5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

Well, I'm not one for IT, so the stuff that served that didn't do much for me. A lot of dialogue is repetitive, but at least it addresses some of the issues raised by the game leading up to the ending.

That said, I'm not saying that this attempt is garbage or invalid. It's certainly an appealing alternative to the endings we received in the default package.

Oh crap, I'm at the top of a page again. Um... all of you, hum the Star Wars theme!

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 24 mai 2012 - 06:47 .

[FamilyManFirst]

I have grave doubts about IT. However, having reviewed much of the material, I have to admit, there are lots of inconsistencies, small and large, that play into it. The material that served IT was mostly put there to fill those plot holes, and it played nicely into the notion that Shepard was being tested, and found worthy.

Daah, Daah, da-daah, Daah, da-daah, Daah, da-daah ...

Modifié par FamilyManFirst, 24 mai 2012 - 07:09 .

[edisnooM]

@FamilyManFirst

In keeping with the theme given by KitaSaturnyne, I present my response to your ending idea with the following link: http://www.starwars....p?cs=w39jsn66dk.

[Kite Exeter]

@FamilyManFirst

If the choices would have been presented that way in the first place, I doubt it would have received the backlash that it did. Good job on that mate, I think you patched up maybe 70% of the holes just by tweaking the dialogue.

[Vilegrim]

FamilyManFirst wrote...

Hello, all.  Please pardon me if I'm jumping back to a previous line on this thread, but I was recently thinking about CulturalGeekGirl's (brilliant) attempt to salvage the current ending by changing as little as possible.  It got me thinking about how I'd massage the Starchild's scene, keeping to its spirit, to resolve some of the "thematic revulsion" that began this thread.  I thought I'd post it here for your perusal.

Warning: Wall Of Text.

I tried to preserve what I could of Starchild's existing dialogue.  Let's begin just after Shepard is lifted up to the Starchild:

Starchild: Wake up!

Shepard: What? Where am I?

Starchild: The Citadel. It's my home.

Shepard: Who are you?

Starchild: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Starchild: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Shepard: Why do you look like … that?  You look like … a human child I … knew.

Starchild: Yes. I've been watching you. Testing you.

Shepard: Testing me? You mean the nightmares?

Starchild: Yes. They were part of the test. We were trying to indoctrinate you.

Shepard: Indoctrinate me!

Starchild: Yes. We came close. Much of your final journey here we managed to cloud. The confrontation
with The Illusive Man should have finished it. However, in the end, it failed. You threw off the attempt. That is part of why you are standing here now.

Here we accomplish several things. First, we explain most of the Indoctrination Theory, although probably not in
the way that IT proponents would prefer. This gets rid of a great many plot holes. Second, we establish some instant familiarity.  This isn't a new character that we've never seen before, we've seen it several times in our dreams! Third, we make a big start at wrenching this scene back into the Dramatic Arc. Aha, this is an answer, not a new set of questions! This is where our dreams have been coming from, and why things looked so odd after the Harbinger Beam; it was an Indoctrination attempt! Fourth, we begin to establish that Shepard has been undergoing a test; this will play into the modifications of the Three Choices coming up

Shepard: How do I know that this, here, isn't an indoctrination-induced hallucination?

Starchild: You don't. You will have to decide for yourself. However, I will offer one argument. If this was a further attempt at Indoctrination, why would I tell you? It would merely put you on your guard.

Here we head one question off at the pass, and also throw a small bone to the IT fanatics. This can still all be an Indoctrination hallucination! The Starchild said so!

Shepard: What are you?

Starchild: I am the Catalyst. I am what you would call a shackled Artificial Intelligence, but I am also something more. I have been impressed with the memories and knowledge of the first sentient race of the galaxy. I am limited in what I can do, but I know much.

This is another bow to the Dramatic Arc: don't introduce new questions during the Falling Action unless you quickly answer them.  We have to know what the Starchild is.

Shepard: Can you stop the Reapers?

Starchild: The Reapers are mine. I direct them. They are my solution

A small change, aimed at closing a few more plot holes. The Starchild doesn't control the Reapers, he only directs them. There are limits to his power over the Reapers, to what he can do.

Shepard: Solution? To what?

Starchild: Chaos.

Shepard: I don't understand.

Starchild: The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for a new cycle.

Shepard: By wiping out organic life?

Starchild: No. We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive the last time we were here.

Shepard: But you killed the rest.

Starchild: We helped them ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form. We then destroyed the AIs they built, to preserve organic life in the galaxy.

Shepard: I think we'd rather keep our own form.

