347 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

No it was not needed.

 

She was right about Earth even if it hurt the player's feelbads and the series has already wallowed in enough stupidity with letting Shepard make oh so witty remarks to powerful people.

 

I was shocked and quite pleased that Bioware didn't listen to the children who wanted to taunt the Turian Councilor with "hilarious" comments about "ah yes reapers" in ME3.

 

This is not a series about serious politics and diplomacy, if I can troll the Council by disconnecting their transmissions at will there is no reason I can't rub their faces in them being moronic.

[grey_wind]

No it was not needed.

 

She was right about Earth even if it hurt the player's feelbads and the series has already wallowed in enough stupidity with letting Shepard make oh so witty remarks to powerful people.

 

I was shocked and quite pleased that Bioware didn't listen to the children who wanted to taunt the Turian Councilor with "hilarious" comments about "ah yes reapers" in ME3.

The point the original poster was making was not that he felt bad about the Asari Councillor dismissing Earth, but that the scene with her after Thessia fell would have actually been one of the reasonable parts of the story for Shepard to express anger at the Councillor, rather than wallowing over the "oh so poor Asari". Their decision to keep vital military secrets to themselves and the resulting cost were their own fault.

It's also ridiculous that Shepard feels guilty about the Asari when he could have just committed genocide three times before then.

[DeinonSlayer]

The point the original poster was making was not that he felt bad about the Asari Councillor dismissing Earth, but that the scene with her after Thessia fell would have actually been one of the reasonable parts of the story for Shepard to express anger at the Councillor, rather than wallowing over the "oh so poor Asari". Their decision to keep vital military secrets to themselves and the resulting cost were their own fault.
It's also ridiculous that Shepard feels guilty about the Asari when he could have just committed genocide three times before then.

Shepard: "In case you haven't noticed, Joker, we just lost a few million people. This isn't the time!"
Joker: "Ah... really, Commander? You want to go there?"

The autodialogue for when you save that Salarian spectre instead of Kahje actually left me gaping. Way to spit on the grave, there, Shepard, very classy - though it is slightly amusing (in a horrible horrible way) when you step out of the office afterwards and immediately hear the news bulletin that "With their automated defense network sabotaged by religious extremists, Kahje was attacked by Reaper forces - there were no survivors."

The Reapers apparently make really quick work of the Hanar.

[Anacronian Stryx]

One small nag i have with ME 3 is that you always get "better" results with surviving crew than with the replacements and it is understanderble because Bioware created the characters so of cause they love them but i just wish that since ME 2 is bacically a death smorgesboard of characters that perhaps some of the missions would actually come of better by having some of your characters die in ME 2.

[AlanC9]

Well, you can make a case that Grissom Academy and Priority: The Citadel II play better if the appropriate characters are dead. Maybe even the Geth Dreadnought mission? But yeah, it's always a straight-up WA point loss.

[grey_wind]

Shepard: "In case you haven't noticed, Joker, we just lost a few million people. This isn't the time!"
Joker: "Ah... really, Commander? You want to go there?"

The autodialogue for when you save that Salarian spectre instead of Kahje actually left me gaping. Way to spit on the grave, there, Shepard, very classy - though it is slightly amusing (in a horrible horrible way) when you step out of the office afterwards and immediately hear the news bulletin that "With their automated defense network sabotaged by religious extremists, Kahje was attacked by Reaper forces - there were no survivors."

The Reapers apparently make really quick work of the Hanar.

Out of curiosity, what exactly does Shep say with the autodialogue if you sacrifice Khaje?

[DeinonSlayer]

Out of curiosity, what exactly does Shep say with the autodialogue if you sacrifice Khaje?

Subtitle file via Google:

"You did everything you could."
"It wasn't enough. The Hanar will lose their homeworld today."
"We have to pick our battles. The Hanar did this to themselves... and right now, I need all the Spectres I can get on my side."

Mind you, this is immediately after the Spectre in question begged you to stop the upload of the virus and save Kahje instead of him.

And I once thought it played out awkwardly with Kasumi alive... I'm starting to think it would play out most naturally with her alive but not loyal, so she gets blown up instead of cloaking and being presumed dead.

[grey_wind]

Subtitle file via Google:

"You did everything you could."
"It wasn't enough. The Hanar will lose their homeworld today."
"We have to pick our battles. The Hanar did this to themselves... and right now, I need all the Spectres I can get on my side."

Mind you, this is immediately after the Spectre in question begged you to stop the upload of the virus and save Kahje instead of him.

And I once thought it played out awkwardly with Kasumi alive... I'm starting to think it would play out most naturally with her alive but not loyal, so she gets blown up instead of cloaking and being presumed dead.

