648 réponses à ce sujet

[tevix]

To be honest, I think both script and chemic are right. Stories need to be real, in that they need to not be completely detached from real life. This is one of the things that made the first ME such a success. No matter how abstract the world might be, there are relatable everyday things. It's fulfilling to see how these people in this abstract world deal with problems similar to what we deal with everyday. That leads into my next point, what I feel script is trying to get at.

Stories, whether games, books, tv etc are "what if" scenarios. We know how things in our own lives go, but WHAT IF they were differant? What if we/the character had these new options? That's why we play games or read books, to find out what would/could happen.

Think of it like this: lets say you come upon a wall. It's a wall that goes on forver, and you can't get past or over it. Ever. You just can't. You've heard there's something new on the other side, something you've never heard of or seen before..but...you'll never know because you can't get past the wall.

But...what if you COULD...? That's what stories do for us. They are an expansion of real life. They let us see new results to scenarios we can't get ourselves. You come across things in stories that seem like they should be an impasse, but you know the character is going to supercede it anyway, and you want to know how. The "how" is what intrigues and satisfies us...or at least it's supposed to.

When I first played ME3 I picked synthesis. Not because I necessarily believe in the base concept of it but because I liked the "what if" idea behind it.

Sadly in the vanilla endings there was nothing to appease my curiosity. Joker and edi step out, they glow green and hug and...what..? I don't get it.

The EC helped make this option more clear on what it could do, but without that the endings would have been a colossal failure.

So there's my tie-in to the main OP. Without the intense heat the fan base put on EA/BW we'd have never gotten that, and without it....man...not good.

[SpamBot2000]

Heh, well you ought to approve, drayfish, seeing as it was heavily influenced by your posts.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 31 mars 2013 - 10:31 .

[Reorte]

chemiclord wrote...

Well, the general idea of a "moral decision" isn't that no matter what you choose it's going to be half bad.  It's supposed to be something that balances two conflicting ideals and requires the person making the decision to decide what is more important to them, what they value more.

There's no "better" solution other than the one you eventually decide.  What you find "ideal" another may find abhorrent.

Sure, but then one still is a better choice for you. Making both half bad is just forced emotion and a "can't have it all good BECAUSE" attitude. Sometimes there's no way around a good / bad outcome, at least without sounding really contrived. Take the rachni decision in ME1 - one of the choices would inevitably give a better outcome than the other, even if we didn't know which at the time.

Ultimately the most moral choice is the one that does the least harm anyway so there's no way they can ever be equal, even though people might argue endlessly about which actually is the least harm.

As for the first playthrough is the one that matters... I know FAR too many min/maxers and 100% completionists to know THAT isn't the slightest bit accurate.

It's fun to play around and try to achieve different outcomes, or get everything and so on but any story is always going to have its greatest emotional impact when it's first seen (ever wished you could forget a book or a film in order to see it again for new?) If you take the view that "Well, people are going to replay it, or look it up, so we'll make it impossible to do the best" then you've really limited your story and end up railroading all sorts of unpleasant outcomes just for the sake of it. Pushing that argument to the extreme you might as well say that there's no point in it being possible for Shepard to die in any shooting section since people will just reload from the last save.

Modifié par Reorte, 31 mars 2013 - 10:29 .

[tevix]

@Reorte

I gotta echo everything you just said, there.

[dani1138]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Now, the novel form is well suited for some things, such as the
examination of individual psychology, arising as it did as a part of the
loosening of feudalism and the rise of bourgeois individualism. The
Epic, on the other hand, is a form suited for working out issues of
foundational mythology, themes that underpin cultural views of the
world. Incidentally, this is a part of the reason why Mac Walters
imposing his rather insipid psychologisms on Shepard in ME3 feels so
intrusive. Wrong genre, dude. Please take a moment to understand what
you were put in charge of writing. The player needs to fill in those
parts.

So, we have the Epic. The writing of an Epic is the work of mythopoeia, as in that poem Iakus correctly brought up in this connection. It operates on a fundamentally deeper level than the individual psychology in a novel, a level that might not even be readily available to us consciously. It gets us where we dream. That is why the ending of ME3 feels so wrong. It's not supposed to be a lesson in accepting defeat and moral compromise, it is the ground of our dreams. And Mass Effect would now deny us even the dream of successful agency.

