428 réponses à ce sujet

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

I'd say Bioware gravely miscalculated their fandoms in this case.  I still wonder if they understand what went wrong, or if they're still convinced it was merely "confusion"

And yes, I kept a hopeful tone in my game.  My Shepard expressed confidence, strove to save everyone he could (even if he didn't always succeed)  And in the end, that bleak, hoepless set of chocies felt all the worse for it.

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

And here we stumble upon our impasse.

Because I would answer those questions with "They can... but they don't (and shouldn't) have to."

Stories are under NO obligation to make you feel happy.  They are NOT required to make you feel triumphant or satisfied or accomplished.  It is one thing to not like such stories (you would not be alone, and frankly it's a good thing that different people have different tastes).  It is entirely another to think you deserve any particular thing in ANY story.

Because you don't.  You deserve what you were given.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Modifié par chemiclord, 20 mai 2013 - 05:40 .

[HiddenInWar]

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?

Shepard says that they didn't come here all that way to lose everything in control. He/she also says that "there has to be another way" in regards to destroy (all though I wasn't very fond of that response being auto-dialogue). Shepard knows of what to gain/lose in each ending, synthesis is no different. 

[spamtrash]

iakus wrote...

I'd say Bioware gravely miscalculated their fandoms in this case.  I still wonder if they understand what went wrong, or if they're still convinced it was merely "confusion"

And yes, I kept a hopeful tone in my game.  My Shepard expressed confidence, strove to save everyone he could (even if he didn't always succeed)  And in the end, that bleak, hoepless set of chocies felt all the worse for it.

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

It depends on the game.

At a minimum a game should make you feel satisfied.  What that satsifaction entails is different for each player and for each game .


For me it's about "respect".  I expect any game to respect my time and effort I put into game and that it's narrative is presented in a logicial and complete manner for that game.  If the experience in a game from start to finish follows this rule then I'm happy.


ME3's ending makes me feel like I wasted all my time and effort on all three games. Thus I feel disrespected. After spending $60+ on ME3 at the time, you can be sure I also felt very dissatisfied.

Modifié par spamtrash, 20 mai 2013 - 06:07 .

[CosmicGnosis]

iakus wrote...

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

Not happy. The Walking Dead is not a happy game, and it has one of the most gut-wrenching endings I've ever experienced in a game. And that's what makes it so amazing. So in that sense, it's satisfying.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 20 mai 2013 - 06:23 .

[HiddenInWar]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

iakus wrote...

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

Not happy. The Walking Dead is not a happy game, and it has one of the most gut-wrenching endings I've ever experienced in a game. And that's what makes it so amazing. So in that sense, it's satisfying.

Oh god.

The end credits are just pouring lemon juice on the wound, in the best, most emotional way. I have never heard a credits song be so perfectly implemented in after an ending like that.

[HiddenInWar]

I would be doing this site an injustice by not posting the song btw

[Chashan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

iakus wrote...

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

Not happy. The Walking Dead is not a happy game, and it has one of the most gut-wrenching endings I've ever experienced in a game. And that's what makes it so amazing. So in that sense, it's satisfying.

It's a matter of execution, too.

I loved the sacrifice of TWD. Unlike a certain other game's several options for that, it was meaningful, despite the difference in scale.

ME3's finale tried its hardest and worst to try and only be something the series, as a whole, was not. As I said, ME2 allowed a choice of whether it ended as tragedy or an epos. With ME3's end, someone seems to have forgotten about the latter.

Modifié par Chashan, 20 mai 2013 - 06:29 .

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

I'd say Bioware gravely miscalculated their fandoms in this case.  I still wonder if they understand what went wrong, or if they're still convinced it was merely "confusion"

And yes, I kept a hopeful tone in my game.  My Shepard expressed confidence, strove to save everyone he could (even if he didn't always succeed)  And in the end, that bleak, hoepless set of chocies felt all the worse for it.

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

And here we stumble upon our impasse.

Because I would answer those questions with "They can... but they don't (and shouldn't) have to."

