642 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

When Shepard's survival is at the top of the list of concerns for players, denying that to all players regardless of their decisions and success is absolutely a thematic betrayal.

The 'breathe scene' makes things better, but not by much.

Well, narratively, Shepard has served his purpose once the Crucible is activated. His survival should be more of a choice based system, similar to what DA:O does to ensure the survival. Yeah, Shepard should have to be a bit of a dick to survive. He should take the renegade, darker action. 

There is no thematic betrayal in having Shepard die in the convention of the game. It's just wish fulfillment. And yes, I want Shepard to live as well. If Shepard living was at the top of the heap, they would have written an ending with more variables to his survival.

[David7204]

It was, and no they didn't, which is tied to the entire reason people despise the ending in the first place.

They very obviously should have done it and were immensely foolish not to. But they didn't.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 10:24 .

[MegaSovereign]

David7204 wrote...

When Shepard's survival is at the top of the list of concerns for players, denying that to all players regardless of their decisions and success is absolutely a thematic betrayal.

I think in a broader sense most people were expecting their decisions to impact the story. Shepard's survival being the biggest concern isn't true for everyone.

The 'breathe scene' makes things better, but not by much.

The breath scene actually weakens your point. The fact that a huge portion of players hated the ending despite there being an outcome where Shepard survives means that more people prioritize narrative consistency over Shepard's fate.

Don't go with the "the breath scene wasn't enough of a confirmation" because it's obnoxiously obtuse.  

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 07 janvier 2014 - 10:29 .

[David7204]

Maybe not the biggest concern, but it's sure as hell up there. And it really doesn't matter if it's the biggest problem or not, anyway. The ending screwed up a hell of a lot. Just because there's lots of thematic betrayals doesn't mean Shepard's death isn't one of them.

I don't really know what you mean by players "prioritizing narrative consistency over Shepard's fate." Are they somehow in opposition with each other?

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 10:33 .

[MegaSovereign]

David7204 wrote...


I don't really know what you mean by players "prioritizing narrative consistency over Shepard's fate." Are they somehow in opposition with each other?

No but they're different things. Most people's reaction to the original ending leads me to believe that people care more about the story being thematically consistent over whether or not Shepard lives.

Are you suggesting that Shepard dying no matter what (regardless of the overall outcome of the Reaper war) would make the story thematically inconsistent?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...
I don't really know what you mean by players "prioritizing narrative consistency over Shepard's fate." Are they somehow in opposition with each other?

Like having a better written ending scenario that narratively makes sense and doesn't go against established lore and science, and presents a believable scenario in the context of the series for the player to begin their final choice in the game based on rational and logical explanations given rather than a false mystique and obstructive enigma to baffle and confuse the players on what is supposed to be the climax of the story.

[David7204]

MegaSovereign wrote...

[No but they're different things. Most people's reaction to the original ending leads me to believe that people care more about the story being thematically consistent over whether or not Shepard lives.

Are you suggesting that Shepard dying no matter what (regardless of the overall outcome of the Reaper war) would make the story thematically inconsistent?

Absolutely.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 10:44 .

[MegaSovereign]

Why?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

I think it was stated in the codex that continuous fire from 4 dreadnoughts was enough firepower to overcome a reaper capital ship's defenses, and a cruiser could take on a reaper destroyer with a bit of luck 1 on 1. these are from codex entries, so don't say i'm making this up simply to make an argument. I think if you've managed to completely bring the races together there should be enough firepower to give a conventional firefight a go. though it's also possible that the codex may be a propaganda tool, and the statements are not completely accurate.

Stop trying to mess with the art!

Hopelessness and gritty compromise are DEEP and ARTISTIC!  If the protagonist doesn't heroically die to bring about a partial victory, then you just want rainbows and unicorns!

Stop trying to assume the galaxy has any hope or Shepard uniting the galaxy has any meaning 

What you quoted doesn't even support your whining.

1-on-1 (if *lucky*) against a smaller Reaper means little when the enemy has some thousand-times more of their ships than your do. It also doesn't account for all of your ships that the Reapers can/will destroy before they go down.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 janvier 2014 - 10:54 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

[No but they're different things. Most people's reaction to the original ending leads me to believe that people care more about the story being thematically consistent over whether or not Shepard lives.

Are you suggesting that Shepard dying no matter what (regardless of the overall outcome of the Reaper war) would make the story thematically inconsistent?

Absolutely.

Well, that's your reason for not liking the ending then. 

[David7204]

Because the series has consistently carried a theme of heroism being meaningful and successful in achieving the goals of the player and Shepard, one of which is obviously survival. Because it's consistently carried a theme that love and friendship triumph over loneliness and despair.

Dooming the player to failing that goal no matter what and condemning the crew and Shepard's lover to a strong degree of loneliness and despair no matter what is a betrayal of both of those themes.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Because the series has consistently carried a theme of heroism being meaningful and successful in achieving the goals of the player and Shepard, one of which is obviously survival. Because it's consistently carried a theme that love and friendship triumph over loneliness and despair.

Dooming the player to failing that goal no matter what and condemning the crew and Shepard's lover to a strong degree of loneliness and despair no matter what is a betrayal of both of those themes.

