307 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

It sounds like you want Paragons to be right; idealism will give results every bit as good as more pragmatic approaches. Am I reading this right?

That is the very heart and soul of Mass Effect...
A heart that was ripped out and **** all over in the endings...
They turned the player into a complete monster...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 23 avril 2013 - 08:57 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

I wonder if the reason that those of us who play idealist-Paragon Shepards didn't find any of the endings completely satisfying is that Bioware was (not without reason, IMO) committed to making sure that the ending isn't *too* happy or upbeat - I remember hearing something second-hand about how ME3 would not end with a big victory party before the game came out. This ties into a problem that is hardly specific to Mass Effect or Bioware, which is that simply *talking* about massive body counts in fiction, or even showing them briefly, can feel cheap when done in the service of an otherwise positive conclusion. Personally, I would have still preferred an option to implement something like the solution I suggested, with the implication that the war may be over but its consequences most certainly are not, but I can understand why Bioware might have felt like that was too easy or inappropriately upbeat.

My own "perfect" (and idealist-Paragon) ending would have been for Shepard to simply break the link between the Catalyst and the Reapers - based on what we saw in Synthesis, and from what I understood about how the Catalyst and the Reapers function, it appears likely the Reapers would stop their attacks and try to undo some of the damage they caused if given the freedom to do so. And even in that scenario, the facts of the situation remain pretty grim: billions have been killed, more are probably still going to die in the aftermath because basic services and infrastructure are out of commission or at least severely limited, and many survivors may never recover the lives they had before the war. However, the full scale of this probably wouldn't have come across effectively on-screen - even if there was some extended montage of destroyed cities, desperate civilians, overworked reconstruction crews, etc., it would still feel kind of perfunctory.

Having to pick between decidedly imperfect solutions, however, and seeing Shepard arguably die in 4 of the 5 (Control, Synthesis, Refuse, and Low EMS Destroy) - that does have an impact on us because we've been playing Shepard the whole time. Say what you want about the endings, but bland or understated they were not. Unfortunately the decisions stretched past that point into pushing Shepard out of character for at least some of us.

[chemiclord]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Agreed. You know, presenting a situation that only allows for victory by way of huge moral compromise could be interesting if handled well, but ME3 completely fluffs its lines in ignoring the negative consequences of each solution. Just awful.

Well, here is where we are going to deviate.

I for one, don't inherently MIND going from having a "golden" option to not having one.  Life is like that sometimes; sometimes, no matter what you do, you're stuck with having to make a choice that doesn't have an inherently good conclusion.

But if you're going to do something that jarring in fiction... then you REALLY have to sell it well.  You can't misstep in even the slightest way setting up that "moral choice", or holy hell are the fans going to let you know how displeased they are.  It's something you have to sew into the fabric very early and stitch it in every so often to make your audience know that the possibility is there.

On that score, Bioware failed miserably.  The only "decision" that I can recall that doesn't have a "golden" option up until ME3 is the Virmire selection, and even that is awfully heavy handed.  It wasn't enough to set the hook, and fans by and large spit it right back out once Bioware tried to reel them in.

[Nicodemus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nicodemus wrote...

I wasn't really impressed with the DLC at all. To me "From the Ashes", "Leviathan" and "Omega" were core parts of the story that needed to be in the game from the get go. "Leviathan" more so than the other 2 as it foreshadows the ending. To release something like that to bolster their ending after release was not only poor planning but to a certain degree poor writing..

My problem with arguments like this is that you're not impressed with those DLCs because they were good. Would you have really liked them better if they  had less to do with the main plot?

No, I'm not impressed with the DLC because they were critical story arcs that needed to be in the game at release to make the game complete. Without these 3 DLCs the game feels even more incomplete, rushed and to a certain extent nonsensical. Before the inclusion of Leviathan the end was total garbage as it seemed they plucked something out of thin air, with Leviathan they added some foreshadowing that didn't entirely make you question what they were trying to do (although it's still pretty bad).

Taken on their own I don't think these 3 DLCs were good at all. In fact I rate all 3 towards the bottom of all the ME dlcs. ME3 needed these 3 DLCs as part of the shipped game, not added afterwards. If the game had shipped with all 3 as part of the game then the game itself would have felt more complete and less rushed. 

Would I have liked the DLCs more if they had less to do with the main plot, maybe, but then again at least the DLCs would have felt more like additional content to enhance the game rather than DLC to complete the game. That is my argument why the DLCs are unimpressive, DLC should be there to enhance the game not there to complete it.

[chemiclord]

Fandango9641 wrote...
I can agree with that. You know, the main problem I have with ME3 is that the game actually tries to celebrate the virtue of (what I perceive to be) three horrific acts of violence. For me, the inflated sentimentality of those EC slides does less than nothing to give weight to the full consequences of each solution and actually gives cover to those who would try to reinvent them as something wholly positive. Does my nut.

You've touched on one thing I really dislike about the Extended Cut; and it's a classic case of listening TOO MUCH to the fans (something that Bioware has been notorious guilty of throughout the entire series).

