257 réponses à ce sujet

[Cypher_CS]

Versidious wrote...

The child doesn't haunt your dreams because you really care about that child in particular. The child haunts your dreams because he's the last person you tried to save but couldn't.
And yes, he is a child, and in reality that *does* count.
If we discount IT, and take it as 'just a dream', it still makes sense.

From a Renegade's perspective, you could view it as frustration rather than guilt. He's supposed to be humanity/the galaxy's greatest champion, and he's failing everyone.

The point of the dreams is that Shepard is starting to break. Which he should be.
We, the player, cannot feel the same pressure, because we know it's just a game, and that we are going to win. But our Shepard doesn't know that. He/she knows that we're up against tremendous odds, and he/she has to be feeling helpless, frustrated, and desperate.

Perfect answer.

[Cypher_CS]

ticklefist wrote...

For many the child simply didn't click on an emotional level. It truly felt forced. Manipulative. It's not necessarily about perspective. The player is Shepard. The player, in many cases, wasn't feeling what Shepard was. In a series which had typically asked you to choose how Shepard felt.

Agreed.
I'm not talking about the artistic value or achievement of this plot device, only about it's relevance and validity to the story (and not IT).

I already said, both in this thread and the thread that directly spawned this one today, that it could and should have been done much better.

[Herr_Fritz]

Cypher_CS wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If it not real then how and why is TIM controling Shepard and Anderson(who spent the entire game fighting reapers on earth.) at the end of the game?

Yeah... no.

Cause, you know, Indoctrination is not about directly controlling someone.
What Sovereign did to Saren, at the end, or what Harbinger did to the Collector general is quite different than just indoctrination.
And doesn't necessarily requires indoctrination to begin with.

If that were the case then the first time Harby met Shepard and realized he was a threat wouldn't have 'assumed direct control'?  Oh yeah, much more effective to control one of the Collectors and try to kill Shepard...

[Aiyie]

everyone has their breaking point, OP.

trust me, as someone who has actually been in combat, it doesn't matter how badass you are, it only takes one thing to get to you.

it doesn't even have to be a big thing, it could be the smallest, most insignificant thing ever.  it could be something that nobody else in your squad even notices.

did you know its a proven fact that it only takes 90 days of uninterupted combat operations before permanent damage to the average soldier's psyche? 

i don't care how strong willed you are, after years of fighting, and after seeing horrors day in and day out and dealing with the constant terror that is combat, you will eventually lose it.  everyone will.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Even hardened soldiers can be taken aback by civilian casualties, especially young ones. Paragon Shepard even says in the being while talking to Anderson something to the effect of "The hardest part is knowing no matter how hard you try you can't save them all." The kid haunting his/her dreams is just the personification of the people Shep couldn't save, hence you get the whispers of your dead squad and crew members whispering to you throughout the dream cutscenes. Why him? Don't know, he was the most recent civilian victim I guess and one of the few Shepard interacted with before their death.

[GreyLycanTrope]

*doublepost*

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 24 mai 2012 - 01:14 .

[Cypher_CS]

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...
You know what?
Scratch that first question.

Cypher_CS wrote...
No, because the first question still applies to Shepard, if not for the guy who I replied to.

...?

Way to take things out of context.

I replied to the OP, asking if he's seen combat and then, realizing that he probably hadn't, added the father question.
Then you say Shepard isn't one. So, the first question still applies for Shepard, even if the second doesn't.

The "scratch that" doesn't actually mean forget that question altogether, only for his case, cause of his obvious answer of No to it.

Jeez, way to be literal.

[dreman9999]

Cypher_CS wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If it not real then how and why is TIM controling Shepard and Anderson(who spent the entire game fighting reapers on earth.) at the end of the game?

Yeah... no.

Cause, you know, Indoctrination is not about directly controlling someone.
What Sovereign did to Saren, at the end, or what Harbinger did to the Collector general is quite different than just indoctrination.
And doesn't necessarily requires indoctrination to begin with.

Theory is that Shepard isstill in the process of indoctination. He is no where near the stateof that control in the collector base.

[Cypher_CS]

Herr_Fritz wrote...

If that were the case then the first time Harby met Shepard and realized he was a threat wouldn't have 'assumed direct control'?  Oh yeah, much more effective to control one of the Collectors and try to kill Shepard...

