1470 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

So basically it was a successful genocide, except that the good fairy came along afterward and made a new one.

Well, the bad fairy. The Reapers are bad.

And the new rachni are bad too.

[remydat]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

She was actually manufactured by the Reapers. A monster shaped to make hollow children...by the machines.

So basically it was a successful genocide, except that the good fairy came along afterward and made a new one.

Well, the bad fairy. The Reapers are bad.

Yes and?  What's the point?  I have seen plenty of movies where someone thinks they have completely killed their enemy only for them to miraculous survive.  In fact, just finished watching one called Sacrifice where an entire clan was exterminated but lo and behold a baby ie someone completely incapable of defending itself miraculously is saved by the good fairy.

Modifié par remydat, 12 mai 2013 - 01:45 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

How did the thread go from the article to a metaphysical debate on genocide?

[drayfish]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

How did the thread go from the article to a metaphysical debate on genocide?

That's a consequence of exactly what Bioware chose to build into the structure of their ending.  It's a natural fallout of those marvellous 'speculations' they invited...

When you use the climax of your trilogy's fiction to posit that the only way conflict can be overcome is through genocide, galaxy-wide domination, or the Ezy-Bake Eugenic Oven, you kind of spike the discussion pool irreparably.

Just be thankful voices like Seival have not yet leapt in to tell everyone that they are merely genetic waste material awaiting the glorious forced-ascension of our wise overlords.  Mass Effect has now helpfully provided a ringing endorsement for such beliefs.

[Megaton_Hope]

remydat wrote...
Yes and?  What's the point?  I have seen plenty of movies where someone thinks they have completely killed their enemy only for them to miraculous survive.

They didn't survive, though. 

In fact, just finished watching one called Sacrifice where an entire clan was exterminated but lo and behold a baby ie someone completely incapable of defending itself miraculously is saved by the good fairy.

See, that would be survival. What happened instead is, you know, they all died but somebody made a new one.

Even what happened before Exogeni got hold of the queen's egg is closer to survival, although I'd hesitate to use the word.

[tevix]

@Darth Brotarian

You didn't play the telephone game when you were a child much, did you?

[remydat]

And I am still not sure of the point? You talked about a mulligan. They are still dead so there is no do over. The deed was done period.

[Iakus]

Bill Casey wrote...

They completely ignore that they turned the main character and the player into one of three flavors of "complete monster" after letting them play as a hero...

That's not bittersweet; that's soul crushingly disturbing...

How do they not get this?

I keep asking this myself.

I wish I had an answer

[remydat]

Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters.

This is a galactic threat with trillions of lives at stake. Expecting Shep to emerge with his honor completely in tact was always wishful thinking from as early as him killing 300k batarians basically because the Council failed to prepare for the Reapers.

The only question for me was always what sacrifices would have to be made but I expected it would be a steep price to end such a massive threat.

Modifié par remydat, 12 mai 2013 - 03:14 .

[David7204]

Shepard didn't kill the geth or EDI any more than a general sending his troops into battle kills his own men.

[remydat]

That is a matter of opinion. There are plenty who would differ and ultimately that is the beauty of the game to me. You have to decide as a game player which of the 3 decisions you can live with.

[Clayless]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard didn't kill the geth or EDI any more than a general sending his troops into battle kills his own men.

Not true, a more accurate analogy would be a crowd fighting, your allies and your enemies, and you launch a missile into them to kill your enemies, knowing full well it'll kill your allies too.

Except on a far bigger genocidal scale.

[Zazzerka]

Except it only kills 1 in 1000 of your allies, but everyone hates those guys anyway.

Also, you are in the crowd yourself.

[Saito404]

I don't get all the drama about "killing" EDI and Geth. They are just machines with AI program. Machine can be repaired, program can be rewritten.

[Iakus]

Saito404 wrote...

I don't get all the drama about "killing" EDI and Geth. They are just machines with AI program. Machine can be repaired, program can be rewritten.

And new children can be born.

But those who died are still dead

[Iakus]

Zazzerka wrote...

Except it only kills 1 in 1000 of your allies, but everyone hates those guys anyway.

Also, you are in the crowd yourself.

"We start killing our friends, and war turns into murder"

Modifié par iakus, 12 mai 2013 - 05:15 .

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

They completely ignore that they turned the main character and the player into one of three flavors of "complete monster" after letting them play as a hero...

That's not bittersweet; that's soul crushingly disturbing...

How do they not get this?

I keep asking this myself.

I wish I had an answer

It's only soul crushingly disturbing to the people who expected an "out" to the moral dillemma they had been given.  I'm frankly glad there wasn't such a "golden ending."  It would have been cheaper than the nonsense we got.

[SpamBot2000]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

They completely ignore that they turned the main character and the player into one of three flavors of "complete monster" after letting them play as a hero...

That's not bittersweet; that's soul crushingly disturbing...

How do they not get this?

I keep asking this myself.

