428 réponses à ce sujet

[SpamBot2000]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...
And when you have a quote like this from Mac Walters:

"You can't go and find one Reaper who actually turns out to be a good guy… things like, 'Oh, yeah, these Reapers are OK.' People playing the game will hopefully say, ‘Nope. They're as bad as everyone said they are.' You really don't want to be doing anything but killing them."

... what are we supposed to think?

Woah woah woah.

When did he say this?

kotaku.com/5880034/how-bioware-writes-a-mass-effect-game

January 2012, it seems. After making the game.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 18 mai 2013 - 07:32 .

[Wynterdust]

Crikey, nearly drowned under that wave of arrogance on the way here. The funny thing being that an exceptional person would understand people have differing views and understand and respect those views. An exceptional person would also never give themselves such a title and certainly would not call others monsters amongst other, more colourful names.

[AlexMBrennan]

... what are we supposed to think?

That the writers did not have any plan for what they were going to do at any point in development. Also, they have no integrity since they failed to redact/correct that statement.

[Linkenski]

As some others have probably already pointed out, the writers probably hadn't considered it before they saw fans' reactions. That's why the line was added if you reject the choice in the Extended Cut.
Also i don't think, after hearing several statements from Lead Writer Mac Walters including those above, that he knows what the hell he was doing. I don't even believe he thinks very analytically when he writes, or he is bad at it.

For example, the vent kid scene in the beginning had one writer's motivation behind it and it was "i want to write this to be emotional" and so he forcefully made an emotional scene with no real depth or substance to it. Everyone is dying but Shepard only cares about the fact that one kid is dying and that earth is falling while the entire galaxy is actually suffering as well.

Likewise i think the idea behind Synthesis came from something like, "know the player will understand the Reapers' motives and he will pick this choice because they have justified their actions" whereas he probably forgot it later according to the statement above.

Modifié par Linkenski, 18 mai 2013 - 04:08 .

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

Zazzerka wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Which is the good path?  The one who kills out of fear?  Or the one who risks themselves, and all they love, in the name of forgiveness?

There is no right answer to that.

I believe there is.  We hold up self sacrifice as a virtue.  It's those who do the right thing when it's hard, when it's risky, when it's not obvious - those are the one who are truly brave.  Those who sacrifice their fellows because it's easier?  Those are not good men.  And those who redefine who their fellows are, from everyone, when it's convenient?  Even worse.

Allowing the Reapers to remain a threat is not self sacrifice. It's putting everyone in the galaxy at risk, and that's irresponsible. The Reapers are not our fellows, they are our enemies.

[Han Shot First]

Synthesis' greatest sin to me was not that it forever altered the nature of sapient organic life, though there are certainly some massive ethical issues with that, but that it leaves the Reaper fleet intact and commanded by the same A.I. entity that has annihilated countless civilizations and attempted to destroy your own.

I don't think any sane person would actually make that decision in Shepard's boots. We can feel safe choosing it in a game because the consequences aren't real and because we can metagame. We know it is unlikely Bioware will roll out a sequel that announces, "You choose Synthesis? The Reapers turned on you and annihilated civilization. Go play ME3 again and choose a different ending."But if Shepard was a real person? No way he or she makes that choice.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 18 mai 2013 - 08:25 .

[Iakus]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

"You're asking me to change everything, everyone. I can't make that decision. I won't." 

Does the addition of this line suggest that the writers actually are aware of the serious ethical problem of Synthesis? The line is very effective because it exposes the megalomania inherent within the choice. Not even Control gets such criticism from Shepard; he just complains about not wanting to lose everything he has.

Then again, Shepard gives an inspiring "freedom" speech if you choose Refuse, and the result is annihilation. So I suppose you can argue that the writers actually made the entire ending even more morally objectionable.

The inclusion of those lines shows that Bioware was in general, aware that people have problems with the choices.

The fact that they play out as they do shows they don't care what we think.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Han Shot First wrote...

Synthesis' greatest sin to me was not that it forever altered the nature of sapient organic life, though there are certainly some massive ethnical issues with that, but that it leaves the Reaper fleet intact and commanded by the same A.I. entity that has annihilated countless civilizations and attempted to destroy your own.

I don't think any sane person would actually make that decision in Shepard's boots. We can feel safe choosing it in a game because the consequences aren't real and because we can metagame. We know it is unlikely Bioware will roll out a sequel that announces, "You choose Synthesis? The Reapers turned on you and annihilated civilization. Go play ME3 again and choose a different ending."But if Shepard was a real person? No way he or she makes that choice.

If it was Seival or Auld Wulf, they probably would.