What is the value of this craven retreat for us?

*Applauds*

Truly excellent post. I think you just nailed down precisely what is so wrong with those horrible dream sequences especially.

I don't have much to add at this point, but this is a truly awesome discussion going on here, some really fascinating points being brought up.

[tevix]

Indeed, spambots post makes me feel like I should just shut up and stop posting =p

[Bleachrude]

AlanC9 wrote...

"Meaningful heroism" requires Shepard to live, now?

If you're going to use a phrase that idiosyncratically, you should probably define it again, or at least link to that older thread of yours.

I'll start off by saying that I actually prefer ME3 over ME2 and ME1. But I can see why people hate the endings and the game itself

Mass effect 2 (and to a lesser extent Mass Effect  1) constantly did tell the players "this is impossible...people are going to die"  and the player responds "I'm Cmdr. Shepard..nobody dies" since across the two games, only twice are you put into a situation where a person dies.

Jenkins in the prologue in ME1 and Virmire....Every other situation, including nonevil NPCs, Cmdr Shepard saves everyone....

ME3 no matter what....people are biting the big ones...At the least, even before you get to the choice, you have seen 4 people that were just as indestrubtible as you die (Mordin, Legion, Thane and Anderson)

And then youre faced with the choice where no matter what...Somebody is going to die.

I personally didn't have a problem with this but I can see how people who have gotten so used to "perfect playthroughs" (and let's face it...that's most of the people here on BSN) felt like they were gut punched.

Modifié par Bleachrude, 31 mars 2013 - 11:48 .

[dani1138]

Bleachrude wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

"Meaningful heroism" requires Shepard to live, now?

If you're going to use a phrase that idiosyncratically, you should probably define it again, or at least link to that older thread of yours.

I personally didn't have a problem with this but I can see how people who have gotten so used to "perfect playthroughs" (and let's face it...that's most of the people here on BSN) felt like they were gut punched.

I like perfect playthroughs but I also like experimenting and seeing different outcomes. A part of me wants to try the "worst party ever" scenario, where you intentionally get as many people killed off as possible and have to consider building an extension for the memorial wall. So far I haven't had the heart to do it, I can imagine it being a bit depressing.

But then, I don't think I ever would have had a problem with Shepard dying if it hadn't been attached to the choices in such a forced and arbitrary manner. In a different context his/her death maight have been fine. As ScriptBabe already mentioned a few pages back, you have to earn a noble sacrifice or a happy retirement. My own personal feeling, as the games are presented now, is that Shepard unambiguously surviving would have been a far more suitable ending.

[drayfish]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heh, well you ought to approve, drayfish, seeing as it was heavily influenced by your posts.

Wow...

I'm flattered, SpamBot (I squee with glee), but honestly, my rambling drivel is never that elegantly succinct.

[Reorte]

Bleachrude wrote...

I'll start off by saying that I actually prefer ME3 over ME2 and ME1. But I can see why people hate the endings and the game itself

Mass effect 2 (and to a lesser extent Mass Effect  1) constantly did tell the players "this is impossible...people are going to die"  and the player responds "I'm Cmdr. Shepard..nobody dies" since across the two games, only twice are you put into a situation where a person dies.

Jenkins in the prologue in ME1 and Virmire....Every other situation, including nonevil NPCs, Cmdr Shepard saves everyone....

ME3 no matter what....people are biting the big ones...At the least, even before you get to the choice, you have seen 4 people that were just as indestrubtible as you die (Mordin, Legion, Thane and Anderson)

And then youre faced with the choice where no matter what...Somebody is going to die.

I personally didn't have a problem with this but I can see how people who have gotten so used to "perfect playthroughs" (and let's face it...that's most of the people here on BSN) felt like they were gut punched.

