292 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...


[/b]What is more important, the journey or the outcome of it? I think it was Edith Hamilton who said the gods of the Roman Pantheon were terrible heroes, because they never were under the threat of dying. You get invested in the stories of heroes because they are always at risk of dying, and sometimes they do, but the fact that they put themselves in that position is what makes them heroic. I see Shepard at that threshold, and its why it makes sense for me that he has to die. Of course thats an agree to disagree I understand that, but what does this, actually, have to do with trust?

Both.  Both are important. You can't have one with out the other, and they both have to fit like a lock and a key.

I'm not against the possibility of Shepard dying.  What I'm against is it being a requirement for the game.  If this is "my Shepard" as we were told, we should have a say in the character's ultimate fate.  But these endings provide virtually none.

Inevtible death is every bit as bad as complete immortality.  Worse, since tragedy is not as popular as comedy.  It's not the dying itself that makes a hero, it's the risk, the ability to turn back, but choosing not to.  The possibility of finding another way.  That's what a good GM provides.  There's always a way out if we're smart enough, fast enough, diplomatic enough, or just plain tough enough.  We don't get that choice.  

Instead we strive against inevitiblilty.  Dust struggling against cosmic winds.  I wonder who said that?

 For me it seems like an issue, again, of control of the whole game. For starters Shepard was always a hybrid character, both BioWares and the players. It's a weird relationship that was readily apparent in Mass Effect one anyway, considering the railroading of the plot in several instances through both exposition and dialouge. So that being in the conversation I always felt was a smokescreen to make a point. But even if he was fully yours and mine, then why have the central plot? why not go full bore like Elder Scrolls where it is completely open for us to Role-Play Shepard our way, instead of being shackled and changing the context of a story.  After all, role-playing is different things for different people, and games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls tend to have more of what people want out of role-playing, freedom of choice being prime among them. 

Well, I did say that cRPGs can't provide as much freedom as a tabletop game.  But even then, players and the GM typically abide my certain rules, such as "don't go exploring off the map", "Don't kill the questgiver" and such

But to me, an RPG lets me have at least some control, or illusion of control over my own character.  including my character's fate.  Like I said, if Bioware is simply telling me a story, and all I do is fight my way from one cutscene to anther, what's the point?  Might as well just be playing Assassin's Creed or Red Dead Redemption.

So the real question then is not if you can ever trust BioWare again, but rather why do you mistrust them to begin with?  If it is because of what you said above, the hero dying should not matter at all. If it is because you feel you were railroaded into an outcome, you were. But every RPG does that, what changes it is the so-called headcanon the players create.

Maybe I am just mired too much into game mechanics and theory, but the railroading needs to be done to have any sort of central plot in a game. So I fail to see it as an major issue unless if this was fully sloppy storytelling, which in many peoples minds thats the case, so I won't argue that here. But then this makes everything about this conversation wholly subjective. Ergo my original posts about this being a sort of non issue, because the writers of the game did what they always do, force an outcome. 

Bioware games always gave a way out before.  As the Bhaalspawn, I could claim the essence, shed my mortal form and become a god (as sort of Control version) or I could stay mortal, albiet a powerful one.  DAO I could sacrifice my Warden to slay the archdemon, or Sacrifice someone else in my stead.  Or even risk Morrigan's ritual.  There was always a waay out.

Here the choice was death, death, death, and death/ambiguous life

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

Both.  Both are important. You can't have one with out the other, and they both have to fit like a lock and a key.

I'm not against the possibility of Shepard dying.  What I'm against is it being a requirement for the game.  If this is "my Shepard" as we were told, we should have a say in the character's ultimate fate.  But these endings provide virtually none.

Inevtible death is every bit as bad as complete immortality.  Worse, since tragedy is not as popular as comedy.  It's not the dying itself that makes a hero, it's the risk, the ability to turn back, but choosing not to.  The possibility of finding another way.  That's what a good GM provides.  There's always a way out if we're smart enough, fast enough, diplomatic enough, or just plain tough enough.  We don't get that choice.  

Instead we strive against inevitiblilty.  Dust struggling against cosmic winds.  I wonder who said that?