[Astartes Marine]

Phatose wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
I'm Christian, and still not everything is worth forgiving
Repeated accounts of Genocide is wrong
And of course most people don't live up to it, because we view them as guidelines which is what they actually are

Would Jesus have agreed?

Jesus never had to face something like the Reapers so no one will know the answer to that.

I'm going with what the Emperor would do.  Destroy them or put them beneath humanity's heal. 
It's a fictional setting, real world morals and ethics are not essential.

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Synthesis' greatest sin to me was not that it forever altered the nature of sapient organic life, though there are certainly some massive ethnical issues with that, but that it leaves the Reaper fleet intact and commanded by the same A.I. entity that has annihilated countless civilizations and attempted to destroy your own.

I don't think any sane person would actually make that decision in Shepard's boots. We can feel safe choosing it in a game because the consequences aren't real and because we can metagame. We know it is unlikely Bioware will roll out a sequel that announces, "You choose Synthesis? The Reapers turned on you and annihilated civilization. Go play ME3 again and choose a different ending."But if Shepard was a real person? No way he or she makes that choice.

If it was Seival or Auld Wulf, they probably would.

There will always be outliers. 

[JasonShepard]

iakus wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

"You're asking me to change everything, everyone. I can't make that decision. I won't." 

Does the addition of this line suggest that the writers actually are aware of the serious ethical problem of Synthesis? The line is very effective because it exposes the megalomania inherent within the choice. Not even Control gets such criticism from Shepard; he just complains about not wanting to lose everything he has.

Then again, Shepard gives an inspiring "freedom" speech if you choose Refuse, and the result is annihilation. So I suppose you can argue that the writers actually made the entire ending even more morally objectionable.

The inclusion of those lines shows that Bioware was in general, aware that people have problems with the choices.

The fact that they play out as they do shows they don't care what we think.

I'd argue that its more along the lines of Bioware wanting us to have a choice with no obvious right answer - so in that regard, they do care what we think. They wanted us to be put in that situation so that they could ask us what we would do. I admit to some puzzlement as to why a common response is "I refuse to be in this situation!"

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
The inclusion of those lines shows that Bioware was in general, aware that people have problems with the choices.

The fact that they play out as they do shows they don't care what we think.

I don't think that's quite accurate. They wanted us to have problems with the choices. (Ninja'd by JasonShepard)

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 mai 2013 - 06:13 .

[AlanC9]

JasonShepard wrote...

 I admit to some puzzlement as to why a common response is "I refuse to be in this situation!"

Well, as David7204 implied upthread, some folks think that ME is about Shepard getting out of moral dilemmas -- all hard choices should be like Rannoch or the SM, with an escape clause somewhere in the situation if you did everything right.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 mai 2013 - 06:20 .

[chemiclord]

JasonShepard wrote...

I'd argue that its more along the lines of Bioware wanting us to have a choice with no obvious right answer - so in that regard, they do care what we think. They wanted us to be put in that situation so that they could ask us what we would do. I admit to some puzzlement as to why a common response is "I refuse to be in this situation!"

It's not puzzling at all.

Unless you pretty much INTENTIONALLY screwed things up, outside of maybe a small handful of situations through all three games, Bioware had given players an "out"; a way to get around the dilemma presented with little (or no) consequences.

That in turn created what fans call an "internal promise" within the game, and they felt that promise was betrayed at the culminating moment of the entire trilogy where said "out" not only wasn't there, but was (theoretically) intentionally DENIED by Walters and Hudson.  Those two then (theorectially) slapped those fans in the face with the extended cut by dangling what seemed to be that "out" with the Refuse option... which instead lead to a crushingly despondent "Reapers win" scenario.

The fans here aren't wrong.  For all of Bioware's pregame talk about "tough choices" and "you can't save everyone", there are shockingly few scenarios in which that happens.  You can't keep handing people golden solutions then expect to be entirely pleased when the last decision inherently lacks said golden solution.

That said, the entire concept of an "internal promise" is a fairly silly one.  Not every scenario must have an optimal solution, and there is absolutely NO "law" of writing or reality that demands it.  Expecting something based on prior results is always a foolhardy approach.  Just because you were able to weasel out of [Scenario A, B, C, and D] doesn't mean you can, or should, anticipate being able to do the same with [Scenario E].

Just as much as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, so to is doing different things repeatedly and expecting the same result.

Modifié par chemiclord, 18 mai 2013 - 06:27 .

[dreamgazer]

AlanC9 wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

 I admit to some puzzlement as to why a common response is "I refuse to be in this situation!"

Well, as David7204 implied upthread, some folks think that ME is about Shepard getting out of moral dilemmas -- all hard choices should be like Rannoch or the SM, with an escape clause somewhere in the situation if you did everything right.

