5087 réponses à ce sujet

[delta_vee]

If we're going to be splitting hairs and arguing semantics on this thread, I request - nay, demand - that this silly distinction of "domestic" versus "imported" receives proper critical attention. By "domestic", do you mean Aussie beer, or local to the reader? Are you considering microbrews or other smaller producers, or merely waving a contemptuous hand at the mass-produced ******-alikes which are pushed at the lower price brackets and higher marketing budgets? My "domestic" beers are such utter dreck as Molson and Labatt - and if one extends the market to the whole of North America, it also includes Coors and Corona (blech). On the other hand, the smaller breweries include such luminaries as Mill Street and Sapporo (they bought out Sleeman's, which already produced Sapporo under strict license).

You guys are such beer-soaked classists. You're the bourgeois of hops. You're hypocritical snobs, all of you, and when the revolution comes I hope your precious "imports" are lined up in the street and smashed.

YOUR BEER SHALL RUN GOLDEN IN THE STREETS, CAPITALIST PIGS!

Edit: Oh, no. Oh please dear gods no. Not this. Anything but this. Mods, please show mercy on this thread. My sins are mine alone.

In the meantime, everybody hum, uh, er, the Suicide Mission theme! Yeah, that's it!

Modifié par delta_vee, 18 juin 2012 - 03:12 .

[bc525]

hahah, I could just see it coming. delta_vee is destined to start every page ... oh man .. I spilt my beer.

[delta_vee]

My tragic flaw is my offense to the pagination gods, by insisting I was beyond their power. I have been...humbled.

Also, don't spill beer, it's wasteful. (How's that for full paragon?)

[delta_vee]

Ahem. On to more...topical things. Going back a little ways...

edisnooM wrote...

All in all though I've always disliked being forced to fail, unless it really worked well in the story.

Forced failure in games is one of the trickiest, thorniest, most complicated things a game designer can attempt. It's almost entirely counter to everything we know about how to handle player skill. This is the thorny barb which underlies the suckage of Kai Leng, fuels the vociferous faction who never accepted Aeris' death, consistently annoys people in even such classics as Half-Life and Deus Ex by forcing their capture and stripping their weapons away in the late stages of the game.

To qualify as a "game", under the (apparent) consensus definition, the player must have agency above all. Forced failure is inherently a violation of that agency. The circumstances where it can be successfully employed are somewhere between few and none, depending on your views on the importance of player skill. If it is employed, I believe it must both serve a very direct conceptual purpose and be placed in a context where its lessons can be interalized without subsequent contradiction. The infamous "would you kindly" scene in Bioshock, for example, meets the former criteria but not the latter; the remaining third of the game still consists of running around with a voice in your ear doing someone else's errands (and the entirely-too-traditional boss fight at the end merely cemented the problem).

Compare to the handling of failure of, say, Dark Souls (drink!) or One Chance (which I'm pretty sure I've referenced before). DS' mechanics are so fundamentally based upon player skill that it is entirely possible to win the game, without dying, at level one (with a very particular exception - several of you already know what I mean). OC, however bleak, however unyielding in its refusal to allow replays, still has a (bittersweet!) path which is at least a technical "win", and relies on the metatextual comparison between players to tease out its decision sequence (which is astonishing in its simplicity, but in context is oh so very hard to follow).

The very worst way to use forced failure is at the end. Not only is there no time to internalize the lesson within the scope of the game, it makes the result of the game so tarnished that the player is convinced not of whatever "lesson" is to be "learned", but that the game itself was not worth playing, since the result is worse than when the player began.

So I'm clear: I'm not against tradeoffs. I'm not against having to prioritize one thing over another. I'm not against the "win" state being difficult (even nigh-impossible) to achieve. But despite any attempt at an artistic statement (not even in quotes, ie totally genuine) towards the inevitability of loss, the only thing the player takes away from an ending which burns the whole game to the ground is the taste of ashes and regret.

[bc525]

Good recovery there vee. To be honest, I do like dark stories and even some bleak endings - if they work for the characters. "Se7en" was a dark movie with a very tragic ending, but it worked. You could see the trap placed by the villain and the main character fell into the trap by becoming Wrath. As the viewer, I witnessed a 'good' person commit murder, and I was forced to contemplate "Would I have acted differently?"

