233 réponses à ce sujet

[whiteraider]

The whole point of a Deus Ex Machina is to avoid both debate and logic. QED

[ShepardTheHopeful]

Great...now I have two people I have to question loss of respect for. Oh well at least we can all agree EA needs a swift kick to the coin purse.

[ClixWizard]

You can't debate with the Star Child becuase he's infoulable, duh. His motivations are so above human understanding that to us it just sounds like circular logic. Shepard was so astonished by the Star Childs words that it was all he could do to keep his head from exploding from the sheer briliance of it all.

Or this...

[Erixxxx]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

What else can you do though? Yell at the hologram? Punch it? Hold your breath? Cry?

If he refuses to listen to you, all the logic in the world won't help Shepard. You have to pick one of the three.

Pretty much. Either Shepard let's the whole galaxy get purged of advanced life by not choosing anything, or he chooses one of the three options to let (most) people live. One of them even has the Reapers and all their tech destroyed in the process.

[PowerExtreme]

Comes back to that point of player input

when we are making decisions of magnanimous proportions in the ME universe we are presented with perspectives stretching over games like the genophage and geth. we are given perspectives from both sides see how the both sides have been affected by the event and are given time to consider before we are called upon to make a decision based on our experiences firsthand and second hand through the perspectives of others.

when we are called to decide the catalysts decision we go in with minimum knowledge, we have no other perspective of the knowledge other than our first hand and the catalysts word, the player is removed from the decision in that his/her perspective become irrelevant and the catalysts becomes absolute. We as the player are being told that we have to trust the catalyst, we have to forgo any information or conclusions we have obtained through our experience of the game and choose one of the catalysts pre determined endings.

somehow bioware figured a matilda scene would be fine for the interaction between the player and the catalyst



@4:03

Modifié par PowerExtreme, 08 avril 2012 - 09:54 .

[ShepardTheHopeful]

I still say if you're an engineer you should be able to program pain into the starchild so every shot fired makes him cry in agony....::Sighs:: if only.

[Sepharih]

 I was actually kind of thinking about this earlier.

Ultimately, it really all boils down to bad writing.  The writers said they wanted to keep everything "high concept", but the more I think about it...the more I realize that they probably didn't give the player the option because they knew what they had was total BS and they were just hoping that maybe if you couldn't argue with the catalyst nobody would notice.

[Paragon Fury]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

Shepard was going to debate with him through the dialogue wheel/investigate, but that was cut from the game because the developers thought the ending spoke for itself.

Spoke for itself how - no matter how you slice it Shepard/humanity/organics have a valid, logical point with evidence to support it that the Starchild cannot "magic" or "logic" away.

It wouldn't have been a debate really; it would've just been Shepard pimp-smacking Starchild with logic.

[PsyrenY]

Paragon Fury wrote...

It wouldn't have been a debate really; it would've just been Shepard pimp-smacking Starchild with logic.

To which it would reply "your anecdotes are nice and all but you haven't convinced me, now pick a color." Then what?

[Evil Minion]

Reapers are dense.

Shep already tried "debating" them.

They always reply, "We're awesome. You suck. You can't possibly understand us."

What would be the point of further "debate?"

[Erixxxx]

PowerExtreme wrote...

Comes back to that point of player input

when we are making decisions of magnanimous proportions in the ME universe we are presented with perspectives stretching over games like the genophage and geth. we are given perspectives from both sides see how the both sides have been affected by the event and are given time to consider before we are called upon to make a decision based on our experiences firsthand and second hand through the perspectives of others.

when we are called to decide the catalysts decision we go in with minimum knowledge, we have no other perspective of the knowledge other than our first hand and the catalysts word, the player is removed from the decision in that his/her perspective become irrelevant and the catalysts becomes absolute. We as the player are being told that we have to trust the catalyst, we have to forgo any information or conclusions we have obtained through our experience of the game and choose one of the catalysts pre determined endings.

somehow bioware figured a matilda scene would be fine for the ending of ME3



@4:03

I disagree on your points about having minimum knowledge on the Catalyst's choices. Destroy is actually rather complicated when you break it down. Did you save the geth or not? Did you save only the geth, or did you save both them and the quarians? There are three ways this can impact your decision-making.