Wow...

[Ieldra]

Wow. I've heard crazy theories here, but this is the first time I've heard that Shepard 'primarily exists' to serve as a 'ultimate propaganda tool' for the 'military industrial complex.'

I think the real point of contention though is that every diplomat and politician that we meet in the ME series comes across as useless and incompetent. In fact, the only one who does not is Primarch Victus, but the reason he's touted as so competent and great is precisely because he's a military man. In fact, other than making you a Spectre, no politician in the game actually ever does anything useful.
 
Sure, a threat like the Reapers needs a military response, but that doesn't mean politics and diplomacy are unnecessary when uniting the galaxy.

Indeed. Maybe this exact phrasing "a propaganda tool for the military-industrial complex" is a little exaggerating, but the ME trilogy always came across as uncomfortably militaristic to me, with the prevalence of political stupidity and military competence sending the unsubtle message that political leaders with no military background tend to be either idiots or villains while military leaders or those with a military background tend to be at least somewhat competent.

As I've often observed, the overall cultural tone of the trilogy is traditionalist to the point of being reactionary, with only matters of sexuality breaking the pattern. Granted, the background lore is a little more varied, but see how the asari fare in the war, compared to the Turians. Not that this is entirely implausible, but combined with the other elements, to say nothing of certain lines of Shepard autodialogue, this sends a rather reactionary message.

If I read such a story, I can distance myself from the messages I don't like and enjoy it as a story I don't need to take seriously. It can still be a good story, even. When I'm taking part in shaping the story through my protagonist, however, thematic messages that constantly kick me in the face are....let's say, not appreciated. I've been playing games that tell stories for 30 years now, and I've never felt like this about a game. To be precise, at various points in the games I felt that I was forced to be complicit in spreading an ideology I hate.

[Bob from Accounting]

You seem to have a habit of defining 'traditionalist' as whatever's convenient at the time for 'traditionalist' to be your catch-all word for 'stupid and archaic and bad.'

 

Like right now, for instance. Is a supposed moral of 'war is good' 'traditionalist'? I've certainly never seen that in fiction. It seems to be that praising peace as a good thing is just as common or more common in 'traditionalist' works than praising war. But now here you are making claims that only backwards 'traditionalist' works would praise something like war. Do you have any reasoning to support this? Any reasoning to show me that 'progressive' works push for peace while 'traditionalist' works are pro-military?

 

Of course, that doesn't even touch the fact that 'traditionalist' is quite a weasel word in and of itself. There's a nice implication of 'outdated and stupid' in there without even a shred of context.

[Barquiel]

While the political leaders in the ME universe are not particularly helpful I wouldn't call them incompetent or stupid. Take, for exapmple, the council in ME1. If we think objectively, they have some valid points. There is no solid evidence that Reapers will come and destroy the galaxy other than Shepard's word and a confusing jumble of images. It's not that they aren't justified in their skepticism. "Wake up! Aliens will come and destroy us!" is simply hard to believe. The decision not to send fleets immediately after Mars was also correct. It's far from perfect. Udina's coup was rather stupid (indoctrination?)...and the council's amnesia in ME2 is not much better (my only explanation is that Shepard's appearance after two years of ostensible death is suspicious, and so she might not be privy to all the knowledge the council has), but it's not that bad (and there are also some stupid military leaders like Gerrel).

[Vigilant111]

Indeed. Maybe this exact phrasing "a propaganda tool for the military-industrial complex" is a little exaggerating, but the ME trilogy always came across as uncomfortably militaristic to me, with the prevalence of political stupidity and military competence sending the unsubtle message that political leaders with no military background tend to be either idiots or villains while military leaders or those with a military background tend to be at least somewhat competent.

As I've often observed, the overall cultural tone of the trilogy is traditionalist to the point of being reactionary, with only matters of sexuality breaking the pattern. Granted, the background lore is a little more varied, but see how the asari fare in the war, compared to the Turians. Not that this is entirely implausible, but combined with the other elements, to say nothing of certain lines of Shepard autodialogue, this sends a rather reactionary message.

If I read such a story, I can distance myself from the messages I don't like and enjoy it as a story I don't need to take seriously. It can still be a good story, even. When I'm taking part in shaping the story through my protagonist, however, thematic messages that constantly kick me in the face are....let's say, not appreciated. I've been playing games that tell stories for 30 years now, and I've never felt like this about a game. To be precise, at various points in the games I felt that I was forced to be complicit in spreading an ideology I hate.

