5087 réponses à ce sujet

[-Area51-Silent]

Its not over complicating things at all. In fact when we were told the ending wouldn't change because of "artistic integrity" and told they would give us "expanded endings," I sort of read that as "you're not smart enough to get it, so we will explain our art, since you're to simple."

This Lit professor coming out and eloqently making his statements about what he thinks of the ending when it comes to following literary conventions pretty much states that we aren't all stupid, and that the writer is wrong based on how they concluded the ending. I think that the whole "fight fire with fire" argument comes into play here.

[b2smooth]

Dr. Dre, nice! We are about to get into some gangsta ****!

Oh it's Dray, damn!

[pistolols]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

My first thought upon finishing Mass Effect 3 was "I should have played through with Crow first."

Crow was my most Renegade of Renegades. She is a narcissistic sociopath who sees everyone - not just synthetics, but every living thing - as a tool for her own personal advancement and empowerment. She believes herself to be smarter than everyone, she likes people who compliment her and allow her to do as she wishes, and hates those who try to stop her. She'll sleep with anything that moves and feel nothing for them the next day. She views her entire crew as tools to achieve her goals, to be discarded the moment they outlive their usefulness.

And yes, for her, the ending is completely appropriate. For the almost-complete-renegade who has absolutely no respect for anyone's lives but her own, the ending has absolutely no problems or downsides.

She has nobody whose opinion she respects or relies on, she believes her decisions are sacrosanct, she has no friends or lovers to worry about, no one to go home to. For her, having to make the final decision without companions nearby would feel natural; proof that, in the end, she really was the only person in the entire universe who mattered at all.

I'm not going to argue that the ending is inappropriate for the most renegade of Shepards. I'm almost tempted to play through on Crow just to get into a state where the ending makes sense, but I almost don't want to give her the satisfaction.

Bioware had done a pretty good job throughout of making me feel like all Shepards were valid... right in their own ways, wrong in their own ways, but none of them had it all figured out.

Now, at the end, my nihilistic sociopath vision of Shepard is the only one that checks out, thematically.

I have to be skeptical that this is "working as intended."

Well luckily for me my interpretation of the ending is not as yours is, and that picking control suited my paragon shep just fine.  It was extremely similar to choices he's made before, a lesser of two evils, so it wasn't even a problem at all.  I also like to think that after he takes control he's actually freeing the reapers.  He lets them go and they no longer have to serve a "solution".  Also was pretty fascinating that in the end he becomes an AI, the very thing he'd been defending as being alive just as anyone else.  I love thiniking about how his consciousness is stored in the citadel somewhere nice and safe.  He's become immortal. 

[-Spartan]

Marty McMort wrote...

Leave it to a lit professor to overcomplicate things.

Well for what it is worth, threads like one and others like it serve a tangible purpose. You see some of us like to think that when the next generation of students are being taught about game design, writing, and related skill sets that this situation will be used as a case study for them to learn from and digressions such as this will be utilized as primary resources. I cant tell you how many times I've done case studies with my graduate students over the years and how valuable they found them. It is an incredible learning tool to say the least.

On a side note, deconstructing something with a focus on each element from a critical perspective may seem to be overcomplicating things to the casual observer but it really simplifies things in many ways believe it or not. It also servers another important purpose and that is to facilitate the journey of self-discovery. 

Modifié par -Spartan, 23 avril 2012 - 05:59 .

[Cobra's_back]

fle6isnow wrote...

SkaldFish wrote...

I'm not sure anyone would argue that examples of synthesis don't already exist in the ME universe, but that isn't the point. All your examples reinforce Dray's assertion that there exists there a foundational diversity of synthesis, largely based on individual choice or specific circumstance. To claim that this indicates a foreshadowing of or move towards the kind of dictatorial, homogenizing, galaxy-wide transformation presented to Shepard as an option strikes me as quite a stretch. That choice is jarring and distasteful because of the blatant recharacterization that expects us, for the very first time, to suspend disbelief enough to accept Shepard's sudden transformation from advocate for freedom and diversity to passive pawn in a sweeping coup that steals not just individual choice but identity itself from every being in the galaxy.

