267 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Bleachrude wrote...

Technically, that's not true though...

ME1 started off with you losing Jenkins (admit it...at the time of ME1, did anyone actually think Jenkins would die?) and you lost Nihilus (who I bet everyone was thinking was going to be a long time companion/mentor) soon after.

Then midway through ME1, you have to decide which team-member bites the big one....

Thus, in the 1st game alone, you lose 3 people (2 of whom are actual squad-mates)..

Of course, none of the 3 do we get to know beforehand as much as say EDI....

He's got a better case for ME2, where you really could get out of anything.

[PsyrenY]

Bleachrude wrote...

ME1 started off with you losing Jenkins (admit it...at the time of ME1, did anyone actually think Jenkins would die?) and you lost Nihilus (who I bet everyone was thinking was going to be a long time companion/mentor) soon after.

Actually, based on Jade Empire I was thinking Nihlus would either be the big bad, or he would die midway through the game.

I was sad he died so soon, though of course Garrus' sweet-ass visor made up for it.

[Iakus]

Bleachrude wrote...

iakus wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

There are many valid approaches to storytelling, and it's perfectly fine to not like one type of approach (I for example, really don't like the escapism that iakus does).  But to reject an approach as inappropriate within any specific type of medium?  I'll never accept that.

If a game's story has been escapism for virtually the entire run, suddenly deciding at the very end to deliver a "message" especially a poorly done one, is, I'm sorry to say, inappropriate.  

Technically, that's not true though...

ME1 started off with you losing Jenkins (admit it...at the time of ME1, did anyone actually think Jenkins would die?) and you lost Nihilus (who I bet everyone was thinking was going to be a long time companion/mentor) soon after.

Then midway through ME1, you have to decide which team-member bites the big one....

Thus, in the 1st game alone, you lose 3 people (2 of whom are actual squad-mates)..

Of course, none of the 3 do we get to know beforehand as much as say EDI....

As has been noted, sp,epme named Jenkins getting caught out in the open and cut to pieces is hardly a surprise.  It combines both WoW with a Bioware staple of early party memebers getting themselves killed, a tradition that dates back to KOTOR.

Nihilus I admit was a surprise.  And Virmire is a low point in the story for Shepard.  But even so, That's the loss of three characters, only one of which Shepard is even indirectly responsible for.  As opposed to every living being in the entire galaxy.  

The two simply don't compare

Modifié par iakus, 29 mai 2013 - 04:30 .

[AresKeith]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Are people actually claiming the ending was bad because there was no "Super-Paragon kill the Reapers while keeping other robots alive" option? Rather than because it was a sloppily-written, horribly-executed mess?

A bit of both really

[Iakus]

AresKeith wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Are people actually claiming the ending was bad because there was no "Super-Paragon kill the Reapers while keeping other robots alive" option? Rather than because it was a sloppily-written, horribly-executed mess?

A bit of both really

Pretty much.

[KaiserShep]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Are people actually claiming the ending was bad because there was no "Super-Paragon kill the Reapers while keeping other robots alive" option? Rather than because it was a sloppily-written, horribly-executed mess?

It really does feel like it's both, though if the latter were corrected, the former would have a better reason to be a consequence, or simply not put in at all for being straight forced in there to balance out the negatives of each decision. 

[Straw Nihilist]

I just can't believe people still care about twenty minutes of a game... that they saw a year ago.

[CronoDragoon]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Are people actually claiming the ending was bad because there was no "Super-Paragon kill the Reapers while keeping other robots alive" option? Rather than because it was a sloppily-written, horribly-executed mess?

In this particular case those two reasons are interrelated, since the Crucible's workings are a complete illogical mess contrived to set up three distinct endings.

If you wanted to do a sacrifice ending right, hows about working the sacrifice into the story so that when it happens it seems like an unfortunate inevitability of war, instead of something the writers threw into a magical MacGuffin to make players feel worse about the options?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 mai 2013 - 04:45 .

[KaiserShep]

With enough thought, that could be stretched out to a couple of hours of the game, if you count any deficiencies you may feel with the entire final battle.

[Iakus]

KaiserShep wrote...

It really does feel like it's both, though if the latter were corrected, the former would have a better reason to be a consequence, or simply not put in at all for being straight forced in there to balance out the negatives of each decision. 

The galaxy's already in for a mini galactic dark age for unknown decades or centuries as they figure out how to repair the relays and go about doing so.  Adding a genocide is just overkill (harhar)

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Nihilus I admit was a surprise.  And Virmire is a low point in the story for Shepard.  But even so, That's the loss of three characters, only one of which Shepard is even indirectly responsible for.  As opposed to every living being in the entire galaxy.  

The two simply don't compare

You're quite right. It doesn't make any sense to compare forced losses in ME1 to freely choosing Refuse in ME3.

But what does Refuse have to do with anything?

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

You're quite right. It doesn't make any sense to compare forced losses in ME1 to freely choosing Refuse in ME3.

But what does Refuse have to do with anything?

What does every living being have to do with Refuse, as well?

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
If you wanted to do a sacrifice ending right, hows about working the sacrifice into the story so that when it happens it seems like an unfortunate inevitability of war, instead of something the writers threw into a magical MacGuffin to make players feel worse about the options?

Can we stop using MacGuffin this way, people? MacGuffin is the term used for things without a real function in the plot except as an object of desire.

