5087 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

 
'What I Did Last Summer When I Blew Up The Universe' – a Sort-of-Fan-Fiction by drayfish
 
(...I swore I would never do this.)
 
All right. This is a profound mistake, but you threw the offer out there KitaSaturnyne, so I'm going to give it a crack. Working with the parameters set out by the current game, leading up to the end, this is what I can come up with in a few hours and a head full of regrets.  It is, I admit, pretty ridiculous still, and I have taken some major liberties, but this is legitimately just a thumbnail sketch of what would hope for – and one that suffers from my already established imaginative stunting when dealing with the end.  
 
I'm going to offer a blanket apology if I end up incorporating or absorbing anyone else's ideas even before I get going; seeing as how these themes have been cycling around in the communal consciousness for the past few weeks it's impossible to know what I've cooked up and what has been imprinted by the evolution of creative interplay. Please believe that there are no intentional plagiarisms here, just free-associative imaginarium.
 
Firstly, in this version, the Crucible remains. We're building it, we're getting resources, throwing everything into the mix. We've had to fight a little harder to get those plans (thanks to Seijin8's rewrite of the Shadow Broker assist), but the application of them plays out much the same. The more resources and funds you throw into it, the more powerful it eventually becomes. (SPOILER ALERT: You're gonna want that readiness high...)
 
Secondly, I'm going with the Dark Energy. I don't know what it is – I've not read the leaked script referenced here previously, or heard the back story kicked around by the devs. before – so I'm making some assumptions about it being related to the use and adaptation of eezo into biotics and galactic travel. I'm seeing dark energy – planet-sucking, universe tearing, dark-energy – as the by-product of each generation's interaction with this substance. It has, after all, been at the core of every pseudo-science hand-wavery explanation for science and wonder throughout the tale.
 
Okay. So here goes.
 
I'm going to largely skip the bit where I would put more planning into the push through London, but here's the short version: Anderson is standing beside a holographic map in that scene, and it's a crime that we don't get more of a moment of strategising and deployment in that moment to tie you to the larger activity of the battlefront – much like the prep work on the fly for the Suicide Mission in ME2. Shepard should choose who to assign to other engagement in the conflict while she and her two-man team act as the spear of the action:
 
'James, time for you to earn that Spectre title. You're leading the squad of Turians through Hyde park to reclaim a foothold. Tali, we need someone on the electronics trying to scramble the Reaper signals and return some EM pulses. Kaiden, you'll rendezvous with Jack and her squad to help strengthen the biotic line. And who here can recalibrate the anti-air missiles? Does anyone know how to calibrate a giant gun? Anyone? Garrus, how about you? Can you think of anyone?!'
 
Shepard will tear through the streets of London, still fighting waves of foes (this is still war). And the melancholic tone of loss and fear that pervades will still echo in these empty, broken buildings and shattered streets. People have fled, and devastation is omnipresent. (Although there should be a blue police telephone box somewhere amongst the rubble, looking strangely pristine.)
 
Up ahead – it's the beam. Why is there a beam? What does this thing want with Earth? Who cares, we'll stick with the usual stuff – but in this version, Shepard gets to call in a distraction team to draw Harbinger's fire. She does (it's one of those secondary crews assigned in the planning stage – we hear them wish us luck and leap into the fray), and with Harby turning his attention elsewhere, we push for the beam.
 
In all the chaos and fury it's a moment before we see the second Reaper descend from atmosphere, firing wildly. It's beam tears up the streets beside Shepard, tossing her into the air. 
 
Black out.
 
'Kid, get your ass up.' 
 
The world returns. It's Anderson. He stands over Shepard, helping her focus. 'Come on. We're not done yet.'
 
He rises and shouts to the two companion squad-mates, 'You two get back to the rendezvous point! I've got her from here!'
 
A squad-mate: 'Sir –'
 
'That's an order! I can't raise them on the radio. I need Command to know if we make it into that beam.'
 
Shepard rises, nodding in agreement. She shares a final, meaningful glance at both of them, and they go.
 
Anderson presses a gun into Shepard's hand. 'You right to fire that thing?' he says.
 
She nods. 'Just clearing my head, sir.' But she's lying. The beam cut her up pretty badly. 'Let's go get this done.'
 
And together, Shepard being helped along by Anderson, they shuffle toward the beam, Shepard nailing a few Husks as each slow-mos towards them. They reach the beam (high-five Marauder Shields on the way past) and dissolve to white.
 
The scenes on the Crucible and all the carnage play out much the same except this time Anderson is with you the whole time, and the exchange with the Illusive Man is all as-is. Anderson dies telling Shepard she was the child he never had – much worthy tears are shed – and the two soldiers sit slumped beside each other as the Crucible 'engages'.
 
'Shepard? Are you there?' It's Hackett, crackling over the com. 'Shepard? This is an all-frequencies broadcast. Your crew said you were going for the beam? If you are out there, respond.'
 
'I'm here,' she says, crawling toward the console. 'What do you need me to do?'
 
'Nothing's happening on this end. The Reapers haven't slowed down.'
 
'I don't – I can't –' The console beneath her hands is a blur.   She's drifting out. 'Sir, I –' She blinks, trying to focus. She tries a button again. Nothing. Hacket starts to reply, but his signal gives out in a static, garbled squall. Shepard staggers. She drops, overwhelmed, seemingly broken.
 
Outside the Reapers push on. The allied ships fight on, but things look bleak.
 
Then: the magic elevator.
 
'Wake up.'
 
'What?' Shepard rises, only scrambling to her knees. 'Where am I?'
 
A shimmering electro-ghost appears. 'We are the Catalyst.'
 
(I'm going to go with the name 'Catalyst' for now, because there are not enough snarky analogies like 'Robo-Wester' in the world to cover how many times I will have to refer to him – but he is indeed still the kid for now...)
 
'Who? You –' Shepard sways.  'I know you...'
 
'We have taken this form from you. Your thoughts are filled with regret. With loss.'
 
'You're in my mind?'
 
'The Crucible is a connection. A communication impossible before.'
 
The Catalyst wanders toward the window. Beyond, in the inky expanse of space, the war rages. Dreadnoughts whip across the view, a barrage of gunfire lights up the Reapers, who carve through their prey. The Earth below smoulders under slashes of devastation.
 
'This is regrettable,' it says. 'This is a necessary sacrifice for life.'
 
The dull thud of distant explosions puncture the solemn hum.
 
'What are you?' Shepard says, still struggling for breath.
 
'We are a program. A voice to pronounce a purpose. We are the product of this Crucible, an interface between the Crucible and Reaper mind.'
 
'I don't understand.'  
 
'The Citadel was built by Reapers,' the Catalyst says. 'A trap for civilised kind. To draw them into one place.'
 
'What for?'
 
'You have evolved to the point of your perfection. You will be harvested. Preserved. For the good of all.'
 
'I don't think so.' Shepard fingers her gun, taking strength from its handle in her palm. 'You're a Reaper?'
 
'We are the Catalyst. We are the program your people have devised to speak to the Reaper mind. To understand. We are the bridge. We are the voice to pronounce the purpose.'
 
'What? What purpose?'
 
'Aeons ago it was discovered that the substance you call 'eezo' was disturbing the fabric of space and time. The pull toward this substance was inexorable. It could not be stopped. Countless civilisations had incorporated this material into themselves, had been profoundly evolved along with it. But every use meant our ruin. Dark matter spread across the galaxies. Whole worlds were torn asunder. We knew that it was our end. We made a choice. We, the Reapers, were made from those dying civilisations. We evolved ourselves in a last desperate bid for preservation. 
 
