790 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

I'm sorry, are we suggesting a series where you can wipe out the rachni, rewrite the heretic geth, and sabotage the genophage isn't interested in moral ambiguity?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Argolas wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I have no interest in so-called 'moral ambiguity.' I'm interested in heroism. If someone wants to tell a story about moral ambiguity, that's great. More power to them. I'll pass, but plenty of other people will be interested. But Mass Effect has very firmly established themes of heroism throughout the story. It needs to continue those themes and validate them, not abandon them.

It never abandoned them. But it was never just about 'heroism'. It depended on how the player chose to play the game. You don't have to be a hero if you don't want to be. You can be a neutral enforcerr if you wish, or a renegade psychopath if you so desire.

You're slanting your opinion of the games to be the objective meaning behind them. Honestly, I think games blindly adhering to the heroism quality is childish and naive. Mass Effect was more than that.

That's why I think the Paragon/Renegade actions of the entire series was rather lame at some points.

It makes people mindlessly pick the upper left (or upper right) option. Be a good guy hero and everything will be sunshine and bunnies. 

I pick the option, but I don't pick it because it's 'heroic' or 'good'. I pick the option because I weigh the options in my head and do the best I can to make the best decision I can with the information that I have. 

And sometimes, I don't have time to weigh the options or look at what's 'good' or 'bad'. Sometimes, all I can do is react to an event. 

That detracted from ME3 a lot.

I think we have different ideas of heroism. Your Shepard as well as every other is a hero (at least up to the ending) because of their exceptional skill and their ability to inspire their squad, that made them accomplish incredible things together. Whether you are Paragon or Renegade is rather a matter of style than heroism- except when it comes down to pointless slaughter. That's very rare in Mass Effect though.

And I don't call that heroism. I call that Leadership and Decisiveness. But I see where you're going with it. I'll concede that.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 19 mai 2013 - 02:54 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm sorry, are we suggesting a series where you can wipe out the rachni, rewrite the heretic geth, and sabotage the genophage isn't interested in moral ambiguity?

Or advocate Cerberus in my case, or kill the council, or be a speciesist and racist.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 19 mai 2013 - 02:56 .

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm sorry, are we suggesting a series where you can wipe out the rachni, rewrite the heretic geth, and sabotage the genophage isn't interested in moral ambiguity?

Well, you can't have it both ways.

If you say that one choice often leads to an outcome that is clearly better than the others, there's no moral ambiguity.

And if you disagree, then you have no basis for arguing that the game is biased in favor of Paragons or whatnot.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm sorry, are we suggesting a series where you can wipe out the rachni, rewrite the heretic geth, and sabotage the genophage isn't interested in moral ambiguity?

Well, you can't have it both ways.

If you say that one choice often leads to an outcome that is clearly better than the others, there's no moral ambiguity.

And if you disagree, then you have no basis for arguing that the game is biased in favor of Paragons or whatnot.

Define 'better' choice. 

[Hazegurl]

David7204 wrote...

None of those consequences are dependent on luck. A through, smart, reasonable, prepared player is guaranteed to be able to spare or kill Wrex, cure or sabotage the genophage, rewrite or destroy the geth, and make peace with the geth and quarians. I got all of the 'best' outcomes for those scenarios my very first playthough.

But those are all dependant on luck regardless of how much preparation Shep had.

Sabotaged the Genophage is still a smart and well thought out decision even with Wrex alive. How on earth are you to know that it will end in Wrex finding out and you killing him unless you knew that would happen before playing the game.

Did you know that rewriting the Geth would make peace impossible in ME3? Nope.

Did you know you could make peace with the Geth and Quarians in ME3 without metagaming the outcome? Nope. These are surprise choices and outcomes the player experiences.

For all you know, the next Mass Effect game could be the PC against a full scale Krogan war because in their save Shepard cured the genophage.

[David7204]

The player never 'knows' with full certainty. But they certainly have expectations the story generally needs to fulfill. A reasonable player can and should anticipate that betraying the krogan will have ugly consequences. The player can still make peace between the geth and quarians after rewriting the geth by being through.

The next game is not going to have Shepard fighting the rejuvinated krogan. That's an expecation I have of the story, and it would be poor writing for the story to not fulfill it.