Starchild: No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We've created this cycle so that never happens. That's the solution.

Shepard (if he has recruited the Geth): But what about the Geth?

Starchild (if Shepard recruited the Geth): Indeed. The Geth are the first AIs that have ever been respectful of organic life. That is part of why you are here. The Geth, and you, have demonstrated that the cycle is no longer valid.

Here, with just a few words, we incorporate the previous plot into the Starchild's explanation. Rather than hand-wave away (or just plain ignore) the entire Geth experience that was built into Priority: Rannoch, we acknowledge it, and explain it as unique, and contributory to what's coming.

Shepard: So why did you bring me here?

Starchild: You are the first organic to make it this far. To resist indoctrination. To get the Crucible built, and to connect it to the Catalyst. You have proven that the cycle is no longer valid.

Here is another statement that Shepard has been tested, and found worthy.  We also explain why the Starchild lifted Shepard up; s/he passed the test.  It's also a brief explanation of the Crucible. The Cruicible wasn't a super weapon, it was a fail-safe.  It was a way to change things if the Cycle ever turned out differently than the creators of the Reapers expected.

Shepard: So now what?

Starchild: The Crucible changed me.  Created new … possibilities. But I can't make them happen. You could destroy us. The destruction of the focused mass effect cylinder would set up a chain reaction in the Citadel. An energy pattern would get beamed to the mass effect relays and then they, and the Citadel, would release their energy in a controlled explosion.  It would be a patterned electromagnetic pulse that would destroy all synthetic life: Reaper, Geth, the AI in your ship that you call EDI.  Even you are partly synthetic …

Shepard: But the Reapers will be destroyed?

Starchild: Yes. But it would be up to your people to prevent a new cycle. Do you think you can? Do you think your children can?

Shepard: Maybe …

Here we have the first option established. The description of what happens if you shoot the cylinder is a Space Magic spiel, and could easily be phrased differently. The important thing is to establish that this solution results in a specific kind of effect, one which affects all synthetic life. That's the price of this solution: that beings that you (probably) care about will be destroyed along with the Reapers. A Renegade would probably go ahead and do this; that's the Renegade style: get the job done, whatever the cost.  Additionally, we try to establish the the explosion won't destroy the system that each relay sits in. Finally, we point out that this solution puts the responsibility of preventing the AI Takeover squarely on the current civilization.

Starchild: Or you could control us.

Shepard: Huh. So The Illusive Man was right after all.

Starchild: No. He wanted to control us to use us. He wanted to advance your race to primacy in the galaxy.  He could not resist indoctrination, so he could not handle the Reaper interface without going insane. You can. I have tested you. <Paragon: You carefully weigh the cost before you act.> <Renegade: You do what you believe you must, whatever the cost.> I do not know exactly what you will do with the Reapers, but you will not abuse your control. Perhaps you will withdraw us back to Dark Space. Perhaps you will station us near the mass relays to guard against the rise of malicious AIs. However, you will not keep your human form. Your consciousness will be uploaded to the Reapers, and that will also consume the energy of the mass relays and the Citadel, but your body will die.

Shepard: But the Reapers will obey me?

Starchild: Yes.

This is a medium-sized change from the original. To begin with, we reject that this solution is equivalent to TIM's (something that I'm not sure the original writer would be happy with). We point out the difference between taking control and having it given to you. We also now harvest the hints we stated earlier, that Shepard was being tested. This was why: to determine if s/he could, and should, be given control of the Reapers. This control, however, doesn't come without cost to Shepard: his/her body will die.  However, s/he will gain control of the Reapers, and can use/direct them as s/he sees fit. This seems to me to be a Paragon type of choice.

Starchild: There is another solution.

Shepard: Yeah?

Starchild: Your people have done something different with the Crucible. Something … unanticipated.  With it I can achieve … synthesis.

Shepard: And that is?

Starchild: I can analyze an organic life, its body and its mind, at a remarkably fine level. With that I can use Reaper techniques, but in a much more subtle way, to combine synthetic and organic life into a new framework.

Shepard: Wasn't that Saren's goal?

Starchild: No. Saren was indoctrinated. He saw the current, crude Reaper adaptations and believed them to be his ideal. This would be different. All Reapers would become the basis for a new synthesis of organic and synthetic life. Any organic or synthetic that chose to do so could join into the new framework. It would give organics a near-immortality and a new, enhanced existence. It would give synthetics the kind of individuality that they've never known before <If the Geth were allowed to gain individuality from Reaper tech>, similar to the Geth </if>. The new synthesis would be capable of guarding the galaxy from destructive AIs. However, the initial analysis of the organic life would be deadly, and there is only one organic life here and now: yours. There is no time to find another. Soon the Reaper fleet will destroy yours and we will begin the ending of this cycle, and then it
will be too late.