Stories are under NO obligation to make you feel happy.  They are NOT required to make you feel triumphant or satisfied or accomplished.  It is one thing to not like such stories (you would not be alone, and frankly it's a good thing that different people have different tastes).  It is entirely another to think you deserve any particular thing in ANY story.

Because you don't.  You deserve what you were given.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I did not say stories.  I said games.

Here, I think is where the true impasse lies.

[Iakus]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

iakus wrote...

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

Not happy. The Walking Dead is not a happy game, and it has one of the most gut-wrenching endings I've ever experienced in a game. And that's what makes it so amazing. So in that sense, it's satisfying.

Yeah, Walking Dead did have a satisfying if sad ending.  But then, It never pretended there was a way out.  Not like Mass Effect did.  Thh ME trilogy dangled the "there's always a way out" throughout the trilogy.  Your chcoies will guide teh stroy.  If you just make the right chocies, you can save teh galaxy!   Until suddenly it became all about (arbitrary) sacrifice.

TWD was always about keeping Clem safe.  Always.  

And in the end, Lee does so.

[AlanC9]

I prefer to not have any choice over whether the narrative is a tragedy or not. I suppose that theoretically such choice could work for me if the way to avoid tragedy was far less obvious than it's been in other Bio games, but if my character has a way out that I can see, I don't see an RP way to avoid using it. Well, until I'm so deep into replays that everything's metagaming anyway. (RPing characters who are stupider than I am isn't something I'm comfortable doing until the metagaming stage)

DA:O was able to get around this by displacing the consequences of the DR choice, but that strategy is unworkable in a game that's supposed to wrap everything up.

[knightnblu]

If you want to pretty up synthesis so you can feel good about choosing it, more power to you. People can literally justify anything. The Germans justified butchering the Jews, the Gypsies, Soviet POWs, and the handicapped. They even felt pretty good about it. Right up until the time that they got caught red handed. Then it was all "I had no idea," "nobody told me anything about it," and the ever popular "we were ordered to do it." Funny thing is that none of that got any traction at Nuremburg.

The good news is that BioWare has alleviated any guilt that one may feel for raping the galaxy. You can choose synthesis and bask in the halcyon days of utopia. Personally, I can't do that. While it is true that nothing real happens regardless of choice, it is still a good thought experiment in morality and the justifications used to assess a desired course of action.

Initially, the writers had no idea that anyone would object to some of the choices. In the original ending, a lot was presumed that didn't pan out as people played to the ending. Some folks prefer synthesis and some don't. What is important are their given reasons for supporting it. Go back in history and compare and contrast the given reasons with other questionable choices in human history and you will see some pretty blatant parallels.

If there is one constant in the universe it is man. He never changes.

[PsyrenY]

iakus wrote...

I did not say stories.  I said games.

That you see a distinction here is deeply troubling to me. Can games not tell stories? Or, should they only tell uncomplicated, pathos-free ones?

[Ieldra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I should clarify...

Who, at the end of the ME2, is feeling a sense of loss over the victims of the Collectors?

Unless you actually lose a squadmate on the mission, all you're feeling is probably "FFF YEAHH!"

That's fine for ME2, in fact. ME3? Not so much. It's a war story, after all. (& brb, gotta walk the doggy)

I think the important part is not so much a sense of loss alone as the sense that you are responsible:

ME1, you could sacrifice the DA, and you feel it more because you are reponsible and you actually see people on it reacting to your decision, while sacrificing the fleet is just statistics, it isn't brought home to you, emotionally.

In ME2, you don't care so much about the faceless Collector victims, except if it's your crew. You can't do anything about the colonists, but if you delayed the SM you feel responsible for their loss.

In both games, you have a way out: play all LMs before Reaper IFF and don't delay the SM in ME2, save the DA in ME1. In ME3, you don't have a way out: there are downsides you actually feel because you feel responsible. Yet again, I see this as a good thing. For me, it's more that ME1 and ME2 failed by giving players an easy way out rather than ME3 failed by not giving them one.

