356 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

This is because  for the player, the state of the organic/synthetic conflict, which you use as a balancing factor, has little impact because it's too abstract, totally overshadowed by the more tangible risks and benefits.

I agree with the sentiment and the analysis…although: I'm approaching this mostly from the perspective of the hypothetical character. I think they're mostly balanced if viewed from the perspective of someone actually living in that reality. Mostly – there's definitely tweaking to be done.

Then it's even more important, because the balance depends on how much the character believes of the Catalyst's reasoning.

Hm. I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from here I think it's essential that we're somehow convinced that the options provided are, in fact, valid. (And that's the only reason why we didn't get to decline in the original ending.)

The balance must be centered around the kind of approach that would give the best interpretation of a specific ending: Destroy is best (or rather feels best, ot Shepard and the player alike) if Shepard doesn't believe the Catalyst. In that situation, your high EMS scenario has no significant downside - all you have added is cosmetic. You have basically done away with everything that makes Destroy undesirable, but kept everything that makes the other options undesirable. That is not acceptable.

We should probably have an option to just decline the Catalyst and go looking for a solution (which would probably end up Destroy). If the character wasn't convinced, I don't think they'd pick any of the options – and probably suspect that the one that seems most appealing is a trap.

For comparison, Synthesis is best if you believe the Catalyst, and there is still a very significant downside with the relay situation and with Shepard's death. Control is best if you are undecided, and there is, again, the relay situation. So, I maintain that your scenario is heavily unbalanced in favor of Destroy.

I left the relay situation open for both of those.

I say if you have a Destroy variant with no significant downsides, there absolutely must be variants of the other endings with no significant downsides.

I don't think you should be able to wriggle out of the relay destruction in Destroy. Else I come and say you should be able to wriggle out of Shepard's death in Synthesis.

I can certainly accept relay destruction*, but at the same time, I don't really agree that Destroy – as is – is without downsides.

Still, though, if I'm thinking about this from the perspective of having to make the decision for true… Firstly, I don't think they necessarily need to be equal! They are the Catalyst's solutions after all, and its goals might not align with Shepard's (even if we assume that Shepard's convinced that they actually do what they're advertised to do). But basically we have:

• A somewhat utopic existence, all beings in harmony (supposedly), with the most significant threat completely removed (supposedly);
• Continuing forth as we are, but with a significant resource under your control against the big threat, and in fact all threats (or maybe even usable for evil purposes like dominating the galaxy);
• Things go on as before, and there are even now several volatile situations threatening peace, and the big threat is not removed.

So I think these all provide quite different levels of benefit, with Synthesis arguably the highest. Of course, this is viewed from the perspective that the synthetic/organic conflict is indeed real, and the gravest threat to existence – which is the perspective the Catalyst espouses.

That said, from a character's perspective, I personally don't think choosing Synthesis makes any sense unless you're an ultra-paragon and really believe that the Catalyst is right, and that the threat overrides the issues of doing this without people's permission. However, it's one of the ones we got so it's got to stay in!

Importantly, though, I don't think that should mean that the other options need to be watered down because of it. That's artificial balance, and I don't see any benefit in it.

So, that leaves us with two options: you can either (so to speak) walk away with a massively impressive army, no interruption in relay service, and a safer future outlook; or you can risk both immediate and future conflict in exchange for your life (possibly).

* Notably, we have statements from the team indicating that they in fact aren't destroyed. That's why I'm including that option to begin with.

Modifié par lillitheris, 17 avril 2012 - 10:19 .

[lillitheris]

Loosened the language around Destroy relays a little, that one needs more pondering.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
* Notably, we have statements from the team indicating that they in fact aren't destroyed. That's why I'm including that option to begin with.

The statement said that about Control. And the context was indeed that this was considered to be a balancing factor between Destroy and Control.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
* Notably, we have statements from the team indicating that they in fact aren't destroyed. That's why I'm including that option to begin with.

The statement said that about Control. And the context was indeed that this was considered to be a balancing factor between Destroy and Control.

Hm, is that so? I could have sworn it was referring to the feared galactic dark age, and was under the impression that it was explicitly stated that the relays would be OK in Control anyway. I'll have to check on this. I did loosen the language a little already as I mentioned above.

…

I also added the hypothesis re: Normandy in that section, although I hedged it heavily. I just don't think it's tenable, but it is a possibility.

…

I have to say again that I really appreciate the input. Constructive criticism is imperative.

Modifié par lillitheris, 18 avril 2012 - 12:57 .

[lillitheris]

Come on, give us a hand here!