Well, I did say that cRPGs can't provide as much freedom as a tabletop game.  But even then, players and the GM typically abide my certain rules, such as "don't go exploring off the map", "Don't kill the questgiver" and such

But to me, an RPG lets me have at least some control, or illusion of control over my own character.  including my character's fate.  Like I said, if Bioware is simply telling me a story, and all I do is fight my way from one cutscene to anther, what's the point?  Might as well just be playing Assassin's Creed or Red Dead Redemption.

Bioware games always gave a way out before.  As the Bhaalspawn, I could claim the essence, shed my mortal form and become a god (as sort of Control version) or I could stay mortal, albiet a powerful one.  DAO I could sacrifice my Warden to slay the archdemon, or Sacrifice someone else in my stead.  Or even risk Morrigan's ritual.  There was always a waay out.

Here the choice was death, death, death, and death/ambiguous life

QFT. 

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


[/b]What is more important, the journey or the outcome of it? I think it was Edith Hamilton who said the gods of the Roman Pantheon were terrible heroes, because they never were under the threat of dying. You get invested in the stories of heroes because they are always at risk of dying, and sometimes they do, but the fact that they put themselves in that position is what makes them heroic. I see Shepard at that threshold, and its why it makes sense for me that he has to die. Of course thats an agree to disagree I understand that, but what does this, actually, have to do with trust?

Both.  Both are important. You can't have one with out the other, and they both have to fit like a lock and a key.

I'm not against the possibility of Shepard dying.  What I'm against is it being a requirement for the game.  If this is "my Shepard" as we were told, we should have a say in the character's ultimate fate.  But these endings provide virtually none.

Inevtible death is every bit as bad as complete immortality.  Worse, since tragedy is not as popular as comedy.  It's not the dying itself that makes a hero, it's the risk, the ability to turn back, but choosing not to.  The possibility of finding another way.  That's what a good GM provides.  There's always a way out if we're smart enough, fast enough, diplomatic enough, or just plain tough enough.  We don't get that choice.  

Instead we strive against inevitiblilty.  Dust struggling against cosmic winds.  I wonder who said that?

I remember Fallout 3 and the ending debacle then, how people were complaining that your character essentially ends their experience after completing the final story mission. I also remember people complaining about the logic hole of having your character die through a self-sacrifice. 

And yet, that never bothered me then because that was what Fallout 3 was all about. Sacrifices. Your father, your home, your own values in the middle of a wasteland. Giving water to a poor man who is dying of thirst even though you want to save it for later, or blowing up a city because you find it deplorable and haudy.  You sacrifice many for whatever reason in the end, but you do it. 

I was one of the few people against that change back then, because having the character survive the ordeal felt like a cheat, even though in game terms it raised the level cap and gave us new missions and enemies. Story wise though, it made me realize that thematically and poetically, the hero can die sometimes. 

Inevitable death permeates a lot of games. Spoilers if you havent yet but  The Walking Dead, the game everyone loves to play because of the choices in the narrative it brings to the table, has this same fate for the main character. Despite every single choice or consequence found in that game, your ultimate fate as a protagonist is death. 

So no, I don't really want to dissuade your way of thinking, thats your right. But I disagree about it being bad, or a way out that is terrible. Shepard dying means nothing if the context of his death is hollow. And that is my bone of contention with this line of thinking. Each ending has massive consequences, selfless consequences for a world created. Does that have no meaning as well? Does Shepard's death to bring life ten times over, or in one case life for the next cycle, seem like an unfair trade-off in the spirit of what the game is about, which is that hard decisions are always met with some sort of sacrifice? 

Hell, as a GM that becomes a tool to augment the story as well, to give meaning to characters and their motivations. Railroaded or not, a player death, be it decided by the player, or due to an unescapable outcome, is not a bad thing. It only serves the purposes of the actual story being told if the players and GM let it.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 05:51 .

[Fawx9]

LinksOcarina wrote...

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


[/b]What is more important, the journey or the outcome of it? I think it was Edith Hamilton who said the gods of the Roman Pantheon were terrible heroes, because they never were under the threat of dying. You get invested in the stories of heroes because they are always at risk of dying, and sometimes they do, but the fact that they put themselves in that position is what makes them heroic. I see Shepard at that threshold, and its why it makes sense for me that he has to die. Of course thats an agree to disagree I understand that, but what does this, actually, have to do with trust?

