307 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

At least Tali knows she's not a real admiral...

[CynicalShep]

Steelcan wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Because that fire can either burn us or the Reapers. Since we're already at a disadvantage this is a risk I'm willing to take. I'm surprised you destroy them, tbh

. I figured the geth were a threat, regardless of their stance.  Thinning them out was a good call IMO

You are taking a significantly bigger risk if you choose to control the Reapers yet I'm pretty sure that was your preferred ending. I perceived them as no more of a threat than Salarians, Asari or Turians. In fact, I was convinced that they'll do f*ck all in ME3(the Council races). So I tried to get as many allies I could

[Steelcan]

CynicalShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Because that fire can either burn us or the Reapers. Since we're already at a disadvantage this is a risk I'm willing to take. I'm surprised you destroy them, tbh

. I figured the geth were a threat, regardless of their stance.  Thinning them out was a good call IMO

You are taking a significantly bigger risk if you choose to control the Reapers yet I'm pretty sure that was your preferred ending. I perceived them as no more of a threat than Salarians, Asari or Turians. In fact, I was convinced that they'll do f*ck all in ME3(the Council races). So I tried to get as many allies I could

. Why does everyone think that?  I'm an ardent destroyer.

The Salarians/Turians etc... Never stuck people on spikes and worked for the reapers

[CynicalShep]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I think there should be a new axis on the scale.... Maybe similar to Lawful/Chaotic

Which, if taken too far in one direction or the other, turns into dictatorial/anarchist. Something to encourage people to find their own balance (instead of "this is the option that will never bite you") would be great.

If you wish to complete a perfect playthrough please pick the upper conversation option at all times

[DeinonSlayer]

CynicalShep wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I think there should be a new axis on the scale.... Maybe similar to Lawful/Chaotic

Which, if taken too far in one direction or the other, turns into dictatorial/anarchist. Something to encourage people to find their own balance (instead of "this is the option that will never bite you") would be great.

If you wish to complete a perfect playthrough please pick the upper conversation option at all times

Exactly. That alone was half of the problem with Mass Effect's dialogue system. People got conditioned to expect everything to work out for them if they adhered to that strategy (even nonsense like releasing Balak resulting in a net increase in war assets). It's Pavlovian. People don't stop to think about what's right or wrong as often when the game conveniently tells them what they should think.

Then they get to the final chamber and find there's no way to charm their way out of making a sacrifice. I've lost count of how many threads I've seen asking what the paragon ending is. The game isn't telling them what to do anymore, and they're left floundering.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:55 .

[CynicalShep]

Steelcan wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...
Because that fire can either burn us or the Reapers. Since we're already at a disadvantage this is a risk I'm willing to take. I'm surprised you destroy them, tbh

. I figured the geth were a threat, regardless of their stance. Thinning them out was a good call IMO

You are taking a significantly bigger risk if you choose to control the Reapers yet I'm pretty sure that was your preferred ending. I perceived them as no more of a threat than Salarians, Asari or Turians. In fact, I was convinced that they'll do f*ck all in ME3(the Council races). So I tried to get as many allies I could

. Why does everyone think that? I'm an ardent destroyer.
The Salarians/Turians etc... Never stuck people on spikes and worked for the reapers

Ah, my bad. I thought you mentioned that in one of the previous threads. In that case I understand your decision. I don't necessarily agree with it but it makes sense.
Salarians are a bit of a wild card. They are prone to backstabbing and playing with fire more so than other species. Uplifting Yahg, for instance might very well mean galactic extinction if Shadow Broker's intelligence is something common among their species. They are over-confident to the point of arrogance and surprisingly inept for their supposed intelligence(Cerberus attack on STG base is just one example of that). Asari are skilled in nothing except politics and thus useless in a full-scale war that can't be won with negotiations. Turians don't bear much love for us but I was sure they will be the first to jump to help us before ME3 was released.

Modifié par CynicalShep, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:07 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Because that fire can either burn us or the Reapers. Since we're already at a disadvantage this is a risk I'm willing to take. I'm surprised you destroy them, tbh

. I figured the geth were a threat, regardless of their stance.  Thinning them out was a good call IMO

You are taking a significantly bigger risk if you choose to control the Reapers yet I'm pretty sure that was your preferred ending. I perceived them as no more of a threat than Salarians, Asari or Turians. In fact, I was convinced that they'll do f*ck all in ME3(the Council races). So I tried to get as many allies I could

. Why does everyone think that?  I'm an ardent destroyer.

