164 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

drayfish wrote...

I would be more willing to embrace the notion of value testing that you nicely describe, were it not for the fact that the game so artlessly weighs three war crimes against each other for cheap effect. Were the price of Destroy non-discriminate death (Reapers blow up and kill whoever is nearby, for example), rather than a targeted extermination of a specific race in order to stop the targeted extermination of races, I would find it had genuine gravitas. Were Synthesis about the proposed voluntary alteration of species (Shepard becoming an advocate for the evolutionary future that all could embrace rather than have her force it upon them), it could be a beautiful, potentially mournful vision of the need to adapt and change together, to become something greater. Were Control about freeing the Reapers from their servitude, sacrificing Shepard to break the hold the Catalyst had upon these brutalised civilisations, innocents mutilated to become the tools of further devastation. Were this tale genuinely about the price of these actions, not simply 'Which one do you like better because it all shakes out okay anyway', I would have celebrated the attempt that I think you rightly point out was Bioware's misguided goal.

This, this, this.

[Galbrant]

spirosz wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I would be more willing to embrace the notion of value testing that you nicely describe, were it not for the fact that the game so artlessly weighs three war crimes against each other for cheap effect. Were the price of Destroy non-discriminate death (Reapers blow up and kill whoever is nearby, for example), rather than a targeted extermination of a specific race in order to stop the targeted extermination of races, I would find it had genuine gravitas. Were Synthesis about the proposed voluntary alteration of species (Shepard becoming an advocate for the evolutionary future that all could embrace rather than have her force it upon them), it could be a beautiful, potentially mournful vision of the need to adapt and change together, to become something greater. Were Control about freeing the Reapers from their servitude, sacrificing Shepard to break the hold the Catalyst had upon these brutalised civilisations, innocents mutilated to become the tools of further devastation. Were this tale genuinely about the price of these actions, not simply 'Which one do you like better because it all shakes out okay anyway', I would have celebrated the attempt that I think you rightly point out was Bioware's misguided goal.

This, this, this.

I second this.

[Ieldra]

Galbrant wrote...

spirosz wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I would be more willing to embrace the notion of value testing that you nicely describe, were it not for the fact that the game so artlessly weighs three war crimes against each other for cheap effect. Were the price of Destroy non-discriminate death (Reapers blow up and kill whoever is nearby, for example), rather than a targeted extermination of a specific race in order to stop the targeted extermination of races, I would find it had genuine gravitas. Were Synthesis about the proposed voluntary alteration of species (Shepard becoming an advocate for the evolutionary future that all could embrace rather than have her force it upon them), it could be a beautiful, potentially mournful vision of the need to adapt and change together, to become something greater. Were Control about freeing the Reapers from their servitude, sacrificing Shepard to break the hold the Catalyst had upon these brutalised civilisations, innocents mutilated to become the tools of further devastation. Were this tale genuinely about the price of these actions, not simply 'Which one do you like better because it all shakes out okay anyway', I would have celebrated the attempt that I think you rightly point out was Bioware's misguided goal.

This, this, this.

I second this.

Indeed, such a scenario would have been much more satisfying, and it wouldn't leave a bad taste in people's mouth, as it does even in many of those who can live with the endings as they are now.

I try to make the best of things and I think more people should do so, but the writers made it extremely difficult. Impossible for some, and that's a shame.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 janvier 2013 - 03:11 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

While I'm in agreement with the above statment everyone else is quoting I'd like to refer to a different tidbit in one of the previous posts (I'm a rebel, I do what I want!)

drayfish wrote...
And then, no matter what you choose – genocide on friendly allies, ascend to the omnipresent, unstoppable overlord of the galaxy, or eugenically mutate everyone against their will – not a single negative consequence is lingered upon. The game white-washes these horrors – pretends that the universe is gleefully unperturbed by whatever war crime that has been inflicted in their name.

This is one of my key issues actually, the sheer lack of the acknowledgement of any of the negative implications of our actions in that last decision. Kill Joker's robot girlfriend? No reaction. The machine that was supposed to stop the Reapers made everyone green for some reason? No Reaction. Killed all the Geth? Not even acknowledge in the slides except by their absence(the Rachni are also usually absent even if thy're alive so the effect is at best glossed over), killing the Quarians and than the Geth fets you a slide of a barren Rannoch but even that put greater emphasis on the Quarians being dead (literally a dead quarain shown in the slide).