I'm assuming you mean the prerequisite comment?

Just cause indoctrination isn't a necessary prerequisite for it, doesn't mean other things aren't as well.
Like, say, Cerberus implants someone might have and someone else who has spent the entire game's story studying how to control all this tech....

[Icinix]

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

I have this strange feeling that most of us would have a different opinion of the child and his death if it weren't for the events at the end...

Not really. Even early trailers with the kid well before release had people groaning about an emotional scenario of a child being forced upon the player.

I tend to stay away from trailers, (Damn movie trailer spoilers) so if this was the case I was unaware.

Ahh well then, you missed many new threads and many long winded posts about forcing an emotional response from players by killing a kid etc - generally much distaste and many hoping it wasn't going to be forced in the game too much.

There was also many posts about how the kid wasn't real and was a sign of indoctrination or a hallucination and so on.

Pretty much the same thing going on now, only this happened in early - mid 2011.

Alright, rephrase that to 'some of us'.

Now, of all the players out there how many frequented the boards pre-release and discussed the trailers?

How much do you think the average player's reaction to the child/death recurring scenerio was influenced by the ending?

Its a tricky one to answer, because if the last thought in your mind of a story is one of great negativity, it may cascade backwards through the story. So we may never know. I do know that I hated the mechanic of it before ever seeing the ending - especially because creating the emotion in the player and Shepard was already there in so many better done ways.

I would think though, and purely speculating, that most people would stand by their current opinions on the way its implemented regardless of their opinion on the endings - mainly because I've seen people write how they liked the kid but hated the ending, vice versa and both or neither.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
]1.Nope...
http://masseffect.wi...#Indoctrination 

Nope what? You link to an article but don't explain the relevance. Point dismissed. 

2.I said it support the theory.. The onlyproof need is the fact TIM control Shepard and Anderson at the end of the game with indoctrination.

The Illusive Man is using Reaper technology of his own invention to control them both. It proves nothing about the child. 

3.It's enough to get it started...Which is what the theory states. Not enough to fully indoctriante Shepard.

I don't see anyone else in the series suffering similar effects. 

1. What do not understand out of
"Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals"

2. It proves that Shepardi and Anderson is in the prosess of indoctrination...That'sthe only way TIM can control them.

3.Indoctriantion is subtle...Also, Shepard is the one in the series with the most contact with reaper tech out of all the heros and is the focus of the reapers attention.

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 mai 2012 - 01:19 .

[matthewmi]

Having seen a child be killed when I was nearby, not by reapers mind you but being thrown out of the bed of a moving pickup truck and then being ran over, seeing children killed is very disturbing. We know it's a game but Shepard doesn't the pressure of failures and seeing people die would get to anyone even a renegade.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. What do not understand out of
"Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals"

HOW IS IT RELEVANT?

2. It proves that Shepardi and Anderson is in the prosess of indoctrination...That'sthe only way TIM can control them.

Nope. You're either indoctrinated, or you aren't. Controlled, or not. The Illusive Man is using technology of his own invention to force control over Shepard and Anderson. 

3.Indoctriantion is subtle...Also, Shepard is the one in the series with the most contact with reaper tech out of all the heros and is the focus of the reapers attention.

No more contact than say, Garrus. 

Why isn't he feeling the effects?

[Herr_Fritz]

Icinix wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

I have this strange feeling that most of us would have a different opinion of the child and his death if it weren't for the events at the end...

Not really. Even early trailers with the kid well before release had people groaning about an emotional scenario of a child being forced upon the player.

I tend to stay away from trailers, (Damn movie trailer spoilers) so if this was the case I was unaware.

Ahh well then, you missed many new threads and many long winded posts about forcing an emotional response from players by killing a kid etc - generally much distaste and many hoping it wasn't going to be forced in the game too much.

There was also many posts about how the kid wasn't real and was a sign of indoctrination or a hallucination and so on.

Pretty much the same thing going on now, only this happened in early - mid 2011.

Alright, rephrase that to 'some of us'.

Now, of all the players out there how many frequented the boards pre-release and discussed the trailers?

How much do you think the average player's reaction to the child/death recurring scenerio was influenced by the ending?

