269 réponses à ce sujet

[VigilancePress]

failedparachute wrote...

VigilancePress wrote...

malra wrote...

GetDaved wrote...

The kid is a symbol for Earth, and is given emphasis to put a face on the mass-suffering on Earth. Bioware is ripping off the girl in the red dress from Schindler's List. If you just saw people dying left and right it wouldn't feel as personal as seeing an individual with a face. The kid represents Shepard's guilt over leaving, and his pain over the destruction of the earth, and is the face of everyone who died on earth.

Granted I think they kind of crapped all over it with the Catalyst-child as it turned into bizarre emotional manipulation and an intellectual crapstorm... but prior to that it was good. Maybe there was a disconnect because Shepard was having thoughts of his own and prior to this was always an avatar of the player, but I was cool with it.

Actually I felt a lot worse for the chick at the Assari embassy trying to get her kids to Thessia than I did for that kid in the vent.  I felt even worse for her, after I'd been to Thessia and seen it totaly anihalated after she finally gets the okay to send her kid there.  Of course, then her pogrammin loop didn't update and even though Thessia is totally a washout because of the Reapers she is still at the embassy trying to send her kid there.  So then I pretty much hated her.

Haha, yeah. I was thinking "Geez, BioWare. Let me warn this lady NOT to send her kid to Thessia! She's safer on the Citadel!" But that was before I had seen the ending. <_<

There are a lot of great little moments like that. There's another couple on the Citadel (Normandy's Dock), a turian and an asari, and the turian tells his wife to take the kids to Sanctuary. Of course this is before Shepard's been there, so he can't advise them against it, but even some of this interactions could use more depth. Like the PTSD Asari Commando in the hospital, if you listen to her story, and talk to Joker after Thessia, you find out she killed his sister because she was afraid of being spotted by the Reapers. It would've been nice to tell Joker about that instance and either defuse Joker trying to kill her, or get them both some peace out of it.

The most disturbing thing for me was that you can use the spectre terminal to send that lady back to the front lines by issuing her a gun, and you get a war asset out of it. But there's no way to get a war asset by sending her home to get proper psychological treatment. That's messed up.

[malra]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The beginning of ME3 makes it pretty clear they still aren't ready, even though they had more time. It was pure chance they found the Crucible plans, chance they wouldn't have had if the reapers arrived earlier. At the end of ME3 you can ask Hackett if they could stand against the reapers if the Crucible fails, and the answer is that he doesn't think they can, but they would have to try.
Taking over the Citadel isn't possible anymore in a straight up fight for the Reapers, they can't just send the signal to the Keepers and they take over, thanks to the Protheans. They tried through Cerberus to infiltrate and take over but failed, again by chance. TIM isn't indoctrinated enough at that point to not realize his mistake if Reapers would have arrived shortly after they took over. His only goal was to control them, and if he realizes he failed in that I would grant TIM that he would still act on what he thinks is best for humanity and remedy his failure. They had to let it be.

sorry, I think you may be missing my point.   which is the massive plothole from ME1 to ME3 which leads down the whole "we can't just simply destroy the reapers because they are to powerful".  although the reapers are being portrayed in ME3 as unbeatable that was not the original way they were written in ME1.

[MegumiAzusa]

The Angry One wrote...

Taking over the Citadel isn't possible anymore in a straight up fight for the Reapers,

Except when it is?

They again got control through TIM and Cerberus thinking they can control them as it is the Catalyst.

[Evil Minion]

I don't feel we ever had much "choice" to begin with.

I loved the dream sequences.

The kid was a symbol of all the people you can't save. Shepard cares about that. Paragon or Renegade, Shepard cares about saving humanity; therefore, he's having nightmares.

If he didn't, then he would not be doing what he's doing.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in having "control" over every last aspect of Shep's reactions.

[VigilancePress]

Evil Minion wrote...

I don't feel we ever had much "choice" to begin with.

I loved the dream sequences.

The kid was a symbol of all the people you can't save. Shepard cares about that. Paragon or Renegade, Shepard cares about saving humanity; therefore, he's having nightmares.

If he didn't, then he would not be doing what he's doing.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in having "control" over every last aspect of Shep's reactions.

So why are you playing Mass Effect?

(edit) I didn't mean that as Snark- I meant it as an honest question. Are you playing this as a Roleplaying game, or are you just interested in playing a cool sci-fi third person shooter with a good story?