I never saw those themes. They aren't useful to stopping Reapers so I consider them irrelevant. And you really aren't. Choose destroy and live. When I wanted to survive, it was for its own sake. 

Then again, I'm not going to say that because I didn't see a theme, it wasn't there. I'm going to say that I do think you're looking for wish fulfillment.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Because the series has consistently carried a theme of heroism being meaningful and successful ... 

ZZZzzzzz ...

[David7204]

Only thing I'm looking for is beauty and truth. I can assure you fiction 'fulfills' none of my wishes aside from witnessing them. Quite the opposite, really. It broadens them.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 11:02 .

[MegaSovereign]

David7204 wrote...

Because the series has consistently carried a theme of heroism being meaningful and successful in achieving the goals of the player and Shepard, one of which is obviously survival. Because it's consistently carried a theme that love and friendship triumph over loneliness and despair.

Dooming the player to failing that goal no matter what and condemning the crew and Shepard's lover to a strong degree of loneliness and despair no matter what is a betrayal of both of those themes.

Survival being a major goal is not heroic, no matter how you try to spin it. It's an instinct, not an active goal.

Squadmate/lover mourning the loss of a squadmate/lover is not thematically inconsistent. Nor is it uncommon in the ME universe.

People risking their lives in order to achieve their goals is also not thematically inconsistent.

Did you think Mordin dying in order to cure the genophage was a thematic betrayal?

[David7204]

Whether you call it a 'goal' or 'instinct' or something else is really not something I care much about. The survival of the main character matters. It matters a great deal. It's generally one of the most important factors determining the ending of a story.

As for loss, whether or not it occurs is not the issue. It occurs in many stories. The issue is whether other themes trump it or not. And they do. Most of the squadmates face loss. However, it's never condemned to end in loss and nothing else. They become friends or even lovers with Shepard. The become part of the crew, part of a family. Loss exists, but it's trumped by heroism. The ending completely fails to validate that.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 11:12 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

What you quoted doesn't even support your whining.

1-on-1 (if *lucky*) against a smaller Reaper means little when the enemy has some thousand-times more of their ships than your do. It also doesn't account for all of your ships that the Reapers can/will destroy before they go down.

"Whining", eh?  Wonder if I should report that? <_<

Given the only reason we have all these little Reapers is because suddenly one Reaper per cycle (max) isn't enough.  

More Reapers=more Art 

Modifié par iakus, 07 janvier 2014 - 11:18 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Whether you call it a 'goal' or 'instinct' or something else is really not something I care much about. The survival of the main character matters. It matters a great deal. It's generally one of the most important factors determining the ending of a story.

As for loss, whether or not it occurs is not the issue. It occurs in many stories. The issue is whether other themes trump it or not. And they do. Most of the squadmates face loss. However, it's never condemned to end in loss and nothing else. They become friends or even lovers with Shepard. The become part of the crew, part of a family. Loss exists, but it's trumped by heroism. The ending completely fails to validate that.

Probably because its not about heroism. Or about what you think it should objectively be. And I don't mean the ending. I mean the whole story.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 janvier 2014 - 11:19 .

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

Art 

Huzzah!

[AlanC9]

Don't be silly. At one per cycle we could have over 20,000 Reapers, minus casualties. How many more depends on how long the cycles have been going on before the Leviathan of Dis was destroyed; that depends on cosmology; I don't know how early current theory says terrestrial planets could have formed. And those would have been all Sovereign-class.

Bio could have chosen to make the numbers come out smaller, sure. But they didn't have to.

The real reason they came up with destroyers is to do the Tuchanka and Rannoch scenes.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 janvier 2014 - 11:49 .

[wolfhowwl]

Even with the use of the Crucible, the Reapers have to pull an absurd number of punches to let us win.

The Reapers allow the galaxy the use of the Citadel to coordinate resistance. They deploy a Reaper on Tuchanka without any air support and only a handful of infantry (A billion years and they still can't grasp combined arms tactics?).

Despite an opportunity to crush the Quarians in a single stroke, only a single Destroyer is sent to control the Geth. Said Destroyer also doesn't know how to sweep horizontally with his laser.

How much more incompetent would the Reapers have to be to allow a conventional victory?

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 07 janvier 2014 - 11:45 .

[Ravensword]

Shepard uses heroism to boost his Sue powers.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

Art 

Huzzah!

Aren't you supposed to do a shot now? 

[AlanC9]

Almost 7 in New York. I'm in.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Don't be silly. At one per cycle we could have over 20,000 Reapers, minus casualties. How many more depends on how long the cycles have been going on before the Leviathan of Dis was destroyed; that depends on cosmology; I don't know how early current theory says terrestrial planets could have formed. And those would have been all Sovereign-class.

Bio could have chosen to make the numbers come out smaller, sure. But they didn't have to.

The real reason they came up with destroyers is to do the Tuchanka and Rannoch scenes.

And if there were 20,000+ Sovereign-class Reapers and 100,000+ destroyers, the game should have started with a Game Over screen.

THe Leviathan of Dis being a Reaper is a facepalmingly bad retcon