Except we see in the end that Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same. Joker is still Joker, EDI is still EDI. I don't think synthesis robs identity or diversity from the galaxy--it just gives organics and synthetics the desirable traits of the other.

For more on this, see Ieldra2's and AtreiyaN7's posts.

I’m pretty sure this is where the writer never should have ventured. No one sees the real threat of a crazy AI.
 
Shepard is a great arbitrator. Shepard doesn’t go against free will or the natural evolution process. Shepard and team were pretty upset with what the reapers did to the Protheans. Shepard also didn’t care for the experiments to make creepers or TIM's improvements made on his agents.
 
It doesn’t fit Shepard’s profile to play God.

[Cobra's_back]

Double post sorry for above:

Synthesis

What we saw doesn’t explain what happened internally. Shepard paragon is an advocate for diversity. This option is not explained very well. Most players really don’t even see a need for it. The comment “I don't think synthesis robs identity or diversity from the galaxy--it just gives organics and synthetics the desirable traits of the other.” This doesn’t have any proof. No one can see these trait changes or internal changes. They just see green eyes. It really needed more explanation. The fourteen short lines just doesn’t cut it. I’m pretty sure what got the writer in trouble was that he wanted to offer at least 3 separate options instead of one. It was done at the last minute and not thoroughly examined.

[The Elite Elite]

drayfish wrote...
@ The Elite Elite:

Sorry to have missed your question when you first posted. As far as I recall (in the choices I have made throughout ME1 and 2) my Renegade Shepard, although being staunchly pro-human, doesn't outright dismiss the legitimacy of synthetic life, so I shall have to take your and Pistolols' word that Shepard can consistently deny the validity of non-biological existence.
 
I guess my response would be that, while it may be technically true that such a version of Shepard does not acknowledge the worth of synthetic life in this relatively narrow response chain, it seems to be a premise that the larger universe of Mass Effect keeps attempting to press in upon the player. 
 
First we have the lovely psychological shock central to the first game in which we realise (dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuunnnnn!!!) that the Reapers are in fact sentient machines – but, of course, as they are the enemy and at this point, and we don't yet know their motivations, this is fairly dismissible.

After being told by Sov that they are sentient machines Shep can respond with "you're not even alive, not really. Your just a machine and machines can be broken."

Secondly, however, we have Legion and his quest for self-actualisation and identity.  And his signature feature is a piece of your N7 armour – so even if you choose to ignore his verbal quest for identity, the visual cue that he has an independent behavioural quirk that distinguishes him from other Geth remains staring back at you through that one piercing, illuminated eye. (Indeed, we begin his journey looking into his mysterious, alien eye; and (if you follow a paragon path and keep him alive throughout) are finally left struck by the chilling familiarity of his final application of the human word 'I'. ...Sorry, I just need a moment. Sniff.)

A renegade Shep can see Legion's behavior as simply a programming error. Before ME3 Shep can see the situation with the Geth as Quarian error when they created the Geth. After ME3 renegade Shep can see that the whole Geth-Quarian conflict was simply Quarian overreaction to a programming error that resulted in the Geth asking if they had souls.

Then there is EDI and her desire to inhabit physical form in Mass Effect 3, to literally stand eye-to-eye with her compatriots and test out this bipedal perspective as a counterpart. Although this is again possible to dismiss as a functional choice she makes in order to beef up the (somewhat thinner) roster of soldiers, she almost immediate asks whether she can seek out Shepard for advice about the societal and ideological waters into which she is wading, and whose currents she can feel slipping around her ankles. (Sorry about that: EDI's not so needlessly over-sentimentalised in her description as I am, but you know what I mean...)

Again, a renegade Shep can see this as the fault of bad programming. Both the Quarians with the Geth and Cerberus with EDI were creating tools to serve them and whatever purpose they desired of them. Neither group had the idea of creating artifical life in mind.

