200 réponses à ce sujet

[Hadeedak]

dreamgazer wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I dunno. He has a point. Fanatical proponents of one ending always seem to try their damnedest to make the other endings evil as possible.  

That's the unfortunate drawback of presenting an ending that relies on moral grayness and individual philosophy: BioWare made this personal. It's less about what Shepard would do, and more about what the players themselves would do in the situation and how their perspective fits with their choice.  In order to do this, the execution and evaulation of the story's overall context needs to be air-tight, and it's far from it.

Fantatics are fanatics; there will always be outliers. However, the ending's conflicted design and the way it "provokes" the audience almost demands for that kind of input.

What I've always liked about the endings is that there's really no right or wrong answer, or even a clear paragon/renegade answer. 

It seems that really annoys some people. :innocent:

[Redbelle]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I dunno. He has a point. Fanatical proponents of one ending always seem to try their damnedest to make the other endings evil as possible.

MEHEM ones are the worst about it.

I know, Seival and Auld Wulf really try to force synthesis down people's throats.

Thankfully the MEHEM is clear cut in it's intention's. It's a game about a war where you play the part of a soldier tasked with winning said war.

Engaging in the Catalyst's mind maze of intent and the ramification's of the choices it present's...... I know it's promoted discussion for over a year now...... but given the backlash and the divide of gamer's...... was it worth it?

Or can we just push a button and use the crucible to blow away the bad guys?

[Hadeedak]

Redbelle wrote...

Thankfully the MEHEM is clear cut in it's intention's. It's a game about a war where you play the part of a soldier tasked with winning said war.

Engaging in the Catalyst's mind maze of intent and the ramification's of the choices it present's...... I know it's promoted discussion for over a year now...... but given the backlash and the divide of gamer's...... was it worth it?

Or can we just push a button and use the crucible to blow away the bad guys?

Please no. I actually like choices and having to think about them for individual Shepards as well as me personally. Pushing a button is for when I want to win Lego Batman or something. 

Modifié par Hadeedak, 27 mai 2013 - 03:03 .

[Reorte]

Hadeedak wrote...

What I've always liked about the endings is that there's really no right or wrong answer, or even a clear paragon/renegade answer. 

It seems that really annoys some people. :innocent:

It never felt like that was the case. There was a clear best option, with some unpleasant stuff chucked in to drag it a bit towards the level of the others. That's why it was annoying. I wouldn't have minded a real decision if it was done well, with convincing negatives instead of just contrivances. For example, if Destroy had given an edge over the Reapers such that we could be sure of eventual victory but it was still going to be a long, bloody conflict with millions or billions of deaths, vs. Control, which would've ended things now with no more loss but made it clear that there was a very real risk of it blowing up in the future? Then it would've been interesting.

[Reorte]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Yeah, for all the flaws the endings have (a lot) pushing a button that just kills the Reapers with no ramifications is worse.

The ramifications are that we've been fighting a war and have been losing whole worlds. Pressing a button to stop it is crap simply because it's a far too easy one-push enemy-defeated thing, not because of daft ramifications that really have to be forced in order to add them in to a button push.

[Hadeedak]

Reorte wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

What I've always liked about the endings is that there's really no right or wrong answer, or even a clear paragon/renegade answer. 

It seems that really annoys some people. :innocent:

It never felt like that was the case. There was a clear best option, with some unpleasant stuff chucked in to drag it a bit towards the level of the others. That's why it was annoying. I wouldn't have minded a real decision if it was done well, with convincing negatives instead of just contrivances. For example, if Destroy had given an edge over the Reapers such that we could be sure of eventual victory but it was still going to be a long, bloody conflict with millions or billions of deaths, vs. Control, which would've ended things now with no more loss but made it clear that there was a very real risk of it blowing up in the future? Then it would've been interesting.

