506 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Do you want the leader of the Reapers to be right or not?

Yep, exactly that's the problem. Players might be willing to be convinced that the Catalyst has a point, but it needs to be really good at convincing to achieve that, and most notably, the story must support its points. Assertions players don't like which also fail to be conveyed by the story in a reasonably convincing manner will be rejected by the players.

Do I reject the Catalyst's scenario? Well, no, but that's only because I can imagine how it could make sense and assume that this is what the writers were going for. I'm using unpublished information and the axiom that all high-EMS endings aren't meant to be bad in any objective sense. While personally I don't mind the extra effort, as a rule players should not have to do that in order to get a satisfying ending.

I don't quite see the issue here, though. If you figure the Catalyst is just plain wrong, then you can pick Destroy or Control on the merits (hard to see a case for Synthesis). How is this a problem?

Because even if you believe the Catalyst's claims of the other two functions (and that shooting the pipe doesn't simply release toxic fumes that overcome Shepard and Control isn't just grasping live wires

1) Destroying the Reapers means slaughtering allies and friends who are fighting alongside you.

2) Control is trying to do exactly what the Leviathans tried to do, thinking "this time it will be different" which is pretty much the same logic they used too.  This is aside from the general badness of using the Reapers to control teh destinies of others.

My bad; I only  meant I didn't get what Ieldra2 was talking about. I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to either of these points.

[Kel Riever]

Ieldra2 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Don't remind me how out of character my Shepards were. And they aren't even this cynical.

Actually totally accurate, sorry to say.

A lot of times, kids getting killed causes more PTSD than countless other things that you think would.  Fact from the real life battlefield.  Easy to google.

Now, I'm not saying that the god awful writer actually considered that when writing.  He probably didn't.  Just saying there's plenty to legitimately pick on without having to go to this. 

Plenty...

[Ticonderoga117]

Kel Riever wrote...

Actually totally accurate, sorry to say.

A lot of times, kids getting killed causes more PTSD than countless other things that you think would.  Fact from the real life battlefield.  Easy to google.

Now, I'm not saying that the god awful writer actually considered that when writing.  He probably didn't.  Just saying there's plenty to legitimately pick on without having to go to this. 

Plenty...

Except the kid refused help and then got himself killed.

Not too mention you saw someone actually become organic goo right in front of you instead of some rather less traumatic explosion.

[Argolas]

For some Shepards, it was out of character enough to even stop for a random child.

[David7204]

No it wasn't.

No matter how the player feels, Shepard canonically cares about certain things and certain people. For example, Shepard doesn't hate any squadmate enough to kick them off the ship, even if the player does.

As it should be. The story couldn't function otherwise.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 07:48 .

[Steelcan]

Except for Zaeed

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

No it wasn't.

No matter how the player feels, Shepard canonically cares about certain things and certain people. For example, Shepard doesn't hate any squadmate enough to kick them off the ship, even if the player does.

As it should be. The story couldn't function otherwise.

Your other example is fine, but I disagree on the point of your response. Earth is falling apart. Anderson has already gone ahead and is waiting. Countless people are dying everywhere, and every second the Normandy stays on earth longer than necessary could lead to its destruction. A practical Shepard would know that he/she can't afford to stop for a random child in that situation.

[David7204]

That's only if you do his mission after the Suicide Mission is complete, isn't it? Very specific circumstances.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 07:51 .

[David7204]

Argolas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No it wasn't.

No matter how the player feels, Shepard canonically cares about certain things and certain people. For example, Shepard doesn't hate any squadmate enough to kick them off the ship, even if the player does.

As it should be. The story couldn't function otherwise.

Your other example is fine, but I disagree on the point of your response. Earth is falling apart. Anderson has already gone ahead and is waiting. Countless people are dying everywhere, and every second the Normandy stays on earth longer than necessary could lead to its destruction. A practical Shepard would know that he/she can't afford to stop for a random child in that situation.

That is seriously borderline offensive. What you're suggesting is that a "practical" (read: smart) person should leave a child to die and that anyone who stops to help is "impractical" (read: stupid crybaby emotional idealist).

No. That's an insult to me. Because I would sure as hell stop.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 07:57 .

[Kel Riever]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Actually totally accurate, sorry to say.

A lot of times, kids getting killed causes more PTSD than countless other things that you think would.  Fact from the real life battlefield.  Easy to google.

Now, I'm not saying that the god awful writer actually considered that when writing.  He probably didn't.  Just saying there's plenty to legitimately pick on without having to go to this. 

Plenty...

Except the kid refused help and then got himself killed.

Not too mention you saw someone actually become organic goo right in front of you instead of some rather less traumatic explosion.

Like I said, it seldom matters how a kid died, whien it comes to PTSD.  The fact that it is seen is often enough.  Anyway, go check it out.  And like I said, it still doesn't excuse bad writing.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say if the ending wasn't so bad, nobody would be worrying about the vent part.  Of course, that would be SPEKULATION, which is the cover word for, 'Do my job writing for me, will ya? 'Cause then I'll say you have imagination.'