I think BioWare might have been attempting something similar, but I'm not sure. Speculation for everyone equates to confusion for everyone. As many folks have pointed out here, watching movies is very passive for the audience while gaming is extremely active for the players. What works for a movie might not translate well to gaming. There are so many instances where BioWare copied other franchises and sci-fi themes and past stories within Mass Effect and it worked for them in ME1 and ME2. When it came time to create a unique finale at the end of ME3, well, then it seems as if they were grasping at straws. As if they had no planned ending in mind during the development of the Mass Effect series, but instead they were constantly improvising.

Modifié par bc525, 18 juin 2012 - 04:07 .

[delta_vee]

@bc525

As the viewer, I witnessed a 'good' person commit murder, and I was forced to contemplate "Would I have acted differently?"

Aye, there's the rub.

Someone far upthread (apologies, forgotten poster!) remarked that tragic catharsis relies upon the fundamental detachment between audience and character. CGG further specified that the power of classical tragedy (and, I would argue, noir in the modern age as well) is predicated on the audience's ability to pinpoint the protagonist's decision which propels them along the tragic path. Even more modern and postmodern versions of tragedy, say, the works of Peter Watts (who has admitted he has trouble writing pure villains - all of his characters follow a (frequently twisted) form of good faith and reason), still count on that distance between character and audience, which allows (just enough) distance from a tragic end that we may evaluate it instead of feeling directly responsible.

In a game, however, predicated as it is upon the player's responsibility, we fundamentally cannot have that distance in the same fashion.

[JadedLibertine]

Springtime for Harbinger!  I so want first night tickets for this.  Now I have the delightful mental image of Hudson as Roger De Bris and Walters as Franz Liebkind, swapping his little hipster hat for a helmet.   And Dr Ray and Dr Greg as Bialystock and Bloom.

[edisnooM]

@alleyd

Ha, very nice. :-)

[BigglesFlysAgain]

I vas born whilst hover-ing, that's why they call me sovereign...


ya, das ist enough of dat.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 18 juin 2012 - 08:24 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

A little off topic, but I have nothing to add to the delightful songy-type stuff above, except to say that I'd love to see the trilogy summarized to the tune of "Bohemian Rhapsody".

That aside, and after much reticence and reluctance, I believe my short story, mentioned quite a long time ago, is about as done as it's going to get. I've receieved a surprisingly positive response in regards to it from the few that have read it, so it's probably as ready as it's going to be. The only caveat is that it's stored on Skydrive, though the link should take you right to the file itself. (just click on the .pdf icon that appears in your browser) For ease and compatibility, it's in .pdf format. Feel free to message me and tell me what you think. I'm interested in everyone's opinion.

It's here.

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

Wow, very nice. I couldn't help reading it in Max Payne's voice though. :-)

Also was that an Anderson reference at the end?

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

That was half the point. Glad you enjoyed it.

I didn't even notice that, which is strange since it's been mentioned a bunch of times here in the last few days, but yeah. I guess it is!

EDIT: I just realized that the first part there sounded exorbitantly ****y. Sorry!

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 18 juin 2012 - 10:54 .

[edisnooM]

The intro, or the first part of your post? Either way I thought it was fine. :-)

[KitaSaturnyne]

The post. I was being honest on both points, but looking back, I was like "geez me, calm down a bit".

In a half-assed attempt to say something at least sorta on-topic...

Of all the technology that could have been adapted for use against the Reapers, why weren't the Occuli studied and such? In combination with human/ living pilots, they could prove quite useful, especially since they seem to have the ability to burst through the hull of a frigate whenever they get close enough.

[edisnooM]

That's a good point, and they were able to break through even with the reinforced hull. Also it appeared that the Reapers themselves were using them so they don't seem to be Collector hand me downs or something.

I guess if it's Reaper tech it could pose the risk of indoctrination especially if used intact, but just reverse engineering didn't seem to be a problem with the Thanix cannon (or missiles, which were a molten warhead I guess?)

[Seijin8]

Well, regarding the Thanix cannons, those were a "Turian development" that used salvaged parts of Sovereign as the template.

Given the Turian notions of following orders and honorable sacrifice, and few Turian scientists to go by that we met in the series, I wouldn't be surprised if the scientists working on the tech became indoctrinated, and that this was an acceptable risk of learning the technology.

I'm picturing people working on it in an isolated bunker while several groups of advisors and technicians are learning via video feed, knowing that when this "hands-on" group finally succumbs, some of the people watching will replace them, and more technicians will be brought in and brought up to speed with the progress so far.

That is, assuming the whole Thanix cannon thing isn't just a small plot hole.