Modifié par David7204, 19 mai 2013 - 03:06 .

[Hazegurl]

David7204 wrote...

For all intents and purposes, Shepard flips a coin. Left or right. No reason to think one is better than the other. One leads to survival, the other to death. It's a coin flip.

It doesn't matter if Shepard succeeds overall or not. A squadmate living or dying is a huge consequence that should never depend so heavily on luck and absolutely nothing else.

If this is occuring at the beam run then you should know by now which squadmate is worth saving and which one isn't. You've spent 2-3 games with them and you brought them with you to cover your back. You should know which member holds more value and which one doesn't by then.

People get saved or killed by the stroke of luck all the time. Why is that so out of the ordinary?

[David7204]

You never have important characters die by a stroke of luck in a story. Never. Would Shepard or a squadmate ever be killed on a mundane N7 mission halfway through the story? Never.

Would James Bond or Batman ever be killed by a random mook with a pistol about 20 minutes in to the movie? Never. And audiences would be outraged if such a thing did happen.

It's a violation of the most important rule that governs all stories.

Modifié par David7204, 19 mai 2013 - 03:11 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

The player never 'knows' with full certainty. But they certainly have expectations the story generally needs to fulfill. A reasonable player can and should anticipate that betraying the krogan will have ugly consequences. The player can still make peace between the geth and quarians after rewriting the geth by being through.

There is no 'should' about any decision. Can is accounting for a possibility. Should infers that the possibility has to happen. That's getting to a point of subjectiveness. I'm anticipating some very ugly consequences from the Krogan after I cure the genophage. That's why I'm reluctant to do it. I believe the galaxy is better with the Krogan, not necessarily dead, but under population control. I don't believe Eve and Wrex will halt the rise of more bloodthirsty Krogan. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

David7204 wrote...

The sheer hypocrisy here is simply astounding. You complain left and right about not getting the happy ending you think you deserve, then you gleefully advocate success or failure based on a coin toss. It doesn't matter if it's a coin toss for the player or not - it's a coin toss for Shepard. You seriously do not grasp the problem here?

^^^ This.  Where is my facepalm emote. Oh, here it is...

[Hazegurl]

David7204 wrote...

The player never 'knows' with full certainty. But they certainly have expectations the story generally needs to fulfill. A reasonable player can and should anticipate that betraying the krogan will have ugly consequences. The player can still make peace between the geth and quarians after rewriting the geth by being through.

The next game is not going to have Shepard fighting the rejuvinated krogan. That's an expecation I have of the story, and it would be poor writing for the story to not fulfill it.

True you can anticipate something ugly happening but with the promise of being protected by the Dalatrass you don't really expect Wrex to show up for a shoot out on the Citadel of all places. I didn't know you can still make peace if you rewrite the Geth, I thought that was one of the requirements to making peace. Regardless, if a player is playing the game for the first time, they won't know that they can make peace between the Geth and Quarians, that is something sprung on you at the last moment, not through careful gameplay with knowledge that peace will come...unless you are metagaming and know peace is the outcome of your actions. 

Anyway, why do you need to predict the outcome of every choice you make? IMO, the best stories are the ones that take you by surprise and give you something you never saw coming. Any story that can be predicted completely is poorly written and unenjoyable.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

You never have important characters die by a stroke of luck in a story. Never. Would Shepard or a squadmate ever be killed on a mundane N7 mission halfway through the story? Never.

Would James Bond or Batman ever be killed by a random mook with a pistol about 20 minutes in to the movie? Never.

That's a romantic outlook on narrative. And a subjective one. You're not wrong for believing it, but I'm not wrong for not entirely believing in it.

And the only truly important character in the game is Shepard. The main protagonist. The squadmates are not Shepard. The same rule does not apply. 

The squadmates 'don't' have to die in a meaningful manner. It's not a random death either. It's not a mundane N7 mission. It's the final mission of the series. The final battle. Of course it's going to be poignant.

And a situaton occurs where the squadmates are in danger and Shepard must act to save them. Not every action is going to save them. It serves to show that not everyone is immune to the Reapers. It serves to show how deadly and fearsome they are. And you have a way out. You can save the squadmates if you wish. Just pick the renegade prompt. Anderson is there to help the other squadmate, provided your choices and decisions and actions throughout the story provided you with enough resources and ally's to give Anderson a clear path. 