Both.  Both are important. You can't have one with out the other, and they both have to fit like a lock and a key.

I'm not against the possibility of Shepard dying.  What I'm against is it being a requirement for the game.  If this is "my Shepard" as we were told, we should have a say in the character's ultimate fate.  But these endings provide virtually none.

Inevtible death is every bit as bad as complete immortality.  Worse, since tragedy is not as popular as comedy.  It's not the dying itself that makes a hero, it's the risk, the ability to turn back, but choosing not to.  The possibility of finding another way.  That's what a good GM provides.  There's always a way out if we're smart enough, fast enough, diplomatic enough, or just plain tough enough.  We don't get that choice.  

Instead we strive against inevitiblilty.  Dust struggling against cosmic winds.  I wonder who said that?

I remember Fallout 3 and the ending debacle then, how people were complaining that your character essentially ends their experience after completing the final story mission. I also remember people complaining about the logic hole of having your character die through a self-sacrifice. 

And yet, that never bothered me then because that was what Fallout 3 was all about. Sacrifices. Your father, your home, your own values in the middle of a wasteland. Giving water to a poor man who is dying of thirst even though you want to save it for later, or blowing up a city because you find it deplorable and haudy.  You sacrifice many for whatever reason in the end, but you do it. 

I was one of the few people against that change back then, because having the character survive the ordeal felt like a cheat, even though in game terms it raised the level cap and gave us new missions and enemies. Story wise though, it made me realize that thematically and poetically, the hero can die sometimes. 

Inevitable death permeates a lot of games. Spoilers if you havent yet but  The Walking Dead, the game everyone loves to play because of the choices in the narrative it brings to the table, has this same fate for the main character. Despite every single choice or consequence found in that game, your ultimate fate as a protagonist is death. 

So no, I don't really want to dissuade your way of thinking, thats your right. But I disagree about it being bad, or a way out that is terrible. Shepard dying means nothing if the context of his death is hollow. And that is my bone of contention with this line of thinking. Each ending has massive consequences, selfless consequences for a world created. Does that have no meaning as well? Does Shepard's death to bring life ten times over, or in one case life for the next cycle, seem like an unfair trade-off in the spirit of what the game is about, which is that hard decisions are always met with some sort of sacrifice? 

Hell, as a GM that becomes a tool to augment the story as well, to give meaning to characters and their motivations. Railroaded or not, a player death, be it decided by the player, or due to an unescapable outcome, is not a bad thing. It only serves the purposes of the actual story being told if the players and GM let it.

You realize that fallout 3 is a horrible example to argue against right? You had companions to do the job that would not have been killed.

It's not a cheat to do the smart thing.

[Dr_Extrem]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, it's not left intentionally ambiguous. There is NOTHING ambiguous about that scene. Shepard survives.  Period. That it's open to "Shepard dies in the next minute" may be true, but that's akin to saying "Yes, we see a living civlization in the epilogue, but the galaxy can explode in the next minute." It's a fanfic headcanon scenario not ruled out by the scene. Do you now expect Bioware to make endings that eplicitly contradicts any headcanon anyone else dislikes? You can be sure we'd end up with a scenario almost on one likes.

the devs and community guys told people on various locations and occations, that the fate of shepard is up to the player. 

i find this totally ok.

but .. the execution was clumsy. (just like the "foreshadowing" of the reapers motivation throughout the series - your thread)
shepard takes a breath at an unknown location and nobody is going to search for him/her. shepard is presumed dead (why else should there be a name plate, if shepard is only MIA or alive?). fires are burning and shepard is in a bad condition.

they could have added a few seconds, where an unknown person (or baily) appears with an ommy tool and applies medigel. or shepard shown in a field hospital - uncontious. after such a scene, you could hade to black .. NOW, its up to the players imagination whether shepards survives or dies of his/her injuries. now the scene would work for all sides.

but the breathe scene alone is ultra vague and in context with the overall situation, it looks more like shepard bleeding out.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 17 décembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[o Ventus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

You know, why have any pretense of cordial conversation when you try to belittle me for disagreeing with your personal opinion. Oh, wait, it's because you think you're right...