I wish I had an answer

It's only soul crushingly disturbing to the people who expected an "out" to the moral dillemma they had been given.  I'm frankly glad there wasn't such a "golden ending."  It would have been cheaper than the nonsense we got.

You mean the moral dilemma they were given 99.99% into the game? And judging by your comment on the Geth and EDI, you neatly avoided such a dilemma altogether. So why act like you were somehow tough enough to handle one?

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 12 mai 2013 - 05:36 .

[rymajn3]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

They completely ignore that they turned the main character and the player into one of three flavors of "complete monster" after letting them play as a hero...

That's not bittersweet; that's soul crushingly disturbing...

How do they not get this?

I keep asking this myself.

I wish I had an answer

It's only soul crushingly disturbing to the people who expected an "out" to the moral dillemma they had been given.  I'm frankly glad there wasn't such a "golden ending."  It would have been cheaper than the nonsense we got.

Except there can't be a "golden ending." Not with Mordin, Thane, Legion, and Anderson all dying. The game had plenty of sad parts for you to cheer about.

Modifié par rymajn3, 12 mai 2013 - 05:37 .

[chemiclord]

rymajn3 wrote...
Except there can't be a "golden ending." Not with Mordin, Thane, Legion, and Anderson all dying. The game had plenty of sad parts for you to cheer about.

And it turns out more happens at the end.

There's no "quota" to tough decisions.  There's no magic line where you can say, "Okay... we've stuffed 10 hard choices all that the beginning of the game, now we can do sunshine and rainbows the rest of the way."  Well, you CAN say that... but you will have created a geniunely awful game that will please next to no one.  Just because you took some losses earlier doesn't mean you can expect to not take any more.

A golden ending inherently defeats the moral dilemma presented.  A golden ending creates a "right" choice, and a "wrong" choice (or choices)... which is the anamathea of moral dilemmas (where there is no "right" or "wrong" answer beyond your personal values). 

They are mutally exclusive.  Once you commit to one, you cannot have the other.

Modifié par chemiclord, 12 mai 2013 - 05:47 .

[drayfish]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

They completely ignore that they turned the main character and the player into one of three flavors of "complete monster" after letting them play as a hero...

That's not bittersweet; that's soul crushingly disturbing...

How do they not get this?

I keep asking this myself.

I wish I had an answer

It's only soul crushingly disturbing to the people who expected an "out" to the moral dillemma they had been given.  I'm frankly glad there wasn't such a "golden ending."  It would have been cheaper than the nonsense we got.

What moral dillemma?

I never understand when people say this.

The game doesn't ask you 'Are you willing to sacrifice your morals to win?' 

All three endings end in 'victory' (a childishly trite, lets-not-bother-thinking-about-the-horror conclusion while everyone left standing throws a celebration and calls you a hero).  So the 'dillemma' is literally no more than 'Which atrocity are you most comfortable with?'

It's as intellectually deep as asking someone: would you rather be drowned by a killer whale, or set on fire and thrown off a cliff?  You might have a preference, but considering the discussion such hypothesis inspires 'deep' or 'revealing' is asinine.

And you see that constantly on these forums - people like Seival and Auld Wolf who have made their preferences clear, spamming threads with their nihilism, calling everyone fools for not embracing the 'wisdom' they have gleaned.

Again: not a dillemma, just an affirmation of whichever horror you like the most.


EDIT:

chemiclord wrote...

And it turns out more happens at the end.

There's
no "quota" to tough decisions.  There's no magic line where you can say, "Okay... we've stuffed 10 hard choices all that the beginning of the game, now we can do sunshine and rainbows the rest of the way."  Well, you CAN say that... but you will have created a geniunely awful game that will please next to no one.  Just because you took some losses earlier doesn't mean you can expect to not take any more.

A golden ending inherently defeats the moral dilemma presented.  A golden ending creates a "right" choice, and a "wrong" choice (or choices)... which is the anamathea of moral dilemmas (where there is no "right" or "wrong" answer beyond your personal values). 

They are mutally exclusive.  Once you commit to one, you cannot have the other.

Again: every single ending is the 'right' choice, that ends with the 'perfect end.

Choose any one of those conclusions and the game patronisingly reassures you that you did exactly the right thing, given the coircumstances, and the universe considers you their hero.  Each ending so gold and treacly that it sickens.

Modifié par drayfish, 12 mai 2013 - 05:55 .

[chemiclord]

drayfish wrote...

Again: every single ending is the 'right' choice, that ends with the 'perfect end.

Choose any one of those conclusions and the game patronisingly reassures you that you did exactly the right thing, given the coircumstances, and the universe considers you their hero.

THAT is an execution issue (made a million times worse by the Extended Cut, for the record), which I will ready declare is **** awful.

I can tell you what I THINK the moral dilemma was supposed to be; each choice to me represented Shepard having to sacrfice one of his ideals to "solve" the Catalyst's probem.