Its a tricky one to answer, because if the last thought in your mind of a story is one of great negativity, it may cascade backwards through the story. So we may never know. I do know that I hated the mechanic of it before ever seeing the ending - especially because creating the emotion in the player and Shepard was already there in so many better done ways.

I would think though, and purely speculating, that most people would stand by their current opinions on the way its implemented regardless of their opinion on the endings - mainly because I've seen people write how they liked the kid but hated the ending, vice versa and both or neither.

I wasn't necessarily referring to how much one liked or disliked the ending, but rather that the whole kid/death/dream child is also portrayed as the Catalyst.  If Bioware wanted to give us a portrayal of grief/PTSD/whatever with the child and dreams, why on god's green earth is the Catalyst portrayed as the same kid?

Sure maybe the catalyst assumes a form based on the character it is conversing with, but from a narritive perspective doesn't using the kid 'muddy the waters' as far as the player is concerned?  It calls into question the whole plot device.  i.e.  It wasn't really Shepard's grief causing the dreams, it was just the master Reaper all along...

[Icinix]

matthewmi wrote...

Having seen a child be killed when I was nearby, not by reapers mind you but being thrown out of the bed of a moving pickup truck and then being ran over, seeing children killed is very disturbing. We know it's a game but Shepard doesn't the pressure of failures and seeing people die would get to anyone even a renegade.

I'm sorry to hear that.

The issue here however is greater than if it would or should affect the character, but more its representation in the game seemed to have the opposite affect for a large number of players than was intended.

Instead of creating that sense of emotion in a more progressional way, it tried to force it onto the player, and thats where it fails. Instead it became a point of frustration for players. Cheaping the event and becoming a bit of a joke.

If you try to artificially create emotion in a game, especially after a series of games, that has always been about players being able to create their reaction and express their feelings through the character, it takes a lot away from the gameplay mechanic. I think what they were trying to achieve was an interesting thing (if IT is not the correct answer) - but I think the way it was executed in game was to heavy handed and didn't give the players enough way to react to them or express the players reaction through the character more appropriately.

[Icinix]

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Its a tricky one to answer, because if the last thought in your mind of a story is one of great negativity, it may cascade backwards through the story. So we may never know. I do know that I hated the mechanic of it before ever seeing the ending - especially because creating the emotion in the player and Shepard was already there in so many better done ways.

I would think though, and purely speculating, that most people would stand by their current opinions on the way its implemented regardless of their opinion on the endings - mainly because I've seen people write how they liked the kid but hated the ending, vice versa and both or neither.

I wasn't necessarily referring to how much one liked or disliked the ending, but rather that the whole kid/death/dream child is also portrayed as the Catalyst.  If Bioware wanted to give us a portrayal of grief/PTSD/whatever with the child and dreams, why on god's green earth is the Catalyst portrayed as the same kid?

Sure maybe the catalyst assumes a form based on the character it is conversing with, but from a narritive perspective doesn't using the kid 'muddy the waters' as far as the player is concerned?  It calls into question the whole plot device.  i.e.  It wasn't really Shepard's grief causing the dreams, it was just the master Reaper all along...

Oh for that if you take IT out of the equation, the whole kid and dreams could have been a way of trying to create a feeling not of pure rage at the catalyst at the end. If you had a Reaper VI at the end players would be like "DIE DIE DIE!" - but by introducing the kid, the dreams and presenting the catalyst in the kids form - it was an attempt to create empathy so the player would not rage out. I don't think it worked in the whole judging by the number of threads hating it and the number of videos of people shooting the catalyst as they walked past - but I can understand why they tried to go that path, if that is indeed the path they wanted.

But yeah, the lack of exposition about it does muddy the waters because then players are thinking - well wait, to get this image, you must be in my head right? So..is this indoctrination? Are you real? Is this a dream? What is going on here? - which..of course...could also have been the point of the dreams. In which case, the muddy waters view is actually quite a clever little way of twisting the players around to questioning everything they're seeing. Which is one of the key reasons why I do hop on the IT train.

Modifié par Icinix, 24 mai 2012 - 01:35 .