The Catalyst as the endings' spokesperson is the main problem from my pov, that and the symbolism which remained ungrounded in in-world logic, particularly in Synthesis. The outcomes themselves are ok.     

[Ieldra]

masster blaster wrote...
Harbinger, and Nazara do you really think they are good. Nazara said each Reaper is independent. The intellegence may have control over the Reapers, but it is the Reapers that choices not to fight the catalyst control. THink about it one organic mind can fight a Reapers Indoctrination, yet millions of minds can't. Also not every organic cycle was good. For all we know half of the Reapers have evil organics inside the Reaper. Also have you conisder about freeing them from that prison.

It is extremely implausible that if the Reapers are independent, that they all follow the Catalyst without fail. If the Catalyst didn't control the Reapers absolutely, there would be an anti-Catalyst Reaper faction, most notably because the Reapers are the remnants of the harvested species. If there's any truth at all to the claim that the harvested species are preserved in some way (and the story heavily hints that there is, ever since ME2), then I wouldn't expect a Reaper to follow the Catalyst at all without mind control.

Having said that, I expect that Reaper personalities are as  varied as the species they were made of. Harbinger was made from the leviathans, so if it comes across as arrogant and confident in the knowledge of knowing better what's good for organics than they do, it's perfectly in-character. As I see it, the Catalyst's mind control maintains the "truth and inevitability" of the cycle in the Reapers' minds but leaves their personalities unchanged because that would go against its objective. It is in fact similar to indoctrination.

Of course, this means that if the Reapers are freed in Synthesis, there will be some who remain hostile. I do not believe that Synthesis is a galactic utopia. The important part is, apparently - and plausibly - the majority of the Reapers help civilization rebuild, which is also plausible since I'd expect some sense of obligation from them towards the galaxy, both because of the cycle and because they're now freed. Also they don't have a unified purpose anymore, which makes any future conflict with a hostile Reaper faction a very different matter.

Remeber in ME1 when that guy was in a comma, and you have a choice to kill him, or not. I chose to kill him because there was no hope for him because all brain wave activite was gone. The Reapers are made from millions of organics that should have died a long time ago.  Do they deserve to live inside a monster that killed billions, and harvested trillions in each cycle?

As opposed to that man you killed, the Reapers can still communicate. What those billions of organic minds deserve is a choice.

[KaiserShep]

Yeah like the choice they made to be transformed into reaper puree...

Oh, right.

I'm afraid their choices are invalidated by being a: dead and b: lacking capacity to voice their opinion through the cosmic killbots. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 mai 2013 - 08:12 .

[Bill Casey]

Phatose wrote...

Would Jesus have agreed?
Would Buddha have agreed?
Would Superman have agreed?
Would Batman have agreed?

All would have refused...
And Batman would have won anyway...

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...
And yes, I kept a hopeful tone in my game.  My Shepard expressed confidence, strove to save everyone he could (even if he didn't always succeed)  And in the end, that bleak, hoepless set of chocies felt all the worse for it.

Perhaps the main difference between you and me (and those who think somewhat like you and me, respectively) is that I don't think the choices (EC version) are bleak and hopeless. In fact, the high EMS endings all have a reasonably good outcome.

I wonder, do you know what exactly makes you feel bad about the endings? Is it that you don't like not "coming away with your honor intact", don't like the idea that in this case, the good outcome actually justifies the means? I am making the choice for the future of the galaxy, not for me. Not that I exactly like the setup - who wouldn't rather have a way out, right? - but if I come away feeling somewhat soiled by the choice, I see that as a meaningful sacrifice. I can take satisfaction from that. 

[PsyrenY]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In both games, you have a way out: play all LMs before Reaper IFF and don't delay the SM in ME2, save the DA in ME1.

Saving the DA does have a drawback - you lose a chunk of the 5th fleet doing it. Bioware could and indeed should have played this up more (for instance, showing human pilots panic and die the way we see the asari ones on the DA if you sacrifice it), but regardless, I wouldn't call it a "way out" since you aren't getting off scott-free no matter which you choose.

