1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

One race of people is expendable-put to death to appease our enemy.  Exactly what makes life lack any kind of value.  You do that and you set up a reality that no life matters.  Not to mention, these are people that actually showed far more sense and "humanity" that most of the rest of the galaxy combined.

If I could sacrifice, say, the salarians instead, I'd give it some thought. But if the choices are getting all the races killed or just one, I don't see how choosing just one means that no life matters. I really don't understand how you get to "no life matters."

And that's very close to the Catalyst's "cleansing fire" logic.  Kill off some life to make room for others.  Destroy is prtty much the same thing, just on a somewhat smaller scale.

If you reducuto the reducto ad absurdem to less absurdem levels, of course it's going to be closer to something that makes sense.

Destruction in the service of creation and preservation is a pretty established and universal concept. You can apply it to fields ranging from medicine to warfare to finances.

[Iakus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

One race of people is expendable-put to death to appease our enemy.  Exactly what makes life lack any kind of value.  You do that and you set up a reality that no life matters.  Not to mention, these are people that actually showed far more sense and "humanity" that most of the rest of the galaxy combined.

If I could sacrifice, say, the salarians instead, I'd give it some thought. But if the choices are getting all the races killed or just one, I don't see how choosing just one means that no life matters. I really don't understand how you get to "no life matters."

And that's very close to the Catalyst's "cleansing fire" logic.  Kill off some life to make room for others.  Destroy is prtty much the same thing, just on a somewhat smaller scale.

If you reducuto the reducto ad absurdem to less absurdem levels, of course it's going to be closer to something that makes sense.

Destruction in the service of creation and preservation is a pretty established and universal concept. You can apply it to fields ranging from medicine to warfare to finances.

Genocide is genocide.  

Shepard killing all synthetics everywhere in the galaxy to save organic life from synthetics

The Catalyst killing all advanced organic life to "save" future organic life from synthetics

It's not that much of a reduction.

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm just pointing out that what Dr_Extrem said we have to decide to pick Destroy is not, in fact, required in order to pick Destroy. I'm not a good choice to defend the ethics of Destroy since I don't think it's a very good option. Well, unless you don't have enough EMS for anything else, since Destroy is still a lot better than Refuse. If that's the only case I have to make I'll just defer to Buck Turgidson.

I get the feeling a large chunk of Destroyers feel the same way you do about the Destroy choice...
However, they feel all of the other options are much much worse...

Like worse than commiting genocide on your friends...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 février 2013 - 07:20 .

[Nightwriter]

I have no answer. To be honest, I've never been so out of touch with the devs. The ME team was never very communicative with the fanbase -- at least, not compared to the DA team -- but now more than ever, I just really don't understand the wavelengths they've been thinking on.

Some of them don't appear to acknowledge that the endings were depressing at all. Others say Destroy was thrown in because they worried the ending was "too bleak."

Casey acknowledges pre-release that "part of it is saving the galaxy so you can live in it" (paraphrased), which seems to demonstrate an awareness that many players are fighting for the future of their own character as much as for the future of others. Yet the endings, again, do not seem written with that awareness in mind. Shepard's future ends in virtually all of them.

BioWare even seemed to forget that we are invested in our relationships and in the characters we have formed connections to. The original ending seemed oblivious to their importance, which I guess might help to explain why they didn't think there was any problem killing Shepard off. If they don't understand why these relationships are significant, they don't understand why Shepard's life has meaning to the player. Which seems odd, because the rest of ME3 seemed to have perfect understanding of the value of inter-character relationships.

It's kind of confusing. They showed all these signs that they knew, understood, and were interested in delivering the kind of satisfaction I desire. Then all the sudden they seemed to decide I wasn't the kind of customer they were interested in anymore.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 03 février 2013 - 12:43 .

[Jere85]

Good post Nightwriter, i agree.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Nightwriter wrote...

Some of them don't appear to acknowledge that the endings were depressing at all. Others say Destroy was thrown in because they worried the ending was "too bleak."

That's because it is a point of view, not an objective truth.

[Nightwriter]

BioWare is a gestalt. Most of the time it speaks with a single voice. I would love it if the devs expressed their individual opinions about the serious issues, but they rarely seem to. Much of what they say they are saying on behalf of the team, as a unified front.