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No it wasn't.

No matter how the player feels, Shepard canonically cares about certain things and certain people. For example, Shepard doesn't hate any squadmate enough to kick them off the ship, even if the player does.

As it should be. The story couldn't function otherwise.

Your other example is fine, but I disagree on the point of your response. Earth is falling apart. Anderson has already gone ahead and is waiting. Countless people are dying everywhere, and every second the Normandy stays on earth longer than necessary could lead to its destruction. A practical Shepard would know that he/she can't afford to stop for a random child in that situation.

That is seriously borderline offensive. What you're suggesting is that a "practical" (read: smart) person should leave a child to die and that anyone who stops to help is "impractical" (read: stupid crybaby emotional idealist).

No.

No offense intended, if the use of the term "practical" was inappropriate in this context, I apologize. English is not my mother tongue.

Look, there are people dying everywhere, children included. Shepard just can't afford to stop for every victim on his/her way.

[David7204]

It's all good.

But it's not every victim. It's not a bus full of orphans. It's one kid. Shepard can afford to stop for one kid. And if you remember, Shepard and Anderson actually end up waiting on the Normandy, not the other way around.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 08:01 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Kel Riever wrote...
Like I said, it seldom matters how a kid died, whien it comes to PTSD.  The fact that it is seen is often enough.  Anyway, go check it out.  And like I said, it still doesn't excuse bad writing.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say if the ending wasn't so bad, nobody would be worrying about the vent part.  Of course, that would be SPEKULATION, which is the cover word for, 'Do my job writing for me, will ya? 'Cause then I'll say you have imagination.'

If the ending was good, the vent part would still be very wierd, in my opinion. But yeah, it's pretty much bad writing.

Oh well.

[Steelcan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Except for Zaeed

Or Samara.

.   The VS as well

[Argolas]

Still quite a gamble while knowing that Shepard possibly doesn't hesitate to shut down life support for a whole civilian quarter in order to win some time (Omega).

I'm not arguing that ignoring the kid was the right thing, but I do think that not every Shepard character would have done it. That's all I'm saying.

[David7204]

I suppose that's fair.

Although...thinking back...wasn't Anderson trying to open a door while Shepard was talking to the kid? So they would have been delayed by a few seconds anyway.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 08:08 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Except for Zaeed

Or Samara.

.   The VS as well

Definitely the VS. 

[The Night Mammoth]

I couldn't care less how plausible a PTSD trigger the kid dying is, I can't emphasize with it. It doesn't matter how much Shepard cares if I don't. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 06 mai 2013 - 08:12 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Argolas wrote...

For some Shepards, it was out of character enough to even stop for a random child.

My Shepard stopped. The kid ran off though. He wasn't going to go out of his way for the kid, and indeed I think the forced emotion over the kid was extreme. 

Out of sight out of mind. He's got more important things to worry about.

He has to escape. If civilians have to die so that he can escape to prepare for a counter-attack, then so be it.

I've never liked the whole "hero" thing.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I couldn't care less how plausible a PTSD trigger the kid dying is, I can't emphasize with it. It doesn't matter how much Shepard cares if I don't. 

Having been in a situation myself where I saw dead children didn't really make me emphasize with it. It sucked and I knew I wanted to find the insurgents who did it and stop them from doing it again. But all it did was reinforce my belief in what we're fighting against.

[David7204]

Then you should probably avoid a story with such obvious themes of heroism.

The absurdity of trying to allocate every second and every resource to save the maximum number of lives at cost of doing things like letting a child die in front of you so you don't 'waste' a few seconds kind of reminds me of this comic. (To read it, right-click and select 'View Image.' In case you didn't know.)

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 08:22 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Then you should probably avoid a story with such obvious themes of heroism.

The absurdity of trying to allocate every second and every resource to save the maximum number of lives at cost of doing things like letting a child die in front of you so you don't 'waste' a few seconds kind of reminds me of this comic. (To read it, right-click and select 'View Image.' In case you didn't know.)

But in this game, you don't have to be a hero. Shepard doesn't have to be the paragon boy-scout hero.

You do undercut a lot of the propensity for an anti-hero, or a determinator.

Altogether, I guess he is a space hero, but he's also a guy who's willing to let the innocent suffer if it means getting what he needs accomplished. You've always been able to do that in the game. It doesn't make him a heartless bastard, it makes him realize that he's not going to help anyone by wasting his time evacuating a school or hospital during a Reaper attack. He'd help them if he could, but in a situation like that with the Reapers attacking, there's nothing he can or should do for them.

They'll buy him time to escape with their lives. He's more important to the fight than they can ever be.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 06 mai 2013 - 08:30 .

[David7204]

Being a hero doesn't mean you gotta be stupid.