307 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...
I really don't want to turn this into a debate about the ethical 'value' of each solution Alan, but it's actually kind of my point that the game is set up in such a way as to reward the logic of those who would sacrifice the Geth to save Shep but punish those who would instead reject the Catalysts irrational, racist mandate in making a choice that actually respects basic, fundamental freedoms. Sucks dude.

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 avril 2013 - 08:49 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
I really don't want to turn this into a debate about the ethical 'value' of each solution Alan, but it's actually kind of my point that the game is set up in such a way as to reward the logic of those who would sacrifice the Geth to save Shep but punish those who would instead reject the Catalysts irrational, racist mandate in making a choice that actually respects basic, fundamental freedoms. Sucks dude.

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

If I wanted that, why would I play an rpg?  I could just read the newspaper and have just as much fun

[spirosz]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
I really don't want to turn this into a debate about the ethical 'value' of each solution Alan, but it's actually kind of my point that the game is set up in such a way as to reward the logic of those who would sacrifice the Geth to save Shep but punish those who would instead reject the Catalysts irrational, racist mandate in making a choice that actually respects basic, fundamental freedoms. Sucks dude.

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

If I wanted that, why would I play an rpg?  I could just read the newspaper and have just as much fun

Maybe it's not about what you want, but what Bioware wanted to express.   Not saying it's what I prefer, but they can't please everyone and shouldn't try to. 

Modifié par spirosz, 21 avril 2013 - 08:53 .

[AlanC9]

Uncle Jo wrote...
I still have difficulties to buy the "Javik DLC being planned well after ME3" story. His interactions, banter and background story are too firmly tied to the main plot. He's also way more fleshed out than for example James. And he's Prothean. If only one new character had to be created for this episode, it would be him and no one else.

Well, he doesn't say that they planned Javik after the story was written. Just that they put off the work of actually writing him until then. It looks like they decided he'd be the day 1 DLC at about the midpoint of writing the game (possibly because some other concept failed?)

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

If I wanted that, why would I play an rpg?  I could just read the newspaper and have just as much fun

I was starting to type a serious response here, but then  I realized this was just snark with no actual content. (Well, except that you've got different tastes, but we already knew that)

You usually do better. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 avril 2013 - 09:01 .

[Uncle Jo]

iakus wrote...
*snip*

Why alternate ending DLC wasn't released?  We may never know.  My guess (and it's only a guess) is that they expended all the resources they could spare on EC, figuring (incorrectly) that people would love their endings if only they weren't so confused about them.  When it was only partly successful, there was no longer the time nor the money to work up alternate endings.  So now all they can do is end things on a happy note and pretend there was never a problem.

I think you're right on this point. But even if resources and time were avalaible, another alternate ending DLC(s) is (are) unthinkable. You can't spend your time correcting endlessly what is supposed to be wrong, knowing also that you'll never succeed to satisfy every one anyway.

They've given the EC for free (not a great gesture, if we had to pay for it, I let imagine what would have happened) and tried to compromise between their vision of the game and what the fans wanted. That's enough for them and it is a point of view I can understand even if I loathe their endings with or without EC.

At some point you have to draw a line. Because no matter how wrong it was (for me), it still is their work and they had the right to defend it. And the last word. How you will interact with them in the future is up to you.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

If I wanted that, why would I play an rpg?  I could just read the newspaper and have just as much fun

I was starting to type a serious response here, but then  I realized this was just snark with no actual content. (Well, except that you've got different tastes, but we already knew that)

You usually do better. 

It was at least semiserious.

Why should I play an rpg which tells me "Life sucks.  then you die." or something similar?   That there's no point in striving for something better, when the best you can hope for is "less bad"?  

There'sd Citadel, and there's EC.  Surely Bioware should have been able to come up with a happy medium?  

[spirosz]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

If I wanted that, why would I play an rpg?  I could just read the newspaper and have just as much fun

I was starting to type a serious response here, but then  I realized this was just snark with no actual content. (Well, except that you've got different tastes, but we already knew that)

You usually do better. 