All I see in the various popular threads is a ton of complaints and a ton of ephemeral defenses, but almost nobody is actually interested in doing the thinking part…

Critique, suggestions, complaints, “hate it”, ”love it”, anything? Renegade perspectives especially.

Modifié par lillitheris, 18 avril 2012 - 03:50 .

[lillitheris]

Expanded on the believability of the Catalyst a little.

[Kunari801]

Kilshrek wrote...

...But I think that these options mostly feel the same is where it rubs me the wrong way. It all seems to scream to me, you must kill yourself, so that others may possibly live. It could just be me, and that I am dead against all this big sacrifice business...  

Look at Mordin's sacrifice.  It fit the moment, the lore, and the story setting and was a real tear-jerker and tender moment.   A big sacrifice for the sake of a sacrifice doesn't work and that's the problem with the endings now, they do not fit.   
If they can change the ending to make sense both logically and within the setting then it'll be a more powerful choice.   Currently Star-brat is illogical and gives you three nonsensical options thus making the sacrifice feel empty with little to no sense of victory. 

-----------------------
To the OP: Not bad, I agree they need to work on Star-Brat, his argument is totally illogical and the presentation of the three options are sour tasting.  Worse most of us didn't trust him feeling it was a trap.  

The post-decision ending cinematics aren't "bad" but they aren't enough either.  Again referring Mordin's last comment to Shepard: Mordin didn't make the sacrifice for "The Galaxy" or "The Future" as these were too impersonal he did it for his Nephew.   What is that personal reason for Shepard?  It's his LI and crew and what payoff do we get?  A nonsensical "jungle planet" and a post-credits "Stargazer" scene.   One is nonsense and the other too impersonal thus they need to be expanded.  

Where is the eulogy or tearful LI reunion scene?   It's "Hollywood" I know, but I wanted one anyway.   

Modifié par Kunari801, 18 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'm going to say don't get your hopes up.

* synthesis ending -- this one I'd really like explained about how Starbrat is going to get around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle without Space Magic, let alone saying the machines have DNA.

* Control ending -- I'd also like clarification how Shepard is going to control the reapers after she's dead without getting all religious. And I don't know if the galaxy would really want this particular Shepard in charge either if it is possible. lolz. Reapers, the Galactic Police Force.

You have the destroy ending pretty well handled.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[lillitheris]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I'm going to say don't get your hopes up.

* synthesis ending -- this one I'd really like explained about how Starbrat is going to get around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle without Space Magic, let alone saying the machines have DNA.

Yep. I still have to write it out in the OP but in both mine and Ieldra2's Synthesis threads we can't really come up with any ‘real’ new DNA answer, so it's metaphorical (which sort of works with how Catalyst said it). We have parallel nanotech and programmatic changes to organics and synthetics respectively. I don't really see it as an actual “final solution” but, importantly, all it really needs to be is something that the idiot Catalyst would think is one.

* Control ending -- I'd also like clarification how Shepard is going to control the reapers after she's dead without getting all religious. And I don't know if the galaxy would really want this particular Shepard in charge either if it is possible. lolz. Reapers, the Galactic Police Force.

Yeah…I thought the implication was that Shepard would become an AI/AP (either in fact, or as a copy), although I suppose it's possible the essence just gets modified into some algorithms. That seems even sillier, though

[Ieldra]

@Kunari801:
I don't have a problem with the sacrifice as it goes in the endings. We have:

(1) Destroy: Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect and if he survives, continues to live as a normal human. This is the pro-organic choice, giving organics the freedom to develop or die out on their own merits.
(2) Control: Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect and becomes an AI god. This is the pro-synthetics choice, acknowledging that it may be best for organics to live under the benevolent guardianship of an AI god.
(3) Synthesis: Shepard sacrifices all that he is. This makes peace with the Reapers and upgrades all intelligent life in the galaxy to hybrids capable of self-improvement, thus ending the fundamental antagonism (based on the singularity hypothesis).

What we need aren't necessarily new options, but a better exposition of "the problem" and a description of the Synthesis that makes more sense.

@lillitheris:
What I'm trying to find atm is a new method of long-range FTL travel that's still Mass-Effect-y enough to fit the universe but doesn't depend on relays, so that I can propose it for a relay-less Synthesis scenario. My take on the Synthesis is that it de-centralizes technology - many things separate AIs and big machines were needed can now be done with nanotech, integrated symbionts and collective processing power. I can't go quite that far with FTL without things becoming unbalanced, but that's the guideline I'm using.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 avril 2012 - 05:59 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

What we need aren't necessarily new options, but a better exposition of "the problem" and a description of the Synthesis that makes more sense.