You mean like --

And no, I don't see it as being unfair. Some endings are simply better than others, you make your bed when you pick it. 

Frankly, I could care less how you see it. I'm not debating the subjectivity. Statistically, it IS unfair, very much so. With the EC, Shepard's status is dead/dead/dead/possibly dead. You're actually going to tell me you don't see anything there? For supposedly adding clarity and closure, DestroyShepard received zero of either. Which part of this is so difficult to understand?

[Dr_Extrem]

shepard dying is not a necessity to end his/her story .. its just the easiest, fastest and ultimate way.

people tend to forgett, that there are other ways to end stories ...
- shepard retires and has builds a family,
- shepard blows his/her head off, out of guilt,
- shepard returns to active duty, to help finding new frontiers, (together with the old crew - my favourate head canon)
- shepard becomes military trainer at an academy ..

shepard could be taken out of the game, without killing him/her.


the next game will most likely take place hundreds of years in the future ... shepard would be off the table by now .. too old .. retired ... dead
the next protagonist will most likely not have a military background (they dont want a sheo 2.0) - so where is the problem?

shepard could be reduced to a varying codex entry - just like the rest of the crew ... and people would be totally ok with this.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 17 décembre 2012 - 06:09 .

[LinksOcarina]

o Ventus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

You know, why have any pretense of cordial conversation when you try to belittle me for disagreeing with your personal opinion. Oh, wait, it's because you think you're right...

You mean like --

And no, I don't see it as being unfair. Some endings are simply better than others, you make your bed when you pick it. 

Frankly, I could care less how you see it. I'm not debating the subjectivity. Statistically, it IS unfair, very much so. With the EC, Shepard's status is dead/dead/dead/possibly dead. You're actually going to tell me you don't see anything there? For supposedly adding clarity and closure, DestroyShepard received zero of either. Which part of this is so difficult to understand?

If you care less about how I see it, why should I answer? 

Statistically, it is not unfair. If shepard is alive in the good destroy ending, hes alive. IF you see it as him dying, you see it as him dying. That is your choice in the end. If you wish to think of it as being unfair go ahead. That doesn't mean your right, so get over that fact. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 06:11 .

[LinksOcarina]

Fawx9 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


[/b]What is more important, the journey or the outcome of it? I think it was Edith Hamilton who said the gods of the Roman Pantheon were terrible heroes, because they never were under the threat of dying. You get invested in the stories of heroes because they are always at risk of dying, and sometimes they do, but the fact that they put themselves in that position is what makes them heroic. I see Shepard at that threshold, and its why it makes sense for me that he has to die. Of course thats an agree to disagree I understand that, but what does this, actually, have to do with trust?

Both.  Both are important. You can't have one with out the other, and they both have to fit like a lock and a key.

I'm not against the possibility of Shepard dying.  What I'm against is it being a requirement for the game.  If this is "my Shepard" as we were told, we should have a say in the character's ultimate fate.  But these endings provide virtually none.

Inevtible death is every bit as bad as complete immortality.  Worse, since tragedy is not as popular as comedy.  It's not the dying itself that makes a hero, it's the risk, the ability to turn back, but choosing not to.  The possibility of finding another way.  That's what a good GM provides.  There's always a way out if we're smart enough, fast enough, diplomatic enough, or just plain tough enough.  We don't get that choice.  

Instead we strive against inevitiblilty.  Dust struggling against cosmic winds.  I wonder who said that?

I remember Fallout 3 and the ending debacle then, how people were complaining that your character essentially ends their experience after completing the final story mission. I also remember people complaining about the logic hole of having your character die through a self-sacrifice. 

And yet, that never bothered me then because that was what Fallout 3 was all about. Sacrifices. Your father, your home, your own values in the middle of a wasteland. Giving water to a poor man who is dying of thirst even though you want to save it for later, or blowing up a city because you find it deplorable and haudy.  You sacrifice many for whatever reason in the end, but you do it. 

I was one of the few people against that change back then, because having the character survive the ordeal felt like a cheat, even though in game terms it raised the level cap and gave us new missions and enemies. Story wise though, it made me realize that thematically and poetically, the hero can die sometimes. 

