1199 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

Nope. Sounds utterly amateurish and supposes that Paragon is the "right" way to play the game, screwing every Renegade player because their don't live up to YOUR vision of "morality".

Thanks, but no thanks.

[wantedman dan]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Nope, I haven't cared enough to read your opinion beyond our conversation. Who said anything about moral superiority, though? I'm not claiming I'm more ethical than you...just a better story teller

You all are operating on false pretenses, that frankly, I'm not sure where you got them from. Mass Effect had options, but you were always stuck in a story. You were always going to stop Sovereign and Saren, but you didn't have the choice of whether or not to go to Virmire. No matter what you chose, Saren was always going to go to Ilos, and you were always going to chase after him. On Eden Prime, a squadmate always activates the beacon, and you get your brain fried as a result. After the death of Sovereign, his shrapnel always comes through...and Garrus (or another teammate) always gives that look that just breaks my heart every time when he thinks Shepard is dead.

I personally would prefer there were NO option for Shepard to survive, but have varying degrees of success. His last mission...a suicide mission, that turns the war in their favor, or ends it altogether. His love interest shown later...a "pregnant" Liara, a show of what the future CAN hold for those left behind.

I can tell, considering I explained that my opinion is exactly opposite of what you asserted earlier.

As for your "story" segment, okay, great. You've made it abundantly clear that the storyline, itself, is ultimately linear. What you've neglected to mention, however, is how the storyline is ultimately impacted based upon decisions made. 

I'm happy you have your opinion as to how your Shepard should end. Mine differs.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 29 juin 2012 - 06:18 .

[wantedman dan]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Even so, the fact remains that the entire fleet is gathered in one system and surrounded by Reaper forces.  Also, the Admiral of that fleet doesn't have confidence in its ability to defeat the Reapers conventionally. When the guy leading your military says that your military isn't strong enough to do something, you start looking for a Plan B. Or a Plan A, in this case.

Unless Bioware were willing to go into a 20-30 minute ending, explaining exactly how the Victory fleet managed to kill all the Reapers in the Sol system, and then save the rest of the galaxy with the remaining forces, we would be left with a bigger plothole than the ones found in the original endings.

Not surrounded. The confrontation was explicitly shown to be a head-on confrontation.

How many impossibilities has Shepard conquered over the course of the Mass Effect trilogy?

[DukeOfNukes]

Tell me, how exactly WAS the story line effected by Shepards decisions? I thought one of the things we were complaining about our decisions over the course of 3 games were ultimately ignored.

[Renmiri1]

Allan the effort is appreciated, even if we disagree.

I think BW is being very myopic with ME3. You can see the passion and the number of people who love the universe and love the game. Don't end it like this. You have serious intellectual capital on the ME3 franchise. If you make a game that is fun to play, you can even go MMO and beat WoW. I'm not kidding, I have been a wow raider for 5 years and I have been part of the last 3 betas, including Mists of Pandaria.

No one can stand elves, swords and dragons anymore. WoW players desperately want something else to play, something a bit closer to the 21st century. Pandas ? Nope not doing it for me. But ME would. There are well defined classes, weapons, armor. Thousands of planets to make raids and instances. Is baffling to see you wasted your time doing someone else's story for an MMO when you have one of the best stories in house!

Please don't kill it. We love the setup, the universe, the characters. Don't make it end here.

[wantedman dan]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Tell me, how exactly WAS the story line effected by Shepards decisions? I thought one of the things we were complaining about our decisions over the course of 3 games were ultimately ignored.

Non-sequitur comparison.

Shepard's decision affected the storyline based upon Wrex's living or dying, Squadmate deaths in ME2, etc.

[TamiBx]

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

I don't mind a dying Shepard...as long as we get a surviving Shepard depending on our EMS or something. Kind of like in ME2. 

Actually, why couldn't we get something like ME2? It was the perfect way to kill off characters and prove to us that if we don't prepare, we will die. In ME3, we will die...unless you pick a specific ending. Great. <_<

[Allan Schumacher]

Udalango wrote...

How can you decide how you feel on a choice if you dont know all the consequences of the choice though?

I do want to respond to this because I think it's a great question.


When you're not told the consequences of the choice itself, it shifts the emphasis to the choice itself, rather than the consequences.

We'll use the original destroy ending as an example.  Many people feel it's too much of a price to pay to sacrifice the Geth and EDI to destroy the Reapers.  Many people though, were curious if the Catalyst was being entirely honest or even fully knew the answer?  There was enough of an epilogue to show that this may be the case (how the Crucible's beam affects people on Earth, and whether or not Shepard surives).

