5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Strange Aeons]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@delta_vee, Dray, etc.

Is there a link to someplace where you deconstruct or critique the narratives of the games scene by scene? The reason I ask is that I have played through ME and ME2 a bunch of times (second time playing ME3 right now) and enjoyed the story every time. I didn't find anything offensive on a narrative level, and didn't feel the need to shoot Kaiden in the head in ME3 when I met up with him again because his character didn't match up. In fact, I welcomed an old friend with open arms.

Am I really so mindless? Too emotional and not logical enough? Too accepting of circumstances? Even after reading your arguments, I guess I'm just really asking for evidence so I can have a clearer picture of what makes the narrative of the games so faulty. I've enjoyed them thoroughly every time I've played. Even ME3's, despite the ending that changes narrative gears completely and doesn't even so much as explain the consequences of your actions, which has been a major theme throughout all three games.

For what it's worth, my critique--if you want to call it that--of ME2 is in the link in my sig.  Like I said at the time (and I still believe it), my reaction was mostly affectionate mockery, and once I accepted that virtually every behavior and decision in ME2 made no sense I could still enjoy it on its own terms because at least it ended up in a satisfying place that was worthy of the series' vision.

That was not the case with ME3, to put it mildly.

Modifié par Strange Aeons, 04 mai 2012 - 12:29 .

[delta_vee]

Hawk227 wrote...

For some reason EA owns the rights to all the titles I've wanted to play the last few years (Dead Space, Crysis 2, ME) and I've noticed some stylistic similarities across these titles. Each seem to get dumbed down a little in later incarnations, Dead Space 2 inexplicably incorporated MP as well, and a host of little things (like mashing B to shed husks/necromorphs) I only really notice while I'm playing them. I wouldn't say that EA is homogenizing the gaming industry, but there does seem to be a modest homogenization of their titles.

Much of that homogenization isn't limited to EA titles. Successful mechanics get copied, often poorly (or at least in a cursory fashion).

I will fight you, though, if you think Crysis 2 was dumbed down. The very-wide corridor approach of (most of) Crysis was narrowed, yes, but the combat mechanics themselves were so much smoother and better-integrated. Movement was tightened in control terms: not having to switch suit modes; more responsive contextual actions for mantling, ledge-grabbing, etc; cover controls rivaling top-line third-person implementations. The weaponry was nicely varied, more so than Crysis 1, and proper melee sneak attacks were added. The AI was actually improved, which was more visible in the better-constructed levels. And despite the cool factor of the floating robosquids of late-game Crysis 1, the more humanoid enemies of 2 (their ridiculous appearance notwithstanding) were much more interesting enemies, tactically.

The story was...jumbled. I know a bit of the behind-the-scenes stuff, but it's not really mine to tell. Suffice to say, if you think ME3's narrative was compromised by development limitations, know that it could have been worse.

I agree. ME2 is still my favorite because it was the most balanced. I try and go back to ME1 for game A, but game B is only enjoyable late in the game, so I tend to plod through the first half like it's a chore. Having just started ME3 for the first time in a month, I'm finding that Game B is really good, while Game A is (for the most part) pretty good in the moment. Only in retrospect does it fall apart.

I think that opinion's becoming pretty common. I agree.

[KitaSaturnyne]

It occurred to me that the Quarians are impatient idiots. And while the Morning War is certainly a factor, it's not what I'm hinting at.

While the Geth kept Rannoch warm during the Quarian absence, their plans for the future involved building a gigantic space computer and loading every Geth into it so they wouldn't have to be alone and stupid. This means that the Geth effectively planned on VACATING RANNOCH as soon as they built their big space Pentium.

On one hand, I find it impossible that this plan didn't come up while Tali grew to know Legion. Apparently, Tali even comes to regard Legion so highly that they shoot each other a few emails after the suicide mission. This huge point is apparently even glossed over in the third game.

Now, the argument to this I find is that most Quarians hear the word "Geth" and immediately think "enemy". So, Legion telling Tali about the big hard drive in the sky might only invite harm. Tali would have two options. She could try to convince the Quarians to wait on waging war, or tell them straight out about this Dyson Sphere analogue™.

The first option I could see working to a point, but it's unlikely. Let's say you're a member of the Quarian Admiralty and Tali walks up to you and says to hold off on attacking. You ask why. She replies only that she knows that the Geth are going to at one point leave Rannoch. You'd probably ask how she knows that, to which she'd respond that she spoke to one, Legion, during her time on the Normandy. Not very specific, so you likely wouldn't believe it, right? Well, if Tali were to be specific, it would be an entirely other problem in itself.

So let's say that Tali flat out tells you that the Geth are building their Dyson Sphere analogue, and that all Geth are planning to leave Rannoch to go live there. Well, what Tali has done is made a target of this space hard drive and all Geth involved with its construction. How many Quarians, the other admirals in particular, would hear "Geth" and "space station" and immediately vote to attack and destroy it?

Not that it matters in the current narrative, since Tali appears to have failed in mentioning it to anyone, but I thought I'd put it out there for some input.