Inevitable death permeates a lot of games. Spoilers if you havent yet but  The Walking Dead, the game everyone loves to play because of the choices in the narrative it brings to the table, has this same fate for the main character. Despite every single choice or consequence found in that game, your ultimate fate as a protagonist is death. 

So no, I don't really want to dissuade your way of thinking, thats your right. But I disagree about it being bad, or a way out that is terrible. Shepard dying means nothing if the context of his death is hollow. And that is my bone of contention with this line of thinking. Each ending has massive consequences, selfless consequences for a world created. Does that have no meaning as well? Does Shepard's death to bring life ten times over, or in one case life for the next cycle, seem like an unfair trade-off in the spirit of what the game is about, which is that hard decisions are always met with some sort of sacrifice? 

Hell, as a GM that becomes a tool to augment the story as well, to give meaning to characters and their motivations. Railroaded or not, a player death, be it decided by the player, or due to an unescapable outcome, is not a bad thing. It only serves the purposes of the actual story being told if the players and GM let it.

You realize that fallout 3 is a horrible example to argue against right? You had companions to do the job that would not have been killed.

It's not a cheat to do the smart thing.

Well yeah, if you want to think logically.

Poetically though, it ruins it. Thats kind of the point here. 

[o Ventus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Statistically, it is not unfair. If shepard is alive in the good destroy ending, hes alive. IF you see it as him dying, you see it as him dying. That is your choice in the end.

So get over it, no one is being unfair here. It's just how it is. 

Thats the thing. "If". Thanks for pointing out the problem.

[LinksOcarina]

o Ventus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Statistically, it is not unfair. If shepard is alive in the good destroy ending, hes alive. IF you see it as him dying, you see it as him dying. That is your choice in the end.

So get over it, no one is being unfair here. It's just how it is. 

Thats the thing. "If". Thanks for pointing out the problem.

So which did you see it as? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 06:15 .

[SpamBot2000]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So why did you mention the legality of a binding contract to begin with if you suddenly want to move the goal posts back on something you see as a manouver, just to fall back on the moral implications which are, as I said, still subjective in no ones favor? 

It seems like your attempt has failed then because frankly I did not see your interpretation at all. 

I don't think I was basing anything on the legality of a binding contract at all. I was talking about the social obligation of honoring a commitment. Are you suggesting that you, or indeed anyone reading this, is unaware of a social expectation of keeping your promises?

And morality, being based on our actions towards each other, is  intersubjective rather than subjective. Nobody came up with their moral code in a solipsistic vacuum. Are you suggesting BioWare operate in a moral framework radically different to yours or mine? Then how is it possible they can make games with what we perceive as understandable moral considerations for us?

You do not see my interpretation because you do not wish to see it. You have chosen your role and you practise it by rejecting what you see as the opposition.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 17 décembre 2012 - 06:26 .

[LinksOcarina]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So why did you mention the legality of a binding contract to begin with if you suddenly want to move the goal posts back on something you see as a manouver, just to fall back on the moral implications which are, as I said, still subjective in no ones favor? 

It seems like your attempt has failed then because frankly I did not see your interpretation at all. 

I don't think I was basing anything on the legality of a binding contract at all. I was talking about the social obligation of honoring a commitment. Are you suggesting that you, or indeed anyone reading this, is unaware of a social expectation of keeping your promises?

And morality, being based on our actions towards each other, is  intersubjective rather than subjective. Nobody came up with their moral code in a solipsistic vacuum. Are you suggesting BioWare operate in a moral framework radically different to yours or mine? Then how is it possible they can make games with what we perceive as understandable moral considerations for us?

You do not see my interpretation because you do not wish to see it. You have chosen your role and you practise it by rejecting what you see as the opposition.

Thats a lie, and you know it. 

As for what you said, if I misread its my own fault, so sorry about that. Perhaps you should be a bit more transparent the next time you put forth your intentions through philosophical postulations.

As to the answer to your question, is it even possible to objectively view morality in a form of media such as this? What is right or wrong, or what is morally correct or incorrect are also, as you say, sort of common sense. We can percieve things as such, sure But our own definitions is what makes it so, but it also is open for debate and becomes situational dependant on the issues at hand. 