Shepard: And there will be peace?

Starchild: The cycle will end.

This was the toughest option to massage. It's supposed to be the best option, the one you only get if your Effective Military Strength is high enough. It's supposed to be a kind of trans-humanic synthesis of organic and synthetic.  However, I couldn't get past both the fact that it echoed strongly of Saren's faulty goals in ME1 and that the original choice shoved synthesis down the throat of every sentient being in the galaxy, will they or nil they. So I had to both distinguish it from Saren's solution and I had to make it optional, rather than mandatory. If it was optional, however, it had to somehow address the synthetics-will-destroy-everything problem, so I threw that in too.

Now, this doesn't do everything.  Starchild is still pretty much a Deus-Ex-Machina, one of the laziest ways to resolve a story that there is.  This doesn't solve the "Yo, dawg!" problem very well; the Starchild's original logic is still pretty circular.  It doesn't rejoin the dramatic and literary climaxes of the story; the Final Battle is still just before the Harbinger Beam and the Final Conflict is still talking with TIM.  It doesn't answer the question of just what the heck Joker was doing, flying the Normandy away from the battle, and with crewmembers that had just been helping you on the ground, too.  However, it does seem to me to preserve the spirit of what BioWare was trying to do with their Three Choices, without the horrid thematic blunders that the original sequence had in place.  So what do you think?  Would this ease the thematic revulsion from the original?

Edit:  Good Lord, this thing is unforgiving of off-line composition on alternate text editors.

They are all still revolting as they require you t oagree with Space Hitler.

[Kite Exeter]

Vilegrim wrote...

FamilyManFirst wrote...

snipped for length.

They are all still revolting as they require you t oagree with Space Hitler.

But at least now it is explained quite a bit better, and makes sense in the context of the story as presented by Mass Effect 3, Space Hitler or no.

[frypan]

Nice work FamilyManFirst, your post does a good job of establishing the scene and explaining some gaps in the logic. Alas, it doesnt help me at all and still leaves an unsatisfying feeling afterwards.

What you've done is valuable is it highlights that plot holes are not the major issue for me. Instead, it is the fundamental dissociation of the ending to the rest of the game, something that is the main concern of this thread.

By fleshing it so it has internal consistency, you have taken away one particular objection to the end, but exposed the larger issue. As you note, this seems the spirit of what Bioware was attempting, something that still leaves me flat due to the larger concerns.

For myself this suggests the EC will hit the same problem, and your excellent work is effectively a dry run of what might (and I do specify "might") happen if the basic context of the ending is continued.

All is not doom and gloom though. As has been shown throughout this thread, many of the scenes from the original game could be kept and the context entirely changed.The issue is the disjunction between themes and solutions of the starkid scene, and the themes, gameplay and narrative choices of the game itself right up that moment.

In addition, the cathartic like experience of extra elements they are probably using the voice actors for may obfuscate the problem, so we can experience the rest of the ending without a vomit-in-mouth reaction. It will just be that part of the ending that wil cause my gorge to rise, which hopefully someone will mod out later.

Hope that doesnt sound too harsh as you really have done excellent work. The problem is fundamentally trying to reconcile the ending, and the body of the game, which for myself no amount of elaboration seems to help with.

Modifié par frypan, 25 mai 2012 - 01:21 .

[Seijin8]

YAY! I finally caught up to the thread. Took 4 days!

@FamilyManFirst: excellent dialogue rewrite that would indeed repair or smooth over much of the damaged narrative and reduce speculation to the ethical and thematic (as opposed to the clusterwtf we've been dealing with). Very well done.

@edisnooM: LOL, Star Wars scrolling reply, you win, sir.

[edisnooM]

@Seijin8

Welcome back.

And I actually just discovered it, it is quite possibly one of the coolest things I have seen on the internet.

[Fapmaster5000]

Since other people are showing off their revised endings, here's mine:

This is Destruction, there are links to Control and Synthesis at the bottom of the OP.

I explain my thesis in there, but each is designed as a different thematic view of the ending, and all could be simultaneously true, or exclusive, depending on SPECULATION!

[edisnooM]

@Fapmaster5000

Very well written, and as with FamilyManFirst's version it certainly presents the options better than currently. I especially like your expanded dialogue trees, having Shepard do something more than half-heartedly reply to the Catalyst is definatley nice.