If you saved the geth, by choosing Destroy you make that whole action meaningless. You saved a race only to destroy them a few days/weeks later. Would you want to save the galaxy, but at the same time wipe out a sentient species that you saved by wiping out another species?

If you didn't save the geth, Destroy would definitely be the best option for you. You lose a few synthetics, and maybe EDI, but the galaxy is saved at relatively minor additional casualties.

If you saved both the geth and the quarians, you suddenly have the dilemma of ridding the quarians of someone they're becoming symbios (no idea how it's spelled) with. The geth are not only helping them rebuild their homeworld, they're also actively integrating themselves into quarian suits in order to adjust their immune systems and to help them in any other way possible. A sudden annihilation of all geth could have any number of unforseen consequences for the quarian people. Plus you'd be wiping out a species you worked exceedingly hard for to save from a 300 year old war.


When someone chooses Destroy, they do it with completely unique thoughts going through their heads, depending on how they played the game. Depending on how you played your game, Destroy is either the most Paragon way to go, or the most Renegade one. It all comes down to your choices.

Modifié par Erixxxx, 08 avril 2012 - 10:15 .

[Richard 060]

The entirety of the Star-Child's assertions can be blown out of the proverbial water with one additional line of dialogue:


SHEPARD: "Prove it. Any of it. Why should I believe you?"


...and that's where it falls apart. Sovereign spoke in OPINIONS, but was confident that the Reapers would be able to carry out their promises. The Catalyst offers opinions dressed up as ABSOLUTES, without being able to prove any of them, especially when many of them have a massive body of evidence weighted to the contrary.

Modifié par Richard 060, 08 avril 2012 - 10:08 .

[Erixxxx]

Richard 060 wrote...

The entirety of the Star-Child's assertions can be blown out of the proverbial water with one additional line of dialogue:


SHEPARD: "Prove it. Any of it. Why should I believe you?"


...and that's where it falls apart. Sovereign spoke in OPINIONS, but was confident that the Reapers would be able to carry out their promises. The Catalyst offers opinions dressed up as ABSOLUTES, without being able to prove any of them, especially when many of them have a massive body of evidence weighted to the contrary.

And if the Catalyst refuses to listen, what would you do then? Let the Crucible be destroyed and have the galaxy wiped of advanced life?

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

He didn't build the Crucible, you did. Blame the countless cycles before for designing such a strange machine.

Modifié par Hudathan, 08 avril 2012 - 10:18 .

[ShepardTheHopeful]

Erixxxx wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

The entirety of the Star-Child's assertions can be blown out of the proverbial water with one additional line of dialogue:


SHEPARD: "Prove it. Any of it. Why should I believe you?"


...and that's where it falls apart. Sovereign spoke in OPINIONS, but was confident that the Reapers would be able to carry out their promises. The Catalyst offers opinions dressed up as ABSOLUTES, without being able to prove any of them, especially when many of them have a massive body of evidence weighted to the contrary.

And if the Catalyst refuses to listen, what would you do then? Let the Crucible be destroyed and have the galaxy wiped of advanced life?

Only option is to go starship troopers style. "We'll keep fighting and we'll win! Now wait for the 4th game : D"

Mass Effect 4: **** just got real. 

[Sepharih]

Erixxxx wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

The entirety of the Star-Child's assertions can be blown out of the proverbial water with one additional line of dialogue:


SHEPARD: "Prove it. Any of it. Why should I believe you?"


...and that's where it falls apart. Sovereign spoke in OPINIONS, but was confident that the Reapers would be able to carry out their promises. The Catalyst offers opinions dressed up as ABSOLUTES, without being able to prove any of them, especially when many of them have a massive body of evidence weighted to the contrary.

And if the Catalyst refuses to listen, what would you do then? Let the Crucible be destroyed and have the galaxy wiped of advanced life?

Well I would argue that since we're in a fictional universe where some of the central themes are unity with diversity and defying fate, it would be more in keeping with the story to let shepard tell the catalyst to shove it and then watch the galaxy and armada of your own creation come together and achieve the impossible against all odds.

....but assuming we can't do that and the writers are completely committed to reversing the core themes of their series....at least allowing Shepard to argue with the Catalyst might prevent a character assasination of the central protagonist on top of everything else.

[PsyrenY]

Sepharih wrote...