[edisnooM]

@Seijin8

Huh, hadn't thought about that before, and even though nothing is mentioned in game, that does make sense.

But yeah, it could just be part of the growing pile of plotholes that were swept inconspicuously under the rug until the ending. :-)

[delta_vee]

@Seijin8

That really, really reminds me of SCP now. Complete with the turian equivalent of D-class personnel.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Seijin8 wrote...

Well, regarding the Thanix cannons, those were a "Turian development" that used salvaged parts of Sovereign as the template.

Given the Turian notions of following orders and honorable sacrifice, and few Turian scientists to go by that we met in the series, I wouldn't be surprised if the scientists working on the tech became indoctrinated, and that this was an acceptable risk of learning the technology.

I'm picturing people working on it in an isolated bunker while several groups of advisors and technicians are learning via video feed, knowing that when this "hands-on" group finally succumbs, some of the people watching will replace them, and more technicians will be brought in and brought up to speed with the progress so far.

That is, assuming the whole Thanix cannon thing isn't just a small plot hole.

I have to say that that is my absolute favorite protocol for "safely" doing research on Reaper technology. Well done.

That said, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the whole "Every single shard of Reaper technology is a trap FOREVER" thing. We still don't even know how indoctrination works: are there nanobots? Is it biological? Is it psychic brainwave signals? What about biological nanobots controlled by psychic brainwave signals?

If all Reaper tech will cause indoctrination even if the Reaper is dead always, does that mean that we're still left with a universe full of brainwash fragments forever after the Destroy ending? Will they just brainwash anyone standing nearby to say "Must serve the Reapers" even if there are no reapers? It's plausible. If that's not how it works (because it requires active psychic brainwave signals to make actual indoctrination happen), why did it work with the "dead" Reaper? Also, why wasn't there more Batarian brainwashing earlier, with the Leviathan of Dis? Also, can control Shepard indoctrinate everyone who gets near him to not be a stupid jerk anymore?

I used to love indoctrination, but without any more information it's pretty much impossible to have a productive discussion about when it would and wouldn't take effect. The reason that I argued against keeping the base in ME2 wasn't that I thought it was impossible to ever safely study the tech; I just didn't trust Cerberus, kings of oops-my-experiment-ran-amok, to take anything resembling proper safety precautions.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 juin 2012 - 01:59 .

[Seijin8]

Well, I can take a stab at a semi-plausible mechanism for indoctrination (and its limitations). A nod to Fapmaster5000 for helping elucidate parts of this through prior posts. This is not reflective of what I *believe* to be taking place, but a guesstimate on *how it might* work.

Indocrination is the control signal for the Reapers. It is what keeps each of their billion individuals as a united nation, and those nations as a collective force. This control signal uses some transmission mechanism either significantly below the Planck scale or hidden amidst background data. (I favor the background data idea in a manner similar to quantum entanglement for FTL communication purposes, like a macroscopic quantum phenomenon. Look all that up and pretend that I know what I am talking about, haha.)

Because this transmission device is an ongoing efffect (possibly related to mass effect theory), it is an innate part of the particles and cannot be shut down. Because Reapers are formed primarily of the gray goop, the goop itself has this property. If we pretend that the goop really is the essence of the DNA and mind of the individual who was melted down, then it must be storing information far more efficiently and at a more condensed information volume than normal matter. It is likely that indoctrination is a side-effect of this information density, and is able to transmit its control signal into all other matter. Over time, random energy signals will begin to naturally conform to these signals, producing the biological side of indoctrination.

As such, yes every bit of Reaper tech is innately capable of indoctrination, and no piece of it is free from such problems.

The degree to which this effect/side-effect of the control signal can be manipulated is an unknown. It seems that there is no more efficient method of indoctrination than simply being near it. Looked at from a strategic standpoint, a husk is a poor substitute for a willing, thinking slave that can infiltrate enemy ranks to assist in spreading the signal. (As an aside, it doesn't appear that indoc is itself contagious - a person who succumbs to the signal cannot become a vector for the signal itself, they can only act in accordance to the underlying dogma of the control signal.)

I would surmise that indoctrination is a secondary effect that the Reapers have learned to use to their benefit, but that even they cannot alter its properties - it is literally part of their matter. This leads to the idea that the Reapers do not possess the same level of technology that created them, and this strength to the notion that Reapers were created by a post-singularity civilization using intentionally pre-singularity tech (to prevent derelict Reaper tech from being the accelerant for the very thing they are fighting against).