 

It never really occurred to me that the trilogy was promoting militaristic values, it just so happened that competent people came from military background, is mostly coincidental. What the game really criticizing is political redtapes, which exist in both the alliance navy and the council

 

Indeed, it is hard to feel impartial from the trilogy. I am not sure what ideology which you hate so much that you have to distance yourself from it. It makes sense that developers will only sell things which reflect prevailing ideologies

 

Come on, Ieldra, BW gave you synthesis, what else could you possibly be unhappy about?

[Ieldra]

Come on, Ieldra, BW gave you synthesis, what else could you possibly be unhappy about?

And that I appreciate, indeed. The thing is, as people - you, among others, iirc - have pointed out, that this ending doesn't exactly fit the tone of the story that came before, and it's riddled with religious imagery on top of it.

As for those messages I detest, here are twp:

(1) Shepard is written as simple-minded. Rarely if ever do we have the opportunity to debate the intricacies of a situation. Every problem is simple in the end. So much that the one time you can come up with an elaborate idea stands out as almost alien - dealing with the "Indentured Servitude" in ME2.
So this person, who is apparently unable to look beyond "The Citadel? The fight's here" and suchlike, who is unable to appreciate the situation the Council in ME3 finds itself in when they refuse to let go everything else in order to take back Earth - this is the saviour of the galaxy? It boggles the mind... possibly you don't have to be stupid to save the galaxy, but apparently it helps.
Playing against that impression was about the hardest piece of work I ever put my imagination to.

(2) Reaper technology and its indoctrination gives off a strong vibe of "things we aren't meant to know". The EC version of Synthesis completely subverts this in the end, but for almost the complete trilogy that came before it remained intact, as everyone who dealt with Reaper tech ended up indoctrinated or dead, and anyway except when it involved weapons - see the militaristic vibe again - everyone who even thought about adapting it to their own use was at least morally questionable, if not outright evil. That Shepard themselves owe their life to the maybe most impressive technological achievement in the ME trilogy is swept under the rug and dealt with in an off-hand manner.
Quite probably this was not intended, but between Reaper tech, the genophage plot, Miranda's background and a few other subplots of the "cautionary tale" variant, ever since ME2 there is a message that technology shouldn't be used to change people, almost to the point of "life sciences are evil". Shepard is exempt because they're the Chosen One, and they die in the end anyway or have their altered parts removed from them, so the message most definitely stays intact until the Synthesis option comes along and confuses everyone with a subversion that has no roots in the story that came before. This is the part I really hate, not because it exists, but because I don't get the roleplaying options to make a stand against it.

[Jorji Costava]

Incompetent politicians and competent military members is a pretty common trope, especially in SF. SG-1 does this all the time. TOS-era Trek too.

 

True enough, although I'm not quite sure of the direct relevance of this to the topic at hand. Jesus imagery, even in SF, is exceptionally common as well, but that doesn't mean that such imagery no longer has any subtextual meanings or associations. Similarly, the frequency of the contrast between competent soldiers versus universally incompetent politicians suggests to me that militarism is a pretty common theme. Also, for all of Gene Roddenberry's reputation, TOS could be a pretty right-wing show at times. "City on the Edge of Forever," for example, was essentially a pro-Vietnam war allegory.

 

Like right now, for instance. Is a supposed moral of 'war is good' 'traditionalist'? I've certainly never seen that in fiction. It seems to be that praising peace as a good thing is just as common or more common in 'traditionalist' works than praising war. But now here you are making claims that only backwards 'traditionalist' works would praise something like war. Do you have any reasoning to support this? Any reasoning to show me that 'progressive' works push for peace while 'traditionalist' works are pro-military?

 

I think it's too simplistic to set up a contrast between "war is good" versus "war is evil." It's also a matter of who's fighting who, and for what reasons. For instance, an  outnumbered group of rebels fighting against an oppressive colonial power is a common theme of more left-leaning works. By contrast, stories about the use of force on behalf of the state against state enemies could be considered more "traditionalist," to use Ieldra's phrase. Again, that's still far too simplistic, but hopefully it calls attention to some of the crucial distinctions in play here.

[AlanC9]

Take, for exapmple, the council in ME1. If we think objectively, they have some valid points. There is no solid evidence that Reapers will come and destroy the galaxy other than Shepard's word and a confusing jumble of images. It's not that they aren't justified in their skepticism.

Though Saren and Benezia do mention both the Reapers and the Conduit in Tali's recording, which the Council takes seriously enough to remove Saren's Spectre status.

[AlanC9]

True enough, although I'm not quite sure of the direct relevance of this to the topic at hand. Jesus imagery, even in SF, is exceptionally common as well, but that doesn't mean that such imagery no longer has any subtextual meanings or associations. Similarly, the frequency of the contrast between competent soldiers versus universally incompetent politicians suggests to me that militarism is a pretty common theme. Also, for all of Gene Roddenberry's reputation, TOS could be a pretty right-wing show at times. "City on the Edge of Forever," for example, was essentially a pro-Vietnam war allegory.
 