[drayfish]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...
 
@delta_vee, Dray, etc.

Is there a link to someplace where you deconstruct or critique the narratives of the games scene by scene? The reason I ask is that I have played through ME and ME2 a bunch of times (second time playing ME3 right now) and enjoyed the story every time. I didn't find anything offensive on a narrative level, and didn't feel the need to shoot Kaiden in the head in ME3 when I met up with him again because his character didn't match up. In fact, I welcomed an old friend with open arms.

Am I really so mindless? Too emotional and not logical enough? Too accepting of circumstances? Even after reading your arguments, I guess I'm just really asking for evidence so I can have a clearer picture of what makes the narrative of the games so faulty. I've enjoyed them thoroughly every time I've played. Even ME3's, despite the ending that changes narrative gears completely and doesn't even so much as explain the consequences of your actions, which has been a major theme throughout all three games.

Hi KitaSaturnyne,
 
Firstly, above and beyond everything else: no, you are of course not mindless, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with your reading of the game (or anyone else who entirely enjoyed it) in any way whatsoever. Even before I get into my further, inevitable iceberg of tedious response, that must be said. If you engaged with the text on its terms, if it touched you, moved you, satisfied you, stirred your soul, then both it and you have had a marvellous textual experience, and one that I envy.
 
Anything that I say in this thread is purely personal opinion. It might be tied to considerations of narrative structure and thematic progression, but that doesn't make it any more right than anyone else's viewpoint, and it most assuredly should not.  That would break my heart, in fact. Just because I did not enjoy the ending of 'my' game, it in no way makes me want to invalidate or deride anyone else's experience.
 
Obviously I can't speak for anybody else on the thread (and would never try to – everyone else is bringing a multitude of marvellous readings and perspectives I could never have foreseen), but for me, I couldn't agree more with your experience of Mass Effects 1 and 2. I loved every second of them. I'm even one of those sad fools (apparently) who loved the Mako and the Planet Mining (*gasp*). The characters, the universe, that sense of exploration and awe. Nothing in gaming – arguably nothing in narrative (and that's a big call) – has ever captivated me more.
 
I likewise loved the great majority of Mass Effect 3 (really only excluding the last ten minutes). For much of it the ride was a sweet cocktail of emotion and satisfying thematic play. I wept at the death of Thane and his selfless prayer; was thrilled and sorrowful in equal measure at the death of Mordin and that exquisite smile of pride that broke on his lips the moment before he was swallowed in flame. I'm not ashamed to admit I was literally cursing at my television, fuming at the injustice of watching Grunt overwhelmed, being dragged into the Racchni mire, only to leap from my chair to cheer (again, not afraid to say: literally cheered) when he, bloodstained, staggered back into the light. And all of those times, when I was jeering and cheering and swooning with romance (oh, you did it too), I knew that it was because these masterful writers had ingeniously manipulated my ties to these characters and their play with the thematic drive of the work. 
 
Again, I know I reference this a lot, but Legion's quest to interpret whether he is more than mere circuitry is intimately bound to the several converging themes of synthetic autonomy and a revelation of the dissolving delineation between conventional notions of 'life' in this universe. When he turns and asks if he has a soul, yes, it made me weep again. (...Wow I sound emotionally unstable in this post; okay, avoid the tears somehow...) Grunt! Yeah, Grunt. Grunt's search for self-determination and worth, his quest to belong, both to a clan and to the notions of heroism and war encoded into his head were similarly played out in his concluding scenes, when he agreed to stay behind and fight, to give us the chance to escape. And when... and when he tore... tore that Racchni's thorax off... when he *sniff* when he dug his steaming fist into its frothing acid sac... the blood still gushing... I'm sorry. Tears again. It's just so beautiful...  with the pus.
 
My issue with the end (and apologies to anyone who has already suffered through me bleating on about this before) is that I felt that all of that beautiful, organic progression of the story, all those lovely narrative vines weaving together and growing toward the sun, were severed by The-Ghost-of-Reapers-Past. His three choices (again, to me) contradicted everything that the game's journey had led me to experience.
 
Fundamentally, I guess I just don't believe a goddamned word that little freak says. I don't believe that war between machine and man is inevitable, because everything I've seen proves the opposite. I don't believe that I could control the Reapers, because no one before now has ever been able to. I don't believe that the only way to stop people from fighting and killing each other is to either exterminate a whole race, or to eugenically obliterate distinction. And again, I don't believe all that because I have fought and flown and loved the most wonderful, diverse team who have ever shot into the stars. We might have bickered, at times we might have doubted, but we were a crew. Family. And you love your family because of their differences, not because they share your DNA.
 
And when the game didn't allow me to call nonsense on those notions, to slap Cyber-Bieber upside the head and ask him what game he's  been playing for the past 100 hours, it utterly broke my immersion and fractured all that marvellous investment and joy that had led me to that point. After that my choice didn't matter (for the record I blew everything to hell), because I didn't believe in the premise. I was answering a question I felt had been entirely invalidated by the asking of it.
 
