221 réponses à ce sujet

[ld1449]

AlanC9 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Even thinking back to I robot the same thing happened there with the core AI hub thing.

Asimov didn't write the movie, you know. What he did write was R. Daneel Olivaw running human society from behind the scenes for millennia, and doing it benevolently. And again, theres the SI, which could do pretty much whatever it wanted to the Commonwealth

But if you want to say that there are an awful lot of threatening fictional AIs with power in media, then sure. Writers like telling that kind of story.

Like I said, *most* instances.

All I'm saying is that people's impressions of AI with ultimate power arent exactly favorable, and its not at all helped by the Catalyst, yet another AI with ultimate power. This is why people are drawing such bleak conclusions in the future implications of control. It feels wrong to them with the things they know about AI's from other mediums.

So they're not just pulling things out of thin air to make themselves depressed as lil wrote.

[AlanC9]

Not thin air, no. But they are coming from other universes, except for the Catalyst -- which only did what it was supposed to do. It's hard to see how the Sheplyst goes nuts in that particular fashion.

[GeoGirl2008]

Orkboy wrote...

At the end of ME1 I was "**** yeah. Bring it on!"
At the end of ME2 I was "Take that ****es!"
At the end of ME3 I was "WTF?!"

Same here.

[dreman9999]

Sion1138 wrote...

No, I don't play ME anymore.

If your game manages to make players feel bad afterwards, something went wrong.

So , the line is a bad game?

[vurtual3]

Some people enjoy complex themes and ambiguity in games or films. Some people enjoy good gameplay and don't care about story or ending. Some people even play games so they can moan about them half a year afterwards (because they like to enjoy things apparently). Different stroked for different folks....

[ld1449]

AlanC9 wrote...

Not thin air, no. But they are coming from other universes, except for the Catalyst -- which only did what it was supposed to do. It's hard to see how the Sheplyst goes nuts in that particular fashion.

When you "leave an ending open to interpretation" as they say, people ARE going to metagame think.

And even without taking references from other universes, even the Catalyst states (if you're going to believe him) that the created will always rebel against the creators. The Shep AI was "created" by Shep, or by Shep's memories absorbed during his death. By the catalysts own logic it will rebel against these forces that brought it into a state of awareness or creation.

So even without outgame thinking, ingame knowledge takes people to this conclusion as well.

[Discouraged_one]

Ranger1337 wrote...

I truly wish ME2 and ME3 were just like ME1 . Seriously . That's all I'm saying .

+1,000,000,000,000,000

[M Hedonist]

And companies were once supposed to cater to their customers instead of trying to reach out for theoretical target groups or filling their products with forcedly 'artistic' and 'meaningful' nihilistic nonsense.
*sigh*

Modifié par Sauruz, 03 septembre 2012 - 03:16 .

[Gabylan001]

Headcanon or Metagame is not game is just doing the work of the writer. i dont enjoy that

[Discouraged_one]

Entertainment is subjective

But you cant argue against continuity. ME3's ending broke it without a doubt

[Tronar]

robertthebard wrote...

However, if one doesn't play a lot of MP, choices made do matter.  If I choose to ignore a lot of fetch quests, I don't get any EMS they may offer.  If I didn't lay the groundwork correctly in ME 2, I can't broker peace with between the Quarians and the Geth.  Therefore, my decisions mattered. 

No, THEY DID NOT!

Because no matter if you chose peace between the Quarians and the Geth, your final decision in front of Starbrat is the only thing that matters.
By choosing Destroy you are killing ALL the Synthetics including the nice and friendly Geth. So what's your effort worth now?
By choosing Synthesis, everybody is half organic and half synthetic now. So there will be peace between the Quarians and the Geth, because they are not really different any more.

So where exactly did your peace efforts and your choices during ME1, ME2 and ME3 matter?

[Ridwan]

infraredman wrote...

Bioware: "We want to make players have a strong emotional response to our games. To move them to tears would be a success"

Nintendo: "We've been doing that for ages. We made sure the computer controlled opponent could zoom in at end of Mario Kart even if they were laps behind during the N64 generation. We ensured Peach was incredibly over powered to make players feel inadequate at the end of every Mario game. We've been making players cry, whine and have fits for years. It's relatively easy."

Bioware: "Easy? How?" 