Now, if we show a full epilogue that shows that the Geth and EDI actually survive, then the choice becomes purely about the consequence.  People will happily pick that option, in spite of the risk to the Geth and EDI, because they know it doesn't actually happen.

Not knowing for certain, or at least believing that it will happen, places the emphasis clearly on how the player (and through the player, Shepard) feels about the choice.  Some people are not interested in choosing it because the price is too high.  For some people the Geth are already dead (or they hate the Geth), so it's an easy choice.  Others think that the consequences suck, but ultimately it must be done, and do it with remorse.

It makes the player evaluate the choices as they stand, without any influence from the actual outcomes that may exist.  It also means that the player will not be put into a situation where the the game ends up telling them that the choice they made doesn't actually turn out they way they wanted it to when they made that choice.


I suppose I'm just speaking on behalf of myself (many people didn't like them obviously), but it made me evaluate the choices purely internally.  Each of the choices had a potential cost to them, coupled with some uncertainty over the reliability of the Catalyst, and each of the choices made me reflect on myself as a person.  At what point am I willing to bend on my ethical beliefs if I feel the end justifies the means?

This is also why I supported the fans' idea that there should be the option to refuse the Catalyst.  After the fact, I realized that providing these ethical considerations without providing the option for the player to say "I don't wish to compromise them" is less interesting.


Great question though!

[Alez Zinai]

ThePasserby wrote...
...
The three expanded endings we have are this game's equivalent of getting at best the second prize. The first prize always goes to Mac Walters and Casey Hudson, for foisting their "artistic vision" on us.

In other words, despite what you might expect from playing the whole series up to the final mission, you are playing to lose. I don't know of many gamers who play to lose and walk away happy

Yes that is true - it is point when Game collides with Story - while Game is "ours" the Story is "thier". Bioware is brilliant (for me) storytellers, but their Mass Effect story deny "happy ending" that I expect from Game (being "I play games for escapism and I loved being the hero." person). And somehow though the Game I didn't see that Story will deny me from "happy ending". Though all trilogy there was a Game Message: If you try hard enough your protagonist will win with minimal sacrifices and see another day. Every sacrifice that cannot be avoided was for noble goal itself: buy you some time to get Saren and Sovereign, cure geno****e, stop assasin from destroying galactic government, bring peace between creators and created. But at the end Story demanded that I have to sacrifice protagonist humanity to become everlasting galactic overseer (protagonist being effectively dead) or  to sacifice protagonist life to bring fantasy utopian but happy end (where everyone except protagonist  lives happily ever after) or to sacifice friend and one of allies for protagonist life or refuse of all above choices and get protagonist and all friends and all allies dead but main goal completed (you win after all). It is a good ends for Story but conflicts with Game Message - now it is: Either your protagonist die, you win and all is good either you make vile sacifice for protagonist life and yes - you win.

Modifié par Alez Zinai, 29 juin 2012 - 06:31 .

[OblivionDawn]

wantedman dan wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Even so, the fact remains that the entire fleet is gathered in one system and surrounded by Reaper forces.  Also, the Admiral of that fleet doesn't have confidence in its ability to defeat the Reapers conventionally. When the guy leading your military says that your military isn't strong enough to do something, you start looking for a Plan B. Or a Plan A, in this case.

Unless Bioware were willing to go into a 20-30 minute ending, explaining exactly how the Victory fleet managed to kill all the Reapers in the Sol system, and then save the rest of the galaxy with the remaining forces, we would be left with a bigger plothole than the ones found in the original endings.

Not surrounded. The confrontation was explicitly shown to be a head-on confrontation.

How many impossibilities has Shepard conquered over the course of the Mass Effect trilogy?

By surrounded, I mean that just about every other cluster in the galaxy had been occupied by Reapers. You can see that on the Galaxy Map right before you go to Earth.

And it's ok for Shepard to be a complete badass because he's the main character and he has plot armor. But when your plot armor starts to extend to EVERYONE fighting on your side, your story gets exponentially crappier.

[EnvyTB075]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Tell me, how exactly WAS the story line effected by Shepards decisions?

It wasn't, however the way in which Shepard grew as character definitely was (until ME3, and then that became linear). A lot of people get the two confused.

[Vigilant111]

zambot wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...


Shepard, however, is not an tragic hero and never set up to be one. Especially Paragon ones.

No, but you could make a valid argument that (the) Shepard has been set up to be a Christ figure.  

That sounds poetically sadistic

So if you survive, then you are not Christ? like the death of Shepard becomes a rite of passage? a rite of passage to what exactly?