"A Private Little War" too.

I was pointing out the transmission vector. Whether or not that mitigates the problem.... beats me. I don't take Bio themes too seriously in the first place since they're usually just attached to a borrowed trope, but YMMV.

[AlanC9]

Reaper technology and its indoctrination gives off a strong vibe of "things we aren't meant to know". The EC version of Synthesis completely subverts this in the end, but for almost the complete trilogy that came before it remained intact, as everyone who dealt with Reaper tech ended up indoctrinated or dead, and anyway except when it involved weapons - see the militaristic vibe again - everyone who even thought about adapting it to their own use was at least morally questionable, if not outright evil.

True. In the end, what is IT but a refusal to accept that subversion? (Many pro-Destroy "arguments" are a milder case of the same syndrome.)

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I thought the way it was all handled was terrible.

 

1) Destroy - looking at the way the destroy wave, even in the high EMS severely damaged the Normandy, did a job as "technology is evil." Or are we not supposed to take Bioware videos literally. It wasn't just Reaper tech. It was all tech. We had to rebuild everything. The only good thing was that it didn't erase brains. It destroys all that humans took from the Tree of Knowledge when Eve ate the apple. Then it was retconned. I still don't like it.

 

2) Synthesis - we've been over this. It isn't transhumanism. It's a reaper solution with mystical components. But all that knowledge we got from the reapers and the previous cycles. Who cares? They didn't get any further than we did. They got harvested. Maybe we learn about their cultures, but I'll bet there were similarities.

 

3) Control - ..... Things we aren't meant to know? Really? Therefore it is evil. But you can now watch over the many. But which many? Or destroy those who threaten the many. But which many? You can be a guardian, or command an armada that none shall dare oppose. So .... synthesis gives it to everyone and levels the playing field therefore is good. Destroy is good because it takes it away from everyone and levels the playing field.

 

Shepard comes off as such a simplistic person at times.

 

Forget it. I hate the entire ending. The ending no matter which one I chose left me feeling empty. Maybe I'm just not getting it. I just hope I never see another one like it. 

[Han Shot First]

The asari councilor didn't know about the beacon until right before she told Shepard about it (at least Tevos tells you after Tuchanka that her goverment has just informed her, I don't know if Irissa's dialogue is different). It would be rather pointless to blame her for not revealing that information earlier.
 

 

Like the case with the Salarian Dalatrass potentially holding back military resources, I think this another example of the Council not having absolute executive power over their respective species' governments. To some extent it appears they still have to answer to local governments and can even be stonewalled or kept in the dark by the them. The Salarian Councilor was unable to overrule the Dalatrass and the Asari Councilor (or Tevos at least) is only informed of the beacon shortly before Shepard. Also in gaining Turian support for the war effort the key figure Shepard needs is Palaven's Primarch rather than Councilor Sparatas or his replacement.

[themikefest]

Like the case with the Salarian Dalatrass potentially holding back military resources, I think this another example of the Council not having absolute executive power over their respective species' governments. To some extent it appears they still have to answer to local governments and can even be stonewalled or kept in the dark by the them. The Salarian Councilor was unable to overrule the Dalatrass and the Asari Councilor (or Tevos at least) is only informed of the beacon shortly before Shepard. Also in gaining Turian support for the war effort the key figure Shepard needs is Palaven's Primarch rather than Councilor Sparatas or his replacement.

Makes me wonder if there should be a council at all when its ultimately their own governments that say yes or no concerning anything major. Theyr're more like messengers instead of councilors.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

2) Synthesis - we've been over this. It isn't transhumanism. It's a reaper solution with mystical components. But all that knowledge we got from the reapers and the previous cycles. Who cares? They didn't get any further than we did. They got harvested. Maybe we learn about their cultures, but I'll bet there were similarities.

 

If you ask me, it's not so much the knowledge but the pure, creative brainpower of their collective which is attractive here. You see what they create as tools for war, and it's pretty brilliant, Garrus says as much himself. Now if that know-how was applied to things more helpful and less destructive, like utilities and medicine, well...

 

... yeah, I'm kind of a glass-half-full guy, in case anyone hasn't noticed (except when I'm not).

[Vigilant111]

And that I appreciate, indeed. The thing is, as people - you, among others, iirc - have pointed out, that this ending doesn't exactly fit the tone of the story that came before, and it's riddled with religious imagery on top of it.