Yes, it's a hard problem. For me, the main takeaway has been just determining what isn't feasible and then extrapolating in the other directions far enough that it makes sense for our epilogue timeframe. I must admit I'm not terribly interested in advancing further from that because the whole thing is so alien…I'd rather let BioWare SPECULATE that if they feel it's necessary

Of course if they intend to add stuff after the Event, they'll need to develop the ideas further. I think they really boxed themselves in, kind of…there's a whole lot of stuff that could have been done in the aftermath sections – taking back Omega (why would you do it before the Earth attack? All that would do is cost forces, AND you might lose Aria when she has what she wants.), cleaning up possible reaper remnants, cleaning up possible Cerberus remnants, various runner missions for infrastructure…hell, you could even have a DLC for rebuilding the relays!

Edit: That is, it's not impossible to build those on your final decision, but it's definitely much harder – in addition to them having said that they wouldn't (even including the hint that they might, but thousands of years in the future).

What I'm trying to find atm is a new method of long-range FTL travel that's still Mass-Effect-y enough to fit the universe but doesn't depend on relays, so that I can propose it for a relay-less Synthesis scenario. My take on the Synthesis is that it de-centralizes technology - many things separate AIs and big machines were needed can now be done with nanotech, integrated symbionts and collective processing power. I can't go quite that far with FTL without things becoming unbalanced, but that's the guideline I'm using.

Nice, sounds interesting. The thing of it is that we know that it's technologically possible to achieve the relay transit, so it's not magic (so to speak). Still, even the asari were at least hundreds, possibly thousands of years away from understanding the technology involved. Synthesis would probably gain the access to that vast amount of knowledge, so I don't really see any reason why they couldn't be rebuilt – or indeed another system devised. A counterpoint would be that the Reapers themselves, despite being heavily networked, still use the same mechanism. So they don't have the answer off the shelf either

Modifié par lillitheris, 18 avril 2012 - 07:01 .

[lillitheris]

Kunari801 wrote...

To the OP: Not bad, I agree they need to work on Star-Brat, his argument is totally illogical and the presentation of the three options are sour tasting.  Worse most of us didn't trust him feeling it was a trap. 

Yeah, that's a hard problem. I added some discussion on that to the OP, but it's difficult to see how it could work without external influence. Essentially, a secondary confirmation would be the most plausible way of explaining Shepard's trust. If they're unwilling to add it directly, maybe it could be in the decline option…you decline, the Catalyst sticks around asking you to reconsider, then you manage to somehow get a connection to the fleet or EDI or something, and they can…hell, I dunno, ‘run a scan’. But it seems like that type of thing would still go over better than any convincing that the Catalyst itself can do. Any brain dump thing would just seem like Indoctrination.

Where is the eulogy or tearful LI reunion scene?   It's "Hollywood" I know, but I wanted one anyway.

I'm cautiously hopeful that they'll ‘clarify’ (=retcon) a happy ending, knowing that it's one of the few things that can mollify the fanbase without significant changes to the end. In addition to the eulogies.

[lillitheris]

Added some Synthesis, plus rewrote little bits to remove old stuff.

…

Seriously, no Renegade players have any input?

[lillitheris]

Tried to clarify the Catalyst requirements and Synthesis a little further.

[Thracecius]

lillitheris wrote...

Added some Synthesis, plus rewrote little bits to remove old stuff.

…

Seriously, no Renegade players have any input?

All the serious Renegades probably either busted their screens at the stupid options or decided that there was no point in talking about it. Remember, Paragons are the "Chatty Cathys" of the ME Universe. 

Modifié par Thracecius, 19 avril 2012 - 05:34 .

[lillitheris]

Thracecius wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Added some Synthesis, plus rewrote little bits to remove old stuff.

…

Seriously, no Renegade players have any input?

All the serious Renegades probably either busted their screens at the stupid options or decided that there was no point in talking about it. Remember, Paragons are the "Chatty Cathys" of the ME Universe. 

No kidding. I thought I could have snagged at least ONE by this point :happy:

I'm just going to assume that the ideas are so wrong as to be beneath contempt for Renegade players, until one emerges!

Have to try to write the rest of Synthesis today, I suppose.

[d1ta]

Hi, *a bit nervous posting an idea here, since everyone seemed much smarter than me, LoL*

So here's my take about talking with the starchild:
After he presented Shepard the 3 choices, would it be possible to add another dialogue option for Shep to pick: destroy, synthesis, control and investigate?
Have Shep look around, examine stuff (or maybe open communication to the normandy?), trying to get the feel in determining wether the starchild is telling the truth, or is he just blatant lying? or telling half lies half truths?