So many fans got their panties in a twist about the "galactic dark age" bit.  They wanted something happier, and Bioware catered to them.  It really made me miffed that there were people who actually were that shallow, and were willing to overlook how the change actually CREATED as big of a narrative disconnect as the fans claimed it FIXED... and that the damn thing WORKED for far too many people than I would like to admit.

Modifié par chemiclord, 23 avril 2013 - 10:23 .

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

AlanC9 wrote..

It sounds like you want Paragons to be right; idealism will give results every bit as good as more pragmatic approaches. Am I reading this right?

It sounded to me like he wanted an option that appealed to his idealism.  This isn't an unexpected desire, as through 2 and 9/10 games there was by and large that "out" for someone who played it "just right."  Yanking that pattern out from under the players was quite jarring for those who had come to expect a "golden" solution to every problem they faced.

Which is kind of a problem for the design. Most of the time the Renegade path is wrong on its own terms. It isn't pragmatic to do the pragmatic thing when the idealistic path gets all the rewards of the pragmatic path and more besides. Feros is particularly awful in this regard since the Paragon path isn't only better, it's easier.

Of course, this isn't ME- or even Bioware-specific.

[AlanC9]

Nicodemus wrote...
Taken on their own I don't think these 3 DLCs were good at all. In fact I rate all 3 towards the bottom of all the ME dlcs. ME3 needed these 3 DLCs as part of the shipped game, not added afterwards. If the game had shipped with all 3 as part of the game then the game itself would have felt more complete and less rushed.

This sounds like you're blaming the DLCs for perceived faults of the main game. Wouldn't it be more sensible to blame ME3 for its own failures rather than blame its DLCs?

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 avril 2013 - 11:11 .

[Dean_the_Young]

chemiclord wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Agreed. You know, presenting a situation that only allows for victory by way of huge moral compromise could be interesting if handled well, but ME3 completely fluffs its lines in ignoring the negative consequences of each solution. Just awful.

Well, here is where we are going to deviate.

I for one, don't inherently MIND going from having a "golden" option to not having one.  Life is like that sometimes; sometimes, no matter what you do, you're stuck with having to make a choice that doesn't have an inherently good conclusion.

But if you're going to do something that jarring in fiction... then you REALLY have to sell it well.  You can't misstep in even the slightest way setting up that "moral choice", or holy hell are the fans going to let you know how displeased they are.  It's something you have to sew into the fabric very early and stitch it in every so often to make your audience know that the possibility is there.

On that score, Bioware failed miserably.  The only "decision" that I can recall that doesn't have a "golden" option up until ME3 is the Virmire selection, and even that is awfully heavy handed.  It wasn't enough to set the hook, and fans by and large spit it right back out once Bioware tried to reel them in.

If you can restrain the player-praise, you can listen to the cut dialogue on the third option they considered...

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

You've touched on one thing I really dislike about the Extended Cut; and it's a classic case of listening TOO MUCH to the fans (something that Bioware has been notorious guilty of throughout the entire series).

So many fans got their panties in a twist about the "galactic dark age" bit.  They wanted something happier, and Bioware catered to them.  It really made me miffed that there were people who actually were that shallow, and were willing to overlook how the change actually CREATED as big of a narrative disconnect as the fans claimed it FIXED... and that the damn thing WORKED for far too many people than I would like to admit.

To some extent, you're right.  However, it's almost comical how much some requests were studiously ignored or even made worse.

I mean, Control and Synthesis were pretty much whitewashed wihtout even addressing the darker aspects of the choices.  Not an Adam "I never asked for this" Jensen to be seen..

But Destroy actually got darker.  Before one could conceivably headcanon that EDI and the geth were "rolled back" to a pre-Reaper state.  Now it's quite clear Shepasrd genocides all synthetic life in Destroy.  Me, I'd happily accept a galactic dark age rather than have that.

And that doesn't even include the "What color do you want your funeral pyre to be?"

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

Which is kind of a problem for the design. Most of the time the Renegade path is wrong on its own terms. It isn't pragmatic to do the pragmatic thing when the idealistic path gets all the rewards of the pragmatic path and more besides. Feros is particularly awful in this regard since the Paragon path isn't only better, it's easier.

Of course, this isn't ME- or even Bioware-specific.

It didn't help that Renegade was all over the map in ME to begin with.  It was less pragmatist as it was unrepenant **** most of the time.

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you can restrain the player-praise, you can listen to the cut dialogue on the third option they considered...

Yikes.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Which is kind of a problem for the design. Most of the time the Renegade path is wrong on its own terms. It isn't pragmatic to do the pragmatic thing when the idealistic path gets all the rewards of the pragmatic path and more besides. Feros is particularly awful in this regard since the Paragon path isn't only better, it's easier.

Of course, this isn't ME- or even Bioware-specific.

The problem is that renegade is, to paraphrase TV tropes, pragmatic-stupid. Since it always turns on your abilities as player, there isn't anything the game can typically throw at you that you can't do. Like Feros. You're not really risking anything. 

There's the justification that the colonist might be so infected that they'd spread a contagion everyone (that someone on the forum mentioned) but that's not something that comes up in game. Shepard's more of an **** about it.