'The cycle passed, in time the universe restored, and new life emerged to fill the void. But the cycle could not be stopped. The use of eezo was inevitable. All are all drawn to it like warmth. But what gives life, also brings death. Eezo is a fire that brings light, but one that, if left unchecked, will consume all that it touches. We watched as a new civilisations made our mistakes. Each time, the moment civilisations lifted themselves to the stars, the use of eezo would rise, would spread. The universe would tear. We made another choice.
 
'Life would survive. We preserved them. As we preserved ourselves. We gave them life, reborn from sorrow. They have become one with us. With our purpose.'
 
Shepard staggers, feeling the immensity of it all (or idiocy, whichever) sink in. 'You killed them?
 
'We freed them. Just as we have freed countless more. We have set parameters. We have created a space in which to grow. Past which no one must venture. We preserve life. Bring the gift of perfection. That is our purpose.'
 
'Your purpose is madness. You slaughtered them all.'
 
The Catalyst shimmers, mutating into the shape of Mordin.
 
'We evolved to preserve our life,' it says. 'We adapted to preserve all others. We have perfected the universal equation,' it says.
 
'So you're killing us?'
 
'We have tried to absorb you into our hive mind. You destroyed our Human reaper. You would have been preserved. But time is running out. The universe is ruptured.'
 
'We don't want your preservation. We can find another way.'
 
'There is none. Chaos is the natural state. You will fail and you will die.'
 
'No. We'll adapt. We'll survive.'
 
'Countless generations before you have tried. All have failed. All will fail. It is an unalterable equation.'
 
Outside a cruiser tears in two and a silent plume of flame erupts and fades. The Reapers inch across the expanse, effortlessly eviscerating their opposition. Shepard feels the blood pooling in her suit. It's warm, sticky. There's a shudder in her breath that wasn't there before.
 
The Catalyst, still wearing Mordin's face, blinks with dispassionate curiosity.
 
'You – You're in my head,' Shepard says. 'Search me.'
 
'I do not understand.'
 
'Search my mind,' Shepard says, her legs shaking but her resolve firm.  'See what I've seen. See what we've done. All we can do. All to stop you.'
 
'But your struggles have not been in vain. You will be transformed. You will become one with us. Be preserved.'
 
'We don't want to be catalogued. We want to live. Do it.'
 
The Catalyst closes its eyes. Shepard takes a breath.
 
We smash cut to our Prothean beacon style flashbacks, until we see a series of black-and-white slow-mo FMVs: the fleet massing together; the construction of the Crucible itself, speckled with builders and crew; the assault on Sovereign from ME1; the dive into the Omega 4 relay; the explosion on Virmire; Rannoch; a glimpse of the mission inside the Geth hive mind; Shepard dying at the beginning of ME2; her resuscitation...
 
Then we get the more personal stuff: Mordin (or Padok) erupting in flame; Joker tipping his hat; our love interest nuzzling against us; Wrex; Legion; EDI; Liara; Jack; Tali; (what the hell) even Jacob. Interspersed with all the memories are images of Reapers. Protheans screaming; Reapers screaming; pain.
 
The flashes end. The Catalyst shimmers, lowering its head. Shepard looks horrified, exhausted. The faint sound of a scream still echoes in her head.
 
'You have achieved much,' the Catalyst says, it's voice less sure.
 
'We – We are resilient,' Shepard says. 'Resourceful. We'll find a way.'
 
The Catalyst turns to peer out the window into the carnage. 'This one called EDI. She has Reaper code. She stands with you?'
 
'She stands with me.'
 
'But she is synthetic.'
 
'She's free.'
 
'And the war with the synthetics –'
 
'It's over. Done.'
 
The Catalyst stands motionless. Thinking. Outside: eruptions, death.
 
Shepard grunts, the pain clawing at her guts as she rises. 'You know, I just saw you too,' she says. 'I saw your loss. Your pain. I heard you screaming. We built this place. Countless generations, all to this purpose. All to defy you. Forget your code. Forget this insane equation. Give us back our hope.'
 
The Catalyst shifts once more into the squad mate lost on Virmire, either Kaiden or Ashley.  'You have already lost so much,' this familiar face says. 'You will not be prepared for the oncoming storm. Are you truly ready to risk losing it all?'
 
'We are.'
 
Slowly, the Catalyst directs Shepard toward two paths. 'You have built this Crucible,' it says. 'And it has presented you options. Ways to finally intrude upon the Reaper mind. To destroy or Control them. To change their purpose. It is up to you. You must choose.'
 
And the Catalyst, now our lost Virmire Survivor, explains our options...
 
 
And here they come.  (It should go without saying at this point that I will not be offering a Synthesis. ...I just have no words for that ending that do not end in froth and sedation.)
 
 
Low EMS: you get to Destroy or Control, but both options are predictably gonna suck. For Destroy it's going to wipe out Reapers and Synthetics alike, and torch the Earth. That's the price you pay, bud. But you weren't playing all that hard in the first place, were you? So EDI, Legion, and any war bonds you might've had stashed away on the surface of the planet go bye-byes. In Control, you are made one with the Reapers, becoming that human component of the Reaper hive mind to preserve humanity for the ages while the Universe goes on getting eaten, and the Dark Energy put back in its box – at least for now. This of course, would be the 'Reapers Win' result.
 
Medium EMS: you get the options to Destroy or Control, but the results are not so gloomy. In Control you will be absorbed into the Reaper hive mind, but will have enough strength in the signal to overpower the Reapers, to take control of them and pilot them into the sun. In the Destroy option the Reapers are destroyed and Earth is not scorched so bad. You're still dead. 
 
High EMS: you can Control if you want, but the real funs is going to be in Destroy. Control means flying into the sun fun-times. The signal goes out, the Reapers turn and flee, following Shepard's command.  Destroy I speak of momentarily...
 
 
Throughout all of these endings, whether good or bad, we see intercut visions of our war assets actually doing stuff. Even if it ends in unhappy 'sploshions, we see them fight the Reapers as the leviathans are shut down, or retreat. And by the way: the Normandy, no matter what shoots an avalanche of gunfire into Harbinger's damn face.
 
 
For the more emotional gear:
 
In the Low Control Ending Shepard has sacrificed herself in order to preserve the human code and the destruction of civilisation goes on unabated. Frankly, I've not spoken about such an option at any length (I've sort of assumed we wouldn't want to go there), but that's the general idea. Civilisation goes on to get wiped out, and eerie silence descends as the camera pulls back, the Reapers retreat back to dark-space, and the cycle gets ready to start anew...
 
In the Medium to High Control endings, after Shepard has dissolved into the Reaper mind, we will see a scene in which Shepard, using some kind of Communication wizardry, sends a final message to her crew and her Love Interest. 'I'm doing this for you,' she will say as they gather around Joker's console, and the ground crews look to the stars when the fighting dies down. 'For us all. It's over. The cycle has ended and I want you to live. For me. Rebuild, and go on with each other. Step back into the light.'
 
In the Low Destroy ending Shepard staggers over to the controls, and sets the systems to overload. She tries to contact her crew but the radio is out. There's static and more eruptions outside. And as the Crucible goes up it sends a shockwave that takes out the Reapers, but lights up the sky. The devastation wipes out everything with Reaper code: the Geth (if they're still around) drop to the ground inactive. EDI, turning to look at Joker, suddenly gasps, shudders and dies. A shockwave rips into the earth annihilating its whole surface. The fleets, severely damaged, drift in space until contact begins to be re-established.
 