I don't think that's quite right. The deaths you mention don't generally draw much in the way of criticism (indeed Anderson's death scene is often brought up as the one very well done part of the whole ending sequence). The problem is that people felt like they were gut punched by the writers for the sake of it, rather than because it was the result of their actions. Mordin can live but when he doesn't his death seemed appropriate and certainly pushed the emotional buttons in the right way. (although that was pushing the bounds of credibility somewhat - the "sacrifice your life to save many" idea gets more ridiculous the bigger the numbers). Legion's death, on the other hand, often does come in for criticism because, like Shepard's, it feels unnecessary and contrived, someone deciding that, well, we can't have everything too cheerful so we're going to kill someone. I suppose the difference is that some seem to die as a result of the story and others are feel like the writers have killed them.

[Archonsg]

Reorte wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

I'll start off by saying that I actually prefer ME3 over ME2 and ME1. But I can see why people hate the endings and the game itself

Mass effect 2 (and to a lesser extent Mass Effect  1) constantly did tell the players "this is impossible...people are going to die"  and the player responds "I'm Cmdr. Shepard..nobody dies" since across the two games, only twice are you put into a situation where a person dies.

Jenkins in the prologue in ME1 and Virmire....Every other situation, including nonevil NPCs, Cmdr Shepard saves everyone....

ME3 no matter what....people are biting the big ones...At the least, even before you get to the choice, you have seen 4 people that were just as indestrubtible as you die (Mordin, Legion, Thane and Anderson)

And then youre faced with the choice where no matter what...Somebody is going to die.

I personally didn't have a problem with this but I can see how people who have gotten so used to "perfect playthroughs" (and let's face it...that's most of the people here on BSN) felt like they were gut punched.

I don't think that's quite right. The deaths you mention don't generally draw much in the way of criticism (indeed Anderson's death scene is often brought up as the one very well done part of the whole ending sequence). The problem is that people felt like they were gut punched by the writers for the sake of it, rather than because it was the result of their actions. Mordin can live but when he doesn't his death seemed appropriate and certainly pushed the emotional buttons in the right way. (although that was pushing the bounds of credibility somewhat - the "sacrifice your life to save many" idea gets more ridiculous the bigger the numbers). Legion's death, on the other hand, often does come in for criticism because, like Shepard's, it feels unnecessary and contrived, someone deciding that, well, we can't have everything too cheerful so we're going to kill someone. I suppose the difference is that some seem to die as a result of the story and others are feel like the writers have killed them.

There is also the agency of how one dies.
It is obvious that the writers of the ending wanted to convey to us a "sacrificial ending" that Shepard choose to sacrifice himself.
Except that he didn't.
There is a difference between someone coming to his own conclusion that his death would serve the better good, and someone who was told to act in a manner that would lead to death by an enemy.

Shepard's death was a forced suicide.

The fact that he might survive in one of the scenario's doesn't change the fact that he has to act upon a course of action, dictated to him by an enemy that would lead to his death.
This compromise in character is than further reinforced by the addition of the "fourth" ending "Refusal" which essentially tells the player, that if you want to "win" the game without compromising yourself, you'd doom the entire Galaxy.

[ScriptBabe]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

It would be useful for the purposes of this conversation to keep in mind that not all imaginative storytelling is "fiction" in the same sense, and doesn't necessarily operate on the same exact level. This has been brought up by several people already, but the key here is the form of Mass Effect, that is not "novelistic" but rather "Epic" in the proper sense of the word. The novel is a particular form of fiction, connected to particular cultural conditions and suitable for particular kinds of inquiry, if you will. It seems that some people here are making the mistake of ascribing the functions of the novel to all storytelling without making any distinctions of genre.

Mass Effect is not properly novelistic in any case, starting with the fact that the variance in the storyline based on player choices necessarily disturbs the kind of unity of presentation that defines a novel. Certain things might or might not be true for a player of Mass Effect. In a novel, every word is in its place and cannot be moved or removed without compromising the authorial intent. An Epic, on the other hand, is not definitionally dependent on every detail playing out in the exact same way on repeated tellings.

Now, the novel form is well suited for some things, such as the examination of individual psychology, arising as it did as a part of the loosening of feudalism and the rise of bourgeois individualism. The Epic, on the other hand, is a form suited for working out issues of foundational mythology, themes that underpin cultural views of the world. Incidentally, this is a part of the reason why Mac Walters imposing his rather insipid psychologisms on Shepard in ME3 feels so intrusive. Wrong genre, dude. Please take a moment to understand what you were put in charge of writing. The player needs to fill in those parts.