Nintendo: " You need a character like Peach who has ridiculously illogical power. Make players believe the ending is achievable in one way, and then use that powerful character to make them either feel inadequate, question the point of all their efforts, or realize it's impossible for them to win. Then they will realize they can't possibly have the ending they wanted. This will surely depress, anger or shock them. Thus inducing a strong emotional reaction."^_^

Bioware: (writing) "Ok, an incredibly powerful character...":huh:

Nintendo: "Yes, and its' best that the character seems helpless throughout the game, but reveals itself to be the apex of all power, forcing the character into a certain change of plot. They have to feel they have control until the ending and until that character reveals it's power. Then you pull out the rug from under them, inducing an emotional reaction.":wizard:

Bioware: (writes everything down) "Ok, I think we'll give it a try.":)

Nintendo: "Great! Let me know how that works out for you!";)

[Enter Spring 2012]

Bioware: "Oh no! They had a strong emotional reaction all right! They're raving mad! They're all over the forums and the internet! They're sending us cupcakes as threats to change the ending! They even raised thousands of dollars for charity! They had a strong emotional response all right! But they don't appreciate the Art! I have to either please the fans or destroy my vision. And if I please the fans I'll have to do it for free."

Nintendo: "Just give them a slideshow with a monologue, it'll take an intern maybe a week to make. You don't have to give the fans much of anything and they'll lap it up. Trust me, they'll come around.";)

Bioware: "Wait, haven't you been in a steady decline? Experiencing more and more quarters of disappointing sales?":blink:

Nintendo: (curls up into a ball and starts swaying back and forth) "The fans will come around! They will I tell you! They will!":devil:

I got news for you buddy, Nintendo are the good guys in gaming.

[jakal66]

They shouldn't have made it possible to save everyone in ME2, you shopuld have lost at least 1 or 2 squadmates there.They gave you the happy ponies ending and then you expected the same in ME3, and they didn't deliver.I for one don't mind the endings speacially after the ec, I think they would have saved a lot of complaints if they'd shown sheppard survive the High ems ending in destroy I mean trully see him survive not the two hints we get, the breath scene and the name on the wall not being put.

[darkhorsedan72]

I don't think Shepard living or dying at the end has much to do with the ending making you depressed. I think the fact I'm forced into a horrible compromise at the end with 3 choices I really don't like to make is what depresses me. It didn't feel like a victory.

I expected Shepard to die at the end of the game, but I expected his death to be heroic and epic.... Not downbeat and.... just bleh... I hate everything about the end scene with the Starchild. Even the background music just contributes to the horrible tone of the ending.

I also think the choice being presented to you by the being that is essentially the enemy makes it horrible. If you had gone to activate the crucible and the three choices were represented to you in a different way, like Shepard had discovered for himself what the different functions would do, even then it wouldn't be as bad as what we got (it wouldn't quite make sense either, but at least it wouldn't feel like a compromise with the enemy).

I tried playing through the game a second time but couldn't complete priority earth because of the ending. Even with the E.C. I just watched it on youtube. I didn't want to go up to that chamber and speak to that bloody Catalyst again.

[nhcre8tv1]

Sion1138 wrote...

No, I don't play ME anymore.

If your game manages to make players feel bad afterwards, something went wrong.

lolwat

[christrek1982]

infraredman wrote...

Bioware: "We want to make players have a strong emotional response to our games. To move them to tears would be a success"

Nintendo: "We've been doing that for ages. We made sure the computer controlled opponent could zoom in at end of Mario Kart even if they were laps behind during the N64 generation. We ensured Peach was incredibly over powered to make players feel inadequate at the end of every Mario game. We've been making players cry, whine and have fits for years. It's relatively easy."

Bioware: "Easy? How?" 

Nintendo: " You need a character like Peach who has ridiculously illogical power. Make players believe the ending is achievable in one way, and then use that powerful character to make them either feel inadequate, question the point of all their efforts, or realize it's impossible for them to win. Then they will realize they can't possibly have the ending they wanted. This will surely depress, anger or shock them. Thus inducing a strong emotional reaction."^_^

Bioware: (writing) "Ok, an incredibly powerful character...":huh:

Nintendo: "Yes, and its' best that the character seems helpless throughout the game, but reveals itself to be the apex of all power, forcing the character into a certain change of plot. They have to feel they have control until the ending and until that character reveals it's power. Then you pull out the rug from under them, inducing an emotional reaction.":wizard:

Bioware: (writes everything down) "Ok, I think we'll give it a try.":)

Nintendo: "Great! Let me know how that works out for you!";)

[Enter Spring 2012]

Bioware: "Oh no! They had a strong emotional reaction all right! They're raving mad! They're all over the forums and the internet! They're sending us cupcakes as threats to change the ending! They even raised thousands of dollars for charity! They had a strong emotional response all right! But they don't appreciate the Art! I have to either please the fans or destroy my vision. And if I please the fans I'll have to do it for free."