As for those messages I detest, here are twp:

(1) Shepard is written as simple-minded. Rarely if ever do we have the opportunity to debate the intricacies of a situation. Every problem is simple in the end. So much that the one time you can come up with an elaborate idea stands out as almost alien - dealing with the "Indentured Servitude" in ME2.
So this person, who is apparently unable to look beyond "The Citadel? The fight's here" and suchlike, who is unable to appreciate the situation the Council in ME3 finds itself in when they refuse to let go everything else in order to take back Earth - this is the saviour of the galaxy? It boggles the mind... possibly you don't have to be stupid to save the galaxy, but apparently it helps.
Playing against that impression was about the hardest piece of work I ever put my imagination to.

(2) Reaper technology and its indoctrination gives off a strong vibe of "things we aren't meant to know". The EC version of Synthesis completely subverts this in the end, but for almost the complete trilogy that came before it remained intact, as everyone who dealt with Reaper tech ended up indoctrinated or dead, and anyway except when it involved weapons - see the militaristic vibe again - everyone who even thought about adapting it to their own use was at least morally questionable, if not outright evil. That Shepard themselves owe their life to the maybe most impressive technological achievement in the ME trilogy is swept under the rug and dealt with in an off-hand manner.
Quite probably this was not intended, but between Reaper tech, the genophage plot, Miranda's background and a few other subplots of the "cautionary tale" variant, ever since ME2 there is a message that technology shouldn't be used to change people, almost to the point of "life sciences are evil". Shepard is exempt because they're the Chosen One, and they die in the end anyway or have their altered parts removed from them, so the message most definitely stays intact until the Synthesis option comes along and confuses everyone with a subversion that has no roots in the story that came before. This is the part I really hate, not because it exists, but because I don't get the roleplaying options to make a stand against it.

 

(1) Your point is quite valid, in many ways Shepard is very naive. I feel that the game is not a comprehensive representation of Shepard though, as in real life he probably thinks like any other effective leader. It is just that resources were stretched and voice acting was allocated to unimportant dialogues

 

(2) It isn't so much "We aren't meant to know" as "We aren't meant to touch", the reason behind it is absence of knowledge and lack of experience. The people who want to harness strength from reapers are often armed with a political agenda, these people must also be discreet because they do not want to expose themselves or expose the opportunity of attaining reaper strength to other people, as a consequence, they sort of alienated themselves from resources and sound advice. In the end, most ventures end in disaster simply because reaper technology cannot be surmounted.

 

Also, it doesn't seem like people really wanted to change themselves via reaper technology anyway, they are in awe of it, but utility of the technology is largely confined to space travel. The genophage cure was implemented without the aid of reaper technology, in fact, reaper technology was employed to prevent Shepard's party from administering the cure with cannibles, brutes and a harvest ship. There had been virtually no public support for any sort of reaper integration into daily lives, well, granted, nobody knew what reaper technology actually does at the time

[CosmicGnosis]

I seriously doubt that BioWare ever intended to convey a militaristic or anti-knowledge message in this series. It doesn't make sense. There is certainly a Paragon bias in the series, and Paragon is usually against violence. As for the Reaper tech issues, I doubt that there was a clear agenda to promote a Luddite philosophy. I think they wanted to make something "cool", and a few unintentional ideas were conveyed. After all, why would Luddites approve of the Stargazer scene, which is all about exploration and wonder?

 

As for the negative depiction of life sciences, Patrick Weekes has expressed agreement with sabotaging the Genophage cure if Wreav is the clan leader. So again, I don't think anyone set out to convey "traditionalist" messages. Instead, I think that certain ideas got a little messy in the end.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I'm not sure about militaristic messages, but I know from having followed Mac's twitter account pre-release that the man loves to hate on politicians.

 

 

... and boy, does it show in his writing.

[DoomsdayDevice]

It isn't so much "We aren't meant to know" as "We aren't meant to touch", the reason behind it is absence of knowledge and lack of experience.

 

So much this. It's really not that complicated.

 

Again, it's not that overcoming boundaries is bad, it's that we have to do it on our own terms. Build our own science. Reaper tech is designed in a way that brainwashes anyone who studies it. But we have to build our own future.

 

Using the Reaper tech seems the quick and easy path, but it is designed to doom us. Just look at the Geth. Set on achieving their own future, but as soon as they join the Reapers they suddenly abandon their previous ideals and admire the beauty of the 'growth' that is the Reaper code. Quick and easy path to enlightenment and individuality, "ascendance". All you need to do to achieve peace is allow the upload of the Reaper code. It's devious. Not peace on our terms, but peace on the Reapers' terms. Yeah, I'm sure that will end well.