[Ieldra]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

In both games, you have a way out: play all LMs before Reaper IFF and don't delay the SM in ME2, save the DA in ME1.

Saving the DA does have a drawback - you lose a chunk of the 5th fleet doing it. Bioware could and indeed should have played this up more (for instance, showing human pilots panic and die the way we see the asari ones on the DA if you sacrifice it), but regardless, I wouldn't call it a "way out" since you aren't getting off scott-free no matter which you choose.

Perhaps I should clarify: Saving the DA *feels* like a way out. We're talking mostly about emotions here.

I suspect that the more you can detach yourself from the ending emotionally, seeing it only as a strategic decision, the less problems you will have with it. I feel this is the most appropriate way to make the decision, actually. The stakes being as big as they are, how making the choice makes me feel is irrelevant. Only the outcome matters.

[masster blaster]

Ieldra2. That's stupid. No offence , but how the hell are millions of mind going to control a Reaper without a force to make them as one? I can see Harbinger the only Reaper that can main tain it'self, but for the other Reapers no.One hundred thousand minds may want to do this, and another do something else. Not to mention Harbinger the one who created Indoctrination is free. Millions of Leviathans. It's bad the Leviathans can control organics and synthetics in synthesis, but Harbinger......You know Harninger would not feel sorry hell no. Auhmmmm......if your saying that the Reapers don't have free will your wrong.


And ummm the Protheans weren't preserved really. They didn't become a Reaper, but were created to be foot soldiers instead. They were genetical altered to fit the Reapers needs, as well as the catalyst. May I remind you that it is also suspected that the Reapers haven't created another Reaper from some time now. Also umm power can corrupt a person, and a synthetic. Look at Renegade Shepard in Control.... If he, or she can be corrupted by power, and the god like feeling she, or he now has, then it is most likely the Reapers loved the power the catalyst oddered. Just like for Saren he just wanted to live, and in return he surved the Reapers willing. If he didn't, then he would have became a gibering mindless Turian. More over Jack Harper wanted to save humanity, and brings his races to the top the Reapers gave him his wish, but in a fed up way. Turning his own people into liquid goo, husk, and the believe he can control the Reapers, yet he was being controled by the Reaper all along is pretty flat out clear that the Reapers created a possibility to have someone believe that they can be controled.


Yet how can the catalyst Indoctrinate Harbinger who Harbinger is made of millions of Leviathan who are the ones that created the new found Indoctrination? The catalyst is a synthetic alone. Harbing is now a hybrid. Harbinger can hack the catalyst systems, Harbinger alone is the one Reaper that can really challenge the Catalyst yet he can't because it's being controled. Ya let's ask Saren, TIM, Grayson, and the Colonist leader on Feros. Ya if one organic mind can break free from the " Indoctrination" then ya so can the Reapers. I believe they choose to kill, pillage, and harvest because come on the power you know have, the knowledge they now process....Harbinger would love it and you know it since the Leviathans were the masters of the galaxy. And what is Harbinger....Millions of Leviathans......

Also May I point out that What if the organics inside the Reaper were evil organics once? What if the Reapers don't want to stop the harvest? I mean yes synthesis says other wise, but what if they don't? If one Reaper just goes rouge the galaxy is indanger sure the galaxy can take it out with the aid of the other Reapers, but...if it's Harbinger.....Ya the galaxy is screwed badly.

Also what do you mean free????? If you mean free from the catalyst sure, but they are not free from their prison. The organics inside the Reaper or not free, nor can they ever be again. You didn't save them at all you just preserved organic races that should have died a long time ago. Is it fair that those organics are trapped inside a monster that killed and harvested trillions? Is it fair that the husk stay as they are? Live yes, but really they are gone? Cannibals are made from Human parts, and Batarins.....Brutes's are made from Turian, and Krogan parts.....do you honestly think they can have the life they once had? No they can't. Nor can Banshee, nor can Muraders, nor can any husk solider. You say you don't believe in that synthesis version, but this is what's suppost to be like.