So, we have the Epic. The writing of an Epic is the work of mythopoeia, as in that poem Iakus correctly brought up in this connection. It operates on a fundamentally deeper level than the individual psychology in a novel, a level that might not even be readily available to us consciously. It gets us where we dream. That is why the ending of ME3 feels so wrong. It's not supposed to be a lesson in accepting defeat and moral compromise, it is the ground of our dreams. And Mass Effect would now deny us even the dream of successful agency.

What is the value of this craven retreat for us?

Yes, thank you, this is an excellent post.  Much earlier in this thread I talked about how gaming is a new form of entertainment that will require creators to factor in the participation of the players in a way that is unheard of in novels or movies.  I've also consistently referred to Mass Effect as an epic which is why I brought up myth and fairy tales because they speak to shared human consciousness.

But there is a form and structure to all stories whatever their form, and if you violate those foundations you are going to end up with a mess which is what we had at the end of ME3.  

There was also a complete change in tone and form in those final minutes.  It was as if the writers suddenly decided they were going to impose _their_ vision on _their_ game.  But it wasn't entirely their game.  There were millions of "creators" imagining their Shepard's backstory, how life would be with their Shepard's LI, making choices between the Krogan and the Salarians, etc. etc.  Which is why being left with only (as one person rightly said) "forced suicide on the part of Shepard, and three outcomes that were functionally identical left people bewildered, angry, empty and feeling like they'd been cheated.

[David7204]

So, who wants to talk a bit about conventional victory?

[ScriptBabe]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I don't have anything of real value to add.

I am however impressed and delighted by how civil the discourse has been.

Good show all.

I second the motion, Grand Admiral.    This is the most enjoyable time I've ever spent on the BSN.  Thank you all for your insights and the discussion.

[ZLurps]

ScriptBabe wrote...

... scanning the Keepers...

Answering in general though, since this covers other things too.


These "open world" levels in the game worlds, like the Citadel in ME1 really made the to feel as great it did. There are so many things BW achieved when they created it. They needed to introduce how this universe works to players and for a game like ME, it doesn't quite work if that all were abstracted to codex entries.

So from the point of when we get to see Citadel and the Destiny Ascension for the first time and then start in office of Udina, lot of things contribute to world building.

Short novel could be written about design of Citadel but few thing to mention here.

Open level and quest design, even it gives really fantastic opportunities. Instead of few talking heads that just say how things are in universe, we get to see merchants, aides, the consort, there are Alliance personnel both, relaxing and working, we see how C-Sec is present. We get involved all sort of things which are adventures themselves.

Then when we are on the Normandy a mission or just exploring and get transmission from Admiral Hackett, even we may not consciously think people who we saw on the Citadel wearing that uniform and stripes on their sleeves, it's still there somewhere in our mind, even on the back ground. There are lot of things like that.

So instead of some tiny room where some talking head is explaining to us how "We have some really big stuff going on here all the time and it all like really make sense, because, well, I say so." Designers went trough really a lot of effort to give us things to wonder, engaging us, and to set us up for really great experience.

It's all good but also creates certain problems that designers need to deal with. For game, map design must work with players internal compass, hunter gatherers, it can't be ignored, we all have that. Because of hardware limitations, we need to split things up, yet it must still feel like it all makes sense to player.

To mention few other things. We can only load so many things in players memory, we need things that helps players to remember locations by creating associations. Over time running from point A to B gets tedious but Rapid transfer wouldn't be useful if player don't remember the locations or don't know them to begin with. Then on top of that, not every player have same priorities and playing styles.

So when we do signal tracking quest and along to road come to visit Barla Von's office that happens for a reason. On Scan the Keepers quest when player who is trying to find a Keeper and stumbles in the office of C-Sec Requisitions Officer or Elcor and Volus embassy, or needs to explore the Council Chamber to find that damn Keeper to scan, that all happens for a reason too.