So its possible that BioWare does operate in a different framework. But not in the context of their content. Real life issues are sometimes held higher than philosophical ideals. Does it make it right or not is a good question. I can't answer that, because I don't know all the details as to why, which is more important when dealing with social issues. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 06:43 .

[o Ventus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So which did you see it as? 

Personally, I see it as Shepard surviving. I know the implication of the scene. That doesn't mean I like the ambiguity and lack of final, concrete closure for DestroyShepard. Like I said, statistically speaking, it's unfair that Refuse, Synthesis, and Control Shepards all know for a fact what happens, but Destroyers don't.

Bioware's statements promoting the ambiguity don't help.

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I remember Fallout 3 and the ending debacle then, how people were complaining that your character essentially ends their experience after completing the final story mission. I also remember people complaining about the logic hole of having your character die through a self-sacrifice. 

And yet, that never bothered me then because that was what Fallout 3 was all about. Sacrifices. Your father, your home, your own values in the middle of a wasteland. Giving water to a poor man who is dying of thirst even though you want to save it for later, or blowing up a city because you find it deplorable and haudy.  You sacrifice many for whatever reason in the end, but you do it. 

I was one of the few people against that change back then, because having the character survive the ordeal felt like a cheat, even though in game terms it raised the level cap and gave us new missions and enemies. Story wise though, it made me realize that thematically and poetically, the hero can die sometimes. 

Inevitable death permeates a lot of games. Spoilers if you havent yet but  The Walking Dead, the game everyone loves to play because of the choices in the narrative it brings to the table, has this same fate for the main character. Despite every single choice or consequence found in that game, your ultimate fate as a protagonist is death. 

So no, I don't really want to dissuade your way of thinking, thats your right. But I disagree about it being bad, or a way out that is terrible. Shepard dying means nothing if the context of his death is hollow. And that is my bone of contention with this line of thinking. Each ending has massive consequences, selfless consequences for a world created. Does that have no meaning as well? Does Shepard's death to bring life ten times over, or in one case life for the next cycle, seem like an unfair trade-off in the spirit of what the game is about, which is that hard decisions are always met with some sort of sacrifice? 

Hell, as a GM that becomes a tool to augment the story as well, to give meaning to characters and their motivations. Railroaded or not, a player death, be it decided by the player, or due to an unescapable outcome, is not a bad thing. It only serves the purposes of the actual story being told if the players and GM let it.

Clearly Shepard dying to complete the game fits the stories you want to tell.  That's fine for you.  I actually envy the fact that you're part of the crowd Bioware didn't ignore/forget about. 

But for me:  forced sacrifice isn't.  Sacrifice is choosing to give something up.  If you have to make a sacrifice, you aren't really making one.  You're just a proxy for a heavy-handed game master.  What are you giving up if you're dead no matter what you do? 

Using the Fallout 3 example, you forget that the Lone Wanderer, even before Broken Steel, doesn't have to die.  You can sacrifice Sara Lyons instead.  And yet, ludicrously, you could have a robot or a super-mutant follower, immune to radiation, who will not act to save either of you.

And yes, an inescapable death for the player is virtually always a bad thing.  I've played exactly one cRPG where it was done well:  Planescape: Torment.  And even then, it was the goal of the nameless for virtually the entire game.  If the goal is in fact to die, then it can be forgiven (and even then, the ending shows that this isn't really the end for TNO)

[fiendishchicken]

I played my trilogy to make the best possible decisions so that I wouldn't have to die, and would have as little overall destruction in the war as possible.

I don't like being told that Shepard dying fits their story. Sorry mates, but it doesn't fit mine.

[o Ventus]

fiendishchicken wrote...

I played my trilogy to make the best possible decisions so that I wouldn't have to die, and would have as little overall destruction in the war as possible.

I don't like being told that Shepard dying fits their story. Sorry mates, but it doesn't fit mine.

Do those people tell you that Shepard is a tragic hero?

[fiendishchicken]

o Ventus wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

I played my trilogy to make the best possible decisions so that I wouldn't have to die, and would have as little overall destruction in the war as possible.

I don't like being told that Shepard dying fits their story. Sorry mates, but it doesn't fit mine.

Do those people tell you that Shepard is a tragic hero?