In the Medium Destroy ending Shepard staggers to the controls, and again sets the systems to overload. She tries to contact her crew and gets through, but the line is bad. They can hear her, but she can barely make them out. She tells them to fight on, that everything is going to be okay. The Reapers are going down, and she's doing this all for them. Joker is trying to say something to her through the haze, but it's not coming through. Finally the Crucible goes up and the blast goes out. The Reapers are destroyed, but the systems in the Crucible are developed enough that it doesn't take out the Geth and EDI. Synthetics are fine, and the Earth, which takes some damage, is not hurt so bad.
 
In the High Destroy ending Shepard staggers to the controls and once more sets the systems to overload. She lights up the radio and gets through.
 
Joker, dancing the Normandy through explosions, shouts into the com, 'Shepard, where are you?'
 
'It's okay, Joker. I'm going to end it.  I'm taking down the Reapers and ending this goddamned war.'
 
Shepard's Love Interest (either on the ground, or on the bridge) shouts into the communicator. 'What are you doing?' 
 
'I'm on the Crucible. I'm blowing it up. Don't worry, this will all be over.'
 
'Shepard – '
 
'It's all right. I'm doing this for us all. What needs to be done. My gift. For you.'
 
'Shepard no –'
 
'I'm fine. There's nothing anybody could do...'
 
The countdown begins. The tragic, epic music begins to swell. Shepard, stepping back from the controller, braces for the end.
 
Suddenly Liara leans into the microphone. 'Shepard. I'm the Shadow Broker: I know those Crucible plans. Are you on the bridge?'
 
'What? I – Yes, I think so. Why?'
 
'Behind you. Opposite the door. There's an escape pod. Run!'
 
The Crucible ignites. Shepard is knocked to the side, and the screen fills with flame. 
 
Outside the Reapers are torn apart by the signal. The allied forces rip through them, slicing them to shreds. The Normandy slips through the carnage in a desperate gamble. The Citadel explodes, the arms folding away, shattered. The eruption expands, knocking the structure out into stars.
 
...There will never be a scene of Joker fleeing the battlefield, drifting off to that fantastical world, because they will be there to catch the goddamn escape pod. Shepard, battered, broken, will be rescued from the carnage by her crew after successfully making it to freedom, and then the rest of the battle will play out – Shepard, alive, being collected from the airlock, smiling as she can finally drift into a peaceful rest.
 
CUE EPILOGUE
 
 
Okay. Wow. That was not meant to go on so long and... damn. To anyone who bothers to read that, I apologise. That was obviously building up for a while, and needed out. I've not even gone back to properly scrutinise it, so I apologise if its complete, fanciful nonsense. But – unfiltered in any way – that KitaSaturnye is what I would have wanted. 
 

Modifié par drayfish, 19 mai 2012 - 02:02 .

[drayfish]

NOOOOOO......   Double post demons; and this was not meant to go at the top of a page!

I know i've been warned about my overuse of apologies, but I am really sorry...

Modifié par drayfish, 19 mai 2012 - 07:21 .

[Theodoro]

This really is a well thought-out ending you've put up, Drayfish; and the idea of actually turning the Catalyst into people Shepard has lost instead would have more impact, though I still think that this conversation should be with Harbinger instead.

However, I think you've painted Destroy and Control basically the same - with the latter only actually destroying the Reapers by sending them to the sun. I think Control should be a bit different and there should be a 'happy' version of it with a lot of EMS available.

You pretty much nailed the high EMS Destroy ending, though, I can totally see it happening. Either way, I liked it a lot more than the original ending and I'm glad you didn't even give the option of this abomination that is Synthesis.

[drayfish]

@ Theodoro:

Thanks for the kind (and entirely too forgiving) words.  I'm honestly not really sure what  I just wrote.  I'm in a bit of a haze.  But you're right.  Control and Destroy don't seem to have much differentialtion when you point that out.  ...That may indicate where I fall on those endings, I guess.

Modifié par drayfish, 19 mai 2012 - 07:46 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Wow, drayfish. Just... wow. Not only does this provide the emotional intensity that a scene like this should, it also takes the time to touch on many of the important things we've worked for throughout the games. And I like the hail of gunfire into Harbinger's stupid face.

On the gameplay side, I really like the idea that the EMS determines the capabilities of the Crucible. It makes the game replayable simply because players would always have the choice to raise their EMS as high as possible, or just go with the bare minimum, just to see what happens.

Thank you, drayfish. More specific than I was asking, but please don't apologize for it or take it back. It's a superb idea. Again, thank you.

[TobyHasEyes]

 That  professor really does sound as though they have had too many people fanning their ego; a definite case of opinion being presented as fact

 To my mind the problem with the synthesis / control option is not a lack of thematic satisfaction, but that they have been presented as impossible options thus far; consequently every experience in game should tell you that attempting either would go badly wrong and yet from what we have seen (excluding the craziness of IT) they both proceed with success. What I mean then is that it doesn't seem unsatisfying that Shepard is presented as possibly wanting either of those options but rather that they pose easy solutions when previously they had been dangerous and reckless solutions

 And the OP's issue with the Destroy option is so bogus; you can certainly argue that a theme of the series has been the value of A.I in its own right, but the Destroy option does not dismiss that theme. My Shepard ultimately saved the Geth over the Quarians, and treated them as equal to biological life. And yet I chose the Destroy option, seeing it has having involving a huge sacrifice that may be necessary; following the theme of the value of A.I only adds weight to how serious a sacrifice you think it is. As such the argument sounds like the typical 'for the ending to be satisfying it has to be a ultimate victory / save everyone ending'
 
 

[Theodoro]

The fact of the matter is that you've really fleshed out Destroy; and it would be totally personalized for each player with the cutscenes depicting the War Assets that you've picked on the way and the allies you've gathered actually fighting against the Reapers, together as one.

The best thing is that Shepard's crew are doing everything they can to save their commander, which is what they should have done in the first place; an ending like this would totally redeem not only Joker, but everyone on board who didn't at least try to get Shepard out. When you put these thoughts into a video, the finale would be truly epic.

And it would also be bittersweet if you don't have enough EMS. I hold to the belief that the best ending would be hard to obtain (you'll need to do a lot, if not all, things right), but in the end, it will be so worth it - unlike the 'best' ending we have now if we play Multi-Player. So, anyway, if you don't have enough EMS, there would be cutscenes showing the squad honoring their commander's death, saying words of farewell, a funeral, everything; but the galaxy will live on as we know it, with the Mass Relays intact and everything. Just show that they care.

Sorry, got a bit excited again; I tend to do that when I think of ways to completely redo the ending. The most important aspect is that your version allows all of these things to happen, which is what's incredible about it. And Shepard actually acts in-character now!

Modifié par Theodoro, 19 mai 2012 - 07:57 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 That  professor really does sound as though they have had too many people fanning their ego; a definite case of opinion being presented as fact

 To my mind the problem with the synthesis / control option is not a lack of thematic satisfaction, but that they have been presented as impossible options thus far; consequently every experience in game should tell you that attempting either would go badly wrong and yet from what we have seen (excluding the craziness of IT) they both proceed with success. What I mean then is that it doesn't seem unsatisfying that Shepard is presented as possibly wanting either of those options but rather that they pose easy solutions when previously they had been dangerous and reckless solutions

 And the OP's issue with the Destroy option is so bogus; you can certainly argue that a theme of the series has been the value of A.I in its own right, but the Destroy option does not dismiss that theme. My Shepard ultimately saved the Geth over the Quarians, and treated them as equal to biological life. And yet I chose the Destroy option, seeing it has having involving a huge sacrifice that may be necessary; following the theme of the value of A.I only adds weight to how serious a sacrifice you think it is. As such the argument sounds like the typical 'for the ending to be satisfying it has to be a ultimate victory / save everyone ending'
 

Welcome to the thread. Please read the rest of it... or at least more of it. All these things have been discussed.