That said, of course I found Chorban's findings intriguing and thought that there must be more to it. I recall it was something that was speculated on old forums, before BSN. I don't recall rogue AI's from Citadel and Luna missions and AI vs. AI (Reaper) scenarios discussed as much, though I recall those were. Now they look pretty much equal to me.

I don't think my idea of biotics weren't that bad either. Of course if we have Shepard destroying Reapers Dreadnougts by shooting warp from his/her eyes we would have something really silly in our hands. But making a discovery that would lead to better understanding of how to unleash those abilities, better implants could be mass manufactured and we would have troops that rip Brutes and Banshees apart in seconds. Extraordinary talents like Jack and Samara tear Reaper destroyers apart.

And that's really just going back to ME1 and enhancing that a bit where Liara could lift Geth Colossus and couple of biotics were been able to lift a platoon, if only there were been sensible reason and tech to render that many on screen.


It's not like anybody here is blowing up any company graphics or animation budget here by trying to spot things and figuring alternative means to use them. So even if large portion of fan base still feels bad about how ME3 ended, maybe jumping on drivers seat for a moment and trying to imagine "what I were done" would be welcomed change for a while, because why the hell not.

[David7204]

There would be a bunch of problems to tackle with that.

First of all, as I said, is the problem of Shepard's class affecting the story, where I very firmly believe it shouldn't. But I can't see how that would be avoidable with Shepard as the strongest human biotic besides maybe Jack.

Secondly, biotics are just the mass effect utilized by a biological system rather than a mechanical one. We need to be able to answer the question of why the human body can do this when steel and circuits can't. And I really, really doubt we'd be able to come up with a good answer that people wouldn't just shake their heads at.

Thirdly, conservation of energy seems to be a big issue here. Where are biotics getting the juice to bring down Reapers?

Forthly, I don't like the idea at all the humans win the war because they have special genes. That goes pretty heavily against the theme that a person is more than their genes. It goes way, way too far into the 'Human are special' territory.

Fifthly, this technology doesn't go away once the war is over. This would mean that we're going to have humans walking around who can literally destroy cities. Which would make it very difficult to tell any meaningful story in the future without having massive plot holes.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 04:09 .

[ScriptBabe]

I loved wandering around the Citadel. I didn't start using rapid transit until I did my second play through. The sense of a world and different cultures, but still recognizable was just wonderful.

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

There would be a bunch of problems to tackle with that.

First of all, as I said, is the problem of Shepard's class affecting the story, where I very firmly believe it shouldn't. But I can't see how that would be avoidable with Shepard as the strongest human biotic besides maybe Jack.

Secondly, biotics are just the mass effect utilized by a biological system rather than a mechanical one. We need to be able to answer the question of why the human body can do this when steel and circuits can't. And I really, really doubt we'd be able to come up with a good answer that people wouldn't just shake their heads at.

Thirdly, conservation of energy seems to be a big issue here. Where are biotics getting the juice to bring down Reapers?

Forthly, I don't like the idea at all the humans win the war because they have special genes. That goes pretty heavily against the theme that a person is more than their genes. It goes way, way too far into the 'Human are special' territory.

Fifthly, this would mean that we're going to have humans walking around who could literally destroy cities. Which would make it impossible to tell any meaningful story in the future without having massive plot holes.

Shepard has very little to do with this but helping finding a way. Idea of Shepard solving the conflict by biotics it's imo ridiculous. To have any impact, we need something that allows troops to get on Reaper destroyers, one or two biotics doesn't quite cut it. That's why I wrote about mass manufacturing. Shepard's role here could be just tied to plot makes that discovery possible.

What comes to energy issue, I didn't made that up. In ME1 we have biotics lifting Geth colossus, while still smaller than a Reaper destroyer, still dwarfs Mako. In ME: Retribution Gillian is more powerful than others.

Biotics idea in general, It think it were created intriguing scenario. Even Reapers take advantage of biotics through indoctrinated agents and their drones, actual Reapers are still "robots" they don't have native ability to warp, throw or statis, etc. Since current cycle is 2000 years late due Protheans messing up Citadel relay, I don't think it would be impossible to create scenario where understanding of organic abilities could become something that would pose threat even to Reapers. Even in ME3 scenario, like it is now, if only ground forces have had that something special that were helped them to get on Reaper destroyers that were bought a lot of more time to galaxy.