But again, and I can never say this enough, that does not have to invalidate anyone else's reading. Your Shepard is not mine; your journey was not mine. People love D.H. Lawrence (and I'm a lecturer, so I'm supposed to like him) but The Rainbow makes me want to gouge out my eyes; 'The Waste Land' is one of the most extraordinary works of literature in human history, but it can be an incredibly hard work to love; and there must be someone, somewhere, somehow out there who doesn't like Firefly (although to be fair, I personally don't believe it, and they're probably just a big stupid jerk with a smelly dumb face.) 
 
If you enjoyed all of Mass Effect 3 then not only is that completely legitimate, but I am genuinely, overwhelmingly envious. I am cheered to hear that people have and still do enjoy the endings, and I wish adamantly that I was one of them.
 
p.s. – I want to apologise for the use of the phrase 'textual experience'. It sounds far more creepy than I ever intended.

Modifié par drayfish, 04 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[Hawk227]

delta_vee wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

For some reason EA owns the rights to all the titles I've wanted to play the last few years (Dead Space, Crysis 2, ME) and I've noticed some stylistic similarities across these titles. Each seem to get dumbed down a little in later incarnations, Dead Space 2 inexplicably incorporated MP as well, and a host of little things (like mashing B to shed husks/necromorphs) I only really notice while I'm playing them. I wouldn't say that EA is homogenizing the gaming industry, but there does seem to be a modest homogenization of their titles.

Much of that homogenization isn't limited to EA titles. Successful mechanics get copied, often poorly (or at least in a cursory fashion).

I will fight you, though, if you think Crysis 2 was dumbed down. The very-wide corridor approach of (most of) Crysis was narrowed, yes, but the combat mechanics themselves were so much smoother and better-integrated. Movement was tightened in control terms: not having to switch suit modes; more responsive contextual actions for mantling, ledge-grabbing, etc; cover controls rivaling top-line third-person implementations. The weaponry was nicely varied, more so than Crysis 1, and proper melee sneak attacks were added. The AI was actually improved, which was more visible in the better-constructed levels. And despite the cool factor of the floating robosquids of late-game Crysis 1, the more humanoid enemies of 2 (their ridiculous appearance notwithstanding) were much more interesting enemies, tactically.

The story was...jumbled. I know a bit of the behind-the-scenes stuff, but it's not really mine to tell. Suffice to say, if you think ME3's narrative was compromised by development limitations, know that it could have been worse.

The mechanics were much better, I agree. The ledge grabbing and stealth kills, in particular, were fantastic additions. My favorite moment is at the top of the tower, as you try to infiltrate the CELL building across the street. The improved agility worked really well in that segment. However, I was a little put off by the transition from what felt like a sandbox (even if in practice it was more linear) environment in Crysis to the very linear but still open nature of Crysis 2. While this is a nitpick, I was also a little annoyed by how freaking hard it was to kill the Ceph without a Sniper Rifle. They're gelatinous invertebrates and I need to unload a clip a whole clip on them? Also, I found the game a little glitchy at times also, and the story... I don't know. Whenever I play Crysis 2 I found myself thinking about how utterly brilliant it could've been. With all three titles (DS, Crysis, and ME) I find that later incarnations have improved combat mechanics and visuals, but other aspects take a step backwards. That was what I meant by dumbing down.

[KitaSaturnyne]

drayfish wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...
 
@delta_vee, Dray, etc.

Is there a link to someplace where you deconstruct or critique the narratives of the games scene by scene? The reason I ask is that I have played through ME and ME2 a bunch of times (second time playing ME3 right now) and enjoyed the story every time. I didn't find anything offensive on a narrative level, and didn't feel the need to shoot Kaiden in the head in ME3 when I met up with him again because his character didn't match up. In fact, I welcomed an old friend with open arms.

Am I really so mindless? Too emotional and not logical enough? Too accepting of circumstances? Even after reading your arguments, I guess I'm just really asking for evidence so I can have a clearer picture of what makes the narrative of the games so faulty. I've enjoyed them thoroughly every time I've played. Even ME3's, despite the ending that changes narrative gears completely and doesn't even so much as explain the consequences of your actions, which has been a major theme throughout all three games.

Hi KitaSaturnyne,
 
Firstly, above and beyond everything else: no, you are of course not mindless, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with your reading of the game (or anyone else who entirely enjoyed it) in any way whatsoever. Even before I get into my further, inevitable iceberg of tedious response, that must be said. If you engaged with the text on its terms, if it touched you, moved you, satisfied you, stirred your soul, then both it and you have had a marvellous textual experience, and one that I envy.
 
Anything that I say in this thread is purely personal opinion. It might be tied to considerations of narrative structure and thematic progression, but that doesn't make it any more right than anyone else's viewpoint, and it most assuredly should not.  That would break my heart, in fact. Just because I did not enjoy the ending of 'my' game, it in no way makes me want to invalidate or deride anyone else's experience.
 
