delta_vee wrote...
@MrFob:
Rereading some of your posts from the last few days, I realized I should probably clarify my position somewhat. It's not that I object to the kind of perspective-questioning choice you're discussing per se. My objections are more to do with a) the point at which the choice is made, 
the nature of the options in the context of the game up to that point, and c) the overall context the choice is placed in from the beginning.
A) Placing the option to side with your ostensible antagonist at the very end of the game runs a very high risk of invalidating the game itself. Even if the dark-energy plotline were constructed properly, it's far too easy to infer that your actions throughout were useless or counter-productive. If the Reapers' goal is a necessary one, then discovering this at the very end of a three-game campaign to stop them by any means is a tragedy of timing above all, which undercuts the premise and transforms the sacrifices to date from tragedy to pathos. This is evident in the Destroy ending as is, with the current crop of synthetic lifeforms placed on the chopping block despite potentially saving them from destruction earlier in the game.
If the solution presented resembles the antagonist's own too closely, or if the price of a new one is too steep, the audience will reject it out of hand so as to avoid the same effect on their own game as A). Thus, even if you bring the audience to an understanding of the Reapers' necessity, there is still a cognitive barrier to acceptance unless some measure of victory is still provided. This is what happened with Control, as it is viewed with derision from many and skepticism from the rest, despite being the option with the fewest casualties (the Citadel survives) and the smallest reversal of principles (the galaxy isn't forced into an unknown, invasive conversion). This is also the main source of squeamishness derived from the relays' destruction in all three endings, and the resultant desire to reject the Catalyst entirely (either to attempt a conventional victory or at least to let Liara's warning capsules do their job for the next cycle).
C) If the antagonist has been placed in the role of ultimate evil, and given no sympathy nor understanding prior to the option to side with them, then a last-minute reversal of this is doomed to emotional rejection no matter how compelling the logic. Such an understanding must be groomed over the span of the game, and the player must be given cause to question their own actions in the scope of the larger conflict, not just the smaller decisions along the way. This is where Synthesis fails, as it presents itself as a (maddenly vague) solution to a problem not previously cultivated as the larger conflict. Our goal in all three games has been "stop the Reapers", and this is directly due to the atrocities they inflict - and future considerations (whether the spread of dark energy, the threat of the Singularity, or even just the prospect of future Krogan expansionism) are rendered moot in the face of them. Even if dark energy had been properly elaborated as a greater threat looming, we have to be given indications much earlier that the Reapers' evil is the lesser, that there is some net benefit to their actions. Otherwise, the threat of extinction now will always supersede the threat of galactic destruction later, and virtually every player will elect to take their chances instead of allow the Reapers to continue - and that's not a very exciting choice, is it?
Addendum: All of that said, the handling of the genophage meets all of those criteria. We are given multiple pieces of evidence that the genophage was a brutal but necessary solution at the time, and our time on Tuchanka was designed to give us both hope for Krogan redemption as well as fear of their unchecked resurgence. We are given the option to leave the genophage in place only after the possibility of its necessity has been properly established. The only element muddying the waters at the last minute is the specific, personal cost: shooting a friend in the back (and even then, we're given an out in some throughlines). But the player's actions until that point of decision have been orthogonal to the genophage itself - we don't fight the Salarians or Turians over it, we don't have a choice to allow Saren's supposed cure to survive, and Mordin's loyalty mission is about him, his student, and lesser atrocities carried out in the name of a cure. We are only given the chance to directly, tangibly support or oppose the genophage's presence at the end, which is also the only time we are asked for a binding decision.
Hi delta, sorry for the late response, real life is getting in the way of these more important things as it does so often
.
Since the discussion has probably moved on and I am pressed for time as it is, just a short reply.
First of all, great stuff in your post and I agree that you have some good points. I guess in the end it really comes down to what every person wants or expects to come out of the story.
You make a lot of valid points in terms of "classical" narrative approaches (at least that is the impression I get, I am not an expert on this). However, i think video games, being more interactive can go down a different route as the author chooses. Especially in Mass Effect, one of the biggest differences to, say Homer's epics is that the audience makes the choices. So if the ancient Greek heroes fight the fate that was chosen for them by the gods and commit atrocities to do so, it would be shattering the story if the audience learns at the very end that these gods were benign beings and the heroes did very evil things not in the interest of a greater good but rather opposing the greater good. That would be devastating, I agree.
However, Shepard doesn't have to commit atrocious acts. If the player (read. the audience) chooses so, they have not been forced without alternative. That changes a lot because it puts some responsibility in the players hands. Therefore, if in the end, you present him with the possibility (and I stress that it is only a possibility) that these actions were ultimately in vein or even counterproductive, IMO it can be a very powerful moment for the protagonist and the player.
If the audience never has an influence, than yes, they have simply been cheated by the narration if you will. If the audience made the decisions and deemed them necessary at the time, they may get a whole new perspective on the issues.
Also, the fact that you would get the option of sticking to your original plan and really win this time (not just taking the least horrible option the enemy presents you with) makes a difference as well. In this scenario the reapers are basically already defeated. You did it! But as a last ditch effort, they reveal their true purpose. This way you make the final decision not from a position of weakness and desperation but from strength. You dictate how this whole thing plays out. You can argue that all your sacrifices were worth it because they brought you into this position of choice in the first place. There is just that last wrinkle to consider (and it's a hell of a wrinkle). If you choose to destroy the reapers after all, you won. You fulfilled your mission. Only difference to the unicorns and rainbow ending is that there is this lingering doubt of the dark energy problem (which will not be a widespread thread until another 1-200 years in the future. I think it would make for a great "good but not perfect" ending (not even mentioning that it would set the stage for future incarnations of Mass Effect).
Still, I absolutely agree that timing and implementation of this are crucial and very difficult.
My point here hardly takes care of all the problems you mentioned above but maybe (hopefully) I got across how I think this could play out in a positive way (and if I say positive, I don't mean positive in the sense of a happy ending but positive in the sense that the audience leaves the theater with many enticing moral questions in their head while still getting the feeling of having done the best they could either way).
Oh my, talk about a short response .... I should really get back to work.
Retour en haut