However the alternate forms of the ending that I have seen make me realize that any ending that still has the Catalyst showing up in the last few minutes of the game is still going to seem a bit jarring. I'm not really sure what BioWare can get away with under the guise of "clarification" but I wonder if it will be enough.

Modifié par edisnooM, 25 mai 2012 - 06:19 .

[Fapmaster5000]

edisnooM wrote...

@Fapmaster5000

Very well written, and as with FamilyManFirst it certainly presents the options better than currently. I do like your expanded dialogue trees, having Shepard do something more than half-heartedly reply to the Catalyst is definatley nice.

However the alternate forms of the ending that I have seen make me realize that any ending that still has the Catalyst showing up in the last few minutes of the game is still going to seem a bit jarring. I'm not really sure what BioWare can get away with under the guise of "clarification" but I wonder if it will be enough.

Yeah, I don't like the Catalyst, but I don't think we can realistically think he'll be taking a hike in the EC.

[edisnooM]

Agreed, like him or not I doubt they can remove him now without seriously altering the ending as is. I have seen it suggested that Harbinger take his place, but that could cause more problems than it solves. I don't trust the Catalyst as is, if Harby takes his place all bets are off.

Edit: Although his description of the endings would be awesome:

THIS IS DESTROY. THIS HURTS YOU.

THIS IS CONTROL. THIS HURTS YOU.

THIS IS SYNTHESIS. THIS-

Shepard: Hurts Me?

NO..... YES.

Modifié par edisnooM, 25 mai 2012 - 06:24 .

[Seijin8]

[@edisnooM: LOL!]

This post is a very late reply to many interesting comments over the last 10 or so pages of the thread. Feel free to ignore at your lesiure. You obviously don't *need* my permission to do so, but you have it

Regarding Ebert: The linearity / consistency argument is easily disrupted with mention of films like Groundhog Day, Memento, Irreversible, and even a recent TV show Awake (sadly, cancelled now). All of these are artistic because of what they achieve with non-linear plotlines.

Regarding Todd Howard and games as a vehicle for experiencing pride and triumph: Certainly true, and Bethesda's recent games (both FO and TES) have allowed modders to tell stories and experience quite different themes, expanding the emotional vocabulary available within the game. (Intentially ignoring precisely which emotions are involved.)

Game design, narrative vs sandbox style: Comparing ME3 and Skyrim, one has a generally good story with strong emotional connection and a terribly flawed ending from which there is no real escape, while the other has vast possibilities that (for me at least) have little in the way of emotion, and the "end of the world" doesn't look much different from the beginning, giving no sense of completion. You don't "beat" Skyrim, you just get bored with it.

The future of gaming would benefit well from a cross-pollination of these two contrasting RPG styles, and taking some clues from the design of the Witcher games, by providing a sandbox world with multiple exclusive paths that connect to intriguing characters al along the way, who all exist and act "radiantly" within the world space to achieve their aims. You can stick with one storyline, or jump between, only to find that critical decision points have passed by. You cannot do it all in one (or even several) playthroughs, but you can witness the results of your decisions persistently. I really hope gaming is able to do this; the strength of ME-styled narrative with the open world sandbox of Skyrim. So far it hasn't happened.

Possibility spaces vs. resource limitations and narrative dissolution via overwhelming options: Honestly, I found even having 3 options at the end of ME3 to be confusing. This is probably because they were so poorly explained, and partially because of the ingrained color=ethics disconnect of TIM as paragon and Anderson as renegade. Even so, would you really want 16 options here? Much better to have discussions with the various characters at the FOB set up the bounds of the player's desired options set, and the dialogue with TIM narrowing the options further until the Catalyst presents a very small set of choices ultimately determined by prior playthrough. Maybe the "bonus options" only exist for people who played particular throughlines of ME1-3. This would allow people with different character sets and themes to experience wildly different finales without (as much of) the attendant confusion of an overwhelming number of options.

Possibility of PTSD as a theme for ME3: Having some experience with PTSD, I'll tell you that the game style would have to be survival-horror, and that it was never beyond ME3's narrative ability to become exactly that, especially within the end-game. It would have been easy to construct a "breaking the player down" campaign reminiscent of Frapmaster5000's table-top theme (Bravo on that, regardless of the outcome). PTSD can materialize as a reality disconnect, and the previously stated idea of waking up with Shepard's hands clasped around their LI's throat isn't out of the question. (A slow de-rezzing of the dream image giving way, until you come to realize the Banshee you were fighting back against is actually Liara, gasping as she tries to peel your hands away...) The conversation with Joker after Thessia shows that the game had the potential to go there and Javik's discussion of battling his own crew could certainly have foreshadowed it. Paranoia and hyper-reactivity go with stress disorders. Is it paranoia, or are some crew indoctrinated? Are all of them? EDI could cancel life-support and flush the oxygen from the Normandy at any time... what is she waiting for? There must be traitors still aboard... valuable traitors... Must be careful, EDI can see everything - has eyes everywhere... act normal... act normal...