What ever option available after 'investigate' will be determined with the EMS score you have: will you get a happy-er / tragic outcome from destroy / control / synthesis(?)

Would've love to see a high EMS for control: where Shep doesn't die, become the next galactic empress / emperor that bends the galactic society on their knees without playing favoritism to the human race >=D so yes, she basically betrays them all >

Just a thought..
*don't throw rocks at me X)

[lillitheris]

d1ta wrote...

Hi, *a bit nervous posting an idea here, since everyone seemed much smarter than me, LoL*

The only dumb questions are the ones that don't get asked! <3

So here's my take about talking with the starchild:
After he presented Shepard the 3 choices, would it be possible to add another dialogue option for Shep to pick: destroy, synthesis, control and investigate?
Have Shep look around, examine stuff (or maybe open communication to the normandy?), trying to get the feel in determining wether the starchild is telling the truth, or is he just blatant lying? or telling half lies half truths?

What ever option available after 'investigate' will be determined with the EMS score you have: will you get a happy-er / tragic outcome from destroy / control / synthesis(?)

Yeah, I think the question of the Catalyst is an important one. We've only dealt with it cursorily, because it's pretty tricky to solve. Being able to get an external comm would be the best, although of course you'd only get a plausible explanation out of that (could they really do some kind of a scan to verify that?) That also creates the problem that, well, you have external comms. There's all kinds of stuff that you could do with that, and I don't think they want you to.

So, maybe the most plausible thing would be that you go for the Investigate option, “why should I believe you?”, and the Catalyst says that it's going to upload some schematic data to the fleet; a moment later, it opens some communication shield (which has been preventing you from getting comms earlier), and among the cacophony of the fleet in battle, you hear Hackett, EDI, Dr. Lok or someone try to hail: “Commander Shepard? Commander? We received schematics and analysis, are you transmitting this? They show that the Crucible plans were correct, but there's something preventing it from firing. You can release the destructive ray by disabling the thingamajic somewhere nearby place, it looks like; EDI also says that there's some kind of a code repository there with Reaper command structure modifications that could be used if they could be beamed to the Reapers, but she can't get access to it. There's also some really weird schematics for nanotech that seem something like the ones in the husks but not quite. Commander, we can only hold off for a few minutes before the Reapers get to the Crucible, what is going on?! What's the situ-” with the Catalyst then closing the comms shield.

I suppose that could work as a semi-plausible explanation. Opinions?

Would've love to see a high EMS for control: where Shep doesn't die, become the next galactic empress / emperor that bends the galactic society on their knees without playing favoritism to the human race >=D so yes, she basically betrays them all >

Hehe, yeah…we're of course limited by the assumption that there's no new gameplay after the ending (so you can't make decisions at that point) but this actually would be somewhat viable to datamine from decisions made earlier: there are some that I think betray a definite “humans first” attitude (although saving the council in ME isn't one…). If that were the case, then the epilogues could show a scene where humans are asserting their newfound strength more – whereas a more neutral Shepard would result in ‘learning the lesson’ that more co-operation is needed. Showing a full-on evil empire would probably be too restrictive for many people's RP, but giving hints allowing for that direction would be good.

That part actually works for both Control and Destroy (and Synthesis too, in its own way), I might add a blurb about that to the Closure section…

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 avril 2012 - 11:25 .

[Versidious]

lillitheris wrote...

Added some Synthesis, plus rewrote little bits to remove old stuff.

…

Seriously, no Renegade players have any input?

As a Renegade (I actually play a variety of characters, each with specific motivations and character traits, but I think a lot about my characters motives, and what decisions they would actually make in these situations), I think that you're missing the point of Renegade, perhaps. There are two parts of being Paragon/Renegade - how you talk to people, and the decisions you make. The ruthless decisions can be part of the whole ruthless calculus that Garrus talks about - it's not that you don't care, it's just that you're trying to prevent something worse. Even the talking to people like a badass - you could be a badass with a heart of gold, perhaps you just don't suffer fools gladly. Or you could actually be a power hungry maniac, or a racist thug.