And what happens if you don't save them? It's simply beyond Shepard's power to save them if you fail to take the prompt. The Reaper fires faster than Shepard can run.

[Hazegurl]

David7204 wrote...

You never have important characters die by a stroke of luck in a story. Never. Would Shepard or a squadmate ever be killed on a mundane N7 mission halfway through the story? Never.

Would James Bond or Batman ever be killed by a random mook with a pistol about 20 minutes in to the movie? Never. And audiences would be outraged if such a thing did happen.

It's a violation of the most important rule that governs all stories.

How is the final mission some mundane mission? How is Thessia? Those are perfect times to lose a squadmate.

And we're not talking about Batman or Superman. We are talking about side companions who are not the heros of the story.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

It's a violation of the most important rule that governs all stories.

Actually, the most important rule of narrative is to stay consistent with the narrative. Even the plot armor of a main character cannot break the narrative, or you risk destroying the suspension of disbelief. 

[David7204]

The survival of various squadmates is considered by many or most players to be absolutely essential to the success of Shepard's adventure.

[dreamgazer]

I missed where and how coin tosses became important to the conversation.

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Actually, the most important rule of narrative is to stay consistent with the narrative. Even the plot armor of a main character cannot break the narrative, or you risk destroying the suspension of disbelief. 

That fact that you consider such a thing 'plot armor' demonstates how poorly you understand it. The main character is essentially guarenteed to survive until the climax in almost any story. James Bond is essentailly guarenteed to survive any non-climatic fight. That is not plot armor.

What is it?

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

I missed where and how coin tosses became important to the conversation.

There was a suggestion that a squadmate should live if Shepard picks right and die if Shepard picks left with the player having no reason to think one option is better than the other. I very heavily criticized the suggestion and likened it to a coin toss.

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

I missed where and how coin tosses became important to the conversation.

I can try to 1-up that lol

David how do you feel towards the Paragon/Renegade prompts?

Modifié par AresKeith, 19 mai 2013 - 03:27 .

[David7204]

I'm fine with them.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Actually, the most important rule of narrative is to stay consistent with the narrative. Even the plot armor of a main character cannot break the narrative, or you risk destroying the suspension of disbelief. 

That fact that you consider such a thing 'plot armor' demonstates how poorly you understand it. The main character is essentially guarenteed to survive until the climax in almost any story. James Bond is essentailly guarenteed to survive any non-climatic fight. That is not plot armor.

What is it?

We're not talking James Bond, or even Shepard. We're talking Ashley, or Liara, or Tali, or Garrus, or Javik, or James, or EDI.

Their survival is not essential to the end-game of the plot. It's not even essential to the plot of the trilogy. Shepard can do things without them. Therefore, their survival should not be guaranteed.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 19 mai 2013 - 03:31 .

[Hazegurl]

But they aren't. They are side characters, they are not the heroes, they are not the ones the galaxy is depended on to stop the reapers, they are essentially expendable in the grand scheme of things. The reaper war was supposed to be the most devastating thing to happen to the galaxy, people are dying everywhere, why should Shepard be immune to loss? He's in the thick of the battle. Take a look at a character like Javik. He lost everything and everyone he loved. He didn't wake up in a chamber with all his friends with him because they are his friends and get to live 50,000 years into the future because of the power of friendship. Loss add depth to characters and events.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

I'm fine with them.

Your fine with those but not fine with class interrupts?

[David7204]

No. It doesn't happen to any main characters. You don't have important characters just get shot in the head in the middle of a heated gunfight in stories. It never happens. You might have them be killed in climatic moments, in heated 1-on-1 battles with tough opponents. They might be mortally wounded, with a scene of their friends surrounding them as they die. But you never see important characters die in the middle of the action with the music still going.

And when it does happen, or when it approaches it, audiences detest it. Look at Bane's death in TDKR. It was heavily criticized. It was heavily criticized for a major character to die in a very non-climatic way. Why?

Modifié par David7204, 19 mai 2013 - 03:35 .