233 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

Computron2000 wrote...

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.

Whereas "the players should always have their every whim catered to" is a common trait among people that have no business crafting a serious world or setting.

I've got news for you - you're not Elminster, and you're not Drizz't either.

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote...
I fail to see how the endings undermine the series' themes.

Well aside from what's already been stated about how Shepard would have defied the idea fate as divinely proclaimed by a previously unseen character and should be inherently distrustful of him....

Synthesis:  Biggest betrayal.  Unity with diversity is highlighted upon over and over again as being the thing which seperates this cycle from the others...and Synthesis means you buy into the idea that synthetics and organics cannot simply co-exist and so therefore the only way to resolve this conflict is making things homogeneous.
Control:  Not so much a betrayal of the series as much as the shepard character himself.  The only one's who have ever been shown to think that co-existance and/or control of the reapers is possible are people who are indoctrinated.  Undermines the entire narrative and it's the equivalent of Luke killing the Emperor in Return of the Jedi and finding out that he can somehow use the Darkside for good.
Destroy:  Again...requires you to take the starchild at face value....but if you do then this one sort of works I guess...unless you're a paragon who believed that the Geth and EDI had a place in the galaxy, which I did.  Even if you want to argue that this could be interpreted as a necessary sacrifice, it's impossible to divorce from the overtones of whether or not you believe synthetic life is as valueable as Organic life.

No matter what you do you're contradicting everything you've seen in the story.

 

Optimystic_X wrote... 
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?

Yeah, and Shepard never took what the Reapers said at face value either.

[Tony208]

I wanted to make a thread like this with what I learned in that logic class freshman semester. Too bad I forgot almost everything.

I remember enough to know that the starchild argument is bs.

[Computron2000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

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.

Whereas "the players should always have their every whim catered to" is a common trait among people that have no business crafting a serious world or setting.

I've got news for you - you're not Elminster, and you're not Drizz't either.

Remarkable, how did coming up with 3 possible fallbacks in response to a post asking for other options then someone pops up and uses GM fiat as an excuse to block the possibilities link to "the players should always have their every whim catered to"?

If it came from personal experience of having your adventure or setting laughed at by players in a tabletop game or them abandoning you because you loved that GM fiat, i can understand the psychological projection. Other than that it makes very little sense.

[Erixxxx]

Sepharih wrote...

Yeah, and Shepard never took what the Reapers said at face value either.

Very central subject here. The Catalyst isn't the Reapers. 

We do not know who created them, only that the Catalyst was somehow involved. Which implies that the Catalyst came before. Depending on the Catalyst's origins, his viewpoints might be entirely different than that of the Reapers, they're just under his control. Whether they know it or not. Control can be defined by a wide array of things, and many of those are subtle. In my mind it's entirely possible that the Reapers don't know who or what is ultimately the source of their purpose. Machines, even sentient ones, can be programmed to "overlook" certain aspects of their existence. We do know that Cerberus originally made EDI a chained AI. She just knew that. The Reapers don't necessarily do that.

[PsyrenY]

Sepharih wrote...

Well aside from what's already been stated about how Shepard would have defied the idea fate as divinely proclaimed by a previously unseen character and should be inherently distrustful of him....

Synthesis:  Biggest betrayal.  Unity with diversity is highlighted upon over and over again as being the thing which seperates this cycle from the others...and Synthesis means you buy into the idea that synthetics and organics cannot simply co-exist and so therefore the only way to resolve this conflict is making things homogeneous.

You're assuming things that are not shown in the narrative. Fusing organic with machine does not necessarily "make everyone homogenous." There are many different kinds of organics, and many different kinds of machines, in Mass Effect. Until you see the results of Synthesis and can say "there are no more Turians, Asari etc." then you are leaping headfirst into conclusions.

Sepharih wrote... 
Control:  Not so much a betrayal of the series as much as the shepard character himself.  The only one's who have ever been shown to think that co-existance and/or control of the reapers is possible are people who are indoctrinated.  Undermines the entire narrative and it's the equivalent of Luke killing the Emperor in Return of the Jedi and finding out that he can somehow use the Darkside for good.

I would be reluctant to pick Control myself, at least not without knowing more about the parameters behind it (how long does my control last, how can I give commands if I'm dead etc.) So little argument here.