The husk, and the Reapers wouldn't want them to be like this. Nor should they. Besides if their is one thing that needs to be corrected is the death of the Reapers. Their times have been up for a long time. Thier must be a balance. Nobody or thing should live that long. The way I see it killing them brings the balance back. Cost may be high, but The organics inside the Reapers are truly free, as well are the husk. They are now at peace.

Also they deserve a choice....you take that way from them in synthesi, and all the endings. However I believe they want to die.....think about it comman logic that they want to die, hell I would. In synthesis they are rewritin, as well as the galaxy. Not freed, but rewritin. They aren't the organic they once were, nor is anyone the same anymore. That is the reason why synthesis should not happen. At least not this way. It should happen natually and not forced.

Modifié par masster blaster, 20 mai 2013 - 01:13 .

[masster blaster]

And I don't believe synthesis at all would bring galactic peace. I believe it would just be the next step toward evolution, but nothing more. It's the choice, and moral ground that organics, and synthetics would do that will cause peace. Peace shouldn't be earned by forceing everyone to get along, but natually. It's a lesson in life that must hold true. If you solve the galaxy's problems by just rewriting everyone, or useing the Reapers as the peace keeping force, then you taken away understanding of WHY this all happened. That's why Destroy imo is the best choice. They have to understand WHY this all happened and correct it so it never happens again, either forever or a while which could be thousand of year from now.

Modifié par masster blaster, 20 mai 2013 - 01:28 .

[Iakus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

I did not say stories.  I said games.

That you see a distinction here is deeply troubling to me. Can games not tell stories? Or, should they only tell uncomplicated, pathos-free ones?

Games can tell stories yes.  But this is a debate Chemilcord and I have had many times over many threads.  I believe that games are a different medium that, say novels and other passive forms of entertainment.  ANd therefore, tell their stories differently (for one thing, the audience is more invested in the protagonist).  Chemiclord seems to think otherwise.  I was merely reminding that this is one of those cases where simpy calling it a "story" doeesn't fully encompass what Mass Effect is.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...
And yes, I kept a hopeful tone in my game.  My Shepard expressed confidence, strove to save everyone he could (even if he didn't always succeed)  And in the end, that bleak, hoepless set of chocies felt all the worse for it.

Perhaps the main difference between you and me (and those who think somewhat like you and me, respectively) is that I don't think the choices (EC version) are bleak and hopeless. In fact, the high EMS endings all have a reasonably good outcome.

I wonder, do you know what exactly makes you feel bad about the endings? Is it that you don't like not "coming away with your honor intact", don't like the idea that in this case, the good outcome actually justifies the means? I am making the choice for the future of the galaxy, not for me. Not that I exactly like the setup - who wouldn't rather have a way out, right? - but if I come away feeling somewhat soiled by the choice, I see that as a meaningful sacrifice. I can take satisfaction from that. 

I believe that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.  I think that if you go dark enough grey it becomes indistinguishible from black.I firmly do not believe that Utopia Justifies the Means 

I see the EC endings and I see a whitewash.  I see nothing that I actually had a problem with being dealt with.  I see society being rebuild with the horrific act SHepard perpetrated being the foundation.  And Shepard being honored for it.

I see forced transhumanism, and everyone is happy with it.  Even those who should be violently opposed to it

I see Reapers not flying into a star, or returning to dark space, but sticking around to watch over things.  Big Shepard is watching!

I see society rebuilding after the Reapers fall over.  Geth?  WHo are they?  EDI?  is that some new omitool model?

Implications for all very unpleasant.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I agree with iakus on this. Games aren't any more (or less) immersive than a good novel, or television show, or movie, but they have the benefit of audience interaction. The audience is directly participating in the story, as the main character no less. In games such as RPG's, this can make a long narrative where the audience can even shape the main character into whatever they want really. Now the player can't control the main premise of the story, external themes, sequential narrative, or universal lore. But the player can make variations of the story, or they can change the internal theme, or control the outcome of events (even control whether smaller, minor events even happen) that can lead to wildly different branching story-lines that branch off from the main premise.