Shepard may ultimately dismiss her and Joker's romance, may refuse to answer either Legion's or EDI's inquiries into sentience, but this does not undo the fact that these creatures have posed these ideas, and at least in their internal monologue (whether Shepard decides to acknowledge them or not) they are postulating the ramifications of such self-awareness. Whether EDI ultimately gets to suck-face with Joker or not, whether Legion asks if he has a soul or not, they have each taken the first steps toward a self-awareness that the Destroy option necessarily obliterates in its tracks.

And renegade Shep may very well see that as a good thing. We didn't want to create machines to run around and be considered our equals. We simply wanted useful tools to perform tasks better than organics could.

And while the fact that both the two synthetic sentient life forms Shepard encounters as a product of his cycle's evolution have naturally begun questioning their existence might suggest that the inch toward self-awareness is inevitable, I struggle to see this proving the kiddie-pool-demigod's prognostication that violent uprising is inevitable. Neither of these forms of life have so far proved any threat (indeed rather benevolent in their offers of peace and cooperation) unless stirred to violence by oppression or an invasive outside force. The only synthetics prone to mass slaughter are the Reapers who seem to have been programmed for annihilation regardless of the societal temperament of the galaxy that they find.

Well, we already know anything the little ghost says is likely a lie. Just look at how he says you'll die if you pick the Destroy option, yet with a high enough EMS you see the little clip at the end of Shep breathing. So who knows, the Geth and EDI may very well have survived too.

[Cobra's_back]

pistolols wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

My first thought upon finishing Mass Effect 3 was "I should have played through with Crow first."

Crow was my most Renegade of Renegades. She is a narcissistic sociopath who sees everyone - not just synthetics, but every living thing - as a tool for her own personal advancement and empowerment. She believes herself to be smarter than everyone, she likes people who compliment her and allow her to do as she wishes, and hates those who try to stop her. She'll sleep with anything that moves and feel nothing for them the next day. She views her entire crew as tools to achieve her goals, to be discarded the moment they outlive their usefulness.

And yes, for her, the ending is completely appropriate. For the almost-complete-renegade who has absolutely no respect for anyone's lives but her own, the ending has absolutely no problems or downsides.

She has nobody whose opinion she respects or relies on, she believes her decisions are sacrosanct, she has no friends or lovers to worry about, no one to go home to. For her, having to make the final decision without companions nearby would feel natural; proof that, in the end, she really was the only person in the entire universe who mattered at all.

I'm not going to argue that the ending is inappropriate for the most renegade of Shepards. I'm almost tempted to play through on Crow just to get into a state where the ending makes sense, but I almost don't want to give her the satisfaction.

Bioware had done a pretty good job throughout of making me feel like all Shepards were valid... right in their own ways, wrong in their own ways, but none of them had it all figured out.

Now, at the end, my nihilistic sociopath vision of Shepard is the only one that checks out, thematically.

I have to be skeptical that this is "working as intended."

Well luckily for me my interpretation of the ending is not as yours is, and that picking control suited my paragon shep just fine.  It was extremely similar to choices he's made before, a lesser of two evils, so it wasn't even a problem at all.  I also like to think that after he takes control he's actually freeing the reapers.  He lets them go and they no longer have to serve a "solution".  Also was pretty fascinating that in the end he becomes an AI, the very thing he'd been defending as being alive just as anyone else.  I love thiniking about how his consciousness is stored in the citadel somewhere nice and safe.  He's become immortal. 

Maybe you are correct. This ending sounds really good. It could be that the writer wanted everyone to use their imagination. More players would probably pick this option if the control option was given more details. Catalyst can explain that Shepard will be the new AI and a scene or two with Shepard in his/her new job.
 
One thing to note is that some players back away from this because Star Child said “ you will die and you will lose everything”. It would have been better if he said “you will die but your conscious will be the new Catalyst”.

[pistolols]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Maybe you are correct. This ending sounds really good. It could be that the writer wanted everyone to use their imagination. More players would probably pick this option if the control option was given more details. Catalyst can explain that Shepard will be the new AI and a scene or two with Shepard in his/her new job.
 
One thing to note is that some players back away from this because Star Child said “ you will die and you will lose everything”. It would have been better if he said “you will die but your conscious will be the new Catalyst”.