As to the destroy ending, I'm going to lift a post from another thread to explain my feelings on it, which have finally settled after a month of trying to figure out why it was so repugnant:

I actually go with an ethical classic here, a philosophy based on the simple belief that even the most selfish, unlikeable wretch can make the right choice in a pinch, and realize there are lines that can't be crossed for survival, outcomes that aren't acceptable no matter what. This is summed up by a single line:

"Better dead than smeg."

No. I'm not going to agree that committing genocide on a peaceful ally is a small price to pay for survival. Enough cycles, somebody's going to beat the Reapers legitimately, or you'll lose a few Reapers each cycle from now on, to kick-ass fleets with Thanix cannons. Hopefully Liara will update her little time capsules to say "the Crucible did nothing, we wasted our resources, invest in Thanix cannons and accelerated meteorites instead." So rather than commit genocide, or risk outcomes that are bizarre and suspect, I choose to turn away. I choose to fight until I'm dead, but if letting the reapers destroy the crucible is the only way to not become just like them, then yeah. I'll do that.

People trot out "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" quote all the time, and it really annoys me. When Spock is saying that, he's saying it as he chooses to make the choice to sacrifice herself. He's not forcing "sacrifice" on anyone else. His context is very, very different than making the call to murder someone else to save more people. An alternate interpretation of that quote is popular lately, where the speaker is talking about sacrificing someone who isn't himself. About murdering a lot of people so that a numerically larger group of people can live.

The reapers are the masters of using this alternate definition of the "needs of the many" quote, the one where someone is essentially absolving himself of the murder of one group of people when that murder saves more lives than it takes. Spacefaring civilizations are a tiny, tiny minority of organic life in the galaxy. The Reapers believe that, by sacrificing these few species every fifty thousand years, they are saving the rest of organic life, the "many."

So no, I'm not going to play that game, either. I'm going to fight or die, and when the reapers destroy the crucible, I'm not going to hit resume.

This isn't about wanting a happy ending. I would rather see Shepard die, everyone in the cycle die, and the Yagh inherit the universe than become just like the Reapers, taking it upon myself to make the call to murder billions based on what I happen to currently believe might be a "greater good, " eyes squeezed shut to any other option.

Better dead than smeg.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 mai 2012 - 08:02 .

[frypan]

....chokes back a tear at Shepherd's gift....

then cue tears of joy, applause, fist pumping and many cheers - catharsis indeed.

We all finish the game and spends buckets of money on DLC.

[drayfish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

<with always hateful cutting>

The reapers are the masters of using this alternate definition of the "needs of the many" quote, the one where someone is essentially absolving himself of the murder of one group of people when that murder saves more lives than it takes. Spacefaring civilizations are a tiny, tiny minority of organic life in the galaxy. The Reapers believe that, by sacrificing these few species every fifty thousand years, they are saving the rest of organic life, the "many."

Better dead than smeg.

Lister & Spock.

That is so perfect in every way.  Damn.

EDIT: sorry, for some reason I had them conflicting.  (I think my brain is broken.)  I shall simply express my appreciation without words:

*claps happilly like a seal*

Modifié par drayfish, 19 mai 2012 - 08:07 .

[Theodoro]

@CulturalGeekGirl:

I can't agree more with your statement. I believe it's an atrocity that this is not an option in Mass Effect 3's ending when it should have been. I don't think my Shepard would have a clear conscience after choosing Destroy, the ends justifying the means, and would rather just go down the magic elevator and fight the Reapers to the death like every cycle has done before. It should have been an option.

Technically, you could say that it is - if you stay on the Crucible long enough for it to be destroyed. However, even if this results in total annihilation of the current space-faring species, I'd still run the risk of just having this hope that we can defeat the Reapers on our own terms, not using their own methods against them in what is a very sinister way. In Shepard's words, "I'm going to win this war - and I'll do it without sacrificing the soul of our species."

[Hawk227]

@ drayfish

Well, I was going to bed, but I'm glad I checked in one last time.

First off, this absolutely deserved to be at the top of the the page. Stop apologizing all ready!

Secondly, I think you nailed the High EMS destroy ending, and the lead in, and almost everything else. Like Theodoro, I'm not sure how I feel about the high and medium EMS control endings, they're a little too similar to destroy. It does leave the door open for Shepard to make an "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" or "THIS HURTS YOU" quip to Harbinger (I'll get to that) as he grabs the control reigns. That said, I think the low EMS control is perfect.

The only thing I would change, for sure, is the Catalyst. I'd make him Harbinger, and defiant as ever.  I'm a little skeptical that a genocidal manaic AI would hesitate after doing this for a billion years. More importantly, I think that stupid spacekid is tainted. Even with new alternating faces. Although you mask a lot of his problems really well. I just really wanted to get to say "Na nee na nee boo boo :P" to Harbinger before I (or in this case, Joker) blew him up.

That one tiny thing aside, I think the rest is fantastic. None of it is nonsense. Well done.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Again CGG, you've succeeded in articulating something I've failed at for all this time. Thank you.

Though slightly inaccurate, I'd still say that the ending choices aren't a sacrifice, or doing something for the greater good, but Shepard jumping off a cliff and dragging the entire galaxy down with him/ her/ it/ them.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

drayfish wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

<with always hateful cutting>

The reapers are the masters of using this alternate definition of the "needs of the many" quote, the one where someone is essentially absolving himself of the murder of one group of people when that murder saves more lives than it takes. Spacefaring civilizations are a tiny, tiny minority of organic life in the galaxy. The Reapers believe that, by sacrificing these few species every fifty thousand years, they are saving the rest of organic life, the "many."

Better dead than smeg.

Lister & Spock.

That is so perfect in every way.  Damn.

EDIT: sorry, for some reason I had them conflicting.  (I think my brain is broken.)  I shall simply express my appreciation without words:

*claps happilly like a seal*

One tiny clarification: it's Rimmer who says that immortal line, not Lister. That's what makes it so much more impressive. Lister's a good guy who is pretty laid back about things. Rimmer is a cowardly fool of a man with great ambition, and he still recognizes that death is the only choice. Death is better than achieving every single thing he has ever dreamed of, everything luxury and honor he was deprived of in his miserable life, if gaining those things means becoming a monster.

If Arnold J. Rimmer can make the right call, and we can't, what does that say of us?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 mai 2012 - 08:19 .

[drayfish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One tiny clarification: it's Rimmer who says that immortal line, not lister. That's what makes it so much more impressive. Lister's a good guy who is pretty laid back about things. Rimmer is a cowardly fool of a man with great ambition, and he still recognizes that death is the only choice. Death is better than achieving every single thing he has ever dreamed of, everything luxury and honor he was deprived of in his miserable life, if gaining those things means becoming a monster.

If Arnold J. Rimmer can make the right call, and we can't, what does that say of us?

...Oh my god. I butchered a Dwarf reference. You have no idea how ashamed I am right now.