 

Sepharih wrote...  
Destroy:  Again...requires you to take the starchild at face value....but if you do then this one sort of works I guess...unless you're a paragon who believed that the Geth and EDI had a place in the galaxy, which I did.  Even if you want to argue that this could be interpreted as a necessary sacrifice, it's impossible to divorce from the overtones of whether or not you believe synthetic life is as valueable as Organic life.

Which is why I would never pick Destroy - my Paragon would always sacrifice himself to save another race.

 

Sepharih wrote...   No matter what you do you're contradicting everything you've seen in the story.

There has to be some contradiction, otherwise the choice would be easy. Just like Legion's loyalty mission, to make a difficult choice means that either option has to go against your principles in some way. Mass murder for what they believe in, or mass-brainwashing? Yet somehow THAT story element was hailed as a pinnacle of writing, yet the endings which offer similar conundrums are demonized. It's hypocritical on the part of the fans.

 

Yeah, and Shepard never took what the Reapers said at face value either.

Whether you believe him is unfortunately irrelevant. He knows how to activate the Crucible and you don't.

[PsyrenY]

Computron2000 wrote...

Remarkable, how did coming up with 3 possible fallbacks in response to a post asking for other options then someone pops up and uses GM fiat as an excuse to block the possibilities link to "the players should always have their every whim catered to"?

Simple, you're up against a force against which conventional means (your "3 fallbacks") cannot be successful. If you choose to call that "GM fiat," go right ahead, but it doesn't change facts.

In the real world? Sometimes you are at the whim of forces both cruel and unfair, none of your options are perfect, and all of them will play into the hands of your opponent, yet still be better than the alternative. I'm sorry if that doesn't appeal to you, but if that's the case there's plenty of happy Disney games you can play instead.

[Computron2000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

Remarkable, how did coming up with 3 possible fallbacks in response to a post asking for other options then someone pops up and uses GM fiat as an excuse to block the possibilities link to "the players should always have their every whim catered to"?

Simple, you're up against a force against which conventional means (your "3 fallbacks") cannot be successful. If you choose to call that "GM fiat," go right ahead, but it doesn't change facts.

In the real world? Sometimes you are at the whim of forces both cruel and unfair, none of your options are perfect, and all of them will play into the hands of your opponent, yet still be better than the alternative. I'm sorry if that doesn't appeal to you, but if that's the case there's plenty of happy Disney games you can play instead.

Do you mean you're a Bioware writer? Or you have inside information on how the Bioware writers would handle those 3 actions done?

Surely you must have some pull in Bioware to state so absolutely to me that "Simple, you're up against a force against which conventional means (your "3 fallbacks") cannot be successful"?

[Disciple888]

um... I can still challenge the premise

EDIT: this is just like godel's ontological proof of god.  i can still debate it, sorry

Modifié par Disciple888, 08 avril 2012 - 11:11 .

[Hudathan]

Did it not occur to anyone who still argues this point that the Catalyst was purposefully wrote that way so that we can't help but disagree with its logic and end the cycle? If the writers actually wanted the Catalyst to be 'right' then they would have given Shepard the choice to destroy the Crucible and let Reapers harvest everybody.

[PsyrenY]

Computron2000 wrote...

Do you mean you're a Bioware writer? Or you have inside information on how the Bioware writers would handle those 3 actions done?

Surely you must have some pull in Bioware to state so absolutely to me that "Simple, you're up against a force against which conventional means (your "3 fallbacks") cannot be successful"?

You mean besides Hackett and Victus telling you all throughout the third game "there's no way we can win this conventionally?"

[Eterna]

You can't debate with the star child because not accepting his options means everyone gets harvested. I mean seriously, you say no and everyone dies I really don't see why everyone wants to defy him, it means doom. That is why Shepard didn't argue because there was no other option.

[PsyrenY]

Hudathan wrote...

Did it not occur to anyone who still argues this point that the Catalyst was purposefully wrote that way so that we can't help but disagree with its logic and end the cycle? If the writers actually wanted the Catalyst to be 'right' then they would have given Shepard the choice to destroy the Crucible and let Reapers harvest everybody.