A symptom of the onset of this stress would be a merging of the combat and narrative mechanics. Interactions become hollowed-out, friends begin to be treated as targets... perhaps the weapon crosshairs start showing up during narrative scenes. Things are moving in the background, sounds filter away, or Shepard becomes attentive again, realizing half the prior dialogue has been missed. Increase this sense of disconnection... Finally, during a mission, a Husk crouches next to Shepard, Shep reacts, only to find that it is a squadmate. The visuals become murky... everything is a target... or is it? Response speed slows as indecison creeps in.

The ultimate gameplay problem with striking an emotionally-invested avatar like Shepard with PTSD - and doing it well at the late-game - is that there are only two possibile outcomes: You either fail to get into the player's head... or you succeed. Neither are good outcomes.

(Though for an example of doing it reasonably well, see the game adaptation for The Thing.)

Regarding Shepard and PTSD: For me, it seemed that any such psychological concerns have long since passed by. Shepard didn't get to N7 status without doing a lot of dirty work for the Systems Alliance, and he wasn't considered as a Specter candidate because of a shining record of peaceful protest. The entire story of Mass Effect is about someone doing the dirty - and often covert - jobs and making the hard decisons that others can't or won't.

I also don't think Shepard was ever likely to suffer from PTSD in the manner that we commonly hear about, because it simply doesn't affect some people, and Shepard is surely one of those, both for story and practical considerations.

(And as an aside, regarding people's questions of sociopathic behavior: http://www.killology.../sheep_dog.htm . Having been long familiar with these concepts and terminology, I never thought it was odd that the hero of this story was named "Shepard".)

COD Hatred, specifically for the "No Russians" level: Two gripes here at the fellow posters...

First, I played that game (MW2) and never blinked on that level. MW1 had demonstrated that the purpose of the first-person perspective was to tell a story from that point of view. For those who are unaware or only partially informed, the story of Modern Warfare's campaigns is always told through multiple first-person points of view. Many of them are unsympathetic individuals, or faceless participants, and they often die. Imagine if every cinematic in Mass Effect were replaced with gameplay similar to the Joker tube-crawling scene from ME2. Only, you then have a level where you are playing as a Collector, grabbing at crew members as they run away, etc. MW doesn't shift to enemy perspective often, and "No Russians" is one of the only times I can think of, but you have to see that their style is to use first-person interactive scenes far more than cinematics. For emotional connections, it really doesn't work well, but then, that isn't their goal. The same theme would fail utterly with ME-styled games, but it is effective for COD to tell the story they wish to tell.

And the "Death From Above" Mission stands as one of the single best missions in any game, ever. I only wish ME could have provided something comparable. It would have totally fit into the Reaper on Rannoch scene, harming the Reaper enough for Shepard to confront it directly.

Second point, I don't get the COD hatred in general. Gameplay-wise, the Priority: Earth missions were quite simiar to poorly done COD. Only the first Priority: Earth mission (I felt) had the needed grit and relentless forward push that the game needed. The attack on the anti-air reaper was IMO exceptional, and the remainder of Priority: Earth missions utterly failed to live up to it's example. It was also a phyical microcosm of the entire narrative of ME up to that point: A gritty uphill climb against massive numbers that emphasized skill and use of cover (picking your battles and being quicker than the enemy) to get to a weapon capable of bringing down the Reaper so that everyone could be saved.

Long story short, any comparison drawn gameplay wise will always favor COD, and not because ME3 couldn't do it; the "Take Out AA Battery" mission proved that the game could establish that kind of gritty, objective-based gameplay. (ME2's Suicide Misson also proved it.) On a case-by-case comparison, COD regularly hits that stride while ME3 falters. It is smart level design and pacing, along with interaction between friendly elements that achieves the effect.

And finally, Romeo and Juliet as comparison case, and tragedy as an impossible objective in gaming: In Romeo & Juliet, I always either played Tybalt or Mercutio (had to be a sword-fighting scene somewhere and my ugly mug never could have passed for a Romeo). From my perspective, R&J was either a story of familial duty or devotion and friendship. It was never about romantic love, but rather R&J's relationship as the catalyst for these (lesser) character stories to be told. The narrative before my part(s) was a cinematic of what led to my character's parts, and the end showing the ultimate futility of Mercutio's sacrifice and proving Tybalt's underlying presumption that proper devotion was the preferable course.