It was at least semiserious.

Why should I play an rpg which tells me "Life sucks.  then you die." or something similar?   That there's no point in striving for something better, when the best you can hope for is "less bad"?  

There'sd Citadel, and there's EC.  Surely Bioware should have been able to come up with a happy medium?  

Go read the newspaper. 

[Uncle Jo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, he doesn't say that they planned Javik after the story was written. Just that they put off the work of actually writing him until then. It looks like they decided he'd be the day 1 DLC at about the midpoint of writing the game (possibly because some other concept failed?)

Well, I misunderstood the post. My bad. Still, it seems strange that such an important character could be cut from the main game and sold as DLC. DAY ONE DLC. I mean Zaeed and Kasumi were optional and it shows, but Javik? They give me James Vega, Diana Allers and Steve Cortez and let the Prothean out of the game?

Which failed concept in your opinion? Do you mean that thing about Javik originally being the Catalyst or something else?

[Dean_the_Young]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

snip

Whatever you say Dean and, since we are in wisdom dispensing mood, may I humbly suggest that you pick your wickets a little more carefully when talking about the incongruity of a piece of DLC that plays like a bizzaro soap opera, complete with evil twin, hackneyed in jokes, tenuous plot and tired caricatures?

Sure you can. Freedom of speech and all that.

Now, that doesn't mean what you say is that relevant to the truth, now...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's called choosing the best of bad options, and being able to determine and decide such is a key aspect of both morality and responsibility.

And what if the game sets things up in such a way as to require and celebrate the 'virtue' of inflicting huge acts of arbitrary violence (you know, like the ending to ME3)?

Then it's a grim setting. The idea that stories, or the world, need to give you options that provide solutions that nicely correlate to your preferred morality is quaint, but unrealistic and unreasonable unless you are the one who dictates the premise of the world.

Dictate the premise of the world (what are  you talking about)? Would an ending consistent with my overall experience across three games be too much to ask? I mean, if the game really must insist that I suddenly flip a switch and start role-playing an ignorant, egotistical monster to 'win' then it really shouldn't have encouraged me to role-play a morally virtuous Shep to that point, right? Well not unless the game was actually designed to be an exercise in disgruntled frustration. 

The experience consistent over the previous two games was more or less kicking problems and assumed risks down the road, not dealing with consequences in the here and now. Defering consequence may work well enough in the previous parts of a trilogy, but expecting it to hold true through the end so that no consequences are felt is a bit trite, wouldn't you agree?

At this point in the series, you've either slain or enabled species with genocidal histories to go forth and do great and possibly terrible things. You've taken the fate of the galaxy in your hands multiple times, made decisions, conducted or enabled genocide, and left billions to cope with the consequences of your actions.

If you think assuming the responsibility for galaxy-altering decisions that carry great consequences is playing an ignorant, egotistical monster to 'win', then, well... Paragon Shepard already crossed the bar long, long ago.

(Then again, egocentric moralizing is part and parcel of the morally virtuous Paragon playthrough, so you were kind of doomed.)

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

It was at least semiserious.

Why should I play an rpg which tells me "Life sucks.  then you die." or something similar?   That there's no point in striving for something better, when the best you can hope for is "less bad"?  

I don't see any difference between "better" and "less bad." Maybe that's the difference right there?

I didn't mean to imply you should like such games. But if you did like your RPG universes to be as flawed as this universe is, you wouldn't be bothered by these issues. (You'd probably end up in chemiclord's space; IIRC he finds the ending's storytelling awful, but has no problems with the choices themselves)

[Dean_the_Young]

Uncle Jo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, he doesn't say that they planned Javik after the story was written. Just that they put off the work of actually writing him until then. It looks like they decided he'd be the day 1 DLC at about the midpoint of writing the game (possibly because some other concept failed?)