Obviously I can't speak for anybody else on the thread (and would never try to – everyone else is bringing a multitude of marvellous readings and perspectives I could never have foreseen), but for me, I couldn't agree more with your experience of Mass Effects 1 and 2. I loved every second of them. I'm even one of those sad fools (apparently) who loved the Mako and the Planet Mining (*gasp*). The characters, the universe, that sense of exploration and awe. Nothing in gaming – arguably nothing in narrative (and that's a big call) – has ever captivated me more.
 
I likewise loved the great majority of Mass Effect 3 (really only excluding the last ten minutes). For much of it the ride was a sweet cocktail of emotion and satisfying thematic play. I wept at the death of Thane and his selfless prayer; was thrilled and sorrowful in equal measure at the death of Mordin and that exquisite smile of pride that broke on his lips the moment before he was swallowed in flame. I'm not ashamed to admit I was literally cursing at my television, fuming at the injustice of watching Grunt overwhelmed, being dragged into the Racchni mire, only to leap from my chair to cheer (again, not afraid to say: literally cheered) when he, bloodstained, staggered back into the light. And all of those times, when I was jeering and cheering and swooning with romance (oh, you did it too), I knew that it was because these masterful writers had ingeniously manipulated my ties to these characters and their play with the thematic drive of the work. 
 
Again, I know I reference this a lot, but Legion's quest to interpret whether he is more than mere circuitry is intimately bound to the several converging themes of synthetic autonomy and a revelation of the dissolving delineation between conventional notions of 'life' in this universe. When he turns and asks if he has a soul, yes, it made me weep again. (...Wow I sound emotionally unstable in this post; okay, avoid the tears somehow...) Grunt! Yeah, Grunt. Grunt's search for self-determination and worth, his quest to belong, both to a clan and to the notions of heroism and war encoded into his head were similarly played out in his concluding scenes, when he agreed to stay behind and fight, to give us the chance to escape. And when... and when he tore... tore that Racchni's thorax off... when he *sniff* when he dug his steaming fist into its frothing acid sac... the blood still gushing... I'm sorry. Tears again. It's just so beautiful...
 
My issue with the end (and apologies to anyone who has already suffered through me bleating on about this before) is that I felt that all of that beautiful, organic progression of the story, all those lovely narrative vines weaving together and growing toward the sun, were severed by The-Ghost-of-Reapers-Past. His three choices (again, to me) contradicted everything that the game's journey had led me to experience.
 
Fundamentally, I guess I just don't believe a goddamned word that little freak says. I don't believe that war between machine and man is inevitable, because everything I've seen proves the opposite. I don't believe that I could control the Reapers, because no one before now has ever been able to. I don't believe that the only way to stop people from fighting and killing each other is to either exterminate a whole race, or to eugenically obliterate distinction. And again, I don't believe all that because I have fought and flown and loved the most wonderful, diverse team who have ever shot into the stars. We might have bickered, at times we might have doubted, but we were a crew. Family. And you love your family because of their differences, not because they share your DNA.
 
And when the game didn't allow me to call nonsense on those notions, to slap Cyber-Bieber upside the head and ask him what game he's  been playing for the past 100 hours, it utterly broke my immersion and fractured all that marvellous investment and joy that had led me to that point. After that my choice didn't matter (for the record I blew everything to hell), because I didn't believe in the premise. I was answering a question I felt had been entirely invalidated by the asking of it.
 
But again, and I can never say this enough, that does not have to invalidate anyone else's reading. Your Shepard is not mine; your journey was not mine. People love D.H. Lawrence (and I'm a lecturer, so I'm supposed to like him) but The Rainbow makes me want to gouge out my eyes; 'The Waste Land' is one of the most extraordinary works of literature in human history, but it can be an incredibly hard work to love; and there must be someone, somewhere, somehow out there who doesn't like Firefly (although to be fair, I personally don't believe it, and they're probably just a big stupid jerk with a smelly face.) 
 
If you enjoyed all of Mass Effect 3 then not only is that completely legitimate, but I am genuinely, overwhelmingly envious. I am cheered to hear that people have and still do enjoy the endings, and I wish adamantly that I was one of them.
 
p.s. – I want to apologise for the use of the phrase 'textual experience'. It sounds far more creepy than I ever intended.

Off to birthday dinner here, so I wanted to first thank you for your response. I wanted to clarify though, that I am one of those who is unsatisfied with the ending. For me, it changes the entire conflict of the story (stop the Reapers becomes solve technological singularity), and it doesn't explain the consequences of your actions, which has been a huge theme in this trilogy. In its short few minute span, the ending also manages to invalidate everything you've done not only in the trilogy, but in the very game that led up to that conclusion - Uniting the galaxy against a common threat and realizing that our differences are the exact reasons why we should accept each other.

[Seijin8]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Anything once ascribed to the Protheans is of dubious origin. Javik can only attest to them having scientists, but he does not know what if anything these scientists ever came up with that was an original idea. So, the probability exists that anything Prothean was at least inspired by whoever created the reapers and at worst, wholesale reaper tech.