Such is the case with these two juxtaposed statements. I've seen them express both surprise at how darkly fans took the ending, and also worry that the ending was too bleak, and they used the words "we" instead of "I" both times.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 03 février 2013 - 02:12 .

[Archonsg]

@nightwriter

That is because at some point along the way, Casey Hudson decided that Mass Effect 3 was to be a movie or an interactive Graphic Novel as opposed to a game.

People play a game *to win*. To leave feeling rewarded for their time and effort. Unfortunately the fashion in which ME3 ended was more akin, more appropriate to that of a book, movie or comic book where the audience are passively witnessing the story unfold instead of being an active participant forging the story, a partnership between the author and player.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I can and would have accepted how ME3 ended if it was an action adventure game, not as a decision based RPG.

[Nightwriter]

Auto-dialogue is further down my list of beefs, after "the ending" and "ME2 LI treatment." It's a glaring drawback, but I was fortunate in that the Shepard they forced me to behave as was no different than the one I would have roleplayed anyway. A fluke, really.

I was quite satisfied with the baby choice outcomes throughout the game -- the little ones, the small touches. Seeing David at Grissom Academy, Conrad living if you helped Jenna, etc. The bigger consequences were, predictably, a little phoned in. Your rachni decision in ME1 was rendered a bit meaningless, and the Collector base was laughed out of court altogether. I could have put up with all that, though, if geth/quarian peace had been allowed to have some impact on the ending. It was so directly relevant to it.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Archonsg wrote...

People play a game *to win*. To leave feeling rewarded for their time and effort. 

This is your point of view, not an objective truth.

Personally, I rarely play any game to *win* nowadays. Partially because *winning* means an end to the journey -  something that I abhor.

Modifié par Mouton_Alpha, 03 février 2013 - 02:27 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Nightwriter wrote...

Auto-dialogue is further down my list of beefs, after "the ending" and "ME2 LI treatment." It's a glaring drawback, but I was fortunate in that the Shepard they forced me to behave as was no different than the one I would have roleplayed anyway. A fluke, really.

I was quite satisfied with the baby choice outcomes throughout the game -- the little ones, the small touches. Seeing David at Grissom Academy, Conrad living if you helped Jenna, etc. The bigger consequences were, predictably, a little phoned in. Your rachni decision in ME1 was rendered a bit meaningless, and the Collector base was laughed out of court altogether. I could have put up with all that, though, if geth/quarian peace had been allowed to have some impact on the ending. It was so directly relevant to it.

This is my feeling as well I was willing to put up with auto-dialogue since on occasion it was well implemented, (less so when they were trying to force me to feel things I wasn't but no ME game is with out it's flaws), the ME2 characters got the shaft Morinth, Zaeedm Thane and Jacob in particular but this I felt could be addressed with DLC somewhere down the line (fingers crossed for a few appearanaces in the next one). Last ten minutes broke the experiance entirely.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 03 février 2013 - 03:33 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

People play a game *to win*. To leave feeling rewarded for their time and effort. 

This is your point of view, not an objective truth.

Personally, I rarely play any game to *win* nowadays. Partially because *winning* means an end to the journey -  something that I abhor.

I mostly play games to experience a story, and if a well written story or a unique gaming experience doesn't end with me *winning* it's okay. Still it should indeed leave me feeling rewarded for my time and effort. The Walking Dead or Spec Ops: The Line did that, ME3 did not. My first playthrough of Heavy Rain basically ended with a "Critical Mission Failure" scenario, and it was fine, cause I got there by playing the game a certain way. *Winning* and feeling satisfied with the end of a game isn't the same for me.

Just out of curiosity, Mouton, what kind of games do you like to play? Because pretty much every Bioware game I played (DA1+2, ME1-3) has a pretty clear "end to the journey", wether I found it satisfying or not (*winning* isn't a neccessity for a journey to end).

[AB Souldier]

Archonsg wrote...

@nightwriter

That is because at some point along the way, Casey Hudson decided that Mass Effect 3 was to be a movie or an interactive Graphic Novel as opposed to a game.

