6 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

TL;DR: We're not able to directly challenge Starkid's assertion of inevitable conflict. I've written how this could be done, using Rannoch as an example, regardless of outcome.

--------------------------------------------------

When the starkid describes Destroy, Shepard is given two choices and an investigate option. Questioning the process gets the starkid to describe the damage Destroy will cause, differing based on your EMS. Shepard can then either say he won't use the Crucible, prompting the kid to say the Reapers will win if you don't.

The other option is for Shepard to say, "But the Reapers will be destroyed?" At this point, the kid says they will, but "the chaos will come back." Autodialogue Shepard then immediately answers "there must be another way!" This is the line that needed to be broken up. As it is, we're forced to either agree with the starkid's premise via autodialogue, or argue that we can win conventionally when we very clearly can't.

Where we currently see "There must be another way," there should have been a dialogue choice, tagged "What else can we do," which would use the same line, or "I don't believe you."

"I don't believe you" could lead to Shepard invoking the example of Rannoch, whatever the outcome was. If the Quarians won, Shepard can cite it as proof that synthetic victory isn't inevitable if we help each other when the problem arises. If the Geth won, Shepard can say their creators' fate is an example of what happens when we try to destroy them. If peace was made, Shepard can say the entire galaxy has seen now that coexistence is possible. In any of these cases, starkid can insist the outcome is inevitable, to which AutoShep, while stepping in the direction of the pipe, could reply "I guess it's up to us to find out."

THEN the kid could start on about the other options. I'm sure similar dialogue could accompany them as well - Shepard basically saying "I'll do that" for whichever one you favor instead of being ambivalent. I know no changes will be made to the ending, just an observation of a missing element. Thoughts?

[Steelcan]

That's what I wanted most in the EC, and I didn't get it......

I did get the Liara flashback removed through

[xsdob]

It should have been earlier, before the choices are presented. Like, at the part where the catalyst brings up the reapers intervene in harvesting civilizations, shepard should have been able to assert the catalyst is wrong.

Shepard: The geth are out there fighting with us right now. Your assertion is wrong.
Catalyst abbreviation mode: Brings up how there have been many different synthetics before, how the alliances break down or are abused over time, and how other synthetics will arise to threaten live even more so than the geth. How life breads conflict and how as bad as organic conflicts have been, the synthetic organic conflict the catalyst originally stopped the first time was much, much worse than anything previously recorded.

Would have loved that much more. You could still disagree with the catalyst, but it would have good reasons from it's own experiences and simulations on what would happen.

[DeinonSlayer]

If they really wanted people to take the threat of an inevitable synthetic/organic conflict seriously, they should have emphasized the 99% death rate the Quarians suffered in the Morning War instead of effectively sweeping it under the rug so we'd be more prone to sympathize with the Geth. The way it's presented, people think the problem is resolved already, then we're not allowed to challenge the Catalyst's claim that it will A) always happen, and end in the extinction of organic life.

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

If they really wanted people to take the threat of an inevitable synthetic/organic conflict seriously, they should have emphasized the 99% death rate the Quarians suffered in the Morning War instead of effectively sweeping it under the rug so we'd be more prone to sympathize with the Geth. The way it's presented, people think the problem is resolved already, then we're not allowed to challenge the Catalyst's claim that it will A) always happen, and end in the extinction of organic life.

But if they emphasized the 99% casualty rate they'd lose a lot of support for the geth.  Lose a lot of support for the geth then the the geth die over Rannoch.  If the geth die over Rannoch then no one believes the Catalyst's bs.  And if no one believes the Catalyst's bs than the endings just suck.

[Dean_the_Young]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

TL;DR: We're not able to directly challenge Starkid's assertion of inevitable conflict. I've written how this could be done, using Rannoch as an example, regardless of outcome.

--------------------------------------------------

When the starkid describes Destroy, Shepard is given two choices and an investigate option. Questioning the process gets the starkid to describe the damage Destroy will cause, differing based on your EMS. Shepard can then either say he won't use the Crucible, prompting the kid to say the Reapers will win if you don't.

The other option is for Shepard to say, "But the Reapers will be destroyed?" At this point, the kid says they will, but "the chaos will come back." Autodialogue Shepard then immediately answers "there must be another way!" This is the line that needed to be broken up. As it is, we're forced to either agree with the starkid's premise via autodialogue, or argue that we can win conventionally when we very clearly can't.

Where we currently see "There must be another way," there should have been a dialogue choice, tagged "What else can we do," which woukd use the same line, or "I don't believe you."

"I don't believe you" could lead to Shepard invoking the example of Rannoch, whatever the outcome was. If the Quarians won, Shepard can cite it as proof that synthetic victory isn't inevitable if we help each other when the problem arises. If the Geth won, Shepard can say their creators' fate is an example of what happens when we try to destroy them. If peace was made, Shepard can say the entire galaxy has seen now that coexistence is possible. In any of these cases, starkid can insist the outcome is inevitable, to which AutoShep, while stepping in the direction of the pipe, could reply "I guess it's up to us to find out."

THEN the kid could start on about the other options.  I'm sure similar dialogue could accompany them as well - Shepard basically saying "I'll do that" for whichever one you favor instead of being ambivalent. I know no changes will be made to the ending, just an observation of a missing element.

Thoughts?

Well, that's a bit short to warrant a  TL;DR for one. At least compared to someone in this thread... :innocent:

But no, seriously, that's a very good case for breaking down the dialogue in a better way. Brief but to the point, the way you made the Rannoch conclusion apply regardless is succinct and effective. I especially appreciate the idea of the Geth victory as a 'we can't beat them, so we need to learn to live with them' line of argument. All told, it works well within the established plot, and can even be applied on a larger scale to the Reapers themselves: sort of a natural conclusion that would lead to not picking Destroy, as a Geth-siding person would be more inclined to do.


A pity I don't think the Control or Synthesis options could be improved so effectively. Control deserves a re-cast of sorts across the narrative as it is, some form of skepticism of personal doubt of Cerberus that leads Shepard to dismiss TIM's views, but Synthesis... well, Synthesis was deliberatly vague to start with, but most people would want it introduced far, far earlier than it ever was. You could rewrite half of ME2 and all of ME3 trying to lead up to that twist.

But really, good insight on the mechanics of dialogue, and how it could be improved without simply going with 'autodialogue' as if that were all that were required. Kudos to you.

[DiebytheSword]

Nicely done Deinon.
I approve on all counts.