I'm really perplexed when someone accuses me of just wanting sunshine and rainbows at the end when strangely enough that's what the EC comes off as to me. It's like the intent was to ignore the negative aspects of the final choice and cram as much happiness and hopeful symbolism as possible to distract form the matter. "Don't think to hard on it just smile." which comes in such sharp contrast to the concept presented in the previous setpiece I get a form of mental whiplash.

Pleasure to read your thoughts drayfish, I share them but your articulation puts me to shame .

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 15 janvier 2013 - 03:52 .

[Gamer790]

Very good article, I enjoyed and agree with every word of it.  My thanks to you, 7isMagic, for posting it.

Modifié par Gamer790, 15 janvier 2013 - 04:12 .

[Ajensis]

And once again a thread appears that steals away all my time in the blink of an eye. I was supposed to be doing something, you know! And now it's dark outside :-P

I feel I have nothing of substance to add, but I just have to say this: thank you, everyone, for another example of how the BSN can still foster respectful discussion and debate. And thoughtfulness. And kindness like the 6th post on the 5th page (that one restored a lot of faith for me, so thank you in particular, GimmeDaGun).

Here's to hoping that someone, anyone, writing at Bioware will skim through some of the posts in here. There are a few nuggets of gold already :-)

[Ieldra]

@drayfish et al.:
I understand the point of not showing negative consequences: after the original ending, fans were so angry that they blew everything negative out of proportion. Of course the galaxy was dead from supernova explosions, Control!Shepard would start a totalitarian, oppressive regime and Synthesis makes everyone the same. I've been fighting this annoying tendency to paint everything in the worst possible light just because there's one thing you dislike since day one, and it's been an uphill battle to this day, even after the EC. I think the ME3 team was trying to make the point that all endings are good in their own way, but I don't think they are meant to be perfect.

[Barquiel]

I wouldn't say we see no negative consequences: The epilogue shows the Krogan rebellions 2.0 if we cured Wreav's krogan and the rachni obviously overrun Tuchanka if Shep sabotaged the cure...the abandoned Rannoch slide or the "Jack standing in a graveyard" slide were rather depressing as well.

Modifié par Barquiel, 15 janvier 2013 - 04:43 .

[BSpud]

Drayfish for mother****ing president.

[Jadebaby]

iakus wrote...

Drayfish is a genius and Bioware should read his/her posts carefully.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

I don't think the EC was disappointing. Saved the entire game for me.

[Jadebaby]

drayfish wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

War is hell, war is mass genocide, war is both victory and loss plus war is sacrifice. Galactic war is all these things and more. If you expected to come out hills alive with sound of music then I am glad you were shown the error of your ways.

I'll start by ignoring the predictably asinine misrepresentation of legitimate criticism (yep: everyone who had problems with the ending wanted to see Shepard skipping through rainbows and making out with a unicorn), and get straight to the 'war is hell' catchcry.

To me – in reference to this text – this sentiment is highly ...misguided.

I do not see what valid or valuable 'truths of war' can be gleaned from Mass Effect 3. The entire premise of the game is that a conglomerate of civilisations fighting for survival decide to pour all of their resources into a giant, mystery remote control device, based on plans they found hidden under a rock, and firing it up with no idea what it does. And in the end, a space genie pops out and grants your wish. Already the game has skipped so far into the fantastically convenient that analogy to 'real-world' warfare is highly suspect.

And then, no matter what you choose – genocide on friendly allies, ascend to the omnipresent, unstoppable overlord of the galaxy, or eugenically mutate everyone against their will – not a single negative consequence is lingered upon. The game white-washes these horrors – pretends that the universe is gleefully unperturbed by whatever war crime that has been inflicted in their name.

Think of the horrors of war that have been employed in real life in order to achieve victory. Not one of those 'necessary evils' is looked back upon with such gushing praise. If anything, Mass Effect 3 posits that in war, anything is okay because it all washes out in the end. 

Exterminated a race of sentient beings? Doesn't matter, because we can 'Rebuild what we have lost...'

Become a totalitarian overlord? That's okay, because you're you. Everyone likes you!

Violated the genetics of every living being in the universe? Don't fret – they're all happy now. Those silly billies with their entrenched religious and social belief systems... They didn't know what they were talking about. Thank goodness you corrected them.

The game's only message about war seems to be that the only way to solve conflict is to be the guy who pushes the button for the reason that you think is right. It is an infantile premise that exhibits no depth or moral complexity at all. Again: no matter what you choose, everything turns out super-happy-fine and Shepard is an unquestioned hero to all. It's ridiculous.