I felt the reason catalyst specifically says "you will die" there is for the writers to let us know it isn't going to be like Project Overload where david's consciousness is uploaded but he's still alive.  No, shepard will be uploaded but he is losing his body.

As for another scene, i made a suggestion for the extended cut for just that here: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11576248

Similar thing as destroy breath clip. Cut to citadel holding area E24. The Shepard VI slowly flickers on.. then holds it's hands out and looks down at them.. end scene.

cool way to show us at least shepard's consciousness still exists within the citadel.

[webhead921]

This thread has some really great discussion. Major bumpage

[Cobra's_back]

pistolols wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Maybe you are correct. This ending sounds really good. It could be that the writer wanted everyone to use their imagination. More players would probably pick this option if the control option was given more details. Catalyst can explain that Shepard will be the new AI and a scene or two with Shepard in his/her new job.
 
One thing to note is that some players back away from this because Star Child said “ you will die and you will lose everything”. It would have been better if he said “you will die but your conscious will be the new Catalyst”.

I felt the reason catalyst specifically says "you will die" there is for the writers to let us know it isn't going to be like Project Overload where david's consciousness is uploaded but he's still alive.  No, shepard will be uploaded but he is losing his body.

As for another scene, i made a suggestion for the extended cut for just that here: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11576248

Similar thing as destroy breath clip. Cut to citadel holding area E24. The Shepard VI slowly flickers on.. then holds it's hands out and looks down at them.. end scene.

cool way to show us at least shepard's consciousness still exists within the citadel.

Good Idea. This would really improve the ending.

[Cobra's_back]

Sorry double post.

The above should really be added to the extended cut DLC. Great work Pistolols.

[Kalundume]

Control = Defeat and cease fire (temporary) - reaper's prefered ending
Destruction = Genocide of synthetics or even worse
Synthesis = Singularity, uniformity, inacceptable moral relativism - reapers prefered ending

All three endings being proposed by the Catalyst, they decredibilise them all. The fallacy of destruction ending comes from the simple fact: why the reapers are ok to their own destruction ? why even such ending is proposed by them ? that should have been Shepard induced ending, not the option hinted by the catalyst

[Needsnewending]

Thats awesome, Great man!

[ReXspec]

Well, my question for the good doctor is how could you fix this from a literary perspective without retconning the entire ending altogether? To me, that is really the only option but it seems as though Bioware made a decision that came out from the proverbial "left field" and decided to garnish their turd of an ending with (speculative) wonderous narrative and cutscenes that will "clarify" this crap?

As a lit professor you MUST know that is a long-winded, feeble attempt to meet devoted fans half-way to meet their demands for an ending that is more...satisfying (to say the least).

Any well-written narrative, or masterfully done cutscenes that attaches itself to the current ending of Mass Effect 3 wears an anchor around it's neck. That's how I see it.

Modifié par ReXspec, 23 avril 2012 - 06:20 .

[Torxen]

Bump to front page.

[cindercatz]

drayfish wrote...

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

And you did them quite well. :-) Well stated and 99% agreed, except that indoctrination theory makes no one an apologist. I was pro-indoc theory before indoc theory was even spelled out on the net, but I in no way seek to justify ME3's ending. Rather, it doesn't have an end. It ceases to continue at the climax, and the simple, best answer to the starchild isn't included. Rejection. There is no resolution following, no legitimate stance available to take, and that undermines everything in the franchise up until that point. Otherwise, excellent post and totally agreed.


Fixing the endings is simple, if slightly costly. You make all four options, including rejection, available regardless of EMS, then apply EMS and your previous choices to a real ending sequence that follows after, one where your indoc sequence choice determines if Shepard is still available for you to make choices for. Rejection, you play out the endgame as Shepard and make choices during the following series of battle cutscenes. Destruction, you do the same, but with negative consequences for the allies regarding EDI and the Geth, who are not destroyed but learn from that betrayal. Synthesis, Shep and a number of the human troops nearby are indoctrinated. Things play out differently. Control, Shep is indoctrinated, and his crew must kill him/her, and the crew takes extra casualties in the process.