The Salarians/Turians etc... Never stuck people on spikes and worked for the reapers

Probably because of your Cerberus advocacy. People in the past have assumed I don't think the Geth are alive because I side more with the Quarians.

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Probably because of your Cerberus advocacy. People in the past have assumed I don't think the Geth are alive because I side more with the Quarians.

. People seem to have issues separating two ideas from exclusivity.

[Steelcan]

CynicalShep wrote...
Ah, my bad. I thought you mentioned that in one of the previous threads. In that case I understand your decision. I don't necessarily agree with it but it makes sense.

Salarians are a bit of a wild card. They are prone to backstabbing and playing with fire more so than other species. Uplifting Yahg, for instance might very well mean galactic extinction if Shadow Broker's intelligence is something common among their species. They are over-confident to the point of arrogance and surprisingly inept for their supposed intelligence(Cerberus attack on STG base is just one example of that). Asari are skilled in nothing except politics and thus useless in a full-scale war that can't be won with negotiations. Turians don't bear much love for us but I was sure they will be the first to jump to our help before ME3 was released.

. I have two play throughs completed, one destroy, one control.  I'm redoing my canon, destroy.  But I wouldn't pass up Control if Shepard lived in body as well as mind.  Not the point.

iwonder if the Yahg have a birth rate comparable to the Krogan?

[David7204]

Taking the 'heroic' path, for the very most part, shouldn't bite the player.

It's okay to have one or two instances that have the 'heroic' actions lead to bad outcomes. But I do mean literally one or two. No more.

In a 'heroic' story, heroism needs to be meaningful. Period.

If you want to write a story and want to show that you think heroism is supposed to be silly and pointless, that's great. More power to you. But Mass Effect is not that story.  Don't have the narrative pretend it's about heroism but have the charactions and events of the story demonstrate otherwise.

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:22 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Taking the 'heroic' path, for the very most part, shouldn't bite the player.

It's okay to have one or two instances that have the 'heroic' actions lead to bad outcomes. But I do mean literally one or two. No more.

In a 'heroic' story, heroism needs to be meaningful. Period.

If you want to write a story where heroism is supposed to be silly and pointless and cruelty and selfishness win, that's great. More power to you. But Mass Effect is not that story.  Don't have the narrative pretend it's about heroism and but have the charactions and events of the story demonstrate otherwise.

It's boring to sit and do what the game tells you to do to be heroic, instead of deciding for yourself what's the right thing to do in a given situation without bias and eating the consequences.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:23 .

[David7204]

No.

When you started ME 3, you expected Shepard to defeat the Reapers somehow. You didn't know how s/he would, but you knew she would. Is the story 'boring' because the audience knows that ahead of time?

And, now, look! Plenty of people complaining that they didn't get to defeat the Reapers in a satisfying way that they wanted. Because the game didn't meet their expectations. According to you, they should be pleased because their heroic actions didn't lead to (what they see as) a heroic outcome.

It's the same thing here. I expect heroic actions to lead to heroic outcomes. If that's not the case, then choices and actions are not meaningful.

No, meeting the audience's expectations is not boring. It's good storytelling.

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:31 .

[Steelcan]

Actually I expected at least the possibility of failure.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

No.

When you started ME 3, you expected Shepard to defeat the Reapers somehow. You didn't know how s/he would, but you knew she would. Is the story 'boring' because the audience knows that ahead of time?

And, now, look! Plenty of people complaining that they didn't get to defeat the Reapers in a satisfying way that they wanted. Because the game didn't meet their expectations.

It's the same thing here. I expect heroic actions to lead to heroic outcomes. If that's not the case, then choices and actions are not meaningful.

No, meeting the audience's expectations is not boring. It's good storytelling.

And from your last post, unless I'm mistaken, you're suggesting that Paragon is always the way to go, and it should never come back to bite the player.

Again. Boring. I don't care to sit and obediently do what someone else decided was the right thing to do in a given circumstance. I'm free to make my own decisions about what's right and wrong.

But to jump back to the root of it... what's this whole "heroism" gig about? Doesn't Paragon Shepard go out of their way to insist they're just a normal soldier (when he's not selling his name out for store discounts)? I don't play these games to "be a hero" by obediently clicking upper-right every single time, and I have to shake my head when naivete is rewarded in the narrative when, logically, it wouldn't be.

I'm not saying "heroism" should be beaten down. I'm saying there should be balance. The universe shouldn't twist itself into narrative knots to ensure there are no adverse consequences for a "hero's" actions.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:36 .

[Steelcan]

How was letting Balak go heroic? At all?

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

How was letting Balak go heroic? At all?