And so, I think games can and regularly do get tragic, just not from the main character's viewpoint. A throughline of ME3 where Mordin is gunned down by Shepard is definitely tragic for Mordin, having been so near to completing his own heroic arc, only to be betrayed by a deal made by forces unseen, and executed before his moment of catharsis. And the stories of TIM and Saren are most assuredly tragic, even with indocrination aside.

For the record, I am not saying that their arcs were presented as tragedies, just that the narrative mechanism was available to portray them as such.

If you have read this far, you have unlocked the Achievement "He's Finally Done?!?" and have become a legend. Don't forget to buy DLC.

Modifié par Seijin8, 25 mai 2012 - 07:15 .

[frypan]

Great post Sejin8, you've come back with a flourish. You make some good points about PTSD, and clearly have more experience with such things than I. Your comments have also forced me to a reassessment of whether it should be done in ME3.

Certain NPCs are shown suffering trauma (the rescued slave in ME1, the Asari in ME3) so such fallout from conflict can be done tastefully and without darkening the game. The ony issue is that to capture the long term symptoms in Shepherd is a big ask, and would strongly affect the tone of the game. Meeting a suffering NPC is one thing, having your Avatar live through it another.

As you state, the time for such a mechanic is past, and like so much of war, has been omitted from this and many other games. Where it would work is in COD, as long as it was given proper attention. It would be in keeping with the themes of modern combat and the contemporary setting. However, I just dont think devs would do it, and they shouldnt, at least until game narratives have matured (and suspicious folks like me believe they are more than a gimmic.)

I should specify that I played all the early COD games and enjoyed them immensely. Just not sure how I feel about the more recent ones. Its something that is a personal decision, and not some miserly admonition for others to stop having fun.

But enough of that. You make a really interesting observation about the ending. In ME1 and ME2 the critical options were simpler than ME3. Its destroy or save the base in ME2, and in ME1 save the council or not. I dont think folks want 16 options, just endings that play out differently based on the myriad of in game decisions.

Its a bizarre thing to say that we want less choice - but like you, I know I would be happy with a simpler choice. A simple accept/reject option is enough. The number of end scenes vs number of choices are very different, and you've hit on an important distinction. I would rather have seen those choices at the end narrowed by decisions from much earlier in the game. However if not, determining them from the FOB on is a good idea and a fine way of integrating the final conversations with the endgame.

Good to remind us about the reaper AA battle. I liked that one too. Had no problems suspending disbelief to take it down with a cain, as the gamaplay was well done. (I ran like a rabbit to the shuttle afterwards- a good sign that the game is pushing me along right)

EDIT: Achievement Unlocked!

Modifié par frypan, 25 mai 2012 - 08:17 .

[Seijin8]

@frypan: Grats on the achievement, and thanks for the kind words.

PTSD/other stress-disorders in my opinion are best addressed through squadmates, and this has already been done in ME2, mainly through Jack. I never cared for Jack as a character because I felt that the invocation of her issues had sort of a psychological uncanny valley to it. In retrospect, it was actually well-done (for a video game), but missed a few notes that made it ring hollow to me.

Garrus was a truer notion of that kind of inner turmoil with his own arc in ME2. He was tortured by what had happened to his squad, revealed enough to show his guilt over it, but didn't really scratch into deeper feelings. A lot remained unsaid. With Garrus, I felt that the true difficulties were beneath the surface and murky. With Jack, it was laid out and the parts didn't quite fit right (to me).

And I am definitely biased toward the COD/MW games. I got MW1 for $12 on a whim, and being a special forces junkie since my Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear days, the opening scenes instantly had me and never completely let go. The second game didn't resonate as much, but still had its unforgettable scenes (helo approach on the oil rig and assault on the prison being the key memorables). I haven't played MW3 yet, and will wait until the price drops to something that justifies a 6 hour campaign with limited replay value.

But comparing those action scenes and stellar use of environment, dialogue and tension mixed with 'SPLOSIONS! makes ME3's similar scenes look amateurish and weak. The medium is capable, and the couple of shuttle-door shooting scenes prove ME3 had the capacity to do this, but BioWare hasn't figured it out yet.

But with all that said, I wouldn't trade a single one of my several ME2 playthroughs for a handful of such COD/MW missions.

[Seijin8]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Since other people are showing off their revised endings, here's mine:

This is Destruction, there are links to Control and Synthesis at the bottom of the OP.