As unpopular of an opinion as this is, I think not having an "out" in the final decision of the game---the big one---is one of the ending's more intriguing attributes. Not this time, Shepard.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 18 mai 2013 - 06:31 .

[Iakus]

JasonShepard wrote...

I'd argue that its more along the lines of Bioware wanting us to have a choice with no obvious right answer - so in that regard, they do care what we think. They wanted us to be put in that situation so that they could ask us what we would do. I admit to some puzzlement as to why a common response is "I refuse to be in this situation!"

"No obvious right answer"  is one thing.  But all the answers, to me and to many, many others, all feel wrong.  That's not the same thing at all.  I can see the validity of all the options in Dragon Age: Origins.  All the options in ME3 make me feel like Shepard turned into the villain at the last moment.

So, by inserting the lines concerning Synthesis and Refuse, yet having them play out as they do, be it 

"And then Shepard rammed transhumanism down everyone's throat whether they wanted it or not"

or

"And then Shepard made a final couragous speech about fighting for freedom, which the Reapers laughed at and proceeded to harvest the galaxy anyway"

Shows what they thought of our opinions

It didn't matter what moral qualms we had about these endings:  Synthesis=good.  Galactic solidarity=bad.  You're not allowed to win on your own merits, you can't achieve "true understanding" on your own: it has to be imposed.

And since I play games to have fun, not to be told what a terrible person I am for refusing to  impose some terrible act upon the galaxy, yes, I do refuse to be in that situation.  

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

That said, the entire concept of an "internal promise" is a fairly silly one.  Not every scenario must have an optimal solution, and there is absolutely NO "law" of writing or reality that demands it.  Expecting something based on prior results is always a foolhardy approach.  Just because you were able to weasel out of [Scenario A, B, C, and D] doesn't mean you can, or should, anticipate being able to do the same with [Scenario E].

It's not even the promise of an optimal solution, it's the promise of a solution that feels like victory.  I have posted in other threads sacrifices I would have been willing to make which others think are worse outcomes than the endings we got.  What's I think is missing is the ability to decide who or what gets sacrificed.  The feeling of winning on our own terms.

Whcih is why I keep going back to DAO.  There is no "golden solution" there either.  Orrather there are several, but there is no one universal option.  It all depnds on how you play your Warden.  But all the sacrifices make sense.  And the player knows well in advance what will be expected, and can make arrangements for it.

[JasonShepard]

iakus wrote...

SNIP

Okay, thank-you. I don't entirely agree with your point of view, but I do at least understand it. You're right that there's no ending which feels like out-and-out victory, whereas both the previous games did, despite the cost taken to get there. This time, the cost is just too high.

Where we disagree is that I like that in the game, whereas I can see you don't. But nonetheless, thank-you for explaining.

[jtav]

Han Shot First wrote...

Synthesis' greatest sin to me was not that it forever altered the nature of sapient organic life, though there are certainly some massive ethnical issues with that, but that it leaves the Reaper fleet intact and commanded by the same A.I. entity that has annihilated countless civilizations and attempted to destroy your own.

I don't think any sane person would actually make that decision in Shepard's boots. We can feel safe choosing it in a game because the consequences aren't real and because we can metagame. We know it is unlikely Bioware will roll out a sequel that announces, "You choose Synthesis? The Reapers turned on you and annihilated civilization. Go play ME3 again and choose a different ending."But if Shepard was a real person? No way he or she makes that choice.

I consider myself fairly sane regardimg ethical reasoning. If I know that the Reapers are ex-members of the civilizations that were harvested and that Synthesis gives them and their master empathy (and I think I can infer that) then I might choose it. IRL, I'm an ani-death penalty adocate. Killing might be necessary, but I'd prefer to have as few casualties as possible, even Reaper casualties.

No, my big issue with Synthesis is that it says organic life is deeply flawed and synthetics didn't count as life before (EDI's "I am alive" when she affirmed she felt alive an hour ago).

[IanPolaris]

To put it very pithily and bluntly, you shouldn't have to be a war criminal just to win the game.

-Polaris

[chemiclord]

And how are you a war criminal choosing Control, again?

[SpamBot2000]

Collaborating. Suicide to allow updates to the Reaper Fuehrer. Cementing the Reign of Terror for eternity.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 18 mai 2013 - 07:19 .

[dreamgazer]

chemiclord wrote...

And how are you a war criminal choosing Control, again?

I believe it's the enslavement of a sentient, potentially sapient, species.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 18 mai 2013 - 07:25 .

[KaiserShep]

No one will try you in the space Hague for destroying edi and the geth.

[AresKeith]

KaiserShep wrote...

No one will try you in the space Hague for destroying edi and the geth.

Depending on your playstyle it will be a giant burden that Shepard will live with

Then there's the genocide claim