If you want actual explorations of the potential depravity and sacrifices of warfare, if you want legitimate, multifaceted explorations of loss, and the emotional, spiritual and psychological toll humanity faces in war, I encourage you to explore texts like The Iliad, Catch 22, or A Farewell to Arms. 

In contrast, pretending that Mass Effect's final arbitrary moral relativity generator says anything about real conflict is deeply worrying.

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@drayfish et al.:
I understand the point of not showing negative consequences: after the original ending, fans were so angry that they blew everything negative out of proportion. Of course the galaxy was dead from supernova explosions, Control!Shepard would start a totalitarian, oppressive regime and Synthesis makes everyone the same. I've been fighting this annoying tendency to paint everything in the worst possible light just because there's one thing you dislike since day one, and it's been an uphill battle to this day, even after the EC. I think the ME3 team was trying to make the point that all endings are good in their own way, but I don't think they are meant to be perfect.

Given the time and budget constraints on the EC, I'm not quite clear what Bio could have done much differently. I'd have saved some resources by skipping the evac scene - squadmates on the beam run are injured but alive, they miss the memorial scene but get cutscene pics instead - but I don't know what I would have done with those resources. How do you show something less than optimal without touching off another wave of silly interpretations?

And of course, compared to the situation before the Crucible fires, all of the endings are pretty damn good.

[beyondsolo]

In spite of the Extended Cut, the two main issues with the ending still remain for me:

First, the ending negates everything the entire series has stood for so far. And by that I mean that every single of the Catalyst's three choices in the violates one major aspect of the games so far. Control the Reapers and pretty much become the Illusive Man? No! Merge all organic and synthetic life into an unpredictable who-knows-what-maybe-the-Borg, thus eliminating all diversity (the ability of races to make diversity an advantage rather than a reason for conflict being one of the most modern themes of the games)? No! Destroy all synthetic life even though we've just proven that conflict is not the only option (geth/quarian peace, EDI is our friend and Joker's lover)? No! No matter what you pick, it's always wrong on a morally ethical and on an emotional scale. Thus it doesn't feel rewarding at all, and therefore it fails as a conclusion to an otherwise amazing game series.

Second, and this is probably the worst of all: Some genocidal AI at some point in history a long time ago decided that its current understanding of the universe will forver be true. Therefore, instead of observing and learning more, everything had to be wiped out. I mean, just imagine if the humans of the middle-ages had been able to do that? This entire philosophy is so anti-progress, anti-science, and anti-free thinking that I can only shake my head at it in dismay. Nothing is forever true. Everything is subject to contemporary discourse. I don't doubt that the Catalyst absolutely believes what he says, but it's outright sickening that Shepard has to submit to it.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@drayfish et al.:
I understand the point of not showing negative consequences: after the original ending, fans were so angry that they blew everything negative out of proportion. Of course the galaxy was dead from supernova explosions, Control!Shepard would start a totalitarian, oppressive regime and Synthesis makes everyone the same. I've been fighting this annoying tendency to paint everything in the worst possible light just because there's one thing you dislike since day one, and it's been an uphill battle to this day, even after the EC. I think the ME3 team was trying to make the point that all endings are good in their own way, but I don't think they are meant to be perfect.

The no death by supernova was address by showing that the Relays didn't explode as it was by adding the epilogue slides and showing that life does in fact go on. You can make the point of adding a happier tone without compelely dismissing the more somber tone showed beforehand,. This was done well in the moment where the crew is gathered in front of the memorial wall, I would argue one of two instantances were bittersweet is actually done well in the EC. But even here the source of it is somewhat missplaced, were sad because Shepard is dead, or MIA. EDI shows up on the memorial wall but this is again glossed over in favor shifting the focus from the consequence of our actions in stopping the Reapers towards the people who were lost along the way Shepard primairly. 

Sure we all turned green, the Reapers became our overlords, or EDI's name is now on the wall, but let's just remember that the most impornant things here is that we lost Shepard. To me the final product is frighteningly dismissive of the presented implications and while I can understand the writing team wanting to make the EC more upbeat, as was no doubt the intent given the reception of the original, I can also say though that they went too far in that direction to the point of cognitive dissonance. The only outcome I find the tone matches up properly is in the Lowest EMS Destory ending were Hackett says he hopes those who survive and rebuild don't forget what was sacrificed(himself included being stuck on a crippled ship somehwere in space) to achieve the victory. That's hope and somberness in equal messure.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 15 janvier 2013 - 06:44 .