[wantedman dan]

OblivionDawn wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Even so, the fact remains that the entire fleet is gathered in one system and surrounded by Reaper forces.  Also, the Admiral of that fleet doesn't have confidence in its ability to defeat the Reapers conventionally. When the guy leading your military says that your military isn't strong enough to do something, you start looking for a Plan B. Or a Plan A, in this case.

Unless Bioware were willing to go into a 20-30 minute ending, explaining exactly how the Victory fleet managed to kill all the Reapers in the Sol system, and then save the rest of the galaxy with the remaining forces, we would be left with a bigger plothole than the ones found in the original endings.

Not surrounded. The confrontation was explicitly shown to be a head-on confrontation.

How many impossibilities has Shepard conquered over the course of the Mass Effect trilogy?

By surrounded, I mean that just about every other cluster in the galaxy had been occupied by Reapers. You can see that on the Galaxy Map right before you go to Earth.

And it's ok for Shepard to be a complete badass because he's the main character and he has plot armor. But when your plot armor starts to extend to EVERYONE fighting on your side, your story gets exponentially crappier.

I see. It makes more sense in that way.

I'm not saying everyone needs to survive. But for Shepard to lead a massive fleet into an against-all-odds battle is kinda par-for-the-course, considering he's made a career out of against-all-odds scenarios.

[Jadebaby]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Nope. Sounds utterly amateurish and supposes that Paragon is the "right" way to play the game, screwing every Renegade player because their don't live up to YOUR vision of "morality".

Thanks, but no thanks.

That's why paragon/renegade wouldn't affect your survival, EMS would..... Fixed? =/

[Jadebaby]

Vigilant111 wrote...

zambot wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...


Shepard, however, is not an tragic hero and never set up to be one. Especially Paragon ones.

No, but you could make a valid argument that (the) Shepard has been set up to be a Christ figure.  

That sounds poetically sadistic

So if you survive, then you are not Christ? like the death of Shepard becomes a rite of passage? a rite of passage to what exactly?

Shepard = Neo. Real original

[zambot]

Vigilant111 wrote...

zambot wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...


Shepard, however, is not an tragic hero and never set up to be one. Especially Paragon ones.

No, but you could make a valid argument that (the) Shepard has been set up to be a Christ figure.  

That sounds poetically sadistic

So if you survive, then you are not Christ? like the death of Shepard becomes a rite of passage? a rite of passage to what exactly?

Definitely the control and the synthesis endings fit well with Shepard as a Christ, refusal somewhat, Destroy you'd have to view it symbolically.  Yes, he survives, but for all intents and purposes the story is over after Shep made the sacrifice (without knowing whether he/she'd live).

As far as could Shep be a Christ figure?  I think it's very arguable.

Pros
1. Name = "Shepard"
2. In ME2 Shep dies, and rises.
3. Shep reguarly performs miracles and impossible feats throughout the series.
4. Ascension into the citadel at the end

Cons
1. There is no betrayal by either his/her disciples (squad mates) or the people he/she is trying to save (though they come close in ME1 and ME2).
2. There are no mystical circumstances surrounding Shep's origin or implications of a godlike nature, though arguably he/she achieves this after rebirth in ME2.

Modifié par zambot, 29 juin 2012 - 06:37 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

[quote]Because in the best stories, the timeless ones that are cherished for generations, the ones that matter to people and keep them warm when the real world goes cold and give a glimmer of light when the darkness closes in, end in such a way, realistic or not.[/quote]

I don't think so. Shakespeare's most famous works tend to be his tragedies. Most people are well aware of the story of Romeo and Juliet, even if they aren't familiar with the Shakespeare version. I haven't studied literary history so I can't comment if these types of stories are more or less common, but there's no shortage of tragic stories that are considered absolute gems of literature and have been passed down for many generations.[/quote]

Shakespeare's tragedies are feature characters who's own flaws do them in.  Oftentimes, the problems are either self-inflicted, or they are unwilling to do what needs to be done to avoid their fate.  Neither really applies to Commander Shepard (unless you play Shepard in a specific manner)  Destroy doesn't kill the geth, EDI, and maybe Shepard because Shep was trying to carry n an affari with both Liara and Tali, or because he was envious of Hackett's rank.  It does so because the Catalyst says so.

Shepard is more of a "classical hero" Strong, charismatic, able to weather just about anything.  Lliterally fighting legends come to life.  

[quote]
[quote]In terms of the Mass Effect series, yes, considering it's been done since the freaking beginning.[/quote]

To be perfectly blunt, if you think that the Mass Effect series must provide an unequivocally superior ending in order to maintain narrative coherence, then I think you're misusing the term narrative coherence.[/quote]

I think what was meant here is that the Mass Effect endings should have been more upbeat, less heavy on the sacrifice and with a greater sense of triumph.  As both previous Mass Effect games ended with greater or lesser degrees of triumph for Shepard.