Regardless of your choice, the rest of the battle plays out according to your previous decisions, the make-up of your forces, and which (total series) squadmates you are able and unable to save through choice/consequence (if Shep is not indoctrinated), all influenced by EMS. The higher the EMS, the more positive the outcomes of each successive event. And give Shep the option to sacrifice him/herself to save some of the crew, if EMS is anywhere short of the highest threshold. Obviously, if Shep is indoctrinated, all of the choices Shep would make are unavailable during the end sequence. Then after, you have the galactic status and personal epilogue scenes. Game Over. That's how I'd do it. No need to be running around or pulling triggers after that point. Cutscenes with choices along the way are fine. Shep's battle is over.

Modifié par cindercatz, 23 avril 2012 - 07:44 .

[SkaldFish]

fle6isnow wrote...

SkaldFish wrote...

I'm not sure anyone would argue that examples of synthesis don't already exist in the ME universe, but that isn't the point. All your examples reinforce Dray's assertion that there exists there a foundational diversity of synthesis, largely based on individual choice or specific circumstance. To claim that this indicates a foreshadowing of or move towards the kind of dictatorial, homogenizing, galaxy-wide transformation presented to Shepard as an option strikes me as quite a stretch. That choice is jarring and distasteful because of the blatant recharacterization that expects us, for the very first time, to suspend disbelief enough to accept Shepard's sudden transformation from advocate for freedom and diversity to passive pawn in a sweeping coup that steals not just individual choice but identity itself from every being in the galaxy.

Except we see in the end that Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same. Joker is still Joker, EDI is still EDI. I don't think synthesis robs identity or diversity from the galaxy--it just gives organics and synthetics the desirable traits of the other.

For more on this, see Ieldra2's and AtreiyaN7's posts.

While that might possibly have been the intent, we can't derive it from the information given. He's still the same person because he's smiling? They're still the same because EDI puts her head on his shoulder? Again, in the absense of real information from the narrative itself, we must understand the impact based on what the Catalyst actually tells us; which is undeniably both transformational and destructive of diversity.

As I've said before, using extra-narrative information to inject the desired meaning into the narrative is, quite simply, an exercise in apologetics.

In any case, the fact that the act steals individual choice is quite adequate to satisfy the point.

[drayfish]

@ Pistolols

You make a number of fine points for Shepard's individual capacity to argue against synthetic life, and certainly from the character's Renegade personal perspective it looks like a consistent standpoint.  My position would be that it seems the larger fiction considers the inevitability and validity of synthetic life to be one of the immutable progressions within the Mass Effect universe – a notion that Shepard may personally choose to dismiss, but one that will unfold nonetheless (unless synthetics are wiped out). 
 
I think of it as operating in much the same way that Mordin's journey did over the course of Mass Effect 2 and 3 (although clearly on a larger scale). In ME2, you could choose to side with Mordin's choice to administer the genophage – you could commend him for his quick thinking in arresting an inevitable Krogan uprising that was on the precipice of overwhelming countless civilisations – but come ME3 he has changed his own mind and is seeking its cure.
 
Of course, I'm aware that this example is probably fairly slippery territory, as I believe you eventually can go on to change Mordin's mind back and not cure the genophage (?), but his thought process has nonetheless, in spite of Shepard's personal influence, shifted of its own accord. As with Mordin's sway in conscience, Shepard might deny that synthetics fulfil the definition of 'life' that he personally dictates, but this does not dissuade the machines themselves from exhibiting autonomous behaviour, or asserting their independence. They may do it less overtly, but this makes it no less valid.
 
One might decide not to reactivate Legion in Mass Effect 2, but he has already saved Shepard on the Collector Ship, hinting at his altered directives; and EDI is going to leap into that body whether any of us want her to or not, with no available option to order her back out of it.

Modifié par drayfish, 24 avril 2012 - 01:53 .

[drayfish]

Strange Aeons wrote...