The most likely outcome of that choice would be that he'd successfully bomb another colony during the two-year period when Shepard wasn't around to stop it.

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

How was letting Balak go heroic? At all?

The most likely outcome of that choice would be that he'd successfully bomb another colony during the two-year period when Shepard wasn't around to stop it.

. Nah, eh is a pretty cool guy, he's on your side and doesn't afraid of anything

But seriously, I do not understand letting him leave Asteroid whatever a free man

Modifié par Steelcan, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:41 .

[David7204]

Okay, first of all, enough of acting like the game is 'telling' you the Paragon actions are 'good.' That is just silly. Compassion, honor, friendship - these are themes associated with heroism across countless stories. Not just Mass Effect. I think most people would agree that an 'Ideal Hero' embodies those qualities.

If you don't like that, fine. Go find another story. This one isn't for you. Find a story where the supposed 'hero' is a complete ****** or loser, there's plenty out there. The movie Wanted comes to mind.

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:44 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Okay, first of all, enough of acting like the game is 'telling' you the Paragon actions are 'good.' That is just silly. Compassion, honor, friendship - these are themes associated with heroism across countless stories. Not just Mass Effect. I think most people would agree that an 'Ideal Hero' embodies those qualities.

If you don't like that, fine. Go find another story. Find a story where the supposed 'hero' is a complete ****** or loser, there's plenty out there. The movie Wanted comes to mind. If you think the

. Well it results in more EMS, doesn't that mean it is good?

[David7204]

No. There's two different questions here.

Are such-and-such actions (saving lives, helping people) heroic?

Is heroism beneficial?

Complaining that the game is 'telling' you which actions are good or not concerns the first question. EMS concerns the second one.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Okay, first of all, enough of acting like the game is 'telling' you the Paragon actions are 'good.' That is just silly. Compassion, honor, friendship - these are themes associated with heroism across countless stories. Not just Mass Effect. I think most people would agree that an 'Ideal Hero' embodies those qualities.

If you don't like that, fine. Go find another story. This one isn't for you. Find a story where the supposed 'hero' is a complete ****** or loser, there's plenty out there. The movie Wanted comes to mind.

I believe CynicalShep made a post earlier about hardened criminals transforming into selfless social workers with a few spoken words? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. You say there should only be "one or two" paragon actions that don't work out, "no more." I say the player should be challenged to think about their actions instead of miming heroism (upper-right, upper-right, upper-right), safe in the knowledge that it will always work out for them. People got used to doing that because the narrative never punished them for it - and look at the uproar when the ending doesn't let them continue to do so.

I don't care about being an "ideal hero" in Mac Walters' eyes. That doesn't automatically make me a "******" or a "loser."

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:53 .

[Steelcan]

Being a hero doesn't require you be a "paragon". Master Chief or example defiantly it's the hero ideal. But he's not exactly a civic minded individual.

[fiendishchicken]

David7204 wrote...

Okay, first of all, enough of acting like the game is 'telling' you the Paragon actions are 'good.' That is just silly. Compassion, honor, friendship - these are themes associated with heroism across countless stories. Not just Mass Effect. I think most people would agree that an 'Ideal Hero' embodies those qualities.

If you don't like that, fine. Go find another story. This one isn't for you. Find a story where the supposed 'hero' is a complete ****** or loser, there's plenty out there. The movie Wanted comes to mind.

And of course, as everyone has come to expect from you, you're full of it.

There are more ways to define those words than are just made by your 'hero ideal'

That's not how the game is evoked. You're not more right than us. That's a fact. Your second paragraph is suggesting that being good is the only way to win. Especially in this game. It's not.

And who are you to tell a fan to become a fan of something else because you don't agree with their assertion.

I'm more convinced than ever that you're a troll. 

[David7204]

No. You're still treating this like a simulation and not a story.

Back to the ME 3 Reaper example. As I said, you knew the Reapers were going to be defeated somehow. You expected it. Did you not?

And you knew that small decisions would not completely doom the game, did you not? For instance, decisions like bringing a certain squadmate on a mission. Or perhaps those arguments on the Citadel? You're 'safe' in the knowledge that those very minor decisions won't have drastic outcomes?

How about this. You bring Garrus on one of the smaller N7 missions, you die. Game over. None of your other decisions matter. Nothing you did up to the point matters. The cycle loses. There's absolutely no foreshadowing that bringing Garrus is any kind of a problem.

Is this good storytelling?

It's perfectly logical. In real life, I'm sure people live and die based on very minor decisions like that. In real life, people die in unexpected, anticlimatic ways all the time.

So what would be the problem?

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 03:07 .