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

To some extent, you're right.  However, it's almost comical how much some requests were studiously ignored or even made worse.

It's really not comical.  Bioware's approach to the fan feedback for ME3 seemed quite obvious to me, honestly.  The only feedback that was outright ignored was anything that had to do with outright scrapping and redoing the ending.  Bioware was never going to budge on that, and that was fairly clear to me right from the start of the whole debacle.  Anything else was on the table, and the vast majority of that to some extent was implemented through the DLC cycle.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you can restrain the  player-praise, you can listen to the cut dialogue on the third option they considered...

I already know about that garbage, and rest assured I have very little praise for the playerbase.  I can find a lot at fault with the fan response while at the same time acknowledging Bioware done ****ed up their share of things too.

Modifié par chemiclord, 23 avril 2013 - 11:29 .

[chemiclord]

Double post.

Modifié par chemiclord, 23 avril 2013 - 11:28 .

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

It didn't help that Renegade was all over the map in ME to begin with.  It was less pragmatist as it was unrepenant **** most of the time.

I have trouble playing Renegades in ME1. At least in KotOR you can do DS stuff for the lulz.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
The problem is that renegade is, to paraphrase TV tropes, pragmatic-stupid. Since it always turns on your abilities as player, there isn't anything the game can typically throw at you that you can't do. Like Feros. You're not really risking anything. 

Or Virmire, where if you don't help Kirrahe all you're doing is passing up some XP and loot. You can't actually lose the game by doing those combats.

This is the sort of case where limited save points would help. Choose to fight the optional combats and lose, and you'll have to repeat a bunch of content.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 avril 2013 - 11:48 .

[christrek1982]

Felya87 wrote...

the only problem of Citadel was not being post-ending.

If it was post, ending, with little variations of dialogue, could have been great
if Shep died in the ending, the few casual references to the war could be there, and be tell as a memory of the LI, or tell by the Grandfather at the end.(tell me another story of Shepard!)

If Shep lives..well, it was a great adventure post hospital.

Agreed and that is how I play it and how I see I regardless of the intent and it's only the fact that Shepard dies 3 out of the 4 endings that stops Citadel from being a grate Epilouge.

[Modius Prime]

 I used to miss it when games actually felt complete when you beat it >.>
<_<

Modifié par Modius Prime, 24 avril 2013 - 12:16 .

[Bleachrude]

I'm not sure ME3 is at fault for not following the "idealistic" option.

But technically, Renegade was SUPPOSED to be a valid option....ME3 is the first time admittely where the renegade option (kelly chambers, javik, rewrite vsdestroy) was the best option at times...

[David7204]

I really don't see how Paragon and Renegede options can be in totally different directions and still simultaneously both be 'smart.' That seems kind of contradictory, that a choice can be smart and it's complete 'opposite', so to speak, can also be smart.

So I'm glad that Renegade options were somewhat less appealing throughout the series. That's how it should be.

Modifié par David7204, 24 avril 2013 - 01:00 .

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

It's really not comical.  Bioware's approach to the fan feedback for ME3 seemed quite obvious to me, honestly.  The only feedback that was outright ignored was anything that had to do with outright scrapping and redoing the ending.  Bioware was never going to budge on that, and that was fairly clear to me right from the start of the whole debacle.  Anything else was on the table, and the vast majority of that to some extent was implemented through the DLC cycle.

I fail to see who retconning a galactic dark age is somehow less a retcon than retconning a galactic genocide.

Heck, one of those comically dismissive things EC did with Destroy was make it pretty much the only ending that guaranteed a dark age, even if it's much less severe than was originally implied.

After all, in destroy  there are no Reapers around to repair the relays.  The younger civilizations have to do it themselves.  For the entire network.  A process likely to take decades just to get the known relay network back up, let alone the stuff they never got around to exploring.

Destroy has the galaxy turning its back on the knowledge (Synthesis) and power (Control) of the Reapers, trashes the galaxcy, and still punishes the player with an arbitrary genocide.  All of this reinforced by EC.

Like I said, comical.  In a sad way.

[Bleachrude]

Modius Prime wrote...

 I used to miss it when games actually felt complete when you beat it >.>
<_<

That's because back then games didnt have the internet (where you can find out everything that ws on disc) or DLCs (expansion packs were usually months after the game released and thus you had long finished it).


Of course, what gets ignored is that many of those older games ALSO had things left on the cutting room floor...main difference being that companies, due to limitations on disc size were more likely to "clean" up after themselves.

e.g  Zelda, ocarina of Time, regularly gets put in the "Greatest videogames of all time" category and usually in the top 5 and at the time of the release people consdiered it a full game.

Now, with various ROM hackers, we know for a fact that's not even close to true...there's about 4-6 hours of content still on the disc that Nintendo (Miyamoto is insistent on only shipping Zelda or Mario when HE thinks it is good and ready...Nintendo NEVER pushes him on this) never released.

There's a great site called the cutting room floor that shows how much content used to be left on disc but that we as players never knew about because of no DLCs in the past.