Surely we can find a different way to insult the concept?

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 mai 2013 - 05:00 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You're quite right. It doesn't make any sense to compare forced losses in ME1 to freely choosing Refuse in ME3.

But what does Refuse have to do with anything?

What does every living being have to do with Refuse, as well?

I was assuming he was being sloppy; it's only the technological life that gets exterminated, of course,

Point still stands if he's only talking about Synthesis, since neither choice is ever forced.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

I'm not convinced the end of the trilogy after setting a precedent that you can "get around" any moral dilemma if you work hard enough and say the right things was a particularly good idea, though.

It's an unpopular opinion, but that's one of the things I actually do like about the ending, despite the execution. 

Not this time, Shepard.

Yeah.  It turns out a lot of people don't like getting jerked around.

Who knew?  

You see being jerked around.  I see a jolt of realism and a decrease in wish fulfillment.

Maybe they should have saved that jolt to the next ME game after the trilogy?

[AlanC9]

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe they should have saved that jolt to the next ME game after the trilogy?

That's not unreasonable. I don't personally agree, though; I think games should be improved mid-series, if you can do it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 mai 2013 - 05:04 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe they should have saved that jolt to the next ME game after the trilogy?

That's not unreasonable. I don't personally agree, though; I think games should be improved mid-series, if you can do it.

This is not so much about improvement as much as it is just "don't **** up the tone of your story". When your story is a soft sci-fi of a more heroic nature, don't switch gears the last 15 minutes and turn it into some sort weird psuedo-intellectucal thing.

If Mac and Hudson really burned to tell such a story with such a tone in the ME universe, they should have had the restraint and wait for the trilogy to be over before doing it. Thereby they could actually begin with a clean slate.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 29 mai 2013 - 05:11 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

People lost perspective on things, went way overboard and blew the endings out of proportions, and created a perpetual myth about the endings that persist to this day, much like any event in histroy in all honesty.

Endings could and should have been done better, but by the way people spoke about them, you'd have thougt the last 10 minutes of the game was just footage from Salo and Serbien Film.

Complete over-reaction, and a complete rip-off for anyone looking for a nice train wreck piece of work to riff on, as my brother eloquently put it when he saw it.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Can we stop using MacGuffin this way, people? MacGuffin is the term used for things without a real function in the plot except as an object of desire.

If everyone agreed on one definition I'd be more than happy to use it.

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Can we stop using MacGuffin this way, people? MacGuffin is the term used for things without a real function in the plot except as an object of desire.

If everyone agreed on one definition I'd be more than happy to use it.

Typically, if its actual purpose and use are stated in the narrative, then it's not a MacGuffin. It doesn't matter what it does; people just want it. The falcon in The Maltese Falcon, the mineral in Avatar, and so on and so forth. MacGuffins embody motivation without a known purpose once said item is obtained.

The Conduit in ME1 is about as close to a gray-area MacGuffin as you can get.  Everybody wants it, despite not knowing what it is or what it'll do (Weapon? Signal? Door? Sovvy's favorite chocolate bar?).  The search for the conduit borders on the pure motivation that it does something with the Reapers and it's what Saren needs, but since it eventually serves a (convenient) purpose, it's not a true MacGuffin.

[Clayless]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

People lost perspective on things, went way overboard and blew the endings out of proportions, and created a perpetual myth about the endings that persist to this day, much like any event in histroy in all honesty.

Endings could and should have been done better, but by the way people spoke about them, you'd have thougt the last 10 minutes of the game was just footage from Salo and Serbien Film.

Complete over-reaction, and a complete rip-off for anyone looking for a nice train wreck piece of work to riff on, as my brother eloquently put it when he saw it.

I remember I saw one video where a boy completed the game and was disappointed, and his brother (who was filming) started to spout rhetoric at him to hype him up into anger.

That's what happened here on BSN. People got spurred into being angry, it was like a circle where people were getting themselves worked up far more than they should have. Even worse is a lot of lies were being spread and people were blindly believing them, and the IT theory came along and made it impossible to communicate as far too many people believed it.

It was just a mess. The reaction was just terrible.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So a circle.where people acted like jerks and feed off of eachother to fuel their jerkish behavior.

A circle of jerks, if you will.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You're quite right. It doesn't make any sense to compare forced losses in ME1 to freely choosing Refuse in ME3.

But what does Refuse have to do with anything?

What does every living being have to do with Refuse, as well?

I was assuming he was being sloppy; it's only the technological life that gets exterminated, of course,

Point still stands if he's only talking about Synthesis, since neither choice is ever forced.

Synthesis, Refuse, and Control affect every living being in the galaxy, in different ways.  None of which I see as "good".  And in choosing one, it is in fact forced on the galaxy.

Destroy, in comparison is the least bad to me  in that it "only" screws synthetic life.  Which again is forced on the galaxy if Shepard chooses it.  It just goes to show that I find all these options so terrible, that even if by some miracle Shepard were to survive one of these endings, I could only imagine he'd want to eat a bullet afterwards, rather than live with what he's done.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

It just goes to show that I find all these options so terrible, that even if by some miracle Shepard were to survive one of these endings, I could only imagine he'd want to eat a bullet afterwards, rather than live with what he's done.

And that would be your Shepard.  Mine would learn to cope with the situation much in the way they would with the events in ME1, whether they lean paragon or renegade.