Interactive fiction generally works best when painted with a relatively broad brush, and like Star Trek before it Mass Effect was driven more by the primary-color personal stories of the crew than by subtle, high-concept philosophical themes. The two most memorable sequences of the first two games, Virmire and the suicide mission, stood out not because of the vastness of their scope but because of the intimacy of their detail. On Virmire, ME1’s signature moment, the writers took the time to introduce us to Captain Kirrahe and the Salarians. We talked to them; we saw that Kirrahe was a brave and competent leader; we experienced the inspiring “Hold the Line” speech alongside his men. Then we went the extra mile and sent one of our own Alliance crew (we get to choose which) into danger with him. The result of this setup was that the distraction team was no longer just a faceless collection of redshirts hauling the plot mechanically forward: they became people that we cared about.

This emotional connection provided added motivation to keep them safe and the game rewarded you for playing well by allowing you to do just that, until you ran out of third options and finally had make a difficult choice between two of your crewmates who have been with you since the beginning. This moment, where the game took a deep, portentous breath, the camera focused on Shepard and you made the call on who lived and who died, succeeded spectacularly for several reasons. It flowed naturally from the sense of desperation that had ratcheted upward from the start of Virmire, never seeming abrupt or contrived. Even though you couldn’t avoid the decision, it was ultimately up to you who died, thus preserving a meaningful level of interactivity. In fact, in my own game Kaiden’s brave response to the situation had the side effect of dramatically raising my opinion of him, where I’d been fairly ambivalent up to that point. That was powerful stuff, and while heartbreaking it was also memorable for all the right reasons.

@ Strange Aeons:

Holy Folksy-Descriptive-Reference, Strange Aeons! That is one hell (can we say 'hell' in here?) of a fine post. 
 
I could not agree more: Mass Effect has always been about painting these themes of the fiction upon the characters we befriend (or dismiss) so that in their fluctuation and feedback we can invest in the universe. It's why that dialogue wheel is so firmly at the core of the experience (we have to load our interactions with these figures with significance: do we support, placate, or shut these figures down?); why those loyalty missions were so nicely loaded into the framework of Mass Effect 2, testing our moral fortitude; and why we can invest in the traits and designs that further tease out the defining characteristics of these figures: Jack's tattoos and potential use of sex as a weapon, the thumping scar down Wrex's face and his caustic sarcasm, Mordin's missing head-bump and (perhaps my favourite revelatory detail of any character) beneath his seemingly methodical, detached practicality, a love of the most emotionally flamboyant of artistic expression: musical theatre. 
 
As CulturalGeekGirl nicely stated:

In the end, I didn't let the genophage cure go through because I knew it was a good idea. I let it go through because Mordin thought it was a good idea, and I trusted him implicitly. There was no sacrifice for me, there. I was sad, but not in any way conflicted: I was letting my companion, who I trusted, do what he thought was right.

Lovely.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 24 avril 2012 - 01:01 .

[Keyrlis]

MintyCool wrote...


Those who can't do, teach.

And those that have nothing to say, still make useless noise.

[Keyrlis]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

...frustration is amplified by the fact that Mass Effect has
productively engaged with transhumanism before, in the interesting
narrative margins that the series has created through its codex and
other ephemera, like the Cerberus News Network updates. Within that
wonderful explosion of creative microfiction,  there's actually a
lengthy arc about first contact with an entire alien race that has been
living as an immortal, digitized consciousness for thousands of
years. It then came out that these consciousnesses could be transferred
to living organic bodies, and the consciousnesses of currently living
organics could attain digitized simulated immortality.

"Ohmygod,"
I thought, "what does this mean for the interface of organics with the
Geth? What if the geth interfaced with that society? Could we put a geth
into an organic body? Could we add organic consciousness to the Geth
consensus?" 

And then Mass Effect 3 showed that we could, indeed,
put an organic into the consensus in at least some form.  Overlord
suggested something similar as; that some organic consciousnesses might
be suitable to direct communication with the Geth.