Well I would argue that since we're in a fictional universe where some of the central themes are unity with diversity and defying fate, it would be more in keeping with the story to let shepard tell the catalyst to shove it and then watch the galaxy and armada of your own creation come together and achieve the impossible against all odds.

....but assuming we can't do that and the writers are completely committed to reversing the core themes of their series....at least allowing Shepard to argue with the Catalyst might prevent a character assasination of the central protagonist on top of everything else.

I fail to see how the endings undermine the series' themes. You went into ME3 knowing the odds were nigh-impossible just as you went into ME2 knowing that Shepard wouldn't die because the series was a trilogy, suicide mission or no suicide mision.

Furthermore, Starkid's behavior is totally consistent. When have you ever been able to convince any Reaper of the error of its ways? Did Sovereign listen in ME1? Harbinger in ME2? The Rannoch Reaper in ME3? So why should their master?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 08 avril 2012 - 10:34 .

[Erixxxx]

Sepharih wrote...

Erixxxx wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

The entirety of the Star-Child's assertions can be blown out of the proverbial water with one additional line of dialogue:


SHEPARD: "Prove it. Any of it. Why should I believe you?"


...and that's where it falls apart. Sovereign spoke in OPINIONS, but was confident that the Reapers would be able to carry out their promises. The Catalyst offers opinions dressed up as ABSOLUTES, without being able to prove any of them, especially when many of them have a massive body of evidence weighted to the contrary.

And if the Catalyst refuses to listen, what would you do then? Let the Crucible be destroyed and have the galaxy wiped of advanced life?

Well I would argue that since we're in a fictional universe where some of the central themes are unity with diversity and defying fate, it would be more in keeping with the story to let shepard tell the catalyst to shove it and then watch the galaxy and armada of your own creation come together and achieve the impossible against all odds.

....but assuming we can't do that and the writers are completely committed to reversing the core themes of their series....at least allowing Shepard to argue with the Catalyst might prevent a character assasination of the central protagonist on top of everything else.

I'm not saying Bioware couldn't have been clearer on some points on where they wanted to take this and why they told the story as they did. In fact I believe the whole "ultimate fail and let the Reapers complete their cycle of destruction"-thing should have been an option as a legitimate ending to the game, sort of like Shepard's ultimate sacrifice in ME2 if you lost your whole team. But it's not, so we have to deal with what we have.

That Patrick Weekes interview, whether completely truthful or not, did state that they didn't want the Reapers to be beatable in conventional ways. The Reapers have torn apart the homeworlds of most advanced species in the galaxy. The fleet could perhaps pull off a victory above Earth, if large enough, but the remains of that fleet would not be able to take on every Reaper currently occupying every other planet in the galaxy. One victorious battle does not ensure victory in the war.

[Computron2000]

Erixxxx wrote...
And if the Catalyst refuses to listen, what would you do then? Let the Crucible be destroyed and have the galaxy wiped of advanced life?

There are a number of possibilities i can think of
i) If your a engineer, see if you can override him.
ii) Try to contact Hackett and update him its a dead end and regroup and plan. If the Crucible is destroyed, he will do this anyway so if communications are blocked, then just wait for the Crucible to blow up.
iii) Retreat back to the citadel and try to destroy the Citadel or provoke the Reapers into destroying it. Since the Catalyst is the god of the Reapers, if he is destroyed, then what happens? No idea but its worth a try.

These are possibilities that you could do in a taletop RPG. However the real problem lies in that this is a story. If you force the player into fixed actions by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala", your story has a major major problem.

If this was a novel, readers would be asking why would he choose red/green/blue (depending on the ending the writer took) because the reader would also come to the same conclusion of why agree with the kid who came out from nowhere and actually told you he made the creatures that are your nemesis.

Modifié par Computron2000, 08 avril 2012 - 10:35 .

[Sundance31us]

Lets just hope the argument doesn't end up like this:

Dark Star (the argument w/the bomb & the end)

[Richard 060]

Erixxxx wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

The entirety of the Star-Child's assertions can be blown out of the proverbial water with one additional line of dialogue:


SHEPARD: "Prove it. Any of it. Why should I believe you?"