What remains missing is how to deal with those Reaper Dreadnoughts without coming up with something really cheesy but still, Reapers are flawed by design. Reapers copy and mimic abilities of organics instead of developing themselves as pure machines. If Reapers were ever to face what they can't beat by copying it because their very nature restricts them, they would be screwed.

What comes to human genetic stuff and making humans central, I don't know where you get that from. I never even thought about that but those millions Asari out there. Only pool where to draw number of biotics that would really matter, though of course every race which have more or less individuals who can use biotics would benefit from breakthrough in biotics.

[ZLurps]

ScriptBabe wrote...

I loved wandering around the Citadel. I didn't start using rapid transit until I did my second play through. The sense of a world and different cultures, but still recognizable was just wonderful.

It was one of those things that made me a fan, but designers hardly ever get much credit from such things, how many things they set up in there, because when it works, players don't even notice. But still, lot of ambition there.

[David7204]

Lifting a Geth Colossos is orders of magnitudes away from destroying a Reaper. Besides, I wouldn't consider biotics lifting a Geth Colossos to be solid evidence of their strength. It's just a gameplay mechanic. And biotics being stronger than one another can't overcome physics. You have full sized dreadnoughts with powerplants firing on Reapers and not bringing them down...a human would never be able to store that kind of energy.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 04:36 .

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

Lifting a Geth Colossos is orders of magnitudes away from destroying a Reaper. Besides, I wouldn't consider biotics lifting a Geth Colossos to be solid evidence of their strength. It's just a gameplay mechanic. And biotics being stronger than one another can't overcome physics. You have full sized dreadnoughts with powerplants firing on Reapers and not bringing them down...a human would never be able to store that kind of energy.

Well, in ME3 I'm not the only one who was missing Liara's lift on Rannoch Reaper battle. Reaper destroyers are bigger than Geth Colossus, but then Liara had time to hone her skills and have better biotic amp... And that Reaper would be floping in the air exclaiming "Harbinger spoke the truth, organics bring the chaos." and that's it before Quarian fleet brings it down.

Again, the thing is finding that something special that makes it possible for biotics to reach that potential.

The lore and game mechanics thing, we have also Jack tearing YMIR mechs apart in ME2 cut scenes. This could be debated like a chicken and egg problem, but I won't. If I'm were on writers seat I might say, this is what we are going to bring from ME1 and ME2 cut scenes also show some great potential, and Drew hinted about this in his books and that's it.

What comes to this sort of things in sci-fi, we could leave those off, mannes combat vessels in space are silly, magic users (biotics) are silly and so on. Then we have a story that engages like 3 people.

Modifié par ZLurps, 31 mars 2013 - 04:48 .

[David7204]

Look. You cannot have a human lifting or shredding an object with a mass of millions and millions of tons with the energy from their body. It cannot be done. There is so much energy available in the body, and that's just the end of it. You can't make that energy 'more powerful.'

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

Look. You cannot have a human lifting or shredding an object with a mass of millions and millions of tons with the energy from their body. It cannot be done. There is so much energy available in the body, and that's just the end of it. You can't make that energy 'more powerful.'

Look, they already did.

[Wayning_Star]

don't forget quantum mechanics as the smaller you get, energy becomes a state of mind.

Quantum energy teleportation

Quantum energy

[David7204]

First of all, no they didn't. As I said a geth colossus is not even in the same league as a Reaper. We're talking thousands or tens of thousands times more mass. It's not the same thing.

Secondly, that was gameplay. The lore in gameplay obviously has to be a lot looser than the story. For example, Shepard can stand in one place and cast warp forever in gameplay, but that's obviously canonically impossible. All games have to fudge this kind of thing in gameplay somehow. Having something happen in gameplay and have the story focus on it are two different things. Having something happen in gameplay and have the very crux of the conflict of a 120 hour adventure depend on it are titanically different things.

Thirdly, even if those two things weren't true, it wouldn't matter one bit. That would just mean you're making a mistake twice instead of once. Screwing up the science doesn't justify screwing it up later.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mars 2013 - 05:11 .