472 réponses à ce sujet

[Zolt51]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Now I'm probabl just being all dramatic here, but I sort of saw the choices provided at the end as striking me very similiarly to Legion's loyalty mission where it made me think about what I, Allan, really feel about the ramifications of those choices.  Very, very few games have ever made me reflect on the person I am like that.  Though this does open up the ending to critique because the idea of it being a roleplaying game is to allow the character to take on a role while allowing the player to distance himself from it somewhat.

Hi Allan, and thanks for taking the time to post here.

I definitely felt like you describe on 2-3 occasion across ME3. For most of the game I'm just bulling along, taking out hordes of reapers, leveling up and being the perfect little paragon / renegade depending. Generally having a complete RPG hoot. Then suddenly a choice comes along and I'm yanked out of it.

I ask myself "What would my Shepard do?" and he says he has no idea! His red/blue morality system just can't process the choice at hand, and anyway he's just in it to headbutt Krogan and be an awesome badass in general. So the decisions falls to me, weak, fleshy human being behind the keyboard. And it's a bit disturbing. Not your usual gaming experience. 

So I stand up. Step away from the keyboard. And spend a few minutes just pacing ang thinking about it. It should be immersion-breaking except it isn't. The Tuchanka mission was a critical example of that... I must have spend 2 real-life hours in that Mako / whatever vehicle. I got kind of tricked by the Geth/Quarian thing - "Am I going to have to choose again?". 

The ending OTOH... it was 2AM and I kind of rushed into it. Synthesis. Oh cool, nice... EDI and Joker get their little scene. So that was the happy ending. Great. mmm sweet dreams. Tonights gonna be electric sheep I guess.

It's only the next morning that I thought... wait, why did I choose that? Reload. Then I started thinking.

I'm still thinking now.

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 01:32 .

[TookYoCookies]

Yeah, i wanted nothing of the choices, had to compromise to pick to destroy, just because there was nothing else!

[Zolt51]

No I though all of the choices had the right balance of attractions and just a couple think that make you hesitate... "Can I really do that?"

Well, in any kind of normal situation, no you couldn't. But this is a very special situation in a very special *game*. You can. You must. Backing down now because you're afraid of the consequences would be more criminal than any of the choices.

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[Eain]

Zolt51 wrote...

It's only the next morning that I thought... wait, why did I choose that? Reload. Then I started thinking.

I'm still thinking now.

What about, though?

[Zolt51]

Eain wrote...

What about, though?

Your mom.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Seriously, I read threads like this one and there's a few posts that make me think: "Wow, I didn't see things like that, maybe that would change my choice".. you know. Think.

It doesn't hurt too much. You should try it too.

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 02:23 .

[Eain]

Well that was a fun exercise in asking a sincere question and getting a snarky response.

[Zolt51]

Eain wrote...

Well that was a fun exercise in asking a sincere question and getting a snarky response.

::genuine apology:: I've had an altogether too serious day. Snark is therapeutic.

I did include the sincere answer too.

[Eain]

You're telling me it doesn't hurt if I use my brain to think. Trust me, I've gone over these topics more than most people on this forum combined. I still think the endings are arbitrary and contrived. I don't find that there's anything profound about them.

[Zolt51]

Eain wrote...

You're telling me it doesn't hurt if I use my brain to think.

I've said I'm sorry. That was just mean, gratuitous snark. I actually intended it to be spoilertagged but messed it up.

[TurambarEA]

Yeah I hate all three. I prefer shooting at the star brat until I get the critical mission failure.

I hate all three. Hate.

[JustinS1985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

For example, take Virmire. Shepard is provided with making a choice to have to save Kaiden or Ashley. I like that I don't have perfect control of the narrative and cannot save both, even if that means I have "less choice." What I would have loved to have happen, though, is for the game to allow any two party members to take those positions, because for the first playthrough it would ultimately lead to the majority of players having to choose between their two favourite squadmates. Which I think makes the scene more powerful!

And then the designer troll in me considers distancing the choice, so the player doesn't make the choice of who goes with them on Virmire (because metagamers will just pick a party member they hate), but the game determines it by keeping track of the choices the player makes on which party members they have with them the most. Players will still game the system, although ironically some would likely be mad at me for "forcing" them to play with an NPC they don't like just so they can kill them off. But to me, I think it's a real and reasonably fair consequence. It might be too heavy handed because Shepard should probably have the opportunity to choose his squad while on Virmire, but I like the idea of the game providing a heavy consequence for the choices they were making earlier.

That's just me though. :]

I absolutely love and hate your idea at the same time lol.  From a storytelling perspective it's awesome, because I know how much it would hurt losing one of my two favorite squaddies.  The Ash/Kaiden scene didn't bother me too much because I wasn't extremely attached to either one of them at that point in the story.  