People play a game *to win*. To leave feeling rewarded for their time and effort. Unfortunately the fashion in which ME3 ended was more akin, more appropriate to that of a book, movie or comic book where the audience are passively witnessing the story unfold instead of being an active participant forging the story, a partnership between the author and player.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I can and would have accepted how ME3 ended if it was an action adventure game, not as a decision based RPG.

Yeah i get how you feel. When i beat the end of ME3, Shepards last story, the end of the trilogy, i dont feel rewarded, i feel sad/puished.

[Robhuzz]

Archonsg wrote...

@nightwriter

That is because at some point along the way, Casey Hudson decided that Mass Effect 3 was to be a movie or an interactive Graphic Novel as opposed to a game.  

That is how I felt as well. It felt as if ME3 wasn't designed with a good plot or anything in mind, they weren't going for a great game with an awesome story. They just wanted to create *emotion* first and foremost. They needed to give shepard his own character for that complete with auto dialogue, sad music and forced emotional scenes. It seemed as if they had planned it from the beginning though, since ME3 starts with several emotional scenes that don't make a lot of sense either..

Yeah i get how you feel. When i beat the end of ME3, Shepards last story, the end of the trilogy, i dont feel rewarded, i feel sad/puished.

And that's why I can no longer play ME3. I play ME1 and 2 still because, even though there are some bad points along the way, the endings are very rewarding and it's great to play towards and feel a sense of accomplishment and closure. ME3 doesn't have that, you start up the game and other than a few missions, there's nothing to look forward to, just that god awful ending I don't even want to see...

Modifié par Robhuzz, 03 février 2013 - 06:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

One race of people is expendable-put to death to appease our enemy.  Exactly what makes life lack any kind of value.  You do that and you set up a reality that no life matters.  Not to mention, these are people that actually showed far more sense and "humanity" that most of the rest of the galaxy combined.

If I could sacrifice, say, the salarians instead, I'd give it some thought. But if the choices are getting all the races killed or just one, I don't see how choosing just one means that no life matters. I really don't understand how you get to "no life matters."

And that's very close to the Catalyst's "cleansing fire" logic.  Kill off some life to make room for others.  Destroy is prtty much the same thing, just on a somewhat smaller scale.

If you reducuto the reducto ad absurdem to less absurdem levels, of course it's going to be closer to something that makes sense.

Destruction in the service of creation and preservation is a pretty established and universal concept. You can apply it to fields ranging from medicine to warfare to finances.

Genocide is genocide. 

I was under the impression that you were making an argument of the logical similarities. Actions aren't the substitute of logic, or consequence: having a similar action doesn't imply similar views, or goals.

You might as well say 'Shepard uses guns and mass effect fields. The Reapers use guns mass effect fields.' It's about as relevant to comparing what their views actually are.

Shepard killing all synthetics everywhere in the galaxy to save organic life from synthetics

The Catalyst killing all advanced organic life to "save" future organic life from synthetics

It's not that much of a reduction.

In what sense? You're certainly selective about how you word it: I could easily reframe it in far less similar terms.

Shepard kills all synthetics everywhere in the galaxy as of consequence of destroying a clear and present synthetic menace that is conducting an immediate genocide. The result of this action is the resolution of the problem, and allows for future life, organic and synthetic, to exist free from the fear of Reaper genocide.

The Catalyst is killing all sufficiently advanced organic and synthetic life eveywhere in the galaxy to ward off against a hypothetical future genocide. The result of this action does NOT resolve the underlying problem, and is intended to lead into a continued patter of genocide.



There are a few pretty important logical and contextual differences between those two situations... enough so that I'll claim you're making a false equivalence.

[Harorrd]

EA uses bioware as a passage to sell more DLC. relese a fullprice broken game, give the player the option to fix it by pay a total of another full price game

[CronoDragoon]

vallore wrote...
Synthesis has clearly a main purpose, directly connected with solving the O/S conflict. If a player did not believe in that conflict, then the story should provide an appropriate solution for that player. In this case Destroy, (or even Control). However if that player picks up Synthesis despite not believing in it, something likely failed in the story crafting. The solution is not being used as intended, for what was intended, likely because the “right” solution for that player was defective, unsatisfying.