If there was a genuine clear best option, we wouldn't be debating this. There'd be no point. It'd be like doing the playthrough where your whole squad dies. Sure, you could pick another one besides the winner, but it'd be an intellectual excercise rather than the best argueable option. I tend to pop up in the control threads because I prefer sacrificing only Shepard, as opposed to machine intelligences. And yes, I think Shepard is dead. I think the machine based on her will persist in much the same way my aforementioned ancient Number Crunchers playing computer does -- because that's what code tends to do. I tend to see Shepard as more R. Daneel Olivaw by the end, and in my view of what happens afterwards.

[Redbelle]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Yeah, for all the flaws the endings have (a lot) pushing a button that just kills the Reapers with no ramifications is worse.

Yet this is what happens to a degree in ME3's ending. There may be 3 choices, but all of them are essentially button pushes when you pull the curtain aside to see that none of your choices has a meaningful impact on your own personal story.

Let me put it another way. In ME2's end game, your squads loyalty, your ship upgrades, are past decision;s made that saves and increases the chance of your squad surviving. The present decision's for who does what where, are another hurdle to get over.... In ME2's ending you command and perfrom heroic acts of daring.

ME3's ending, by comparison, was packed full of emotionless intellectualism. And this may be fun for players, but as a writer it's the most dangerous ground to enter. Especially if you allow yourself to fall into the writing and start to love what's on the page under some illusion that you have just written something epic.

The point is, ME3's ending felt like a step backwards in the principal of player developed story telling. The ending of ME3 was hijacked from player control. Forgot what the player had done previously and ran towards 3 potential enings without considering the ramification's of those ending..... of which synthesis get's the worst of it.... because what the Catalyst says synthesis will do for the galaxy is highly suspect when interrogated.

Constrast the end of ME3 to the end of the Citadel DLC.... Well let's just say I know which of those two ednings I'd like to see in ME4

[Hadeedak]

Compare to the ending of ME1.

Who's your Councillor? Did you blow up the Council or not?

[dreamgazer]

Guys, a reminder: they're mile-high, near invincible, mechanical Cthulhu that have been operating on a schedule for eons. It's a fundamental issue from the very first game.

[Obadiah]

Dear Future Leader,

>> How long until ControlShep goes nuts?
A while.

Imperious Emperor Extraordinaire,

Modifié par Obadiah, 27 mai 2013 - 03:42 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Please no. I actually like choices and having to think about them for individual Shepards as well as me personally. Pushing a button is for when I want to win Lego Batman or something.

Have you played DA? How would you feel if, at the end, the Archdemon had beaten the Warden, called in healers to patch him up and proceeded to chop its own head off?

That's what happens here - Godchild, the entity which could have stopped the cycles at any point, clearly is not swayed by Shepard's "argument" ("the peace will not last") but lets him win anyway. Where is the sense of achiement there?

At the end of the day, the problem with these kind of choices is that, in the absence if supernatural powers, it is really hard to justify why the protagonist should be making them - why does Admiral Hacket ask for Shepard's (infantryman with no experience commanding fleet engagements) opinion in ME1? Why should Shepard get to decide if Borg collective or Shepalyst Police State is best- because he is marginally luckier at dodging Reaper fire than the average Allianec redshirt? The only thing Bioware seems to be able to come up with is "spring surprise exposition on the protagonist who conveniently is the only one in the room" which inevitably leads to him making an uninformed decision - e.g. ME1 again: Since we don't know what the geth are doing, there is no way to tell which is the "right decision"; if they have orders to protect sovereign then we should fight them now to avoid having to fight them and sovereign at the same time once the Citadel opens but if they are going to persue the DA then ignoring them might work as well.

[Redbelle]

Hadeedak wrote...

Compare to the ending of ME1.

Who's your Councillor? Did you blow up the Council or not?

Game sequence of release...

ME1's ending... good.

ME2's ending.... better than ME1's.

ME3's ending..... I'll leave that up for everyone else to decide.