I had almost forgotten that CNN post about the Uploaded Peoples, and how it made me think about how the correlation between organic biochemical memories and digital magnetic data is so thin, even NOW. In the time of the ME universe, the translation between body and platform should be so seamless that an organic conciousness could be in a completely computerized simulation of the "human condition", and never know it. Equally, a silicon soul should be unable to determine if it is in a reproduction of organic existence within the consensus of the geth, or if it has actually been transferred into a body, assuming the simulation is as detailed and immersive as the "Ghost Ship's" servers. There were millions of people virtualized on that ship, once living and breathing, so the technology and processing power must have been incredible.
Seeing as how this blurs the line between orgasmic and synthetic awareness I, too, was pleasantly surprised by the implantation into the consensus, and even more amused with Legion's comment about familiar symbolic tools when questioned about the "gun", as it made perfect sense to me in how a synthetic database would be perceived by an  organic mind.
It just goes to prove even more that synthetic and organic life CAN co-exist, and can interact in more ways than just input-output comparisons.
Thanks for reminding me, so I have even MORE reason to be angry and dissatisfied!

[DaddyFoxDerek]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
For me, the central theme of the series has always been companionship, and the connections between a person and those around them. This ties in with the themes of cooperation and diversity, but I think it's a valid theme in and of itself.

In the end, I didn't let the genophage cure go through because I knew it was a good idea. I let it go through because Mordin thought it was a good idea, and I trusted him implicitly. There was no sacrifice for me, there. I was sad, but not in any way conflicted: I was letting my companion, who I trusted, do what he thought was right. It was a tearful triumph but it was not my sacrifice. To claim that any "sacrifice" was being made by Shepard there feels almost insanely narcissistic.

This is so very well said.

[Keyrlis]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

drayfish wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Crow was my most Renegade of Renegades. She is a narcissistic sociopath who sees everyone - not just synthetics, but every living thing - as a tool for her own personal advancement and empowerment. She believes herself to be smarter than everyone, she likes people who compliment her and allow her to do as she wishes, and hates those who try to stop her. She'll sleep with anything that moves and feel nothing for them the next day. She views her entire crew as tools to achieve her goals, to be discarded the moment they outlive their usefulness.

I think I may have dated her.

...Sorry, that was intensely stupid.  But I do know what you mean - and it's my own fear with my most Renegade-y Shepard.  I can feel the inexorable pull (particularly now that I know the endings) toward such a nihilistic, amoral spree.

She's not just the personification of everyone's most horrifying ex, she's a malevolent construct that I use in order to play through the  "dark" side of most RPGs.

Crow is one of my favorite topics of discussion when it comes to Mass Effect, or RPGs in genera. I usually try to avoid going into too much detail, for fear of ranging into "let me tell you about my character" territory. Here, though, she's serving a rhetorical purpose for once, so I can't help myself.

She's an outgrowth of both pen and paper RPGs and the original Fallout games, which were the first heavily choice-based computer games I ever played. I'm naturally a complete goody-goody, making the "paragon" style decision by default the vast majority of the time. I couldn't comprehend how someone could choose differently in most of the situations I was presented with, so I invented Crow.  She was a product of me considering the most "evil" decisions I was conventionally offered, and trying to come up with a believable human being who would actually do those things. As I learned more about psychology, she developed habits that coincided with known psychological disorders. After Dexter came out, I had more ideas about how she would fool those around her into thinking that she had emotions, in order to better progress through life.

She's not a "pure" renegade in the same way that my main Shepard isn't a pure paragon. By now I understand her, and make choices not based on their location on the wheel but on what she would do. What's so terrifying (and amusing) about her for me is the fact that nothing she does is unreasonable or unbelievable. She doesn't just pick every renegade option... if a given choice does not add to her own power, glory, or convenience, there's no reason to take it. Evil for the sake of evil is stupid.

In most universes, she ends up more Zaphod Beeblebrox than Patrick Bateman, but I have never ever experienced a narrative that vindicates her nihilistic self-importance in the way that the ending to Mass Effect 3 does.

Welcome home, you monster.

Ohmygodreally?
You're just going to casually drop The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, American Psycho, Darkly Dreaming Dexter, and the original PC Fallout games in your comment, and how you created a believable evil character just to understand her?

<3I think I might just be in love with you.<3

Either that, or at some time in the future, I am going to have a sex change and go back to 2012 just to see if I think I am amazing. Did I decide on red hair?

[Marsz. Kula]

Great post, but I think there's a theme in this series that's been vastly overlooked, and that theme is futility.