Well, I misunderstood the post. My bad. Still, it seems strange that such an important character could be cut from the main game and sold as DLC. DAY ONE DLC. I mean Zaeed and Kasumi were optional and it shows, but Javik? They give me James Vega, Diana Allers and Steve Cortez and let the Prothean out of the game?

The Prothean is as tangential as the rest, really. Exotic, but not really a plot driver. The moment he goes 'I don't know anything about the Crucible', his relevance to the main plot ends.

As a squadmate, the only one of those characters who really applies would be Vega... but Vega arguably serves a better role as a introductory character/foil for the Commander than Javik does. Besides serving a role as an exposition excuse ('let's tell Vega, and remind the players, about the state of the galaxy'), relatively-inexperienced Vega serves as a means to show off Shepard as an authority figure in a way that the old cast doesn't really reflect and Javik really doesn't warrant.

Which failed concept in your opinion? Do you mean that thing about Javik originally being the Catalyst or something else?

There were a few other ideas thrown around. Javik might have been kidnapped by Kai Leng, involved in the death of the Virmire Survivor's SPECTRE partner to drive divisions with Shepard, or just a stand-in for Vendetta VI.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 21 avril 2013 - 09:24 .

[SmokePants]

It's a shame Nyreen was so popular, yet suffered one of the most inglorious and unnecessary deaths in the entire series. I would have killed those Adjutants in seconds flat if she'd have let me. The stuff about them getting under her skin was just really out of place in the story -- as were the adjutants themselves. Seems like there was much more to the story at one time and they cut most of it, but still left in remnants just to confuse everyone. It's like trying to figure out what an animal looked like based on a few random bones that the scavengers left behind.

Modifié par SmokePants, 21 avril 2013 - 09:27 .

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
I really don't want to turn this into a debate about the ethical 'value' of each solution Alan, but it's actually kind of my point that the game is set up in such a way as to reward the logic of those who would sacrifice the Geth to save Shep but punish those who would instead reject the Catalysts irrational, racist mandate in making a choice that actually respects basic, fundamental freedoms. Sucks dude.

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

Same - that's not the point I was making.

Then what is your point? A bad person -- meaning one who doesn't care about certain moral principles -- is going to be able to glide past moral dilemmas that a good person would get hung up on. That's what being bad means.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 avril 2013 - 09:29 .

[Han Shot First]

Sauruz wrote...

Is it Citadel DLC that is out of place or is it ME3?

I agree that some parts of Citadel DLC were unnecessarily goofy, but if it was set in ME2 or a hypothetical ME3 that doesn't have a hopeless war against the Reapers throughout the entire game, there'd be no problem with it.

It is the CItadel DLC.

There are areas with Mass Effect 3 where the devs stumbled, particularly with the endings. One area they got right however was in the overall tone of the game. With a race of hype-radvanced, genocidal war machines annihilating every civilization in the galaxy, the light and somewhat goofy tone of the Citadel DLC would have been entirely inappropriate if applied across the entire game. The war effort against the Reapers should feel desperate and nearly hopeless, and there should  be losses that hit close to home.

Thane and Mordin and Anderson's deaths all that dark background information you hear on progress of the war, or in the grim conversations Shepard both takes part in or overhears, were all home runs. Bioware hit the ball out of the park with all of those elements.

That being said, I do love the Citadel DLC. Even major wars have downtime or shore leave. But the tone of the Citadel would not have been a good fit with the game as a whole.

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Prothean is as tangential as the rest, really. Exotic, but not really a plot driver. The moment he goes 'I don't know anything about the Crucible', his relevance to the main plot ends.

I can confirm that. I've had no exposure to Javik except for one YouTube clip, and this hasn't stopped me from following any of the arguments about the plot. 

When I mentioned failed concepts upthread, I was actually talking about concepts for the day 1 DLC. That there was going to be some paid day 1 DLC is well-known, since that's been EA policy for a long time. If Javik had been in the main game, something else would have been that DLC. So, what?

Maybe Omega was the original idea? Or maybe it was something else altogether.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

It was at least semiserious.