Awesome point! We already know the Reapers have used the relays and Citadel as parts of a honeytrap. The Citadel races have used elements of Prothean tech, and the very existence of the Crucible design shows that organics from prior cycles have been able to pass the technological torch. It is conceivable that most advanced technology in the ME universe is Reaper in origin...

You know, at times I have thought my cell phone was trying to indoctrinate me... nah, that's just... OOOH A TEXT! /dropeverything

delta_vee wrote...
In ME1, Game A is what drew us in, despite its occasional clunks. Game B was, not to mince words, atrocious. I have a hard time replaying Game A because Game B gets in the way.

In ME2, Game A took a different direction, emphasizing a wide cast of characters and expanding the texture of the world. Game B took a big step forward in terms of palatibility, despite overcompensating on some elements. The fact that Game B was given so much attention (though not necessarily at the detriment of Game A) made it seem like Game B was being favored. It wasn't - it just wasn't being ignored or excused as in ME1.

ME3 finally got Game B figured out, by and large. Third time's a charm, and all that. But the failings of Game A became so glaring (especially the Infamous Ten Minutes, hereon ITM) that the balance of attention seemed to be heavily in favor of Game B. Especially with Game B including (generally well-received, ultimately) multiplayer. (Bear in mind, though, that Mass Effect was originally envisioned as a persistently multiplayer game.)

Excellent synopsis of the game design elements. This is the chief reason I've abandoned ME1 as a starting point for replays. Its just too tedious to work through the battles.

drayfish wrote...

<snipped for brevity, and not out of malice>

Another excellent read. LOLed over the "beautiful pus". I for one am a fan of text walls, at least when they convey a cogent point. Many of the text walls in this thread do so exceptionally. Bravo to you all.

[bc525]

Whew, great discussions in this thread. I posted here many (many) pages ago, and I'm trying desperately to catch up. Forgive my bad form here, but I'm going to slide back to some earlier ponderings.

+ To the point that only a "raging sociopath" type Shepard could be compatible with the ME3 ending, I still strongly disagree. Nyoka had some great thoughts (again, many pages ago) that a Renegade Shepard - not automatically a mentally ill Shepard - could fit consistently within the themes of Mass Effect. For one specific example, destroying the heretic Geth in ME2 seems consistent with choosing the Quarians over the Geth on Rannoch in ME3. Wouldn't that open up the Destroy option as a more thematically consistent choice for a Renegade protagonist? Or is Destroy considered genocide no matter what the main character's previous choices have been?

+ Again going back many pages, I was struck by the conviction of many folks that a fictional piece must adhere to a consistent framework for it to work. Must the ending be thematically consistent for all varieties of Shepard in order for it to work well? Or must it just work for a majority of them, not necessarily all? I'm curious to understand the equations of literary structure and what percentage of approval makes a piece 'right' and what makes it 'wrong'. Reading these forums, there are so many people that claim to "get it" and an equal amount of people that claim, no the first party most certainly did not "get it".

+ Thank you, drayfish. It really needs to be said. Your open-minded attitude has truly made this a great thread to follow and ponder. Somewhere along the line I got classified as a "pro-ender", and I guess ultimately that's true. But I've never thought of myself that way, I've just thought of myself as a Mass Effect fan.

Modifié par bc525, 04 mai 2012 - 04:33 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Seijin8 wrote...

delta_vee wrote...
In ME1, Game A is what drew us in, despite its occasional clunks. Game B was, not to mince words, atrocious. I have a hard time replaying Game A because Game B gets in the way.

In ME2, Game A took a different direction, emphasizing a wide cast of characters and expanding the texture of the world. Game B took a big step forward in terms of palatibility, despite overcompensating on some elements. The fact that Game B was given so much attention (though not necessarily at the detriment of Game A) made it seem like Game B was being favored. It wasn't - it just wasn't being ignored or excused as in ME1.

ME3 finally got Game B figured out, by and large. Third time's a charm, and all that. But the failings of Game A became so glaring (especially the Infamous Ten Minutes, hereon ITM) that the balance of attention seemed to be heavily in favor of Game B. Especially with Game B including (generally well-received, ultimately) multiplayer. (Bear in mind, though, that Mass Effect was originally envisioned as a persistently multiplayer game.)

Excellent synopsis of the game design elements. This is the chief reason I've abandoned ME1 as a starting point for replays. Its just too tedious to work through the battles.

I'm in an extreme minority who believes that the first game was unequivocally better than either of its sequels.  Oh, I'll grant that as far as the mechanics go, there was a steady improvement from the first to the third.  But I don't play a game for its mechanics and I never have.  I play games for their stories.  I can play an old, clunky game (and yes, the first Mass Effect was pretty clunky) such as Planescape:Torment, as long as it has an engrossing narrative.  And after playing through Mass Effect 3, I would much rather play through the first Mass Effect again than subject myself to Mass Effect 3, despite the newest game's obviously superior combat.

The key game mechanic in Mass Effect has never been the combat.  As was mentioned earlier, that's basically a minigame that strings together actual important sequences.  The key game mechanic in Mass Effect is and always has been the dialogue wheel.  In this respect Mass Effect 3 is far inferior to either of its predecessors, since it only ever offers a maximum of four options (and usually only two).