But going off franchise a bit...... DA:O's ending was simply the best BW have ever come up with.

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 03:57 .

[Reorte]

Hadeedak wrote...

If there was a genuine clear best option, we wouldn't be debating this. There'd be no point. It'd be like doing the playthrough where your whole squad dies. Sure, you could pick another one besides the winner, but it'd be an intellectual excercise rather than the best argueable option. I tend to pop up in the control threads because I prefer sacrificing only Shepard, as opposed to machine intelligences. And yes, I think Shepard is dead. I think the machine based on her will persist in much the same way my aforementioned ancient Number Crunchers playing computer does -- because that's what code tends to do. I tend to see Shepard as more R. Daneel Olivaw by the end, and in my view of what happens afterwards.

That's only because it tried to do that and a few people swallowd it.

[Beerfish]

[Hadeedak]

Reorte wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

If there was a genuine clear best option, we wouldn't be debating this. There'd be no point. It'd be like doing the playthrough where your whole squad dies. Sure, you could pick another one besides the winner, but it'd be an intellectual excercise rather than the best argueable option. I tend to pop up in the control threads because I prefer sacrificing only Shepard, as opposed to machine intelligences. And yes, I think Shepard is dead. I think the machine based on her will persist in much the same way my aforementioned ancient Number Crunchers playing computer does -- because that's what code tends to do. I tend to see Shepard as more R. Daneel Olivaw by the end, and in my view of what happens afterwards.

That's only because it tried to do that and a few people swallowd it.

I think it succeeded, more or less, though it certainly could have been better presented.

I also ultimate sacrifice'd my warden, though. 

[ruggly]

It really comes down to personal preferences anyway. MEHEM may take away the choices, but at least it leaves me emotionally satisfied. The endings the game gives leaves other players satisfied. That's fine, not my place to tell you that you're wrong and you can't be happy with what's given. I can appreciate what they tried to do with the endings, but I don't think that they executed them well at all.

Anyways, back to the original question, it's what was said in another post: when the player decides Shepard goes crazy.

[Hadeedak]

Or when disco comes back.

[ruggly]

But...Donna Summer...AND ROLLER DISCO!

[Hadeedak]

Are you saying roller disco isn't crazy? Because usually I'm against calling people empirically wrong.

But that @#&@ is craycray.

[ruggly]

Don't tell me you wouldn't love to see Reapers dancing to Hot Stuff or Boogie Wonderland

Because I'm laughing my ass off imagining it.  Anyways, roller disco (and disco in general) is crazy, but it was all about having fun.

Modifié par ruggly, 27 mai 2013 - 06:13 .

[aj2070]

AlanC9 wrote...

What's the definition of "nuts" here?

While "sanity" doesn't clinically apply to an AI, I would say Shepard completely divorcing him/herself from what (s)he was is not good for one's outlook.  One of the reasons I would never pick control is that very question; how soon before the AI hubris kicks in and the entity that was Shepard comes to the same flawed conclusions.  After all, (s)he has unlimited power and no accountability or any relationship with any being.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

How constructive/destructive Shepard is to the galaxy at large is obviously going to increase. However, I think Shepard will not turn out much differently than he is pre-Control. He's operated with extralegal power and minimal accountability for a long while now.


Also, I don't care how far down the line Cata!Shep continues to exist, someone who's only goal in life was to protect the galaxy from annihilation is not just going to randomly decide "durr, gen0xorx tiem!11"

[Redbelle]

aj2070 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What's the definition of "nuts" here?

While "sanity" doesn't clinically apply to an AI, I would say Shepard completely divorcing him/herself from what (s)he was is not good for one's outlook.  One of the reasons I would never pick control is that very question; how soon before the AI hubris kicks in and the entity that was Shepard comes to the same flawed conclusions.  After all, (s)he has unlimited power and no accountability or any relationship with any being.

Nut's is also a Poker term.