Why should I play an rpg which tells me "Life sucks.  then you die." or something similar?   That there's no point in striving for something better, when the best you can hope for is "less bad"?  

I don't see any difference between "better" and "less bad." Maybe that's the difference right there?

I didn't mean to imply you should like such games. But if you did like your RPG universes to be as flawed as this universe is, you wouldn't be bothered by these issues. (You'd probably end up in chemiclord's space; IIRC he finds the ending's storytelling awful, but has no problems with the choices themselves)

Yup. I know others feel differently, but for me trying to make an RPG adventure in a world where moral superiority = best results neither makes me feel better or accomplished: if anything, I find it insulting to people who are virtuous in reality because it can trivealize the admirable parts of morality (doing the right thing despite the costs and difficulties) by making it the self-interested and narcistic thing to do (people will love me and everything turns out best if I'm a nice person). At the same time, I find attempts at morality in a grim/jaded setting outright inspirational when people don't succumb to vice despite the difficulty and lack of clarity, but rather work through the difficulty with effort and imperfections.

But then, I've always enjoyed my knights in sour armor more than the shinier sort.

[RiouHotaru]

Uncle Jo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, he doesn't say that they planned Javik after the story was written. Just that they put off the work of actually writing him until then. It looks like they decided he'd be the day 1 DLC at about the midpoint of writing the game (possibly because some other concept failed?)

Well, I misunderstood the post. My bad. Still, it seems strange that such an important character could be cut from the main game and sold as DLC. DAY ONE DLC. I mean Zaeed and Kasumi were optional and it shows, but Javik? They give me James Vega, Diana Allers and Steve Cortez and let the Prothean out of the game?

Which failed concept in your opinion? Do you mean that thing about Javik originally being the Catalyst or something else?

See, there's the argument about Javik being "important" that continues to baffle me.  He isn't important.  Casey twitted that he wasn't integral or crticial to the story.  And he wasn't.  And no, being a Prothean doesn't by default make him important.  He adds to depth to existing lore, sure, but NOTHING he says detracts from the experience should you not have him.

Also, as for Leviathan, that they did it after the EC doesn't make it a retro-active justification.  Likely Leviathan was, on a drawing board, a DLC whose premise was "Explain the origin of the Reapers", but at the time, they weren't sure exactly HOW to do that.  Once the EC let them expand on the Catalyst's dialog and by extension, the origin of the Catalyst, they had a foundation from which to build on with Leviathan.

And to be honest, even if Leviathan IS a retroactive justification, it's not a bad one.  I quite enjoyed the idea of a previous race of arrogant jerks whose actions caused everyone after them to suffer the consequences.  But then science-fiction IS my favorite genre of fiction.

[M Hedonist]

@Dean_the_Young: I like to believe western liberalism is about more than just politics.
Compromises must be made to both ensure freedom and the general well-being of the population. But these choices... they're no compromises. They're just means of survival. Stark perversions of those compromises that ensure general well-being. There will never be a law (in a modern western society) that allows any one man to commit genocide, become a self-appointed dictator or to change the very nature of life and man itself (though I suppose there's no law against that, either). And the fact that one single man is supposed to make this decision for the entire galaxy is a mockery of democracy.
But I suppose this is where the minds divide - sorry for this poor direct translation of a saying we have in our country, but I couldn't find a proper fitting equivalent. Ultimately, it's about how willing one is to bend their morals, and that is something where western countries differ. Great Britain, and America (more obviously) generally tend to embrace Utilitarianism. Some countries tend to be more deontological. For instance, after long discussions, it was actually ruled illegal in Germany to shoot down a plane that has been seized by terrorists - even if that would end up saving more lives. Crazy, huh? Well I am proud to be able to say I live in that same country.

Modifié par Sauruz, 21 avril 2013 - 09:47 .

[Uncle Jo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Prothean is as tangential as the rest, really. Exotic, but not really a plot driver. The moment he goes 'I don't know anything about the Crucible', his relevance to the main plot ends.