... I'm not really sure what point I was starting to make with this.  Hooray for train derailments.  Suffice it to say that, in terms of narrative, game design, and world creation, Mass Effect stands head and shoulders over either of its successors.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 04 mai 2012 - 07:12 .

[Seijin8]

@Sable Phoenix

You are absolutely right, the combat has always been part of a segue between story elements. I recall when I played ME1, I was struck by how opposite this was to the usual, where you slog through story to get to the next fight.

In contrast, I was pleasantly surprised in ME2 where the battles were actually *fun*. Many times I would restart a mission simply to do it again, something inconceivable in ME1's combat gameplay. To me, Mass Effect 2 had the right balance and it was probably my favorite of the series (though ME1's story and pacing was usually superior).

As an aside, I miss the Mako. I spent countless hours driving on every too-vertical surface I could find just for kicks, and the absence of that exploration element has been notable. The way the first game integrated the Mako as a crucial mission element much of the time has never been adequately replicated in ME2 or ME3.

And whatever your point was, I get it... I think

[drayfish]

bc525 wrote...

+ To the point that only a "raging sociopath" type Shepard could be compatible with the ME3 ending, I still strongly disagree. Nyoka had some great thoughts (again, many pages ago) that a Renegade Shepard - not automatically a mentally ill Shepard - could fit consistently within the themes of Mass Effect. For one specific example, destroying the heretic Geth in ME2 seems consistent with choosing the Quarians over the Geth on Rannoch in ME3. Wouldn't that open up the Destroy option as a more thematically consistent choice for a Renegade protagonist? Or is Destroy considered genocide no matter what the main character's previous choices have been?

+ Somewhere along the line I got classified as a "pro-ender", and I guess ultimately that's true. But I've never thought of myself that way, I've just thought of myself as a Mass Effect fan.

What a beautiful way to put that, bc525, and thank you for the very kind words. Yes, I often find the division between 'pro-' and 'anti-' enders to be a rather arbitrary distinction. Whatever we might disagree about, what binds us all is a love of this world and its narrative.  Were fans. And that engagement with the fiction, above all else, is what should really be celebrated. ...If it sounds like I'm working up to a suggestion that we should all hug, I'm not; but I do very much enjoy the passion and attentiveness to the text that people are showing here in every post, and all of that, ultimately, is fuelled by the same love.
 
...In expanding this response to address some of your other questions, I think that notion of the greater narrative world will probably best explain how I see my own issues with the end. 
 
Firstly, you're absolutely right, Shepard doesn't have to be a frothbag, flesh-chewing sociopath in order to pick the Destroy ending (an accusation that I am probably guilty of levelling in one of my more loquacious early posts). As some fine argument throughout this thread has revealed, it is completely character-consistent for a number of Renegade Shepards to side with the Quarians, wipe the Geth from the universe as a perversion of programming, and fail to see any substantial loss in the 'death' of EDI. (Indeed, my broken Tess Shepard chose the Destroy option because in her/my eyes it was the lesser of the offered evils.)
 
To me it is just that while that remains consistent for the individual Shepard, outside of that personal trajectory I get the sense that the larger thematic world is insisting that there is a legitimacy to synthetic life, an evolutionary prerogative that can be personally denied, but universally constant nonetheless.  EDI always wants that body; the Geth are always simply seeking freedom and the right to exist. Perhaps this would have been more consistent if the game was designed so that once you chose to disregard Legion's autonomy in ME2 you were no longer given access to the missions in ME3 where the revelations of the Geth Morning War are made; but for me, forcing you to play through a recollection of their dawning consciousness seems to predispose the player to read them as burgeoning life forms, even if Shepard's personal perspective disagrees. But again, perhaps that is just me. In this instance 'genocide' is a term that I as reader (rather than Shepard as participant), bring to the text with the wider perspective on the world.

Modifié par drayfish, 04 mai 2012 - 05:22 .

[drayfish]

Seijin8 wrote...

As an aside, I miss the Mako.

Yes!  The Mako.  Why no love for the Mako, people?  She handled like crap, but she was my first space-car and she got great mileage.

Modifié par drayfish, 04 mai 2012 - 05:25 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Eh, the Mako's problems weren't the Mako's problems, they were the level designers' problems. Specifically, they were the problems of the fractal landscapes that looked like they came straight out of Bryce. I doubt you'll find anyone complaining about how the Mako handled on Therum, or Feros, or Noveria, or Asteroid X57, or Virmire, or even Ilos. The setpiece planets were all designed to give the Mako a path to follow... the unexplored worlds, on the other hand, were just kind of lazy. Every complaint the Mako gets is actually a complaint about the landscaping.

[M0keys]

And she connected you to the entire galaxy. Without it, everything feels so..close together. Phantasmal.

[Ahms]

(Kidding. I read it all. Great stuff.)

[edisnooM]

 
If anyones interested someone made a video dissecting the ending choices using dialogue by characters from throughout the series as points: www.youtube.com/watch, and the thread I found it on can be found here:social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11799672/1.