Does he inherently put one form of life over another and choose to Destroy synthetic life to put an end to Reaper threat for good?  Does he accept the Illusive Man's logic that he had been railing against... bending the Reapers to his will while preserving as many of the lives he was fighting for?  Does he impose a forced evolution on all life (basically playing god) to (possibly) solve the problem for good?

Or does he put his morals above all that, and doom the galaxy to the harvest?

An option where synthetics and organics live and find peace, the Reapers are destroyed, and nothing else "bad" happens makes the above questions irrelevant.  This option becomes the "right" one.  It's common sense, and the only reason you would choose anything else would be because you were INTENTIONALLY seeking a less than optimal scenario (aka a "wrong" choice).

If you want to argue that the entire moral dilemma shouldn't have been there at all, and that it was a stupid injection into a story that didn't fit at all... yeah, I'd agree.  But this one of the few things (in theory) that the ending did right.  Once Bioware committed to a "moral dilemma", they could not have a golden ending.

[Nightdragon8]

Robosexual wrote...

By the looks of the article they're talking more about character closure. Though I hope this doesn't mean they, or any other game company, will not take risks and make great stories because of it. Bioshock Infinite for example wasn't perfect, but they took a risk. It makes for a fascinating story that sticks with you. The one thing I don't want to happen to Bioware especially is for them to feel threatened into making their stories bland, predictable or forgettable because of the hold the whine movement.

They're writers and they created this absolutely wonderful universe, and I hope they don't feel like their creativity should be held back just in case some people overreact.

Risks and "Closure" are not mutually exclusive. I don't mind bitter sweet endings when its done right. ME3 did not do it right. Cause at felt more bitter than sweet. and without the EC DLC , its nothing but bitter. Pretty much no matter the choice end up wrecking the galaxy. Also I understand they wanted to encourge "speculation" but thats WAY to big of an open ending.

The problem is that, Movie and RPG are completely different. While yes they are both telling a story. In a movie you just watch. And for most people there is a space between what goes on in the movie vs yourself.

While with RPG's Your making the choices which means you are "responsable" for what happens, Which makes people more closer to the story. Thus they start to care. And if you fail at closing a story properly then it screws up. Also of corse character matter. Look at Star Wars, Star Trek. they where good shows because of the characters in it not the SFX or the tech.

Its a matter of, a group of different people different personalities and how they interact with the environment. And how they handle challanges.



So yes characters matter.

Sadly the only medium in the past where it was anything like an RPG is "Chose your route books"

[Ajensis]

remydat wrote...

But that is precisely how life works sometimes. Sometimes you make a decision thinking it will have far reaching consequences but realise that in the end it didn't matter much. And the reverse is true. Sometimes you make what you think are minor decisions and they end up having more importance than you ever anticipated.

Those decisions matter regardless though because they impact you morally. I didn't save the Rachni Queen because I expected some big payoff. I saved her because morally it was the right choice for me. In any event, there are still consequences just not as massive as you apparently wanted. Saving the Rachni Queen that you saved on Noveria ends up benefitting the war. Saving the fake Rachni Queen results in her eventually betraying you.

To that first paragraph: that doesn't seem like a valid explanation for waving off the choices we'd made. I'm pretty sure Bioware didn't decide to make some statement on how decisions impact our lives, especially considering the fact that they told us that our choices would matter before ME3 was released. And even if they did, is it what you'd want? Personally, I'd prefer some quality entertainment over semi-philosophical statements. In fact, it's sort of a glum statement you're referring to, since we don't get the 2nd half that you included above: none of our minor decisions ended up having more importance than we ever anticipated (barely any importance at all). So what we end up with is, 'Your choices don't matter' - which sounds oddly familiar when discussing a certain (heavily debated) part of ME3.

I'm fairly confident Bioware didn't intend anything philosophical by not having many previous choices matter. They just ran out of resources to implement the different variables. That's fair enough, I can understand it and I'm not going to go on a crusade against them for it, however annoying certain parts were (e.g. the Rachni queen, as mentioned before). But trying to explain these shortcomings with 'That's how life works sometimes', now that won't do. That's obviously not what's going on here.

I do agree with you about the choices serving a purpose, like defining your Shepard's moral stances. I think that's pretty neat, and I don't need my choices to be world-changing afterwards. It's just a little insulting when a second Rachni queen is thrown in, not to mention the Biowre comment about the Rachni choice having an impact. I draw the line there.

[David7204]

Choices didn't matter as much as they should have. And yes, that's a bad thing. But it's an unpleasant reality, and Mass Effect is certainly nowhere close to the first game to have done such things. Every game with choices does it to an extent. The simple fact is that new content requires an incredible amount of work, and ME 3 packs more content into a 60 dollar game than 90% of games on the market already. I would have loved to see choices make huge impacts. I'm sure the developers would have loved it. But they don't have unlimited cash to pour into that.

Yes, they said some very foolish things pre-release, but that's really the a problem of advertising, not game content.

Modifié par David7204, 12 mai 2013 - 06:49 .