Nintendo: "Just give them a slideshow with a monologue, it'll take an intern maybe a week to make. You don't have to give the fans much of anything and they'll lap it up. Trust me, they'll come around.";)

Bioware: "Wait, haven't you been in a steady decline? Experiencing more and more quarters of disappointing sales?":blink:

Nintendo: (curls up into a ball and starts swaying back and forth) "The fans will come around! They will I tell you! They will!":devil:

ha ha epic nice one you should go and write fore Bio you write a better story with a uplifting ending:D

[robertthebard]

Tronar wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

However, if one doesn't play a lot of MP, choices made do matter.  If I choose to ignore a lot of fetch quests, I don't get any EMS they may offer.  If I didn't lay the groundwork correctly in ME 2, I can't broker peace with between the Quarians and the Geth.  Therefore, my decisions mattered. 

No, THEY DID NOT!

Because no matter if you chose peace between the Quarians and the Geth, your final decision in front of Starbrat is the only thing that matters.
By choosing Destroy you are killing ALL the Synthetics including the nice and friendly Geth. So what's your effort worth now?
By choosing Synthesis, everybody is half organic and half synthetic now. So there will be peace between the Quarians and the Geth, because they are not really different any more.

So where exactly did your peace efforts and your choices during ME1, ME2 and ME3 matter?

I won't go so far as to say this is a lie, but it is a fallacy.  If I don't have enough EMS, I can't get Synthesis offered as an end choice.  This is a classic example of my choices mattering.  When written endings aren't available due to choices made in game, your choices mattered.  You can play around with the mental masturbation of what the endings mean all you like, but if there's something you can't get because you didn't score high enough EMS, and if you don't play a lot of MP, your EMS is controlled by your choices, they matter.  I think you need 2500 EMS for Synthesis to show up.  So if you choose to skip a lot of the game, you can miss that choice. 

[robertthebard]

ld1449 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Even thinking back to I robot the same thing happened there with the core AI hub thing.

Asimov didn't write the movie, you know. What he did write was R. Daneel Olivaw running human society from behind the scenes for millennia, and doing it benevolently. And again, theres the SI, which could do pretty much whatever it wanted to the Commonwealth

But if you want to say that there are an awful lot of threatening fictional AIs with power in media, then sure. Writers like telling that kind of story.

Like I said, *most* instances.

All I'm saying is that people's impressions of AI with ultimate power arent exactly favorable, and its not at all helped by the Catalyst, yet another AI with ultimate power. This is why people are drawing such bleak conclusions in the future implications of control. It feels wrong to them with the things they know about AI's from other mediums.

So they're not just pulling things out of thin air to make themselves depressed as lil wrote.

...and yet, some of these people will have a coronary if you choose Destroy, because you killed some AI's.

[CitizenThom]

OP, fair enough question. Someone at some point decided to suggest that aesthetic beauty is somehow artistically immoral. Creating something with a happy ending would be to create something aesthetically beautiful and therefore a complete violation of that arbitrary code.

Which isn't to say something sad or frustrating can't in the end have an aesthetic beauty of it's own...(I watched Diving Bell and the Butterfly for the second time yesterday, and it's still a very touching story) I'm only saying that sad and frustrating stories are the cliche avante-garde-ism that we're presently stuck with until 'artists' get to realising the real counterculture expression of the present would be to create a happy, inspiring, or uplifting story.

Post-deconstructionism is almost here, I'm sure of it, ha ha.

[Shaleist]

Sion1138 wrote...

No, I don't play ME anymore.

If your game manages to make players feel bad afterwards, something went wrong.

This.  I'd like to modify my take however.

If it makes me feel bad 'DURING' the game there is also a problem.  ME3 accomplished that the first playthrough and on some subsequent follow-up playthroughs I did *finishing up 'other' Shepards, vainly hoping it would be better*.

[Epique Phael767]

To me, a game should either have an enjoyable ending (Generally happy), suspenseful ending (built on the premise that the story will continue), or a thoughtful one (one that makes you think and wonder). ME3 was none of these for me.

[.PHANTOM]

Yeah this leaves me wondering WTF every time i think about all the endings, i can say that compromise is one reason, especially if the enemy just says 'i'll hand victory over to you in three forms if you kill yourself" and that being the best ending, so yeah the whole game aside from collecting pieces to a puzzle that in the end turns out have little to no reason for being there, yes you have to get enough, but really is it your choices within a story that have consequences in the end or your decision to not do fetch quest and play multiplayer, cause i can't think one ingame choice that mattered to me in the end*rant over*

But yeah the game breaks its usual runs with having actual consequences because of your choices, even in low Ems destroy you win by killing a lot of people, but all the reapers, all endings the same no difference in acquisition, catalyst hands them over to you and you win one way or another, no failure at all, unless you refuse than in 50k years Reapers killed either way, kind of pointless looking back at it now.