...and that's where it falls apart. Sovereign spoke in OPINIONS, but was confident that the Reapers would be able to carry out their promises. The Catalyst offers opinions dressed up as ABSOLUTES, without being able to prove any of them, especially when many of them have a massive body of evidence weighted to the contrary.

And if the Catalyst refuses to listen, what would you do then? Let the Crucible be destroyed and have the galaxy wiped of advanced life?

What would YOU do, if someone presented a load of specious assumptions and easily-disproved nonsense as 'solid fact', and asked you to make an incredibly loaded decision based on that fact?

And similarly, how would you react if said someone refused to respond to any questions to the validity of their arguments?


Honestly, I'd love for there to be an additional line or two added to the 'Destroy' ending, where Shepard tells the Catalyst:

"Go screw yourself. I've had enough of your lies. I'm here to free the galaxy from Reaper control once and for all, and you've yet to give me a single damn good reason to do otherwise"

< bang >

[PsyrenY]

Computron2000 wrote...

There are a number of possibilities i can think of
i) If your a engineer, see if you can override him.

You roll a natural 20 on Hacking and still fail. Next option.

 

Computron2000 wrote... 
ii) Try to contact Hackett and update him its a dead end and regroup and plan. If the Crucible is destroyed, he will do this anyway so if communications are blocked, then just wait for the Crucible to blow up.

While you plan, the Coalition Forces are wiped out. With no homeworld having a fleet of any substance left, this cycle is doomed. You leave behind time capsules for the Yahg when it's their turn to be harvested. Game Over.

Computron2000 wrote...  
iii) Retreat back to the citadel and try to destroy the Citadel or provoke the Reapers into destroying it. Since the Catalyst is the god of the Reapers, if he is destroyed, then what happens? No idea but its worth a try.

Pick one:

- You can't work Starkid's elevator to get back to the Citadel. You plead with him to let you back into the Citadel to find another way to beat him. You are on the verge of convincing him when you realize Coalition Forces have been destroyed. See #2.

- You somehow do make it back to the Citadel. Finding the nearest window, you wave your arms frantically at Harbinger and make several lewd and suggestive poses to attract its attention. Eventually, you grow woozy from blood loss due to your bullet-wound and pass out. Game Over.

[Erixxxx]

I've expanded on my views over the lack of non-choice above your posts. It's almost 1am here, it's way too late for me to want to type it all out again.

[Erixxxx]

Optimystic_X wrote...
You roll a natural 20 on Hacking and still fail. Next option.

Hah, this gave me a very vivid image of me trying to disarm traps in Neverwinter Nights.

[Computron2000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

There are a number of possibilities i can think of
i) If your a engineer, see if you can override him.

You roll a natural 20 on Hacking and still fail. Next option.

 

Computron2000 wrote... 
ii) Try to contact Hackett and update him its a dead end and regroup and plan. If the Crucible is destroyed, he will do this anyway so if communications are blocked, then just wait for the Crucible to blow up.

While you plan, the Coalition Forces are wiped out. With no homeworld having a fleet of any substance left, this cycle is doomed. You leave behind time capsules for the Yahg when it's their turn to be harvested. Game Over.

Computron2000 wrote...  
iii) Retreat back to the citadel and try to destroy the Citadel or provoke the Reapers into destroying it. Since the Catalyst is the god of the Reapers, if he is destroyed, then what happens? No idea but its worth a try.

Pick one:

- You can't work Starkid's elevator to get back to the Citadel. You plead with him to let you back into the Citadel to find another way to beat him. You are on the verge of convincing him when you realize Coalition Forces have been destroyed. See #2.

- You somehow do make it back to the Citadel. Finding the nearest window, you wave your arms frantically at Harbinger and make several lewd and suggestive poses to attract its attention. Eventually, you grow woozy from blood loss due to your bullet-wound and pass out. Game Over.

In which case, you fail as a GM. Anyone could contrive a reason such as " As you're hacking, rocks fall on you and your die from 1000000d6 damage", "As you try to contact Hackett, Harbinger teleports in and beams you in the face for 10 million d6 damage", As you look for the elevator, you die because i'm the GM"

This is a common trait among those who really really should never try to run a tabletop game or write and adventure module

*edit* Come to think of it, it kind of reminds me of whoever wrote the ME3 ending. Quite a failure that

Modifié par Computron2000, 08 avril 2012 - 10:51 .