Modifié par VigilancePress, 01 avril 2012 - 05:36 .

[failedparachute]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Taking over the Citadel isn't possible anymore in a straight up fight for the Reapers,

Except when it is?

They again got control through TIM and Cerberus thinking they can control them as it is the Catalyst.

I think part of the logic in the Reapers avoiding the Citadel comes down to divide and conquer. Separate, the races of the galaxy are vulnerable, easy pickings. Attack the Citadel, and you can be damn sure ever fleet is flying there to fight, because it's the one place everyone has a stake in. Mind you I'm not saying the collective might of our galaxy would win that fight, but it's enough of a chance that they don't want to risk it.

[sammysoso]

The whole kid arc (not counting the Catalyst) felt very heavy handed. It felt like that game was going "THIS IS SAD. BE EMOTIONAL." And I didn't. I mean, I was sad the kid got killed, I was also sad about the millions of other people on Earth that got killed by the Reapers.

Not exactly sure why the kid was haunting Shepard, he's lost people much closer to him and didn't go into crazy forest land at night with them.

[The Angry One]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Taking over the Citadel isn't possible anymore in a straight up fight for the Reapers,

Except when it is?

They again got control through TIM and Cerberus thinking they can control them as it is the Catalyst.

Why would they let TIM aboard?
How could Cerberus invade twice?

But yeah I mean it's not like C-Sec massively increased security and posted guards everywhere oh wait they did.

[failedparachute]

sammysoso wrote...

The whole kid arc (not counting the Catalyst) felt very heavy handed. It felt like that game was going "THIS IS SAD. BE EMOTIONAL." And I didn't. I mean, I was sad the kid got killed, I was also sad about the millions of other people on Earth that got killed by the Reapers.

Not exactly sure why the kid was haunting Shepard, he's lost people much closer to him and didn't go into crazy forest land at night with them.

Again, I feel like the kid exists in a vacuum, allowing us to make the obvious symbolic references to the loss of life and innocence, but it's that symbolism that works so well to cloak him as a tool of the Reapers.

[malra]

sammysoso wrote...

Not exactly sure why the kid was haunting Shepard, he's lost people much closer to him and didn't go into crazy forest land at night with them.

 now just how great is that line, i love that "crazy forest land at night"  EPIC AWESOMENESS, yes I was shouting (lol)

[cachx]

VigilancePress wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...
I don't feel we ever had much "choice" to begin with.
I loved the dream sequences.
The kid was a symbol of all the people you can't save. Shepard cares about that. Paragon or Renegade, Shepard cares about saving humanity; therefore, he's having nightmares.
If he didn't, then he would not be doing what he's doing.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in having "control" over every last aspect of Shep's reactions.

So why are you playing Mass Effect?
(edit) I didn't mean that as Snark- I meant it as an honest question. Are you playing this as a Roleplaying game, or are you just interested in playing a cool sci-fi third person shooter with a good story?

Is not that black and white. Your definition of "RPG" is not absolute. I am satisfied by the roleplaying elements. I personally wasn't interested in controlling everyone of Shepards bowel movements.

[MegumiAzusa]

malra wrote...

sorry, I think you may be missing my point.   which is the massive plothole from ME1 to ME3 which leads down the whole "we can't just simply destroy the reapers because they are to powerful".  although the reapers are being portrayed in ME3 as unbeatable that was not the original way they were written in ME1.

I can't see the difference between the Reapers strength in ME1 and ME3 you are talking about. Single Reapers can be destroyed in ME1 as they can in ME3. The problem is still destroying all of them before they wipe everyone out. This doesn't change, Nazara boasted Reapers can't be destoryed, proved false with its destruction.
Nazara boasted they are too many, this is not proven or disproven. They might fall against a combined galaxy, Hackett would still say they might win but rather loose. There is no difference in all these statements.
In ME1 we have to take the word of legend and a Reaper for it, nothing is certain and legends, though true in core, are never exact descriptions.

[failedparachute]

The Angry One wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Taking over the Citadel isn't possible anymore in a straight up fight for the Reapers,

Except when it is?

They again got control through TIM and Cerberus thinking they can control them as it is the Catalyst.

Why would they let TIM aboard?
How could Cerberus invade twice?

But yeah I mean it's not like C-Sec massively increased security and posted guards everywhere oh wait they did.