But even Starkid doesn't want to do that. He tells you "the fact that you're standing here means my solution won't work anymore." From his perspective, even if he were to finish you off/ignore you and win the war, there would be another "Shepard" next cycle who would do even better at building the Crucible and stymying the Reapers. This is doubly certain due to Liara's time capsules.

[Urazz]

Eterna5 wrote...

You can't debate with the star child because not accepting his options means everyone gets harvested. I mean seriously, you say no and everyone dies I really don't see why everyone wants to defy him, it means doom. That is why Shepard didn't argue because there was no other option.

Pretty much this.  We are told repeatedly that the Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally.

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote... 
You're assuming things that are not shown in the narrative. Fusing organic with machine does not necessarily "make everyone homogenous." There are many different kinds of organics, and many different kinds of machines, in Mass Effect. Until you see the results of Synthesis and can say "there are no more Turians, Asari etc." then you are leaping headfirst into conclusions.

No i'm not.  It doesn't matter if there are still asari synthetics and turian synthetics.  You are resolving a proposed conflict between two different forms of life by making them one and the same when up until that point it was clear that it was accepting and respecting our differences is what made this cycle stronger.
It's a contradiction of the core themes in the series.

Optimystic_X wrote...   
There has to be some contradiction, otherwise the choice would be easy. Just like Legion's loyalty mission, to make a difficult choice means that either option has to go against your principles in some way. Mass murder for what they believe in, or mass-brainwashing? Yet somehow THAT story element was hailed as a pinnacle of writing, yet the endings which offer similar conundrums are demonized. It's hypocritical on the part of the fans.

Funny you bring that up, because that actually remains the most difficult choice I ever had to make in the game and it's always stood out at me as being one of the only instances there's not a really good answer.  I actually made a whole post about this in the "what was the toughest decision" thread a while ago.
No, it doesn't have to be a contradiction.  Tuchanka (IE, the best part of Mass Effect 3 far and away) doesn't require you to contradict yourself when making your choice....it just forces you weigh your values and morals against the very real and possible consequences and make sure you're willing to stick to them.

Optimystic_X wrote...  
Whether you believe him is unfortunately irrelevant. He knows how to activate the Crucible and you don't.

....So he says.

Optimystic_X wrote...You mean besides Hackett and Victus telling you all throughout the third game "there's no way we can win this conventionally?"

 
Shepard has been defying odds and doing things people have been telling him are impossible for the better part of 3 games at this point.  Hackett is badass and all, but just because he says it doesn't make it so.  Showing is more important than telling in fiction, and when you show a character achieving impossible odds throughout the series there's no reason for him to stop.
For that matter, Hackett also tells you that TIM is wrong, and "Dead reapers are how we win this"....and apparently the writers disagreed with him.

Optimystic_X wrote...
In the real world? Sometimes you are at the whim of forces both cruel and unfair, none of your options are perfect, and all of them will play into the hands of your opponent, yet still be better than the alternative. I'm sorry if that doesn't appeal to you, but if that's the case there's plenty of happy Disney games you can play instead.

 
.....this isn't the real world.  This is a fictional story about epic heroism.

Modifié par Sepharih, 08 avril 2012 - 11:31 .

[Computron2000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

Do you mean you're a Bioware writer? Or you have inside information on how the Bioware writers would handle those 3 actions done?

Surely you must have some pull in Bioware to state so absolutely to me that "Simple, you're up against a force against which conventional means (your "3 fallbacks") cannot be successful"?

You mean besides Hackett and Victus telling you all throughout the third game "there's no way we can win this conventionally?"

Wait, you mean Hackett and Victus knew you would be in front of the god of reapers? Thats incredible news!
Then they knew you could not hack the god of reapers because they knew him inside out? Wow!
I also didn't know that retreat and plan again would mean attack with all ships until everyone dies in the minds of Victus and Hackett!
How about blowing up the citadel? They mus have known that too and already were prepared to attack right?

Your leaps of logic are amazing. Now i would personally understand if you had players run off on you because i doubt anyone can link things in such a manner other than you.

[jumpingkaede]

Guys, guys, girls, listen: I think it's pretty obvious that the Catalyst is full of it. It's also pretty obvious that Shepard had no choice but to listen because he was placed in an impossible situation where those WERE his only choices.

That's not the problem here. The problem is that Bioware put Shepard in that situation and made the Catalyst the Steward of that impossible situation. That entire scene shouldn't have been there to begin with for exactly the reasons discussed in this thread.