From a gameplay perspective I don't like it as much, just becase you generally have x number of characters in each role, and losing them could make the game pretty rough/impossible aka: accidentally killing off your tank and not having a replacement.

I also think it hurts the story quality for sequels because it vastly limits what the devs can do with previous characters.  My favorite dragon age character from the entire series was Alistair, but I've accepted he'll never be anything beyond a cameo because he was a possible death from DA:1.  The only exception to this I've seen was Mass Effect 3 with Garrus and Tali, and even ME:3 did it with the rest of the ME2 squad.  Each one had their own personal quest where you got to meet them and they would wave at you then disappear for the rest of the game.  Those quests proceeded almost exactly the same regardless of whether or not that party member was there.

Instead of having everyone killable I'd like to have a few killable so that those who lived can still have a meaningful role in the future stories. 

[TurambarEA]

@ Allan - speculation of this magnitude, where you have people imagining things completely outside the information we're given (e.g. IT, Reapers rebuilding things in control ending) and in some cases, the opposite of what we're told, as a matter of fact, will happen (e.g. relays blowing up = system destroyed) isn't fun imo. It's people grasping as straws to try and make the endings feel better than they feel. 'Speculation for everybody' at the end of a massive journey like this one is a massive kick in the guts - at least in this reporter's opinion.

[Iluvantir]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Being alive means you eventually die, machines don't die they are always destroyed/shutdown/broke in one way or another

This is science fiction. In science fiction of certain types it is a given that sentience is what denotes being 'alive'. Biology is not a determaning factor in Mass Effect. That is the base rule of the universe we "play in" in regards to "life".

So, just because in the real world a machine is not alive, it does not follow through that in Mass Effect a machine cannot be alive.

An AI is sentient. It thinks and has self awareness, like you. That is life. It is just different life.

What over the volus? They are so different to humans that they cannot live on a low pressure world like earth, and need methane (?) to breath... because they are not biologically the same as us, are they not also alive?

This is a game. It states AI is synthetic life? Then AI is alive.

If you do not feel that connection after playing all three games, then take the RED COOKIE choice at the end with our blessing. Good for you, for you managed to do what I struggled with. I refused to let the Reapers live, but had to kill EDI and all the Geth to bring them to justice.

Have I taken control? Sythesis? Only as a "let's see". All other times, I destroyed them. But it tore be up to do it.

You seem to be able to not feel for AI's, so congratz.

[Zolt51]

Samtheman63 wrote...
Being alive means you eventually die, machines don't die they are always destroyed/shutdown/broke in one way or another

That's not what being alive means. Although it's one of the consequences of it we haven't quite gotten around yet.

Something is considered "alive" if it has both signaling and self-sustaining processes (yes, wikipedia, so sue me!). In that regard, the Geth are just as alive as we are. They're just not, you know, organic. Amino acids and all that sh*t.

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 03:51 .

[Silpheed58]

1. While a 4th option would be fine by me, for it to be "Do nothing" or doing nothing is NOT better than choosing of the three. Do nothing, EVERYONE dies and cycle continues, how is that good in comparison to anything offered now?

2. Someone said they dislike the grey ending because the game is full of grey decisions. I'll argue against that and say the possibility is there, but if your renegade or paragon stat is high enough you can over come any situation to one the suits your taste. To this I say this is the first grey decision you can not talk your way out of, and that is why the end is jarring because after 3 games in the very end you can't make things go how you want in a fashion that makes everything all right. 1 game of installing "You can't save everyone" does not erase 2 full games where you could.

3. Destroy is the only ending I can accept with the endings being as they are, there is too much openness. To quote the great Spock, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." As much as I have come to endear EDI and the Geth, what the other two endings do and possible could mean for the galaxy is too high a price compared to the price of losing the latter. And if you think your a horrible person for sacrificing them in destroy, your a far more worse person if you do nothing.

[Christianswe]

Yes. The ending is broken. As you say, the three options you get, they have no appeal. And the fact that all the focus is dropped from Shepard, to the starkid. You can´t even choose your replies.
And your squadmates are also removed from the ending. Which is a mistake. This is not just about Shepard. Yeah, i just wish that there could be a renegade option to beat the starkid to death, destroy just the reapers, and nothing else. WIN. THE END. Sorry Bioware, Mass Effect team.

[Eain]

Silpheed58 wrote...

3. Destroy is the only ending I can accept with the endings being as they are, there is too much openness. To quote the great Spock, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." As much as I have come to endear EDI and the Geth, what the other two endings do and possible could mean for the galaxy is too high a price compared to the price of losing the latter. And if you think your a horrible person for sacrificing them in destroy, your a far more worse person if you do nothing.

This is great. Now I'm suddenly thinking of Leonard Nimoy as Sentinel Prime and how he had no problem sacrificing Earth to restore Cybertron, and said that exact same line to justify himself.