For example: The Reaper War is going to happen. That is the main premise. We find out about the Reapers, learn about them, then fight and stop them.

External themes are the themes that are constants throughout the narrative that don't change regardless of how the player plays the game. I'd say the external themes are: Order vs. Chaos, Self-Determination, Galactic Unity, and Camaraderie and Love. This includes the subversion of these themes. They can play as large part when subverted as they do when followed through.

The sequential narrative involves key events with one outcome that have to occur to progress the story. Some events can only happen after other key events have been accomplished. For example, you can't do the Citadel Coup until you've done Tuchanka. You can't engage the Suicide Mission until you've acquired the Reaper IFF. Events that are necessary to progress the story.

And then there's the lore. At the beginning of each new story, a set of rules and laws for the natural world are usually established. For Mass Effect, it's that interstellar travel is now possible due to a mysterious element called Element Zero. It establishes other facts, rules, and laws in the scenario of the Mass Effect Universe (since every single story in existence is a scenario based on the premise of "what if?"). Any laws about science, biology, or logic is to be assumed to be the same as that of the Real World unless stipulated within the lore (within reason: You can't pull a "lol synthesis" moment and hand wave anything to now be possible "because synthesis says so").

On the flip side, the Player can control how a story pans out. You do need to solve the Rachni problem according to the game. That is a key event that must be accomplished. However, you can control what the outcome is. You can kill the Rachni forever, or you can give them a chance. Though the circumstances behind killing the original Rachni leads to this being unrealistic and stupid, the circumstance occurs again in ME3: This time, with a twist. If you spared the Rachni queen before, it's pretty much the exact same choice. However, if you killed the original Rachni, you're faced with a facsimile of the Rachni Queen of Reaper origin. In this case you can once again choose to spare or kill the Breeder (as it is called). However saving the breeder is different from saving the original queen. Since the Breeder is a Reaper machination, it is likely inherently indoctrinated, as are its progeny. This leads it to slaughter alliance personnel, damage vital resources, and scurry off back to the Reapers, presumably to create more Rachni warriors (though there's no discernible difference in game).

The player can make variations on the protagonist. Shepard really is who you want him to be to an extent. Some of his attributes are set in stone. He's a Special Forces/Operations veteran, he is to become the first human Spectre, he is to find out about the Reapers and vows to stop them, he is to do at the beginning of ME2 to be resurrected by Cerberus, he is to work with them on finding and destroying the Collectors, and (presuming a Shepard survived ME2) he is to be imprisoned by the alliance, and he is to be let off to rally the races of the galaxy to fight the Reapers. Other things are more mundane: He was born on April 11, 2154. He is a graduate of the N7 School, and he is voiced by Mark Meer (or Jennifer Hale if you play a FemShep).

But you can control how your Shepard looks, his first name, what his background is, what his service record is, what his skills as a warrior are, what he thinks about events, people, themes, and organizations, and how he can approach a problem or what his overall outlook is. ME3 negates a lot of this by making Shepard a lot more predefined through auto-dialogue and limiting dialogue in conversation, but it is still there. You can even control how other characters perceive Shepard (to a degree) based on your conversational responses to them and on the actions that Shepard takes.

And adding up many of the different outcomes of different events, you can create a story that follows a premise but is wildly different. Some stories may be doomed to failure, some may be uplifting tails of of self-determination in the face of adversity despite the moral ambiguity of the story, and some may be total hero fests for the paragon.

This is how I think Games, specifically RPG's, are much more than other mediums of storytelling.

[Wayning_Star]

basic instinct?

Nature, et al creates, the creations destroy it in an attempt to control it, all the while becoming more and more synthesized with/by it.

Is Nature synthetic, or does evolution have a soul? lol..