Fair warning though, he does argue for destroy as his choice if that puts you off, but it is a fairly comprehensive collection of information pertaining to the choices from throughout  the trilogy, and I found it quite interesting.

Also its 40 minutes long so a bit of a undertaking. 

Modifié par edisnooM, 04 mai 2012 - 05:55 .

[bc525]

drayfish wrote...

To me it is just that while that remains consistent for the individual Shepard, outside of that personal trajectory I get the sense that the larger thematic world is insisting that there is a legitimacy to synthetic life, an evolutionary prerogative that can be personally denied, but universally constant nonetheless.  EDI always wants that body; the Geth are always simply seeking freedom and the right to exist. Perhaps this would have been more consistent if the game was designed so that once you chose to disregard Legion's autonomy in ME2 you were no longer given access to the missions in ME3 where the revelations of the Geth Morning War are made; but for me, forcing you to play through a recollection of their dawning consciousness seems to predispose the player to read them as burgeoning life forms, even if Shepard's personal perspective disagrees. But again, perhaps that is just me. In this instance 'genocide' is a term that I as reader (rather than Shepard as participant), bring to the text with the wider perspective on the world.

Oh man, great point about the game forcing the player to experience the Geth vs Quarian history.  I genuinely didn't think of the Geth as a sentient race until Legion downloaded into the Collective on Rannoch in ME3, but to continue with your thought, we're going back to those very first days, long before ME1 - and the Geth became sentient the exact moment they chose to defend themselves against the Quarians.  I would dismiss this, but as you point out the game forces me (the player) to experience this history.  It's unavoidbable.  Ugh.

fish, you're alright.  If I could I'd buy you a beer.

[Keyrlis]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Eh, the Mako's problems weren't the Mako's problems, they were the level designers' problems. Specifically, they were the problems of the fractal landscapes that looked like they came straight out of Bryce. I doubt you'll find anyone complaining about how the Mako handled on Therum, or Feros, or Noveria, or Asteroid X57, or Virmire, or even Ilos. The setpiece planets were all designed to give the Mako a path to follow... the unexplored worlds, on the other hand, were just kind of lazy. Every complaint the Mako gets is actually a complaint about the landscaping.

So, I am guessing I am the only one that drove the Mako for hours even after I had found every map edge possible and stripped every resource clean? I loved it: The long climb up the side of an impossible cliff, then blasting my jets so the "vertically-mounted mass effect field generator" whipped me away to a new angle on a nearby outcropping, then the joy of reaching the highest point on the planet, able to see the vista around me as more than just a toplogical map- exhilarating!
Of course, I also walked a Khajiit all the way up and along the side of the Jerall Mountain range, across the steep angle beneath Dive Rock, to the southern Valus mountains. Why? Because the Oblivion engine LET ME.
I have this habit of trying to go where developers don't want me to go.
I have this tendancy of getting to where developers don't place actual ground.
I have this ability of bypassing a bunch of developed battles by sneaking around them:ph34r:

[edisnooM]

Keyrlis wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Eh, the Mako's problems weren't the Mako's problems, they were the level designers' problems. Specifically, they were the problems of the fractal landscapes that looked like they came straight out of Bryce. I doubt you'll find anyone complaining about how the Mako handled on Therum, or Feros, or Noveria, or Asteroid X57, or Virmire, or even Ilos. The setpiece planets were all designed to give the Mako a path to follow... the unexplored worlds, on the other hand, were just kind of lazy. Every complaint the Mako gets is actually a complaint about the landscaping.

So, I am guessing I am the only one that drove the Mako for hours even after I had found every map edge possible and stripped every resource clean? I loved it: The long climb up the side of an impossible cliff, then blasting my jets so the "vertically-mounted mass effect field generator" whipped me away to a new angle on a nearby outcropping, then the joy of reaching the highest point on the planet, able to see the vista around me as more than just a toplogical map- exhilarating!
Of course, I also walked a Khajiit all the way up and along the side of the Jerall Mountain range, across the steep angle beneath Dive Rock, to the southern Valus mountains. Why? Because the Oblivion engine LET ME.
I have this habit of trying to go where developers don't want me to go.
I have this tendancy of getting to where developers don't place actual ground.
I have this ability of bypassing a bunch of developed battles by sneaking around them:ph34r:

It was also fun driving along a flat stretch, jumping, and then just tapping the thrusters each time you landed, it was amazing how bizzarely you could have it bouncing fairly quickly. 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

bc525 wrote...

Whew, great discussions in this thread. I posted here many (many) pages ago, and I'm trying desperately to catch up. Forgive my bad form here, but I'm going to slide back to some earlier ponderings.

+ To the point that only a "raging sociopath" type Shepard could be compatible with the ME3 ending, I still strongly disagree. Nyoka had some great thoughts (again, many pages ago) that a Renegade Shepard - not automatically a mentally ill Shepard - could fit consistently within the themes of Mass Effect. For one specific example, destroying the heretic Geth in ME2 seems consistent with choosing the Quarians over the Geth on Rannoch in ME3. Wouldn't that open up the Destroy option as a more thematically consistent choice for a Renegade protagonist? Or is Destroy considered genocide no matter what the main character's previous choices have been?