As a squadmate, the only one of those characters who really applies would be Vega... but Vega arguably serves a better role as a introductory character/foil for the Commander than Javik does. Besides serving a role as an exposition excuse ('let's tell Vega, and remind the players, about the state of the galaxy'), relatively-inexperienced Vega serves as a means to show off Shepard as an authority figure in a way that the old cast doesn't really reflect and Javik really doesn't warrant.

I didn't express myself correctly. When I said "important", I meant the narrative input about the Protheans, who were at the core of the story when it came to the Reapers and/or the delayed invasion. Not his relevance to the plot. I never expected that much.

Shortly after the Crucible found conveniently on Mars, a living instruction book for the super-weapon is also found conveniently ? That would have been way too much. Even by BW standards.

And when it comes to Vega and even if I see your point, I'd rather have had [random Alliance marine] as warden who takes me to Anderson, without a word, than seeing my Shep talking casually to a guy I've never seen before and who took the place of Grunt. On the other way around Vega makes, as you said, a very good introductory character for people who never played ME. Problem is I don't belong to them.

I still have your comment in my mind about doing the Grissom academy with Jack dead . I've tried it recently and you were right, it works way better. I'd add the new Council, which seems less stupid than the older one, the Cerberus scientists without Jacob. ME3 was indeed the best place to start the trilogy.

There were a few other ideas thrown around. Javik might have been kidnapped by Kai Leng, involved in the death of the Virmire Survivor's SPECTRE partner to drive divisions with Shepard, or just a stand-in for Vendetta VI.

That's completely new to me. Never heard it before. Thanks for sharing.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 21 avril 2013 - 10:21 .

[jstme]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
I really don't want to turn this into a debate about the ethical 'value' of each solution Alan, but it's actually kind of my point that the game is set up in such a way as to reward the logic of those who would sacrifice the Geth to save Shep but punish those who would instead reject the Catalysts irrational, racist mandate in making a choice that actually respects basic, fundamental freedoms. Sucks dude.

Sometimes the universe sucks, yep.

I prefer my RPG universes to be just as flawed as the one I'm actually living in. YMMV.

You did not like ME1 or ME2? 

[The Night Mammoth]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, he doesn't say that they planned Javik after the story was written. Just that they put off the work of actually writing him until then. It looks like they decided he'd be the day 1 DLC at about the midpoint of writing the game (possibly because some other concept failed?)

Well, I misunderstood the post. My bad. Still, it seems strange that such an important character could be cut from the main game and sold as DLC. DAY ONE DLC. I mean Zaeed and Kasumi were optional and it shows, but Javik? They give me James Vega, Diana Allers and Steve Cortez and let the Prothean out of the game?

Which failed concept in your opinion? Do you mean that thing about Javik originally being the Catalyst or something else?

See, there's the argument about Javik being "important" that continues to baffle me.  He isn't important.  Casey twitted that he wasn't integral or crticial to the story.  And he wasn't.  And no, being a Prothean doesn't by default make him important.  He adds to depth to existing lore, sure, but NOTHING he says detracts from the experience should you not have him.

Also, as for Leviathan, that they did it after the EC doesn't make it a retro-active justification.  Likely Leviathan was, on a drawing board, a DLC whose premise was "Explain the origin of the Reapers", but at the time, they weren't sure exactly HOW to do that.  Once the EC let them expand on the Catalyst's dialog and by extension, the origin of the Catalyst, they had a foundation from which to build on with Leviathan.

And to be honest, even if Leviathan IS a retroactive justification, it's not a bad one.  I quite enjoyed the idea of a previous race of arrogant jerks whose actions caused everyone after them to suffer the consequences.  But then science-fiction IS my favorite genre of fiction.

Well I don't know about justification, but it's sure as hell a retroactive explanation.

As in, there were questions and new concepts answered and explained at a later date with content meant to take place before these questions and new concepts were chronologically introduced.

It's not an inherently bad thing, and I don't have a problem with it specifically, but I do think Leviathan, and the story, suffered for it.