I am far too tired.  If I can't trust my nerd references, what's left?

[Fapmaster5000]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

<AWESOME POST ABOUT ROLE-PLAYING>

EDIT: Sweet Jesus, this thing is long.  Apologies!

Spot on, I'd say.

At least for me, I think that's why I bought into the forums after the ending, and into the whole "retake" thing.  It felt like a campaign that had fallen off the rails (disasterously), and all that needed to have happen was to call up the DM and go, "Dude, you just f*cked the duck.  Can we get this back on?"  In my opinion, mad props must be given to Bioware for establishing the illusion of that level of trust and collaboration with a AAA-title.  Companies sell products, "Steve the DM" wants to have barbecue at Karen's house after you kill the dragon.  Bioware did a good enough job (at least for me) that the line got blurry, and I emotionally felt as much buy-in to a product as to "that campaign".

An anecdote (stop here if you wish to avoid a sordid tale):

It's no where near the SCALE of video game developement, but it's a very similar mindset (imho) to run a game as to build one.  Sure, there are immense differences: budget, staffing, time-frames, collaboration... these things cannot be understated, but a developer (at least the high level guys) on an RPG is there to tell a story they love, to invite others into their world, to build stories with friends, and to make something sublime, something more than just passive fiction.  It's real on a level that books, radio, TV, and movies can'tp/i] be.  A good game maker can pull the player in, make them feel as the protagonist, not just for the protagonist.  There's a beautiful level of naked truth in the emotions you can dig up with a game, because you can cut so much deeper at a person's core when they stop saying "the character" and start saying "I".

This great power, as they say, does come with great responsibilities, because it's beauty can become ugly with terrifying speed.

I've never been a professional game developer, with it's scope and scale.  What I have been is a prolific DM, for many years.  This is dollars to donuts, I'm well aware, but while the scope is different, the heart of the matter is the same.  It's same core as I talked about below, but for six to ten people instead of millions.  A sample, if you will, for the same idea.

I've had good campaigns, and bad campaigns, played in many, and run some for years on end.  There was one that I'll always come back to, and I think it's applicable here.  

I've always prided myself on running excellent narrative-driven campaigns.  Many of these run in a self-built world, with large sets of fluff and special mechanics, with a detailed backstory that repeat players would find consistent, and a vast array of NPCs to encounter.  The last two bits are things I consider key: players whose characters survived (these were brutal campaigns) would then appear in later adventures or campaigns, and there were several different groups I ran with, who cross-polinated NPCs and former-PCs, occasionally jumping groups or taking back old characters for newer campaigns, all of it in an internally consistant universe of near-future-scifi with light fantastical elements.  Many players loved this.  Through the years, I'd received numerous compliments, my favorites being "I won't play any other campaigns than yours anymore", "I said I'd never come back to the table, but I heard you were running it", and, my personal highlight, "Those were some rough years, and your game got me through it".  I'm not a touchy-feely person, but those comments bring me closer to tears than most other things.  Something I made touched another human being in a true way, and created a shared experience, intellectually, and emotionally.  So I take this seriously, perhaps moreso than I really should, but my perfectionism flares up, and I have to outdo myself.  Each campaign, I have to outdo the last, hit harder, cut deeper, create more vibrant experiences.  

I've seen it go wrong, for all the right reasons.

I understand wanting to push the boundaries, straining against a medium (be it multi-million dollar game titles or cheetos-fueled-adventures, every medium has its limits).  Say you want to be artistic, you want to create something truly memorable.  Remember that power I spoke of?  The ability to cut deep, down to the bones?  Consider the power of tragedy, of catharsis.  Imagine the power that would have, if delivered through the payload mechanism of interactive media.  It would be incredible!

This was my plan.

I created a scenario, one designed to put my party on the mirror road of a major villain they'd been confronting for several campaigns.  They'd encountered him as a secondary, shadowy menace, occasionally clashed, won some, lost some, and run far more often.  He was a manipulator, a fallen hero who would be their temporary ally and sometimes enemy in different scenarios, always playing a hand three games ahead.  It was one of my favorite threats to put at the party, and one that brought a good deal of fear, and a healthy balance of "do we confront him or work with him or just run?" debate to the table.  A successful antagonist, I felt, but one that needed to be confronted directly.  To do this, I needed to bring him front and center, let the party "get a feel" for what they could be facing.

The best way to do this, I felt, was to make the party walk the villains path, test them and see if they were better than he'd been.  Could they succeed in keeping their souls where he'd failed?  (Figuratively, and sometimes literally.)  This was a universe with a perverse pantheon, an automated manifestation of the game rules codified into the basis of universe as an automated malevolent force that was nearly omnipotent, created and abandoned by the pre-requisite ancient races.  The party was trying to save the world, in a game where the universe was rigged (the game was not rigged, but the meta-rules of the fiction were, if you follow).  The players had begun to suspect this, in-and-out-of-character, and it was time to pull the meta-trigger.

They entered into a long and grueling campaign, where the boundaries of "good" and "evil" were blurred, distorted, and then stripped away.  Allies fell, failed, or were cast aside.  Enemies bargained and maneuvered.  The party divided among itself, becoming cats paws for a dozen scheming villains, debasing themselves further with each "compromise", until they drifted so far from their mission/quest that they spent entire sessions argueing about the moral malaise they found themselves in, each accusing the others of being wrong, villainous, or compromising with the wrong figurative devil.  They were caught in a trap, the same trap the man they opposed had been, and when, in their darkest hour, he approached and offered them an escape (follow his path), some listened.

Now just as defeated by the universe as the villain they'd thought to unseat, they fought, but without purpose.  Each served a different master, but not one had remained "true".  It had been two harsh.  Compromises had to be made.  Sacrifices had to be made.  Nothing could remain pure.  They lost everything, and fought each other, with the only winners being a disparate group of scheming factions who'd never even known their names, and with the party leader throwing in his lot with the man he'd set out to destroy, now broken by the same cruel universe.

It should have been amazing.  It was a meta-fictional commentary on the nature of gaming, it was universe-appropriate, it built up the primary antagonist for the next campaign as both an incredible threat and a tragic figure, and it brought the party up close and personal with the true villain of the campaign universe: the rules themselves.

It was a disaster.

The party was so utterly BROKEN, not as characters, but as a group of friends, that people didn't speak for years.  Grudges were carved, friendships ended, and most never even got to the end.  There was no catharsis, there was simply suffering, resentment, and a feeling that something had gone horribly wrong.  Several of them became convinced that I was some sort of horrific bastard who tortured trusting people emotionally for my own jollies, and that there had been no greater purpose other than sh*ts, giggles, and perhaps failure on my end.  The only thing many of them could even agree on was that I was a phenomenal dick.

For my part, I was crushed.  I felt that the party had betrayed me, as well, that they hadn't trusted me enough to raise concerns with the direction of the campaign when I'd asked before, that they'd somehow turned away from the art and story to focus on pew-pew'ing mobs, that they didn't want a rich universe anymore, but just loot-pinatas and sunshine endings, and then, when I'd failed to spit out the prefab campaign they'd wanted, had turned on my like jackals with personal attacks.   I was so disgusted with gaming that I hung up my dice, possibly forever.

Does this sound familiar?  It certainly felt familiar, to me.

Fortunately, my story has a happy ending.