In Saw terms, you don't get mad at the guy who had to choose to saw off his leg or die. Those were his only choices. The person who's really at fault is the uh, Saw guy... it's been a long time since I saw that movie. Jigsaw?

[Sepharih]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Guys, guys, girls, listen: I think it's pretty obvious that the Catalyst is full of it. It's also pretty obvious that Shepard had no choice but to listen because he was placed in an impossible situation where those WERE his only choices.

That's not the problem here. The problem is that Bioware put Shepard in that situation and made the Catalyst the Steward of that impossible situation. That entire scene shouldn't have been there to begin with for exactly the reasons discussed in this thread.

Above all else I do agree with you here.   The starchild simply never ever should have existed in the first place....that's far and away the biggest problem.
That being said....it adds insult to injury with how shepard handles the whole situation.

[chester013]

StarJar Binks doesn't like facts or logic, also encyclopaedias. They're elitist; telling people what is and isn't a fact. StarJar's truth comes from the gut.

[Sepharih]

Erixxxx wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

Yeah, and Shepard never took what the Reapers said at face value either.

Very central subject here. The Catalyst isn't the Reapers. 

He says the reapers are "his solution".  Not to mention he alternates between refering to the reapers as "they" and "we".  That's more than enough reason for me to not take what he says at face value.

[PsyrenY]

Sepharih wrote...

No i'm not.  It doesn't matter if there are still asari synthetics and turian synthetics.  You are resolving a proposed conflict between two different forms of life by making them one and the same when up until that point it was clear that it was accepting and respecting our differences is what made this cycle stronger.
It's a contradiction of the core themes in the series.

That's hardly the same thing. Are the Quarians Aryan monsters for using cybernetic implants? Or the Alliance, for installing them in their soldiers?

You're applying a moral imperative where none exists. "We should all respect our differences" is a question of diplomacy, not of transhumanism. To realize the benefits of Synthesis, you need to ask yourself "why do organics keep creating synthetics in the first place?" And by "synthetics" I don't just mean mindless machines and servos - I mean artifical intelligence.

No, it doesn't have to be a contradiction.  Tuchanka (IE, the best part of Mass Effect 3 far and away) doesn't require you to contradict yourself when making your choice....it just forces you weigh your values and morals against the very real and possible consequences and make sure you're willing to stick to them.

How is Tuchanka a difficult choice? Watch the PAX video when they asked "how many people cured the genophage." The entire room said yes. Musta took a lot of soul-searching for that one.

....So he says.

And so you say too. When Hackett asks you to activate the Crucible, Shepard doesn't know how.

Shepard has been defying odds and doing things people have been telling him are impossible for the better part of 3 games at this point.  Hackett is badass and all, but just because he says it doesn't make it so.  Showing is more important than telling in fiction, and when you show a character achieving impossible odds throughout the series there's no reason for him to stop.

You DID achieve impossible odds. Just because it didn't happen 100% the way you expected it to doesn't mean it's not a victory. All three options save the galaxy from the Reaper threat, just not in a straightforward and boring way.

.....this isn't the real world.  This is a fictional story about epic heroism.

So? Divorcing it totally from gritty reality reduces it from a true epic down to Disney material.
Unless this was the ending you were hoping for anyway.

[MrGone]

Baronesa wrote...

Catalyst finishes it's explanation and waits for Shepard's decisions

Shepard: I should go.

Secretly, this was the ending I hoped for.

[PsyrenY]

Computron2000 wrote...

Your leaps of logic are amazing.

As are yours. Glad we could have this totally productive discussion. 

Bottom line: you don't get to run back into the Citadel or "hack the hologram" (I'm laughing as I type this) but I'll gladly direct you to fanfiction.net.

[CaliGuy033]

Eterna5 wrote...

You can't debate with the star child because not accepting his options means everyone gets harvested. I mean seriously, you say no and everyone dies I really don't see why everyone wants to defy him, it means doom. That is why Shepard didn't argue because there was no other option.

"But but but, *MY* Shepard would have figured out another way to save everybody!" -- somebody, somewhere

[Peranor]

Blind Rapture wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Yeah? I'm the catalyst. Talk me down.

 

Gotta love that video =)