[Cybernetix646]

To all intents and purposes, the player is shepard. When I make decisions, they play out through shepard. So when my renegade shepard is faced with some kid that decides to crawl into a vent rather than be rescued, I'm done caring about him - and I expect the same from my shepard - not to be haunted by space-magic ghosts for the rest of the story. I can wipe a race from existance, and doom another to a slow extinction if I want, and suffer nothing aside from having to kill a couple of old freinds, which shepard is again able to shrug off after the cutscenes. But one kid eats a reaper laser and it's ghosts up to the ending, followed by the damn starchild. At least I was able to wipe him out though, it's just a shame the geth had to go too.

edit: reading the above post, I would have prefered some ancient, reaper VI - it would've been a lot less rage-inducing than the starchild, and represented something that I could have taken seriously. I know I blasted a fair few shots into the catalyst as I went on my way to send him screaming into VI hell

Modifié par Cybernetix646, 24 mai 2012 - 01:46 .

[matthewmi]

Anytime an emotion is going to be conveyed in a videogame or the game tries to enact an emotional response some players will complain. It is a story we don't have total control over everything, they want to get the point across that all the death and destruction over a several year period is getting to Shepard, which is totally understandable given what he's seen.

Children would be dying by the thousands during a war like in ME3 should that be totally sanitized because showing that reality is too "heavy-handed"? I agree the dreams aren't done as well as they could be but they do get the point across about how the horrors of war affect someone.

Modifié par matthewmi, 24 mai 2012 - 01:46 .

[ed87]

Bioware is trying to be Michael Bay... and failing at it too.

[Applepie_Svk]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

is haunted by a death of one, single child? I know he's supposed to "represent" all those he couldn't save on earth, but still, he's haunted by only one death, a child's death.

Let´s say that my Sheppard is RENEGADE DUDE and always was but in ME2 he lost his LI even if he/she was a loyal than I can immagine that the one who haunts me in dreams was my old LI and not some kido which hiding in vents instead of saving himself with folowing me ...

[Elyiia]

And people wonder why people hate IT, it's brought into almost every thread.

The premise of having an avatar for everyone who Shepard can't save is fine. The problem is that Bioware failed on the execution and people just ended up hating him.

[mupp3tz]

It was forced, bizarre, and awkward for being the first introduction of a child in the series. Also, it led to LOTS OF SPECULATIONS, as a result.

[Applepie_Svk]

Versidious wrote...

The point of the dreams is that Shepard is starting to break. Which he should be.
We, the player, cannot feel the same pressure, because we know it's just a game, and that we are going to win. But our Shepard doesn't know that. He/she knows that we're up against tremendous odds, and he/she has to be feeling helpless, frustrated, and desperate.

As a Renegade you don´t give a crap about frustration from one dead children, if yes than your head blew out after ME2 - where you could sacrifice whole crew of Normandy only to kill the Collectors. As Renegade you have only one purpose to stop the Reapers for every cost - it means that if that children stand betwen you and killswitch for reapers than you will for sure blew them both. 

May I told you what was told in ME1 under Ruthless icon ??? - you don´t give a crap about consequences the point is to accomplish your mission - That´s why they call you Butcher of Thorfan 

[The Angry One]

Versidious wrote...

The child doesn't haunt your dreams because you really care about that child in particular. The child haunts your dreams because he's the last person you tried to save but couldn't.

Really. I must've imagined the part where Shepard tried to save Ashley in my ME1, but couldn't.

And yes, he is a child, and in reality that *does* count. If we discount IT, and take it as 'just a dream', it still makes sense.

No it doesn't. This child is nobody. He does not get a free pass into Shepard's psyche merely because he's a child.

From a Renegade's perspective, you could view it as frustration rather than guilt. He's supposed to be humanity/the galaxy's greatest champion, and he's failing everyone. The point of the dreams is that Shepard is starting to break. Which he should be. We, the player, cannot feel the same pressure, because we know it's just a game, and that we are going to win. But our Shepard doesn't know that. He/she knows that we're up against tremendous odds, and he/she has to be feeling helpless, frustrated, and desperate.

And this isn't represented by the numerous other people Shepard has lost, and was close to why exactly?
Hell, Jenkins would've been better. Why? BECAUSE YOU TALK TO HIM. You get to know him, his background, his hopes and dreams, then he's violently cut down in front of you.

This kid is nobody. A forced emotion brought on by Mac Walters deciding that Shepard is no longer our character, but his own. It is manipulative and despicable.

[Taboo]

Walters doesn't know how to make things very subtle.

Sigh.