I agree with you, but I identify that failure specifically as the decision to make the geth and EDI the sacrifice for Destroy, and not the inclusion of a consequence for Destroy in general.

In other words, I have no issue with the tone of the endings but rather with the solubility of one aspect of one ending for one specific type of playthrough. I believe that if you substitute the geth/EDI destruction with a different consequence, that post-EC all the endings would achieve the bittersweet tone that BW explicitly wanted to create. Right now Paragon Destroy feels unsatisfying not because of the tone but because of the confusion between what thematically Destroy represents for a Paragon regarding the O/S conflict and the actual result.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 04 février 2013 - 04:41 .

[Wayning_Star]

CronoDragoon wrote...

vallore wrote...
Synthesis has clearly a main purpose, directly connected with solving the O/S conflict. If a player did not believe in that conflict, then the story should provide an appropriate solution for that player. In this case Destroy, (or even Control). However if that player picks up Synthesis despite not believing in it, something likely failed in the story crafting. The solution is not being used as intended, for what was intended, likely because the “right” solution for that player was defective, unsatisfying.

I agree with you, but I identify that failure specifically as the decision to make the geth and EDI the sacrifice for Destroy, and not the inclusion of a consequence for Destroy in general.

I agreed with synthesis because it were the only complete option to correct for all concerned in the MEU.

I don't look as if any were 'failures' as the choices goes, each Shep for themselves, but the tragedy, if any, is the living with those decisions if you're uncertain they'll 'cover all bases'. AS IN 'fail' to halt the reaper threat,end the cycle of chaos, if your 'into' that sort of concept. The idea to me were the 'best case scenerio'.

Practically tho, many decide on mitigating circumstances, such as rights of the uniformed and other pesky constitutional issues. Its almost as if it's a matter of too far or just far enough to continually battle for ever, as if that is the only real choice given by nature in the generally 'cosmic' sense.

I figure the reapers gots to go and go completely, without a shadow of a doubt, but the Leviathan pester any simple cause to adhere. Synthesis seems to be the only avenue to address all threats for the longes breather for MEU to exist and end up with the most toys, and still co exist with nature/space/advanced tech/evolution..

Welcome to the Machine, as it were. Can't live without them, cannot destroy them.. hence the trap of the MEU.

[Iakus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...

Shepard killing all synthetics everywhere in the galaxy to save organic life from synthetics

The Catalyst killing all advanced organic life to "save" future organic life from synthetics

It's not that much of a reduction.

In what sense? You're certainly selective about how you word it: I could easily reframe it in far less similar terms.

Shepard kills all synthetics everywhere in the galaxy as of consequence of destroying a clear and present synthetic menace that is conducting an immediate genocide. The result of this action is the resolution of the problem, and allows for future life, organic and synthetic, to exist free from the fear of Reaper genocide.

The Catalyst is killing all sufficiently advanced organic and synthetic life eveywhere in the galaxy to ward off against a hypothetical future genocide. The result of this action does NOT resolve the underlying problem, and is intended to lead into a continued patter of genocide.



There are a few pretty important logical and contextual differences between those two situations... enough so that I'll claim you're making a false equivalence.

The Catalyst considers the presence of advanced organic life a clear and present danger.  Thus its "cleansing fire"  It sees the synthetic genocide as inevitable, not a hypothetical.  Kill advanced organic life now, allow future organic life to live free of synthetic threats.  At least until their time comes. 

Again, the reasoning for the two actions is not that disparate, at least from the points of view of the characters taking the action.  Genocide life forms for the future safety of others

Shepard's action is potentially worse, though.  The Catalyst sees life as a series of patterns  It measures things in cold equations.  Shepard, being human, has the potential to see life as individuals.  These are people Shepard is condemming to death. 

[Mouton_Alpha]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Just out of curiosity, Mouton, what kind of games do you like to play? Because pretty much every Bioware game I played (DA1+2, ME1-3) has a pretty clear "end to the journey", wether I found it satisfying or not (*winning* isn't a neccessity for a journey to end).

I play games which "end the journey", yes. It is simply element that I have issues with, even if it is unavaoidable. I suppose people who can't take it play MMOs forever.

