that tragedy is often complicated and additional elements are added. For example No Country for Old Men is very heavily entwined into a story about fate and the cruelties of blind, indifferent chance, but the protagonist's eventual fall is a classic tragedy that comes about due to his stubborn refusal to quit in the face of adversity. Which is also his most obvious heroic virtue.

The thing itself though, is largely unchanged. I don't see the evidence that our narrative understanding and application of tragedy has changed or evolved as much as you seem to be implying.

And even if it HAS, that does not then make the ME 3 ending as a whole a tragedy. It would at most make one or two elements tragic, and it wouldn't negate the fact that Bioware has explicitly removed tragic elements from every other aspect of the ending. 

The initial doomsaying fan assessment of the ending was a far greater tragedy than what we're heading for which is, as Bioware always intended, bittersweet.

So how would you define the following terms:

1. Bittersweet

2. Heroic Sacrifice

Number 1 is relevant because you've been arguing that Bioware was attempting to make something Bioware themselves have said they're not.

Number 2 is relevant because it's an entire different category of character death and it's the one that I feel Shepherd's death falls into. I'm especially interested in this one because you raised Buffy season 5 as an example of tragedy when it is in fact an archetypal heroic sacrifice. That was really odd because there are examples of genuine tragedy at various points of that entire series which you could have picked out, yet you went to the one that was absolutely not what you said it was (good examples you could have picked would have been the initial 'ending' of the Buffy/Angel romance at the end of... season 2 was it? Or the averted tragedy of her first death in season one when she fought the master and he killed her effortlessly).

Modifié par iamthedave3, 15 mai 2012 - 09:20 .

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

I think we both know that is is too resource expensive for most to make a branching main storyline in any other installment then the final chapter (if we wnat to be realistic). ME3 being the final chapter makes all the difference and it requires a branching storyline if you want to give the player a sense of agency and the choices/achievements being made having any significant meaning where it counts. That is, for example, why people wanted to see their war-assets in action, Krogans charging reaper lines alongside geth troopers and mercenary gunships etc. And its why people wanted to tell the godchild to stuff it when they had made peace between the geth and the quarians. Its the ending that needs to be diverging/branching (it already is, but its not successful as it is rushed crap and your agency or accomplishments is not reflected in it -the ending does not "come together" - "the points are not lining up").

It's quite easy to stand on the outside and claim that ME3 should be doing things that the other two didn't do because its the last in the trilogy ... but what you're describing is a process too complex for any game of ME's production magnitude. That's why they haven't done it in either of the first two games ... it's nothing to do with the fact that they weren't the last games in the trilogy, it's that the production values are too high.

I never saw that changing in ME3. Same budget, even less production time ... why did people choose to have such outlandish expectations? Did reason go out the window?

Its true that making the final mission (there are other problems with ME3, as we all know, but lets focus on the acute problem of the ending shall we) more of a conclusion to all the main storylines - culminating in the final confrontation with a galactic peacekeeper -would require more work and resources then what was initially put in to it, but without having any practical knowledge of computer-game development of this magnitude (My only relevant skills in this comes from being an indie free-form rpg developer and writer), but I would imagine it could have been done if the priorities was right to start with or if the resources now being spent on the "extended cut" would have been available to start with.

Yes, its complex, but not much more complex then for example the Landsmeet scene in DA:O.

Is your game rushed or not finished? Don't put it on the shelves if you care about notions such as artistic integrity and satisfied customers. Ask for some more time, a delay is much better then what happened.

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Can't comment on Titanic because I've never seen it, but Ned Stark's fate in Game of Thrones is absolutely a result of his character flaws. His stiff-kneed refusal to bend his own rules of honour are what bring him down. In fact that was what the people manipulating him were relying on. He had an out right up until the end, a point raised several times by several characters.

Martin almost always uses that format. Characters dig their own graves constantly.

Those aren't negative character flaws that Stark is displaying though, which is necessary for an Aristotelean vision of tragedy. Being noble and having morals isn't a character flaw. By those rules, I could just as easily say that Shepard's character flaw of not knowing when to back down and regroup and just stubbornly charging forever onwards is what got him killed.

Because it's a heroic sacrifice...

What do you think a heroic sacrifice involves, Raz? And for that matter, under what circumstances is a character/protagonist/hero/antihero death not tragic?

Why is this NOT a heroic sacrifice?

Let's try this another way, because you're stating that as if it somehow answered my question. And I can't answer the last bit of your post without this either.

Why, in your mind, are the concepts of "heroic sacrifice" and our modern sense of tragedy mutually exclusive? William Wallace's death in Braveheart is tragic, but also a heroic sacrifice. Your whole argument seems to be based on the two invalidating each other, which is a little bit strange considering there's plenty of stories where the two concepts overlap?

Just as my not being aware of Titanic doesn't mean it is or isn't a tragedy. I just don't know either way.

You must surely know it by reputation alone, though? It's one of the great modern tragedies of the modern cinematic era.

Actually modern definitions of tragedy haven't changed that much. Not that I've seen and not in the studies I did at university. The kinds of stories have changed, but the actual thematic elements of tragedy have not. Modern theatre still uses the same building blocks of tragedy that Shakespeare did, modern literature still uses the same building blocks as... well, pick a Grecian writer and go, really. Or Shakespeare for that matter since I think most modern writers have at least read Shakespeare.

They really have. We use tragedy as a term for something containing tragic narremes rather than a specific set convention. In classical terms, something has to follow a set conventional style to be called tragedy. We don't do that anymore. Titanic, Braveheart, etc ... they're not classical tragedies, yet they contain tragic elements reworked for modern conventions.

Really, from this and what came after it, you're arguing the case for classical tragedy being the only correct way of using the term "tragedy". And that's an ok case to make ... but even you admit that there are tragic elements in Mass Effect 3's ending, and it not being a classical version of a tragedy doesn't mean the original points regarding the effects on the player when there's an "off-switch" involved are invalidated by the argument you're making here.