All the time. Don't know why. He has his numerous fatal flaws but it's made moot by the Reapers being the real threat. Which disqualifies it from being a tragedy. Tragic hero's face the most opposition from internal conflicts. Shepard has much more and much worse to deal with than that. The only issue he has is wondering if he still has the strength to keep going, to keep believing. It comes to a head after Thessia, but he knows he still has the most important person in his life (Miranda of course), and he still has the Normandy and his team. He's not going to give up or give in until they are all safe.

[SpamBot2000]

LinksOcarina wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So why did you mention the legality of a binding contract to begin with if you suddenly want to move the goal posts back on something you see as a manouver, just to fall back on the moral implications which are, as I said, still subjective in no ones favor? 

It seems like your attempt has failed then because frankly I did not see your interpretation at all. 

I don't think I was basing anything on the legality of a binding contract at all. I was talking about the social obligation of honoring a commitment. Are you suggesting that you, or indeed anyone reading this, is unaware of a social expectation of keeping your promises?

And morality, being based on our actions towards each other, is  intersubjective rather than subjective. Nobody came up with their moral code in a solipsistic vacuum. Are you suggesting BioWare operate in a moral framework radically different to yours or mine? Then how is it possible they can make games with what we perceive as understandable moral considerations for us?

You do not see my interpretation because you do not wish to see it. You have chosen your role and you practise it by rejecting what you see as the opposition.

Thats a lie, and you know it. 

As for what you said, if I misread its my own fault, so sorry about that. Perhaps you should be a bit more transparent the next time you put forth your intentions through philosophical postulations.

As to the answer to your question, is it even possible to objectively view morality in a form of media such as this? What is right or wrong, or what is morally correct or incorrect are also, as you say, sort of common sense. We can percieve things as such, sure But our own definitions is what makes it so, but it also is open for debate and becomes situational dependant on the issues at hand. 

So its possible that BioWare does operate in a different framework. But not in the context of their content. Real life issues are sometimes held higher than philosophical ideals. Does it make it right or not is a good question. I can't answer that, because I don't know all the details as to why, which is more important when dealing with social issues. 

What am I supposed to think when you come across sounding literally like a BioWare lawyer?

Maybe the argument was not made very clearly, but the point was extremely simple. Rather than hiding behind their legal right to the Mass Effect IP (which no one is questioning) BioWare would simply be smarter to recognize the self-sabotaging nature of setting themselves up as an adversary of their 'fanbase'. A very simple step in this direction would be to relate to their audience as members of the same community (which includes recognition of certain social bonds) and at least make a genuine attempt to work towards a resolution of the current antagonism, which is not helping either Mass Effect fans or BioWare themselves.

The fact is they are in the process of figuring out how to create a sequel for ME, something the project leads obviously had no intention of doing when they inserted the ending we know and lo.. athe. Personally I have no doubt the desire to close off the setting for any further development was the biggest motivating factor behind these endings. As long as they were planning to stick with that, it would make sense they would insist on preserving that ending. Now, things have changed. The big reason for changing the galaxy in mutually irreconcilable ways is no longer valid.

Given that, the logical move now would be to find a way to undo the damage to allow for the development of the sequel. And BioWare should drop the legal absolutist excuse for preserving their ending and work with, rather than against, their audience to ensure a decent customer base for the product they are preparing. Of course they can't please everyone. But they can do better than they presently are. This is why copping a lawyerly attitude to story 'ownership' is counterproductive. Having made their promises, the persistant denial of those now serves no purpose but to offend the moral sense of people they are going to have to enlist as a 'community'. 

[Reorte]

There's a point upthread that immortal heros make boring heros, and that's very true. IMO the same is true for doomed heros. You can only get drama when neither success or failure (or death or living, depending upon the story) is inevitable.

Now if I like a hero I don't like them dying at all, end of. Quite honestly, why would anyone? It's rather twisted. There's obviously a bit of a contradiction there. Don't like hero always surviving, don't like hero dying. IMO I need the stories with a tragic resolution mostly in order to enjoy those that end well (not I can't enjoy the former, if they're done well and convincingly instead of stupidly and arbitrarily). Now we come on to the beauty of a game, where there no longer has to be a rigid, set in stone outcome. Finally a medium has been invented that has the potential to do it all in the same story! It's daft not to make use of that.