+ Again going back many pages, I was struck by the conviction of many folks that a fictional piece must adhere to a consistent framework for it to work. Must the ending be thematically consistent for all varieties of Shepard in order for it to work well? Or must it just work for a majority of them, not necessarily all? I'm curious to understand the equations of literary structure and what percentage of approval makes a piece 'right' and what makes it 'wrong'. Reading these forums, there are so many people that claim to "get it" and an equal amount of people that claim, no the first party most certainly did not "get it".

+ Thank you, drayfish. It really needs to be said. Your open-minded attitude has truly made this a great thread to follow and ponder. Somewhere along the line I got classified as a "pro-ender", and I guess ultimately that's true. But I've never thought of myself that way, I've just thought of myself as a Mass Effect fan.

Crow's become a metaphor for me. She's a rhetorical tool, but you seem to think that, when I'm mentioning her, I'm suggesting that sociopathy is the only way to enjoy the endings. I don't believe that... it's just that, of my own personal assortment, she's the only one for whom it makes sense - and it does make sense for her.

I think that, isolated from Starkid, Red makes sense for a lot of Renegades... what doesn't make sense for a number of Renegades who would otherwise be all right with that decision is not challenging the Starkid.

That said... making an ending that only works for one specific kind of Shepard (a renegade, and not all renegades), and then two other endings that most people strongly dislike... still means that the ending is "bad." It's bad because Bioware has made a lot of effort to give all Shepards choices that at least got close to fitting in with their stories, and to only provide an acceptable choice to a small minority of Shepards is... not good.

I'd think the ending was a failure if there were no choice that renegades found acceptable, and plenty of choices for paragons.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 mai 2012 - 07:55 .

[Seijin8]

@CulturalGeekGirl

I do not mean to argue your well-articulated point, because I generally agree with it. However, one thing I have learned through this thread and a few others on BSN is that the motivations that go into the decision trees are themselves open to multiple interpretations.

It is conceivable that a very cautious Paragon Shepard would never activate Legion, seeing it as unnecessarily dangerous and risky, and turns it over to Cerberus. (Probably wouldn't have decanted Grunt either.) Following this line of thinking, the Rannoch Collective encounter would have been the first brush with Geth as a non-hostile people, and this Shepard may have determined that a synthetic race was too risky to bring against the Reapers, and opted for their destruction in favor of the Quarians.

Accordingly, destroy loses much of its punch. Sure, EDI is destroyed, but if she was on the Conduit run, this Shepard might perceive her as already destroyed, or simply not weight her destruction as sufficient penalty for accomplishing the mission Anderson and Hacket sent Shepard to complete.

Even an intensely conscientious Shepard might ultimately see him/herself as a soldier, and follow the orders as given: the war ends with the extinction of the Reapers.

I don't mean to nitpick, and - once again - I agree with your overall point. But I do find it fascinating just how many "flavors" of Shepard have arisen from the essentially binary choices we have received throughout the story.

[bc525]

CulturalGeekGirl, fair enough. I can see the aversion to Starkid. But what would you consider to be "your" Shepard? Paragon or Renegade? I guess my main point (if I have one) would be that the player's first experience to the ME3 ending counts as the true ending. That Shepard would be the player's default Shepard, that those initial choices from ME1 + ME2 + ME3 are somehow etched in stone.

I'm asking that specifically because I've seen you switch genders in various threads. In some cases your Shepard is a "he", but in other cases Shepard is a "she". In my humble opinion, Shepard needs to be clearly defined. What did your first Shepard choose to do when faced with the Catalyst?

[Wolven_Soul]

Beautifully said.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Sorry for the off-topic Quarian thing earlier. It was just something I really wanted to share.

I had the thought that if I had my chance at creating a different ending to ME3, I think I would only modify it slightly.

Shepard meets the Catalyst. After his little intro ("this is who I am and this is what I do"), he lists our choices.

Catalyst: "You could choose Control. Here's what it does. You could choose Synthesis. Here's what it does. Or, you could choose Destroy. This will destroy the Reapers, but--"

The Catalyst's diatribe would be interrupted by Shepard running off and firing at the red tube until it explodes and kills the Reapers. Then, we are shown the consequences of our choice; whether or not other artificial intelligence was also destroyed, collateral damage from gigantic Reapers tipping over all over planets everywhere, etc. As well, some scenes showing what becomes of all our friends after the fact, and all that.

I have to say that I need more explanation of the idea where Shepard could simply talk Harbinger down from this whole harvesting thing. The Reapers believe they are above and beyond us, because, well, they are. In addition, they've been performing a specific task for billions of years. I find it hard to believe that even a narrative as faulty as this one would allow for "Hey, you know what, Shepard? I never thought of it that way", followed by Harbinger and the rest of the Reapers just picking up and leaving. Please elucidate this further so I can understand it better.