[quote]Shepard dying is definitely losing.

When you invest 3 entire games and years into one character, his death is a loss[/quote]

Emphatically disagree. I think it's fine that you feel this way, but I definitely do not. Even with the original endings.[/quote]

And obviously people disagree with your disagreement.  It's a shame that there is only one way for Shepard to survive, and it's at least half-easter egg.  People do get attatched to their characters.  Especially in RPGs where the player gives the character a life of its own.  Forcing that character to die is a loss.  I've played exactly one rpg where the required death of the protagonist felt natural and right.  And that was Planescape:  Torment.  There are other games where there are endings where the character can die as an option (such as DAO) but ME3 really pushed it.  Too much so, imo.


At it's core, any decision is essentially "thrown in" because it's determined by what the content creators want to do. I actually agree that the cost is probably put in to make the choice less of an obvious choice. But does it feel forced because you just don't want it to be the case, or does it feel forced because it just doesn't make any sense.

My first interpretation of the Geth being a victim of the blast is that the blast simply targets synthetic life form. There's already issues with the crucible itself (I don't think it's a strong aspect of the story), but given it is what's there, it was easy to logically deduce why the Geth would also fall victim.

At what point does a choice become challenging and interesting compared to just feeling forced?[/quote]

Offhand, I'd say when it stops making sense 


In the case of the geth/EDI, these were beings that were sentient well before receiving any form of Reaper upgrades.  Losing those upgrades would diminish them, but shouldn't destroy them.  If they're being killed just because they were "synthetic"  Then what about quarians, who use cybernetics?  What about biotics, which have implants grafted into their brains and nervous systems?  What about devices like Kasumi's greybox?  Many degrees of synthetic life and virtual life have been shown to exist in the Mass Effect universe.  Yet these are never shown to be in any danger.  Only Reapers, geth, and EDI.  Three different forms of synthetic life made by different species, at different times, using different methods.

A lower EMS Crucible being less discriminate is understandable.  But "all synthetic life dies" is basically a "GM Fiat" clearly made to make people feel guilty about that choice.

[Lillian Sword-Maiden]

I agree with you TC.

[AngryFrozenWater]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I would like the geth and EDI to survive the destroy option.

Not sure if I would be sane enough after that to even talk to anyone. I do think I can manage a tropical island with a great beach, an omni-tool with an extranet connection and a well filled bar.

Let me explain myself...

Shepard has seen more deaths for which he/she is responsible than anyone else. The Council literally gives Shepard the green light to do whatever needs to be done to defeat the reapers. Every alliance is based on that same formula. They'll back Shepard as long as the reapers will be defeated. To get there it costs billions of lives. If Shepard walks into Liara's office he or she sees another list of worlds with which "we lost contact". Shepard visits worlds that get devastated. Every husk Shepard encounters used to be a sane living organism. Shepard blows up a planet if means it can save us. That's why I think the control and synthesis options are a betrayal to anyone involved. Those options are not part of the deal. The right of self-determination has been violated enough.

In the meantime we are building a force of extraordinary magnitude and the Crucible, which is supposed to be a weapon designed to defeat the reapers. But when that weapon is to be activated it turns out to be a reaper trap. That trap turns out to serve the reapers' goal, which really does not make any sense. Even asking the brat how it all started and what the brat's purpose is gets one nowhere. It is not that Shepard is too stupid to understand what the brat is babbling about, but it would help if it stopped talking gibberish and would be coherent for a change.

It turns out that the brat was designed to bring peace among organics and synthetics. To start its noble goal a reaper was created and the first thing it did was turn against its own creators. Then it noticed that he, the reaper, has turned against its masters and assumed that all synthetics must be doing the same. After fiddling with some societies, which of course never asked for its interference, it turns out that everything the reaper did resulted in bloody wars. Instead of calling it a day (or aeon), the brat dreamed up its circular "ascension through destruction" logic and started its cyclical genocide spree to save all those poor organics from creating synthetics who turn against the organics. Those the saviors cannot use will be exterminated or kept alive for the next cycle. Truth is that its harvesting method serves as their reproduction method and that it keeps them on top of the food chain. Shepard forgot to check it on his/her omnitool, but that must have caused a silly amount of deaths.

In short, the reapers have violated the right of self-determination of uncountable civilizations by either killing them or enslaving them for a hypothetical cause which only lives in the reapers' minds and serves nobody but themselves.