True stories are often the best simply because the first time you hear them you've no idea how things can turn out. Games are the only storytelling medium where that is possible. Don't take advantage of that and you're not taking advantage of the unique storytelling possibilities.

For me the most nerve-wracking and hence engaging part of Mass Effect was ME2's Suicide Mission. I'd become attached to many of the characters and thought it quite likely that some wouldn't survive (I'd not seen any spoilers). Then one of them died. I was pretty certain it was down to a mistake that I'd made. That hit me badly, in a good way.

Modifié par Reorte, 17 décembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[Dr_Extrem]

fiendishchicken wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

I played my trilogy to make the best possible decisions so that I wouldn't have to die, and would have as little overall destruction in the war as possible.

I don't like being told that Shepard dying fits their story. Sorry mates, but it doesn't fit mine.

Do those people tell you that Shepard is a tragic hero?

All the time. Don't know why. He has his numerous fatal flaws but it's made moot by the Reapers being the real threat. Which disqualifies it from being a tragedy. Tragic hero's face the most opposition from internal conflicts. Shepard has much more and much worse to deal with than that. The only issue he has is wondering if he still has the strength to keep going, to keep believing. It comes to a head after Thessia, but he knows he still has the most important person in his life (Miranda of course), and he still has the Normandy and his team. He's not going to give up or give in until they are all safe.

my shepard is a war hero, spacer and a bloody icon ..

my shepard was treated like s**t by the alliance, cerberus and the council. her crewmates were the only ones who stood at her side - all the time. if it wasnt for them, shepard would still do her duty - she is a soldier through and through - but only because she has to do it.
because of her friends and loved ones, shepard does her duty with passion and determination. her friends are the source of her power - not the medals on her chest. this passion, determination and energy brought her home, to see another day.

the only tragic thing about my shepard is, that she was kicked in the teeth by everyone exept her friends. but the friends are the only thing that really matters to her.


my shepard has too many things to loose, if she would die:

- vega would loose everything he has in poker games, without shep reminding him of his n7-training
- there is no vakarian without a shepard - cant let my best friend down
- ash/kaiden would loose her/his strongpoint and orientation.
- liara would loose her love a second time
- who would be there to tell tali, that its a straw?
- edi would loose her guide to become more human
- chakwas would loose another daughter, 
- joker would have to adapt to another commander, who would make him shave


and .. who else is going to shoot allers out of the airlock after the war?

[Reorte]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

and .. who else is going to shoot allers out of the airlock after the war?

That has to be the most convincing argument yet that Shepard must live! To hell with all my dramatic reasons, I'd forgotten about Allers.

[jtav]

I don't see Shepard's death as tragic in the EC. He dies but he dies *for* something. Humanity will live on at or beyond pre-war levels. Characters he cares for have good lives. He defeated gods. The cycle is ended once and for all. If his death is tragic, so is the death of every martyr, every firefighter who ran into a burning building. It's heroic, not tragic.

[Reorte]

jtav wrote...

I don't see Shepard's death as tragic in the EC. He dies but he dies *for* something. Humanity will live on at or beyond pre-war levels. Characters he cares for have good lives. He defeated gods. The cycle is ended once and for all. If his death is tragic, so is the death of every martyr, every firefighter who ran into a burning building. It's heroic, not tragic.

It's still tragic. Tragic doesn't necessarily mean pointless.

[Dr_Extrem]

jtav wrote...

I don't see Shepard's death as tragic in the EC. He dies but he dies *for* something. Humanity will live on at or beyond pre-war levels. Characters he cares for have good lives. He defeated gods. The cycle is ended once and for all. If his death is tragic, so is the death of every martyr, every firefighter who ran into a burning building. It's heroic, not tragic.

there is nothing heroic in the death of a comrade. every lost comrade it a tragady. (i am a volutary fireman myself)

shepard dies, because the reapers demand it. its not heroic, its sad. the reapers demand that shepard sacrifices him/herself - there is no volutariness left for shepard. a sacrifice is something that is done voluntarily.

its just:
- shoot the pipe and you die, because you are partly synthetic
- jump of the cliff, to grant utopia
- get electrocuted to death, to keep the reapers at bay

you fulfill the reapers demand - thats all.