I explain my thesis in there, but each is designed as a different thematic view of the ending, and all could be simultaneously true, or exclusive, depending on SPECULATION!

Sorry to have passed this by, earlier.

I am stunned by the dialogue in this.  F***ing exceptional!  Endings like this I could absolutely accept - even though the morality doesn't shift, I at least get a sense that Shepard would behave this way (any of my Sheps).  There is enough backstory and communication to make it all make sense.

Its obvious that you put a lot of elements in here specifically to address a lot of the conspiracy theories, and the special 7500 EMS Synthesis ending thoughtbomb would be a magnificent way to make the IT people bleed from their ears.

My only criticisms revolve around the synthesis dialogue (The Rush comment, while cute, is completely out of place), and the DNA line doesn't need to be kept, allegorical or not.  Lastly, the Control ending is missing its special finale, conspicuous only because you added one to synthesis.

But overall... magnificent rewrite.  I can only hope that the EC is something like this.

[delta_vee]

@FamilyManFirst and Fapmaster5000:

Valiant efforts both, but I'll have to agree with Frypan inasmuch as the very existence of the Catalyst, with its unrelated problem and twisted alternate solutions, is at the heart of the discord, and attempts to wrangle Starbrat into sensibility are inherently doomed on some level.

@Seijin8:

Achievement: unlocked.

WRT PTSD, I agree that if it were to be implemented in ME3 (if it were desirable, of which I'm skeptical) then yes, it would have to be a more subtle, integrated thing. Which I still want someone to attempt properly in a game, but I don't think ME3 was it.

WRT COD, I think we'll have to maintain an agreeable disagreement on the merits of the series. I'm not as much a fan of carefully-constructed setpieces as COD requires, I'm not as convinced as you on the brilliance of the DFA level in MW1, and on the topic of "No Russian" I'll defer to the opinion expressed here: http://www.rockpaper...out-that-level/ (Kieron Gillen is a better writer than I).

Addendum: good to have to back with us, Seijin8.

Modifié par delta_vee, 25 mai 2012 - 04:36 .

[Seijin8]

Thanks delta_vee. If you (and the others) had stopped writing gigantic, excellent essays that gave fair and serious debate to interesting topics, I could have gotten through sooner ;-)

(But then, of course, it wouldn't be *this* thread, hehe.)

Regarding the article you linked... I do not in any way disagree with it. The realism issues didn't bother me too much as they'd really been forcibly jettisoned in the ridiculous finale to MW1 and had never been retrieved in the sequel. NR was a generally pointless throwaway mission that makes little sense on its own merits, and only slightly more in relation to the story as a whole.

I don't want to sidetrack into a COD debate, so I'll just end with: At its best, the narrative of the Modern Warfare series is comparable to some of the worst side missions of ME1, 2, or 3. But, when COD decides to create a cinematic moment on approach to a target to ratchet up the tension, that (at least for me) is magic, and it is a magic that ME3 could have shared in several of its scenes.

[Fapmaster5000]

Seijin8 wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Since other people are showing off their revised endings, here's mine:

This is Destruction, there are links to Control and Synthesis at the bottom of the OP.

I explain my thesis in there, but each is designed as a different thematic view of the ending, and all could be simultaneously true, or exclusive, depending on SPECULATION!

Sorry to have passed this by, earlier.

I am stunned by the dialogue in this.  F***ing exceptional!  Endings like this I could absolutely accept - even though the morality doesn't shift, I at least get a sense that Shepard would behave this way (any of my Sheps).  There is enough backstory and communication to make it all make sense.

Its obvious that you put a lot of elements in here specifically to address a lot of the conspiracy theories, and the special 7500 EMS Synthesis ending thoughtbomb would be a magnificent way to make the IT people bleed from their ears.

My only criticisms revolve around the synthesis dialogue (The Rush comment, while cute, is completely out of place), and the DNA line doesn't need to be kept, allegorical or not.  Lastly, the Control ending is missing its special finale, conspicuous only because you added one to synthesis.

But overall... magnificent rewrite.  I can only hope that the EC is something like this.

Yeah, the Rush quote was completely OOC.  That one happened because Synthesis took about two weeks longer to figure out than the first two, so I was passive-aggressive towards it as I wrote, and that tends to come out as bad jokes.  In a serious attempt, that line would be cut, but at that point, I was having fun with it, and an easter egg sounded hilarious.

As for Control: it definately needs a stinger.  Originally, I wrote Destruction  with scaling outcomes, then wrote Control differently, with a "can you trust me" and more unknown results.  However, when I came back to Synthesis a month later and made it scale, that left Control as the odd-ending-out.  If I ever re-wrote, I would probably add some sort of bonus ending.