Later that year, I fell back into a gaming group, and started playing again.  It had been too long since I'd sat in the player's chair, not the DM's, and I'd forgotten what it felt like.  I'd been seeing numbers, charts, and stat-sheets until I could quote rulebooks by heart, until I could build high-level casters on scratch paper.  I'd become immersed, then bored, with the game mechanics, and tried to "change it up" by "elevating" the game into art.  I'd forgotten about fun, and the reasons that the players sat in those seats every Monday night.

Further, I'd forgotten about that terrible power that comes with interactive fiction.  Tragedy works because we can walk away.  Catharsis works because it's not us in the hot-seat.  We see it, we feel it, but then we put down the book or turn off the screen, and go get a coffee and think about what happened to that other person.  Attending a hundred-hour campaign pain simulator, even, especially, one well-craffed, only to be stomped down at the end, isn't "fun".  It's not uplifting, or paradigm-shifting... it's bastardry.

I got with the old crew, found out who was pissed at whom, and why (yup, turns out a lot of that stemmed from a certain pain-simulator-campaign... oops), and started talking, explaining, and, yes, apologizing for that ending.  There had been an intended catharsis, followed by internal triumph.  The goal had been to resist the crushing universe, to stand up and save their characters' souls, and win the 'hardest' fight in the universe.  It had been intended to uplift at the end, with an existential victory in a physical defeat.  It had failed to deliver, and we all knew it.  

As I talked to them, though, I discovered a funny thing.  Many had come to similar revelations as myself.  They'd loved the campaign, the universe, the experience.  The journey had been amazing, the end had been ****.  They'd come to appreciate what I tried to do (so long as I NEVER tried that sh*t again), and even apologize for turning on me so harshly when I failed to deliver instead of trying to fix it (and some damaged relationships).  Several of them had even figured out the meta-plot, and loved it, just hated the way it was delivered.

I've been running games for years again now, including with the old crew. We're back in that universe, fighting the good fight. I learned a couple of important lessons:

• Be aware of your medium.  What would have been fine in one of my stories (personal loss, tragedy, and redemption-in-morality contrasted with a bleak universe) became toxic because of the structures of interactive media. Instead of uplifting about the human spirit, it became a black farce about failing your way towards "victory".
• Communication is key. It was the wall of silence between player and DM that caused the explosion, not the failure itself.
• Humility, adaptability, and the shared desire to make something awesome can trump all of that. Also: friendship is magic.

So yeah, I think some of this is appropriate here. When I finished ME3 and came to the forums, it hit pretty close to home.

Now, I think I'm a better DM, a better writer, and a better [i]person because of my little fubar. I'm willing to give Bioware that chance at redemption.

Artistic integrity isn't about having a vision.  It's about your ability to create that vision, and your willingness to listen to your audience and honestly appraise your own creations. It's not integrity to make everything perfect.  It's integrity to admit fault in your work, and it takes an artist to fix it.

EDIT 752: Finally fixed formatting errors by typing in raw BBCode.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 19 mai 2012 - 08:38 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Wow, you certainly have something like an insider's perspective, Fapmaster5000. I'm sure it hurts a lot to have a story turn into such a disaster that it causes strife between the people you were trying to entertain and engage.

[Fapmaster5000]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Wow, you certainly have something like an insider's perspective, Fapmaster5000. I'm sure it hurts a lot to have a story turn into such a disaster that it causes strife between the people you were trying to entertain and engage.

Jesus, it does.  Hence why my heart does go out to Casey and Mac right now.  I still want them to fix it, but it really does hurt when something you wanted to be beautiful turns into poop, and you're the guy who made it happen.  You want to defend it, justify it, explain it, make them see what you were trying to do, but in your heart you know that it was your baby, more than it was theirs, and you failed to deliver it. 

Then you get some guy calling you a  pants-on-head-retard who couldn't write his way out of a wet paper bag, and you're torn between knowing you messed up and wanting to beat the smug out of the people tearing you apart.  (This might be expressed best as, "Look!  I gave you hundreds of hours of joy, and you're going to burn me alive for five minutes of failure?  Am I not allowed to be human?  Christ!  We all mess up!  Let me fix it!" - But then you get so pissed you don't want to fix it anymore, cause f*ck 'em.  And then you get to thinking about it again, and where you could juked instead of jived, how you could have made it work.  Because it should have worked.  It should have been awesome.)

It's a curious mix of regret, shame, rage, entitlement, and sadness.  The only cure is fixing it, which is why I have hope about the EC.

The real problem, I think, is the money aspect.  I don't know a single honest creator who wouldn't pour themselves into their baby to make it the best they could.  The issue here is the scale, the money, and the overhead.  The suits care about stock, sales, and profit, not bridging a gap.  

The best thing that retake could have accomplished was convince those suits that this was enough of a trust gap to matter on a chart, not just in hearts and minds.  I'm pretty sure the writers and devs knew something was terribly wrong on day three.  Ego is a concern, but it's the cold calculus of business that wins or loses the war.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 19 mai 2012 - 08:55 .

[edisnooM]

Egads, I go away for a few hours and the thread erupts in Awesome. Great bunch of posts. :-)

@drayfish

Brilliant ending, would have been absolutely fantastic if that had been in the game. Makes it all the more depressing to think we probably won't get something like this though. :-(

Also, no Synthesis? Almost seems like you don't like that choice or something. :-)

[drayfish]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

<an extraordinary post about - hell, about everything.  Damn...>

Artistic integrity isn't about having a vision.  It's about your ability to create that vision, and your willingness to listen to your audience and honestly appraise your own creations. It's not integrity to make everything perfect.  It's integrity to admit fault in your work, and it takes an artist to fix it.

That was an extraordinary insight, Fapmaster5000.  Thank you.  And by the Hammer of Thor, that is one of the finest paragraphs I have ever read.

Modifié par drayfish, 19 mai 2012 - 12:41 .

[delta_vee]

It's great to wake up and find a whole trove of excellent stuff to read. The downside is, of course, that it's so much more difficult to construct a response that doesn't make me look like a repetitious fool. Please indulge me.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This isn't about wanting a happy ending. I would rather see Shepard die, everyone in the cycle die, and the Yagh inherit the universe than become just like the Reapers, taking it upon myself to make the call to murder billions based on what I happen to currently believe might be a "greater good, " eyes squeezed shut to any other option. 

Better dead than smeg.

"Self-preservation – the first law of States even more than of men; for no government is empowered to assent to that last sacrifice, which the individual may make for the noblest motives."

- Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1892

That gets squared and cubed for species.

I am emphatically not attempting to resurrect That Thread, however (and here I'll try to defuse derailment and devolution into argument with a Jefferson quote: "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."). I merely wish to point out that there are Shepards and players of Shepards who, even if not already complicit in multiple xenocides, are willing to commit it as a guarator of victory. As Javik puts it: "War is an atrocity committed in the name of survival." That survival is not only your own, but of billions or trillions of others, whose lives are also not yours to sacrifice.

Those throughlines exist, and must be accounted for*. I, for one, would be at least as incensed if our only options were to place our synthetic friends upon the altar (with its shades of Abraham and Isaac**) or to condemn everyone to death or huskification or reaper-jelly because I couldn't pull the trigger***. That seems somehow more malevolent than what we received.

The root of the problem is not in the exceptional(ly odd) and arbitrary price of Red Tube of Doom (and though I understand its origins, I concur with your revulsion), but in the bolded part of your own post below:

So rather than commit genocide, or risk outcomes that are bizarre and suspect, I choose to turn away. I choose to fight until I'm dead, but if letting the reapers destroy the crucible is the only way to not become just like them, then yeah. I'll do that.