A Renegade might take the decision to destroy because they hate synthetics, or because under the ruthless calculus laws, it's the only way to be sure of being rid of the Reapers. If you take any of the options, you're either assuming that the Catalyst is telling the truth, or making a desperate gamble because you see no other choice (Or, more accurately, because the game doesn't give you the choice of investigating further, calling for help etc). So that doesn't really preclude Synthesis. You could be a badass with a heart of gold that thinks this is what's best for the galaxy - you are, after all, a Renegade, so playing God, and remaking man in your image is well within your remit.   ;-)
Control is another very obvious potential Renegade choice. You're uploading yourself to the matrix in some way, controlling the Reapers, and having power to conquer as you see fit, or whatever. Or, again, you're a badass with a heart of gold who's sacrificing themselves for the universe because you will do anything to achieve your goals, you're a goddamned Renegade, you do mad, crazy ****, and NOONE CAN STOP YOU, you're like a human Blasto. Noone better get in your way, not even yourself.

TL;DR The options are what they are. You don't have to make things Renegade or Paragon, individual players have to decide what *they* or their Shepard would do. (WWYSD?)

[lillitheris]

Interesting perspective, Versidious, thanks! Like I said, I can barely force myself to play Renegade so I definitely don't have the mindset

It sounds like you don't really see any particular problems with how this would play out for a Renegade (be they a genuine bastage, or just…goal-oriented), even with my elaborations?

What about the epilogue scenes? It's kind of hard to extrapolate the correct amount of closure people will need (except that it's definitely NOT “your crew is stranded on some planet, the end”) and how that might differ for various players. Paragon is actually a little easier, but as you point out, especially all Renegade aren't the same, so we can't really just necessarily define a certain direction based on those coarse classifications.

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[ThomaswBloom]

 and among the cacophony of the fleet in battle, you hear Hackett, EDI, Dr. Lok or someone try to hail: “Commander Shepard? Commander? We received schematics and analysis, are you transmitting this? They show that the Crucible plans were correct, but there's something preventing it from firing. You can release the destructive ray by disabling the thingamajic somewhere nearby place, it looks like; EDI also says that there's some kind of a code repository there with Reaper command structure modifications that could be used if they could be beamed to the Reapers, but she can't get access to it. There's also some really weird schematics for nanotech that seem something like the ones in the husks but not quite. Commander, we can only hold off for a few minutes before the Reapers get to the Crucible, what is going on?! What's the situ-” with the Catalyst then closing the comms shield.

This.  Right after the scene with Anderson.  Cut the Starchild out completely.  I'd prefer the Synthisis ending to get tossed too, because its so horrible for so many reasons.  But if we have to keep the Starchild and the Synthisis ending this would be preferable.  And It could be done by any old Voice actor as well.  The call could come from Engineer so and so, or Crucible team lead Bob, or whoever.  I would prefer Admiral Hackett /Dr. Lok/ Jacob even.  (EDI may have been taken along in Shepard's charge into the beam).   But really, just some token handwaving would blunt the awful of the Starchild a bit.

A few more dialog options with the Starchild would be nice, but given that Bioware probably can't get the required voice acting scripted, recorded* and through QA in time to hit a Summer release we're unlikely to see expanded dialog options with the Starchild.  Honestly at this point its gotta be easier for Bioware to chop out the Starchild than to try and salvage that scene. 

*Jenifer Hale of Femshep voice acting fame stated in an interview in early April that Bioware hasn't contacted her for any new stuff.  So unless Bioware has some thing from the cutting room floor that can be salvaged we're unlikely to get new dialog from Shepard.  

[lillitheris]

^ Heh, if only we could get rid of the Catalyst… But yeah, there's absolutely something that we need added there.

I think – OK, I hope – that the “summer” schedule allows for doing things right (and in fact they made it a little vague to gauge what they need to do). If they think they can just add a minute or two of cutscenes as opposed to laying out some fundamental stuff (like I've been trying to do), they've made their last mistake as a company. They will be soo screwed.

Again, BioWare: you're welcome to use my scheme as-is or pick any parts you like. No charge, no royalties, no attribution. Just make it right.

Modifié par lillitheris, 20 avril 2012 - 12:09 .

[lillitheris]

Added the new catalyst reasoning proposal to the OP. I'd still like critique on that (and everything else) if you've got it.

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 avril 2012 - 07:17 .

[lillitheris]

lillitheris wrote...

Added the new catalyst reasoning proposal to the OP. I'd still like critique on that (and everything else) if you've got it.

…And reformatted it so that it reads at least somewhat sensibly if someone's new to the OP.

[lillitheris]

And a small lift here, in the event that it might stay on the first two pages for a few minutes, at least. Still looking input/critique for all of it, but especially:

1. Renegade perspective
2. Catalyst's trustworthiness
3. Overall scope of the epilogues
4. Control

Or just add a +1-comment to keep us afloat a bit longer