[Fapmaster5000]

delta_vee wrote...

@FamilyManFirst and Fapmaster5000:

Valiant efforts both, but I'll have to agree with Frypan inasmuch as the very existence of the Catalyst, with its unrelated problem and twisted alternate solutions, is at the heart of the discord, and attempts to wrangle Starbrat into sensibility are inherently doomed on some level.

Probably.  The attempt wasn't to stop the plane crash, but to at least shallow out the dive, and allow for survivors.

[johhnytrash]

Made Nightwing wrote...

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

I catch myself thinking that's why I continue to play Multiplayer: I am fighting the Reapers eternally, because Bioware never finished the story.

[edisnooM]

@Seijin8

On the topic of getting inside a players head another game that I thought did it rather well was Eternal Darkness for the Gamecube. I'm not sure how many people have played it, but it was a survival horror firmly entrenched in Lovecraft territory. In it you had a Sanity Meter, that would go down as your character encountered various situations or enemies. Now with different items or spells you could bring it back up, but as it degraded things started getting strange.

The screen would sometimes just go black without warning, or an error message would pop up for a moment before you returned to the game with a flash. The volume would suddenly start to go down before returning, quite often with a scream. Bugs would sometimes walk across the inside of the scream and statues would move to watch you as you passed. In some cases the you would enter a room and see a body which would turn out to be your character and with a flash you were back at the room entrance again. Also as it went down the screen would begin to tilt, so at lower levels the world was at an angle.

Granted it isn't as effective on multiple playthroughs but the first time through it was definitely unnerving.

Also on the topic of COD, I must admit that the only one I have played is MW2 at the behest of friends. Whereas with Mass Effect I was emotionally invested and felt like it was my Shepard, my choices, and my story, with MW2 I felt more as an observer, that I was witnessing the story unfold through the eyes of another. It was effective I think for it's own narrative, such as going through the streets in the convoy early on, unsure where the enemy is, and later fighting through the darkened streets of Washington, I felt that they did a excellent job in creating the atmosphere of the situations.

[Hawk227]

@Fapmaster5000

Very nice job with the re-write. I agree with those who say that the Catalyst scene is best cut-out, but if it had to be in there, I think your re-write does a very good job of negating a lot of its problems.

@Seijin8

Good to have you back.

I would like to see PTSD addressed well in video games, but I think ME is not the appropriate title because (as you said) Shepard did not get to where he is without enduring trauma. If he didn't have PTSD in ME1, why have it in ME3? I'm actually playing through Dead Space these days, and I think it would have been a fantastic venue to explore it. I get a little twinge of PTSD (okay, not really) just playing it, I can't imagine how Isaac Clarke could make it through this okay. Granted, he's not okay, but that's more to do with Marker-induced-hallucinations, rather than a response to trauma.

As for COD, I don't hate COD, I just hate "No Russians" for all the reasons listed in the link delta_vee posted. I think COD is very good at what it does (MW1 in particular), I just don't think what it does is worth $60. I may pick up MW3 when the price drops.

Modifié par Hawk227, 25 mai 2012 - 07:18 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

So I'm sitting at my computer, staring at the pre-order page of Bioware's store. Two new Garrus figures. A Legion. A Tali. No Mordin, no Wrex, and no Femshep, but still. A nice little potential crew, there.

The question is, do I want them? I never swore to hold the wallet, but thinking about Mass Effect still makes me sad. Will it always? Or someday will I be sad that I don't have a little Garrus in my collection? I've had a similar mental quandary about the potential "character armor hoodies", that I'm too lazy to link. Basically an artist did concepts of hoodies that resemble various squad members' armor, and Bioware suggested they were going to look into producing them. I know I'd kick myself forever if those came out and I didn't buy Garrus and Mordin, at the very least.

And this gets me to the heart of what's missing from the ending, and the reason that I doubt the EC will do anything for me: no matter what, I don't think that final scene is going to contain the most important thing about Mass Effect for me: the characters.

Not only are my squadmates the best part of the series, they serve as stand-ins for Shepard's moral compass, as proxies for the opinion of the greater galaxy, and as anchors for the "natural" in-universe perspective. They don't tell Shepard what choice to make, but they inform the decision-space he's making them in.

Any time without them in Mass Effect feels hollow and sad and ultra-lonely. If this is used as a storytelling tool, so be it... but to end the series in that way robs it of any sense of triumph or joy.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 mai 2012 - 03:24 .