Taking the endings into account, I believe that the control ending shows that the Catalyst possess the mechanism for altering the signal in a way the Reapers can't or won't. In a sense, Catalyst is the driving force behind indoctrination, with even the Reapers dancing to his tune. Shepard's disintegration into the signal is a fundamental way of altering the signal and (presumably) taking it over, each cell of his/her body being similarly condensed in information volume and sent along whatever transmission medium the indoc/control signal uses.

A side effect of this (and likely synthesis and destroy as well) is that the signal either executes a final command (self-destruct) or to fundamentally alter its own transmission properties, possibly using the energy release of the relays to amplify this signal to the point where it takes much greater effect. In synthesis and destroy, this may be a "last hurrah" of the medium itself.

[As I am pressed for time, this will have to remain less well-fleshed out than I would like, but since I typed this and have to run, pick away at it as you will.]

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sure. My problem isn't coming up with a plausible way that indoctrination might work, it's the complete inability to rule out hundreds of possible variations, all of which are plausible with the data we're given.

Is the success of the Thanix cannon project due to extreme care, or simply pieces too damaged to retain their indoctrination qualities? What about the Reaper IFF, why hasn't that indoctrinated everyone on the Normandy? Does the Normandy even still have the Reaper IFF on it? What percentage of collector-related tech was capable of indoctination? I mean some Shepards did run around in a collector-based suit of armor for an entire game... just sayin'.

Again, I'm not suggesting that these questions are unanswerable, merely that we don't have the data to rule out any of several plausible answers.

I do like your theory; it's very similar to some of my ME2 era theories; (I specifically cited both ansibles and grey goo, back in the day), but your explanation takes things in a slightly different direction. I mislike the "Catalyst really is the main force behind indoctrination" idea, but that's largely because it makes a lot of interesting things a great deal less interesting... which may well be the Catalyst's superpower.

Edit: also, the fact that this discussion is happening here and now is a testament to this thread. A few times a day, I usually check the rest of the forum, just to see if there's any interesting non-ending-related discussion going on, and there rarely is. Sometimes you'll see a cheerleader thread or two, in the "quote cool lines" or "describe your shepard" vein, but nothing like the old ME2 era threads on the Collector base, Rachnii, Cerberus, any-and-all-possible-race-and-society-variations, Spectre program, galactic evolution, sexy Turian ladies, genophage ethics, etc.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 juin 2012 - 03:56 .

[delta_vee]

Hmm.

I generally don't like setting elements which require additional weirdness and unknown mechanisms if the setting isn't already a stewpot of weirdness and the unknown. The ME1-era explanation of indoctrination, with its EM-manipulation and infra-/ultra-sonics affecting the limbic system, seemed a decent rationalization of the trope of eldritch mind control. It also implied both intent and malice, which fed into the impression of a more personal, intimate threat than just mecha-cthulhu-from-the-skies.

As far as the dead Reaper in ME2, I simply figured it was only mostly dead, and therefore retained sufficient agency to induce the requisite dread. And, if I recall correctly, the idea of indoctrination without a full Reaper wasn't brought up until Arrival - which is where so much went downhill so fast.

Modifié par delta_vee, 19 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[Seijin8]

I will respectfully disagree on The Arrival being the crux of the problems. Rather, it is ME3's insistence on ignoring the salient plot elements from Arrival.

Admittedly, without The Arrival, many later problems fade in magnitude, but only because nothing had been established counter to them.

And you are right; I had forgotten about ME1's explanations for indoc, though these seem incomplete for detailing many of the effects we have seen.  Still, it is true that creating new machanisms is a poor substitute for adapting existing theories/explanations.

Modifié par Seijin8, 19 juin 2012 - 07:56 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

I'm with delta_vee on this one.

The Reaper found in ME2 gave me the impression that it wasn't actually dead, just inert and heavily damaged. Also, I'm not fully convinced the Reaper IFF module is just a piece ripped out of a Reaper and installed into the Normandy. People seem to assume that without remembering the massive technological incompatibility. So I think they created a device that's somehow able to broadcast the Reaper/ Collector signal. I mean, come on. It's a little kidney-shaped thing sitting on a table when you grab it.

There's so little known about Object Rho, but my suspicion was always that it was like an active separate device and not a fragment of a Reaper. Kensen (sp?) probably says that it is, but we can't really rely on her opinions of the matter.