As to whether ME3 was "rewarding", well, the series was always very flawed. After ME and ME2 I was simply much more careful and essentially cherry-picked the experience, instead of taking those games as a whole.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
The Catalyst considers the presence of advanced organic life a clear and present danger.  Thus its "cleansing fire"  It sees the synthetic genocide as inevitable, not a hypothetical.  Kill advanced organic life now, allow future organic life to live free of synthetic threats.  At least until their time comes. 

Again, the reasoning for the two actions is not that disparate, at least from the points of view of the characters taking the action.  Genocide life forms for the future safety of others

Shepard's action is potentially worse, though.  The Catalyst sees life as a series of patterns  It measures things in cold equations.  Shepard, being human, has the potential to see life as individuals.  These are people Shepard is condemming to death. 

Calling it genocide is hiding behind words. It ignores the differences in comparison to actual genocide, of which one is clearly relevant: In actual genocide you cannot separate the means (killing a race) from the end (removing a race from existence). Killing synthetics here is not an inherent part of the end; it is easy to imagine a hypothetical scenario where Shepard achieves his end without killing all synthetics. It just happens to unfortunately be attached to this one specific way of ending the war.

[Mouton_Alpha]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
The Catalyst considers the presence of advanced organic life a clear and present danger.  Thus its "cleansing fire"  It sees the synthetic genocide as inevitable, not a hypothetical.  Kill advanced organic life now, allow future organic life to live free of synthetic threats.  At least until their time comes. 

Again, the reasoning for the two actions is not that disparate, at least from the points of view of the characters taking the action.  Genocide life forms for the future safety of others

Shepard's action is potentially worse, though.  The Catalyst sees life as a series of patterns  It measures things in cold equations.  Shepard, being human, has the potential to see life as individuals.  These are people Shepard is condemming to death. 

Calling it genocide is hiding behind words. It ignores the differences in comparison to actual genocide, of which one is clearly relevant: In actual genocide you cannot separate the means (killing a race) from the end (removing a race from existence). Killing synthetics here is not an inherent part of the end; it is easy to imagine a hypothetical scenario where Shepard achieves his end without killing all synthetics. It just happens to unfortunately be attached to this one specific way of ending the war.

Yes.

It is a sacrifice made to win a war. If ending a horribly bloody war requires bombing a city, then the civilians inside are an ufortunate but necessary price. One can be horrified, but this is the reality and this is something that leaders, like Shepard, have to do.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
The Catalyst considers the presence of advanced organic life a clear and present danger.  Thus its "cleansing fire"  It sees the synthetic genocide as inevitable, not a hypothetical.  Kill advanced organic life now, allow future organic life to live free of synthetic threats.  At least until their time comes. 

Again, the reasoning for the two actions is not that disparate, at least from the points of view of the characters taking the action.  Genocide life forms for the future safety of others

Shepard's action is potentially worse, though.  The Catalyst sees life as a series of patterns  It measures things in cold equations.  Shepard, being human, has the potential to see life as individuals.  These are people Shepard is condemming to death. 

Calling it genocide is hiding behind words. It ignores the differences in comparison to actual genocide, of which one is clearly relevant: In actual genocide you cannot separate the means (killing a race) from the end (removing a race from existence). Killing synthetics here is not an inherent part of the end; it is easy to imagine a hypothetical scenario where Shepard achieves his end without killing all synthetics. It just happens to unfortunately be attached to this one specific way of ending the war.

It's a good word to "hide behind because" it's an accurate one.

Shepard kills every single synthetic in the galaxy.  Not just the geth and EDI.  All of them.  Peaceful or hostile.  Combatant or not.  Whether they were involved in the Reaper war or not, they're dead.  That's genocide.  It may be seen as necessary to stop the Reapers.  But a necessary evil is still evil.  Dead is dead (unless you're a quasi-terrorist organization with a few billion credits to throw around)

And still, I find it the least evil of the three, which says something about what I think of the other two options. 

[Iakus]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

It is a sacrifice made to win a war. If ending a horribly bloody war requires bombing a city, then the civilians inside are an ufortunate but necessary price. One can be horrified, but this is the reality and this is something that leaders, like Shepard, have to do.

New flash:  this is not reality.  This is a game. I don't play games to be horrified.  Especially not in games that have allowed, even encouraged a more "heroic" mindset