I'll return to my previous discussion of paragon and renegade as the balancing of uncertainty and atrocity. Control is constructed to (attempt to) contain the uncertainty inherent with allowing potential future threats to live, as exemplified by the rachni queen, the genophage, the geth heretics, and the particular framing of the decision on Rannoch. That the Blue Levers of Possible Doom fail to establish at least sufficient trust, for the players unwilling to knowingly be Ender Wiggin, is not only a failure of the Catalyst's conversation, but the countermanding foreshadowing preceding it, and frankly is the culmination of the corner they'd painted themselves into for the entire game****.

* I find Shepard's line of "I'm going to win this war - and I'll do it without sacrificing the soul of our species." to be hollow at best, given Arrival and the developer-insisted war crime she's already committed. Arrival seems to have fscked up so many elements - it forms the genesis of IT, it establishes relay destruction as supernova-equivalent, and it stains even those Shepards unwilling to massacre - that I seriously question Bioware's intentions behind its creation.

** It occurs to me, suddenly, that IT's insistence on the Catalyst's untruth about synthetic death and the willingness to believe that Bioware would not require such a thing, reminds me greatly of Kierkegaard's paradox of faith in Fear and Trembling. This would explain much of my antipathy to the theory, given my similar dislike for that particular rambling, contradictory prevaricator.

*** I had a similar problem with the ending of Cabin in the Woods. It tries to play the humanist card, claiming a line had been crossed and humanity no longer deserves survival. Nonsense. If the price of keeping the elder gods at bay is merely five teenagers per year, then that price gets paid every single time. Not that it should be easy, or natural, or tolerable, but as an ethical dilemma it seems pretty cut and dry.

**** I still maintain that the very idea of a final choice, especially one so disconnected from the balance of the narrative in so many ways, is a ludonarrative mistake which compromises the work itself.

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

The best way to do this, I felt, was to make the party walk the villains path, test them and see if they were better than he'd been.  Could they succeed in keeping their souls where he'd failed?

[SNIP OF GLORY]

Further, I'd forgotten about that terrible power that comes with interactive fiction.  Tragedy works because we can walk away.  Catharsis works because it's not us in the hot-seat.  We see it, we feel it, but then we put down the book or turn off the screen, and go get a coffee and think about what happened to that other person.  Attending a hundred-hour campaign pain simulator, even, especially, one well-craffed, only to be stomped down at the end, isn't "fun".  It's not uplifting, or paradigm-shifting... it's bastardry.

Awesome post is awesome.

I have to ask, though: was it even possible for your group to "win"? To make it through with their souls intact? I think games in general (tabletop and video) have that most useful ability to demand such introspection and existential horror - but the players must be made aware of that potential in advance.

While SkaldFish's excellent post is true of games with a defined "win" state, there are also games, from Tetris to the very recent DayZ, which are predicated on merely putting off losing for as long as possible (much like life, actually). If the inherent impossibility of victory is sufficiently presaged, then players can engage with the work and not feel betrayed when (not if) they finally fail.

Mass Effect, however, is not such a game, so your (wonderfully written) example is quite pertinent.

As a slight digression, I should mention my disagreement with how easy the paragon route was, though. ME suffered the same problem as Bioshock, in that the "good" path was no harder than the "evil" or "selfish" one, which undercut the moral balance of the game. Likewise, the paragon route seems to be by and large the default for most on this thread, if not most of the playerbase, as by and large renegade seemingly closed off content for no benefit. Perhaps this is where so much of the dissociation of the Ten Minutes is born, since up to that point, being good costs little and gains much. We are able to win and keep our principles intact, until that final choice which the game itself has not prepared us for.

frypan wrote...

Is that "emergent" gameplay or is that term typical PR nonsense? I have no idea.

"Emergent gameplay", like "ludonarrative", is one of those relatively new, maddeningly undefined terms for which everyone has their own definitions and their own criteria. That said, I would class your Miranda example as a rather minor example of emergence, as ME is not at all constructed for such a thing to happen often, if ever. 

@drayfish:

Keep apologizing like that and I'll take away your beer.

Modifié par delta_vee, 19 mai 2012 - 06:04 .

[delta_vee]

Addendum.

My stab at salvaging the ending from genocide, mindrape and folly, but retaining what's come before and acquiescing to having a final choice, would be loosely thus:

- Instead of Starbrat leading you into the alloyed Garden of Evil and More Evil, I would have the Keepers drag your body to the Crucible interface, and have them thank you for completing their weapon and setting them free. Harbinger then calls, and you get to threaten and cajole him for a change.

- Instead of Control, I would have Ceasefire, wherein Shepard demands the Reapers leave and never return, or the Crucible will be fired and there will be many 'splosions for drayfish.

- The price of Destroy would be the relays, not synthetics. I'd use some dark energy mumbo-jumbo and have the Keepers explain that the Crucible targets the Reapers' dark energy power cores (which seem to be different from normal ones), using the energy stored in the relays to kill all Reapers everywhere all at once (no Arrival-style supernovas).

- If Destroy is selected, and your EMS is high enough, and [pick an additional condition here], the human fleet screens the other races as they flee to the relays before the Crucible fires, so they're not trapped in Sol. (Also, as a side benefit, humans get all those nice dead Reaper hulks to research for later.)

- Your EMS score and fleet composition would be used in determining how many and which of your friends die in the battle up to the Crucible's firing or the Reapers' retreat. All that work has to count for something, after all. If your EMS score is below spec, all your friends are dead and the Normandy gets shot out of the sky. Hit the EMS score that Synthesis required in the original, and the Normandy manages to get to you before you bleed out (no damned multiplayer required).

[KitaSaturnyne]

delta_vee wrote...

- Instead of Control, I would have Ceasefire, wherein Shepard demands the Reapers leave and never return, or the Crucible will be fired and there will be many 'splosions for drayfish.

Excellent ideas, delta_vee. Thank you very much for that.

As for the above quote, I present the following to drayfish.

Here you go, drayfish.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 19 mai 2012 - 07:09 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

delta_vee wrote...

It's great to wake up and find a whole trove of excellent stuff to read. The downside is, of course, that it's so much more difficult to construct a response that doesn't make me look like a repetitious fool. Please indulge me.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This isn't about wanting a happy ending. I would rather see Shepard die, everyone in the cycle die, and the Yagh inherit the universe than become just like the Reapers, taking it upon myself to make the call to murder billions based on what I happen to currently believe might be a "greater good, " eyes squeezed shut to any other option. 

Better dead than smeg.

"Self-preservation – the first law of States even more than of men; for no government is empowered to assent to that last sacrifice, which the individual may make for the noblest motives."

- Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1892

That gets squared and cubed for species.

I am emphatically not attempting to resurrect That Thread, however (and here I'll try to defuse derailment and devolution into argument with a Jefferson quote: "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."). I merely wish to point out that there are Shepards and players of Shepards who, even if not already complicit in multiple xenocides, are willing to commit it as a guarator of victory. As Javik puts it: "War is an atrocity committed in the name of survival." That survival is not only your own, but of billions or trillions of others, whose lives are also not yours to sacrifice.

Those throughlines exist, and must be accounted for*. I, for one, would be at least as incensed if our only options were to place our synthetic friends upon the altar (with its shades of Abraham and Isaac) or to condemn everyone to death or huskification or reaper-jelly because I couldn't pull the trigger. That seems somehow more malevolent than what we received.