That was something that really bugged me. Why upgrade the Citadel Defense Force if it's not going to play a part? They could have Cerberus codes and know their Jamming frequencies, but that doesn't let them call to Shepard and the Fleet to say "Help, Cerberus (possibly with Reapers) is attacking, send your fleets" And then Shepard could once again, choose to rescue the Citadel, or whisper "no" and liberate Earth.

[cyric085]

problem is, when you try to get a heavy emotional reaction its best if the author stay the same .

it shows that there where many different authors (in a negative way) working on segments of the game.

the only really good scene i can remember was the part where mordin got killed and the asari radio chatter at the end of thessia mission.

the rest was medicore and forced

[DarkShadow]

sammysoso wrote...

The whole kid arc (not counting the Catalyst) felt very heavy handed. It felt like that game was going "THIS IS SAD. BE EMOTIONAL." And I didn't. I mean, I was sad the kid got killed, I was also sad about the millions of other people on Earth that got killed by the Reapers.

Not exactly sure why the kid was haunting Shepard, he's lost people much closer to him and didn't go into crazy forest land at night with them.

Exactly. I got the idea that the responsible writer made a well known mistake here. Namely trying to force an emotional reaction by a scene that is thought to be tragic. Every good storywriter knows that emotions don't work that way. I guess most of you thought the scene is sad, but forgot about it shortly after.

And I think this is one of the main reasons the dream sequences feel so... bad. My reaction to the first dream sequence was "huh? I didn't really care about that kid, what's this?" following "ah, you wanna show me Shepard's vulnerable or hurt side...well, doesn't really work".

If indoctrination theory is true, the dream sequences feeling kinda wrong is a good idea, but if not...bad writing at its best.

Thessia wasn't that bad (Shepard's reaction), but maybe a little bit over the top.

Modifié par DarkShadow, 01 avril 2012 - 05:48 .

[Bleachrude]

malra wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The beginning of ME3 makes it pretty clear they still aren't ready, even though they had more time. It was pure chance they found the Crucible plans, chance they wouldn't have had if the reapers arrived earlier. At the end of ME3 you can ask Hackett if they could stand against the reapers if the Crucible fails, and the answer is that he doesn't think they can, but they would have to try.
Taking over the Citadel isn't possible anymore in a straight up fight for the Reapers, they can't just send the signal to the Keepers and they take over, thanks to the Protheans. They tried through Cerberus to infiltrate and take over but failed, again by chance. TIM isn't indoctrinated enough at that point to not realize his mistake if Reapers would have arrived shortly after they took over. His only goal was to control them, and if he realizes he failed in that I would grant TIM that he would still act on what he thinks is best for humanity and remedy his failure. They had to let it be.

sorry, I think you may be missing my point.   which is the massive plothole from ME1 to ME3 which leads down the whole "we can't just simply destroy the reapers because they are to powerful".  although the reapers are being portrayed in ME3 as unbeatable that was not the original way they were written in ME1.

Er, it was ME1 that made them so powerful...

It was Sovereign simply strolling through the citadel fleet and tanking the entire relief fleets weapons until the time when the backlash of Saren caused him to lower his barriers...

If anything, Me1 made the reapers way too strong...

[The Angry One]

Bleachrude wrote...

Er, it was ME1 that made them so powerful...

It was Sovereign simply strolling through the citadel fleet and tanking the entire relief fleets weapons until the time when the backlash of Saren caused him to lower his barriers...

If anything, Me1 made the reapers way too strong...

Except no. The fleets in ME1 had no Thanix cannons, and no dreadnaughts aside from the Destiny-Ascension which was busy being swarmed by Geth.
The Geth were responsible for the majority of losses that day. While Sovereign was powerful, it wasn't invincible, and without it's barriers it was nothing.

[Bleachrude]

cyric085 wrote...

problem is, when you try to get a heavy emotional reaction its best if the author stay the same .

it shows that there where many different authors (in a negative way) working on segments of the game.

the only really good scene i can remember was the part where mordin got killed and the asari radio chatter at the end of thessia mission.

the rest was medicore and forced

I would point out that if you can argue that "I have no emotional connection to the kid" than a player could legitimately argue "exactly why should I care about Mordin's death?"

[MegumiAzusa]

The Angry One wrote...

Why would they let TIM aboard?
How could Cerberus invade twice?

But yeah I mean it's not like C-Sec massively increased security and posted guards everywhere oh wait they did.