To top it off, the only option that makes a bit of sense is to destruct the reapers. However, to do so requires yet another genocide and this time Shepard needs to betray the geth. That also causes severe repercussions for the quarians who were helped by the geth to rebuild their homeworld and immune system, after the quarians tried to exterminate these same geth, during the Morning War, out of fear of losing their embassy seat on the Citadel. To complicate this history the reapers either turned the heretics hostile or controlled the geth during the Rannoch war (which was once again started by the quarians). After all, it is in the best interest for the  reapers to prove that those synthetics are hostile. It is interesting to note that the reapers also so turned the synthetic zha'til hostile. So, it is probably standard reaper practice.

So, yeah. After all that, Shepard could use a drink or two on a tropical beach and order a pizza via the extranet. Far away from anybody. "Do not disturb."

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 29 juin 2012 - 06:54 .

[DukeOfNukes]

I'm sorry, but Shepard doesn't determine the events that happen to him, just how he reacts to them. I understand wanting the outcome to be effected by your choices, but it's not clear and simple. The Reapers were always going to invade, regardless of the choices I made. I couldn't save Kaidan AND Ashley, one of them was going to die. I couldn't kill Balak and save the scientists, I had to choose.

Your Shepard never prevented anything from happening that mine didn't. It seems to me, the only way to have YOUR Shepard live, and MY Shepard die, is to have mine sacrifice himself for the good of the galaxy, and have yours selfishly slip away and let someone else make the decision.

[AtreiyaN7]

mnomaha wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Personally, I would find this to be a cheap out given the sacrifices you and others make along the way. You might as well rewrite the whole story so that Mordin lives, both of Samara's daughters live, Legion doesn't have to sacrifice himself, you get to save Koris AND his crew, etc.

On the other hand, it's not as if I have some sort of vociferous objection to a "happy" ending. It's BW's story and if for some reason they chose to add it, I wouldn't care one way or the other. I might even choose it to see the big old wedding that would presumably be a part of it.

After I started replaying ME3 from the beginning again today, I did pay attention when Hackett definitely said that we can't win the war conventionally (and that the Crucible amounts to our only hope, more or less) during the trip to Mars.

Even if you factor in gathering all the fleets of all the races...I just don't get the impression that any of it would ever be enough and find the idea that we'll be able to win to be somewhat unrealistic. With the other endings I can at least envision technological/scientific scenarios that make them acceptable.

And that's where I disagree. This is supposed to be *our* story with *our* Shepard. That's what we've always been told and, until recently, they have been true to it. ME3 changed everything that was good about the Mass Effect universe.

Maybe the problem is that BioWare was just to good at giving you the illusion that it was your story. You might identify greatly with the protagonist and feel like he/she is yours (that's the point really - to feel like it's yours), but he/she is not really yours, just like the story isn't yours. You're not writing a story - you're making choices within the framework that writers give you with all their preset outcomes. It's not like you, at any point, get to make up anything you want.

If it were really "our" story, I would've been able to decide to fly to Sur'Kesh at the beginning of ME2 and sipped mai-tais on the beach instead of being blown out into space. ME3 didn't change anything. Maybe you just don''t like the fact that the direction of the story wasn't what you personally wanted for "your" Shepard and/or don't like that they didn't give you the infinite constellation of possibilities that people seem to have unrealistically expected.

[Allan Schumacher]

Publicly calling out an apology from me to RPGenius.

I misrepresented his post not maliciously, but more because I was starting to bounce around between other posts and the part of his post I quoted had become a common theme. Where he talks about how Shepard can't always make the choice was overlooked and I didn't mean to misrepresent his position specifically.

Doesn't excuse my mistake however.

Sorry.

[wantedman dan]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I'm sorry, but Shepard doesn't determine the events that happen to him, just how he reacts to them. I understand wanting the outcome to be effected by your choices, but it's not clear and simple. The Reapers were always going to invade, regardless of the choices I made. I couldn't save Kaidan AND Ashley, one of them was going to die. I couldn't kill Balak and save the scientists, I had to choose.

Your Shepard never prevented anything from happening that mine didn't. It seems to me, the only way to have YOUR Shepard live, and MY Shepard die, is to have mine sacrifice himself for the good of the galaxy, and have yours selfishly slip away and let someone else make the decision.

Wow.

Way to miss the point there, sport. Keep up that dapper job at reading what is written and you'll go far.

[Mazebook]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Tell me, how exactly WAS the story line effected by Shepards decisions? I thought one of the things we were complaining about our decisions over the course of 3 games were ultimately ignored.

I must have imagined the part where characters and whole species die or live through Shepards decisions.