I would argue very, very strongly that refusing to commit an abhorrent act because someone you care about is being held hostage is not the same as "sacrificing" them. You are arguing that anyone who has ever refused to negotiate with a madman and comply with their demands is "sacrificing" the people that madman kill, and that's just... not true.

What's more, this particular ending debate (which I recognize you are not trying to start up again) is reminiscent of the single most reprehensible debate tactic that is poisining our modern discourse.

This kind of unreasonable kowtow to fear games is something that I feel we really need to move away from, as a culture. This is one of those impossible ticking time bomb scenarios... "If the universe was blowing up, and the only way to stop it was to commit genocide, wouldn't you want to commit genocide?" that commentators trot out whenever trying to justify any atrocity: torture, carpetbombing, nuclear war, unlawful search and seizure. It is a monstrous rhetorical construction that is usually completely unmoored from reality, and by participating in debate justifying it we are giving it weight that it does not deserve.

delta_vee wrote...

The root of the problem is not in the exceptional(ly odd) and arbitrary price of Red Tube of Doom (and though I understand its origins, I concur with your revulsion), but in the bolded part of your own post below:

So rather than commit genocide, or risk outcomes that are bizarre and suspect, I choose to turn away. I choose to fight until I'm dead, but if letting the reapers destroy the crucible is the only way to not become just like them, then yeah. I'll do that.

I'll return to my previous discussion of paragon and renegade as the balancing of uncertainty and atrocity. Control is constructed to (attempt to) contain the uncertainty inherent with allowing potential future threats to live, as exemplified by the rachni queen, the genophage, the geth heretics, and the particular framing of the decision on Rannoch. That the Blue Levers of Possible Doom fail to establish at least sufficient trust, for the players unwilling to knowingly be Ender Wiggin, is not only a failure of the Catalyst's conversation, but the countermanding foreshadowing preceding it, and frankly is the culmination of the corner they'd painted themselves into for the entire game.

The problem here doesn't exist in a vacuum... (ok, well I guess technically it does. Because of space, you see. Ha!)

It's about what kind of story Mass Effect is.

I'm not arguing that anyone who picks Destroy is a monster, but I am arguing that it is just as closely tied to the ethics of the Reapers themselves as any of the other choices, perhaps moreso. I'm arguing that all three choices are equally awful, so close to morally equivalent that which one you, personally, think is the lesser evil is a matter of mere taste.

I'm saying that it's impossible to construct an ethical framework where any one of these choices fails to reinforce the Reapers' worldview. There is no choice here that is "the opposite of Reapers" (other than the choice not to participate). What's more, we don't have enough information at the point of choice to make anything even remotely resembling an informed ethical decision about any of this. The only ethical information we have clearly demonstrates that all decisions are deeply complicit with the Reapers' worldview, putting the protagonist on the same path toward monstrousness. Every single one is "the first step toward becoming the Reapers."

This is not just a questionably moral act, it is the exact act that the Reapers have been perpetrating their entire history, just on a slightly reduced scale.

And in some games, that would work. But Mass Effect has never been as grim as Warhammer, or whatever soul-killing-anti-hero-grimfest kids today are into (whatever it is, it's probably not as good as Warhammer, my favorite grimfest. WAAAAGH!). For the ending to require that you embrace the villain's worldview is completely out-of-synch with the story, and I don't think it can be argued that any of the current endings as they are presented do not represent embracing the villain's worldview.

And thus, I, personally, refuse.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 mai 2012 - 08:13 .

[delta_vee]

Ah, s**t. I seem to have convinced you I was saying something rather orthogonal to my intent. Sorry. Lemme back up and try again. (Also, I managed to misspell "guarantor". Great.)

To wit, I agree with everything you just said. (Except perhaps what I feel is too narrow a definition of the word "sacrifice", which I was using in the Abrahamic sense, without the implication of voluntary action. Isaac wasn't exactly his to sacrifice, either, under your usage of the term.) I wasn't saying I agreed with that particular justification of Destroy, merely that it exists, that there are some consistent moral perspectives other than your Crow's which find it acceptable (or at least more acceptable than the others), and that such a view is supported by some portions and throughlines of the game. That said, I found it distasteful as well, even though in my first (and to date only) playthrough I'd already lost the geth on Rannoch because I'd gotten Tali exiled.

And so you don't mistake me for a warmongerer, I'd like to highlight my agreement with this:

This kind of unreasonable kowtow to fear games is something that I feel we really need to move away from, as a culture. This is one of those impossible ticking time bomb scenarios... "If the universe was blowing up, and the only way to stop it was to commit genocide, wouldn't you want to commit genocide?" that commentators trot out whenever trying to justify any atrocity: torture, carpetbombing, nuclear war, unlawful search and seizure. It is a monstrous rhetorical construction that is usually completely unmoored from reality, and by participating in debate justifying it we are giving it weight that it does not deserve.

Supported in full. When such sophistry is given free reign to construct ever more dire scenarios, utilitarianism is pushed past any semblance of relevance or coherency. And I hate that. I should've thrown in more Jefferson quotes, because he would've punched Mahan for saying that. And I'm pretty sure Mahan himself would cringe at the number of ways his words have been twisted and misused (I think Bismarck and Machiavelli would have the same reaction). I prefer to debate actual ethical questions, grounded in reality and predicated on what is possible. The current strain of fearmongering in American culture (which extends its tendrils northward on occasion) is founded in ignorance and desperation, and make no mistake - I'll have no part of it.

That said, and please don't take this as any sort of attack on you or anyone else, but the full breadth of the possibility space of Mass Effect cannot be evaluated from a strictly full-paragon perspective. The games have their preferences, and they tilt paragon most times, but it's fully possible for a Shepard who isn't a xenocidal maniac to still kill off the rachni, leave the genophage uncured, and leave the geth to their doom at the quarians' hands, all for reasons which are valid under a consistent (and non-psychpathic) morality.

However...

I'm not arguing that anyone who picks Destroy is a monster, but I am arguing that it is just as closely tied to the ethics of the Reapers themselves as any of the other choices, perhaps moreso. I'm arguing that all three choices are equally awful, so close to morally equivalent that which one you, personally, think is the lesser evil is a matter of mere taste.
[...] What's more, we don't have enough information at the point of choice to make anything even remotely resembling an informed ethical decision about any of this.

I agree in terms of evaluating what we received. I disagree that this was intentional on the part of the authors. Given how poorly the ending conveyed its intent, and its upcoming revision, I think it's an important distinction to make. Control was supposed to be our out clause, if we refused the price of Destroy. That the option is so ill-defined and suspicious, and reminiscent of the very slavery the Reapers inflict, is a failure of execution first and foremost. I think presenting them properly would require more substantial surgery than just the Ten Minutes, though, as the "problem" they are supposed to address is so divorced from the remainder of the game.

And in some games, that would work. But Mass Effect has never been as grim as Warhammer, or whatever soul-killing-anti-hero-grimfest kids today are into (whatever it is, it's probably not as good as Warhammer, my favorite grimfest. WAAAAGH!). For the ending to require that you embrace the villain's worldview is completely out-of-synch with the story, and I don't think it can be argued that any of the current endings as they are presented do not represent embracing the villain's worldview.

Warhammer is the bestest grimdark. (There's a reason I've got an ork for an avatar here.) And yes, for the most part Mass Effect isn't that kind of game. I understand the temptation on the part of the devs to insist on some form of compromise and betrayal of principles, but I don't think they did it well nor effectively, and I think Fapmaster5000 nailed it on the head.

Modifié par delta_vee, 19 mai 2012 - 10:31 .