C-Sec is still stressed out from an overload of civillians. And you can do only so much to prevent infiltration. When Cerberus packs every troop they can spare not defending the main base on transports as civillians and then strike on multiple docks at once they would simply overwhelm C-Sec regardless if they tightened security. The only thing C-Sec could do in such a case is buying others time to get off. Closing the arms, aka the only defense against the Reapers, would be of no use as they are already in.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 01 avril 2012 - 05:59 .

[The Angry One]

Bleachrude wrote...

cyric085 wrote...

problem is, when you try to get a heavy emotional reaction its best if the author stay the same .

it shows that there where many different authors (in a negative way) working on segments of the game.

the only really good scene i can remember was the part where mordin got killed and the asari radio chatter at the end of thessia mission.

the rest was medicore and forced

I would point out that if you can argue that "I have no emotional connection to the kid" than a player could legitimately argue "exactly why should I care about Mordin's death?"

Mordin is a character we've come to know and love.
The kid is some random kid we don't know and never knew.
I can't believe I have to explain this.

[failedparachute]

Bleachrude wrote...

cyric085 wrote...

problem is, when you try to get a heavy emotional reaction its best if the author stay the same .

it shows that there where many different authors (in a negative way) working on segments of the game.

the only really good scene i can remember was the part where mordin got killed and the asari radio chatter at the end of thessia mission.

the rest was medicore and forced

I would point out that if you can argue that "I have no emotional connection to the kid" than a player could legitimately argue "exactly why should I care about Mordin's death?"

The answer to that would be the difference is the time and depth given to the two separate characters, which I why I think the "dead child" is camouflage for the much more sinister act of manipulating Shepard.

And darn it, I'm getting the urge to make a IT youtube video (like they really need one more).

[Ashilana]

The Angry One wrote...
Mordin is a character we've come to know and love.
The kid is some random kid we don't know and never knew.
I can't believe I have to explain this.

There is a limit to explaining things on the internet... many people just disconnect their brain and type wildly.  Good effort though.

[VigilancePress]

cachx wrote...

VigilancePress wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...
I don't feel we ever had much "choice" to begin with.
I loved the dream sequences.
The kid was a symbol of all the people you can't save. Shepard cares about that. Paragon or Renegade, Shepard cares about saving humanity; therefore, he's having nightmares.
If he didn't, then he would not be doing what he's doing.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in having "control" over every last aspect of Shep's reactions.

So why are you playing Mass Effect?
(edit) I didn't mean that as Snark- I meant it as an honest question. Are you playing this as a Roleplaying game, or are you just interested in playing a cool sci-fi third person shooter with a good story?

Is not that black and white. Your definition of "RPG" is not absolute. I am satisfied by the roleplaying elements. I personally wasn't interested in controlling everyone of Shepards bowel movements.

Though I am tempted not to reply due to your crude comment, I do feel compelled to at least say this: in the first two games, your motivations for *why* you do things are largely in your hands through the dialogue options you choose. How you choose to solve a problem, whether you ignore a subplot entirely, which dialogue options... these things all matter. 

This teaches the player that "Their" Shepard has a distinctive, emergent personality that represents their choices. That personality might be Renegade, Paragon, or somewhere in between. The dream sequences in no way reflect your choices in the game or the personality those choices would indicate. That's my point, and I believe that was the point of this thread.

I never mentioned taking my character to the bathroom.

[The Angry One]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Why would they let TIM aboard?
How could Cerberus invade twice?

But yeah I mean it's not like C-Sec massively increased security and posted guards everywhere oh wait they did.

C-Sec is still stressed out from an overload of civillians. And you can do only so much to prevent infiltration. When Cerberus packs every troop they can spare not defending the main base on transports as civillians and then strike on multiple docks at once they would simply overwhelm C-Sec regardless if they tightened security. The only thing C-Sec could do in such a case is buying others time to get off. Closing the arms, aka the only defense against the Reapers, would be of no use as they are already in.

They've already been infiltrated once, and you're saying they won't be ready for another round a few weeks later?
How many sleeper agents does Cerberus have anyway? This doesn't work. IF the first Cerberus invasion didn't happen, then this would be plausable.
But Cerberus showed their hand, the Citadel is no longer complacent, C-Sec and the citizenry have a vested interest in remaining 100% alert.

To say nothing of the fact that Cerberus being responsible for the Reapers taking the station is pure conjecture, as we're never told what happened.

Modifié par The Angry One, 01 avril 2012 - 05:54 .