We could make a whole additional game about Destroy-Shep and what kind of villain he is. It would be about a synthetic species trying to find its place in the galaxy and then a human being comes along and wants to kill them all to save his own people.

[XTR3M3]

I don't choose. I just alt+tab out of the game after marauder shields saves me from one of the worst endings in gaming history. I then used to open the save game editor and start a new game with different flags and the +1 playthrough checked so it acted like a finished ME3 import then started a new playthrough.

[Zolt51]

Christianswe wrote...
Yes. The ending is broken. As you say, the three options you get, they have no appeal. And the fact that all the focus is dropped from Shepard, to the starkid. You can´t even choose your replies.
And your squadmates are also removed from the ending. Which is a mistake. This is not just about Shepard. Yeah, i just wish that there could be a renegade option to beat the starkid to death, destroy just the reapers, and nothing else. WIN. THE END. Sorry Bioware, Mass Effect team.

They have no appeal to you, they have to plenty of others. I can understand that Synthesis would make some lesser minds queasy. I've yet to hear your argument agains Control. It has some "interesting" moral implications, but what exactly makes it so disastrous?

How would beating an incorporeal entity to death help you spare the Geth by the way. It's not like *he* built the Crucible... you did, and you had *no* idea what you were doing. Except that it would probably destroy some stuff. ooops. Doesn't make fine distinctions. That sucks.

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 04:13 .

[matthewmi]

Zolt51 wrote...


I can understand that Synthesis would make some lesser minds queasy.

I love this argument, I'm so smart the other simpletons just don't get the concept etc...pretty crappy attitude to have in life.

[Allan Schumacher]

Eain wrote...

Alright well then riddle me this: why does Control not also allow control of the Geth? Accepting the fact that neither the red nor blue endings are in fact space magic (I think that the only true qualifier for space magic is synthesis, as blue is just a visualisation of a control signal and red is just an explosion if you will), we have to ask ourselves why it is that the signal emitted by control is advanced enough to claim the fused-together minds of the species in Reaper hulls, and thus the Reaper code, but ignores the comparatively simple 1's and 0's of Geth programming.

If the red option is somehow harmful to anything that could be classified an AI, then why is the blue option not? Nevermind the fact that we're never given elaboration on how the energy waves work exactly, even if we focus just on the Geth being a victim of the red choice but not of the blue one, we're seeing a lack of consistency. That makes me feel the Geth's inclusion in red is arbitrary, and therefore yes, it could've just aswell been the Turians or Salarians or any other race.

The mechanism itself seems to be different.  The Red option needn't only be harmful to anything that could be classified as an AI.  If you have Low EMS, the destroy ending obliterates organics too (see: people getting disintegrated on Earth).  This is also indicated by the fact that Shepard's death is also dependant on the EMS score.

Just like how the mechanism for the synthesis affects different beings.


As for "why" the control ending doesn't affect the Geth, I have no good answer.

[XTR3M3]

matthewmi wrote...

Zolt51 wrote...


I can understand that Synthesis would make some lesser minds queasy.

I love this argument, I'm so smart the other simpletons just don't get the concept etc...pretty crappy attitude to have in life.

QFT
yep, assuming people that don't agree with you are stupid is the argument created by a weak mind.

[Allan Schumacher]

I also think it hurts the story quality for sequels because it vastly limits what the devs can do with previous characters. My favorite dragon age character from the entire series was Alistair, but I've accepted he'll never be anything beyond a cameo because he was a possible death from DA:1. The only exception to this I've seen was Mass Effect 3 with Garrus and Tali, and even ME:3 did it with the rest of the ME2 squad. Each one had their own personal quest where you got to meet them and they would wave at you then disappear for the rest of the game. Those quests proceeded almost exactly the same regardless of whether or not that party member was there.

Instead of having everyone killable I'd like to have a few killable so that those who lived can still have a meaningful role in the future stories.

It's a challenge if you're wanting to make a full trilogy, for sure. I think the idea works better if you're not planning on making a sequel, or if you're using the setting in different ways for sequels (like Dragon Age)

[sammysoso]

 Zolt51  wrote...
I can understand that Synthesis would make some lesser minds queasy. 

LOL at "lesser minds." 

Technological Singularity isn't exactly groundbreaking, your arguement might have had merit if you had made it back in Asimov's heyday.

Are you that insecure that you need to demean someone's intelligence to validate your arguement?
 

Modifié par sammysoso, 27 avril 2012 - 04:45 .

[Zolt51]

matthewmi wrote...

Zolt51 wrote...


I can understand that Synthesis would make some lesser minds queasy.

I love this argument, I'm so smart the other simpletons just don't get the concept etc...pretty crappy attitude to have in life.

Lesser minds also don't get sarcasm  
Take it easy bro.