369 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Okay, so I take it this is separate from drayfish's argument about the EC slides being too happy?

Personally what iakus suggests falls into the realm of "would have been nice" to me. More scenes of anything would have been great, but their absence doesn't fundamentally change the message of the epilogue.

The messages are too happy.  Or at least, the downsides are too whitewashed.  The choices Shepard is forced to make are horrific, and EC, rather than trying to deal with them, chooses instead to ignore them.

If EDI and the geth's destruction in Destroy was at least acknowledged, and shown that their sacrifices were (shown to the player and demonstrated they  were not in vain and were in fact remembered and honored by the survivors would have improved the ending far more than the "What's a geth?" ending we got.  THe ending still would have sucked, but would have sucked less.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok then, if I indulge you for a moment and concede that one might reasonably consider destroy 'sacrifice', what say you about ME3's failure to barely acknowledge that 'sacrifice'?

By acknowledgement what would you have liked to see? If I can get an idea of what you would have preferred the Destroy epilogue to do I'd feel better about responding.

Hackett mention EDI and the geth by name, acknowledging their sacrifice.

EDI getting a final moment with Joker

The geth doing something brave or heroic in their final moments.

I love these suggestions. Though I don't know if you would have honestly liked the ending even with these implemented because of how seemingly uncompromising you are to the idea of consequence. Or maybe I misjudged you.

I've never said I'm opposed to the idea of sacrifice.  What I oppose is arbitrary sacrifice.  Pontless deaths inflicted on unsuspecting characters and then ignored.  

If a character is going to be sacrificed, then the sacrifice needs to have meaning.  I see no purpose to the synthetic hoocaust inflicted by Destroy as shown.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

The messages are too happy.  Or at least, the downsides are too whitewashed.  The choices Shepard is forced to make are horrific, and EC, rather than trying to deal with them, chooses instead to ignore them.

It doesn't ignore them, but scenes honoring their "sacrifice" are still ignoring the "horrific" act by concentrating on the positive (honoring the sacrifice, what was saved, etc)

If EDI and the geth's destruction in Destroy was at least acknowledged, and shown that their sacrifices were (shown to the player and demonstrated they  were not in vain and were in fact remembered and honored by the survivors would have improved the ending far more than the "What's a geth?" ending we got.  THe ending still would have sucked, but would have sucked less.

It would have been racist, however, to have these scenes and not a scene honoring the batarians from Arrival, whose sacrifice allowed us tofind the Crucible plans. So basically, where do you stop honoring specific sacrifices? Or should they all have been honored separately in the slides instead of grouped together? If so, I  have no problem with that, since more content is always good.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 06:41 .

[Iakus]

It doesn't ignore them, but scenes honoring their "sacrifice" are still ignoring the "horrific" act by concentrating on the positive (honoring the sacrifice, what was saved, etc)

It does ignore them.  Nowhere is it mentioned that al synthetics died as a result of SHepard's chocie.  Yet the relays deserve a mention?  

It would at least acknowledge their deaths, and try to give them meaning, rather than ignoring them entirely, virtually ignoring they ever existed.

CronoDragoon wrote...

It would have been racist, however, to have these scenes and not a scene honoring the batarians from Arrival, whose sacrifice allowed us tofind the Crucible plans. So basically, where do you stop honoring specific sacrifices? Or should they all have been honored separately in the slides instead of grouped together? If so, I  have no problem with that, since more content is always good.

My Shepard on several occassions both during Arrival and in ME3, had the opportuinity to express regret such as here  I can make it clear that it was a horrific chocie, one SHepard deeply regrets making, but at the time it was the only real chocie.

Modifié par iakus, 28 juin 2013 - 06:50 .

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok then, if I indulge you for a moment and concede that one might reasonably consider destroy 'sacrifice', what say you about ME3's failure to barely acknowledge that 'sacrifice'?

By acknowledgement what would you have liked to see? If I can get an idea of what you would have preferred the Destroy epilogue to do I'd feel better about responding.

Hackett mention EDI and the geth by name, acknowledging their sacrifice.

EDI getting a final moment with Joker

The geth doing something brave or heroic in their final moments.

I love these suggestions. Though I don't know if you would have honestly liked the ending even with these implemented because of how seemingly uncompromising you are to the idea of consequence. Or maybe I misjudged you.

I've never said I'm opposed to the idea of sacrifice.  What I oppose is arbitrary sacrifice.  Pontless deaths inflicted on unsuspecting characters and then ignored.  

If a character is going to be sacrificed, then the sacrifice needs to have meaning.  I see no purpose to the synthetic hoocaust inflicted by Destroy as shown.

I agree. I like the weight and setup of the consequences but I think it would have been thematically more relevant to make, for example, the irreversable destruction of the Mass Relays be the consequence of destroying the Reapers. It seems to be more relevant to the central conflict of Control vs Destroy that Shepard and TIM were having.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I agree. I like the weight and setup of the consequences but I think it would have been thematically more relevant to make, for example, the irreversable destruction of the Mass Relays be the consequence of destroying the Reapers. It seems to be more relevant to the central conflict of Control vs Destroy that Shepard and TIM were having.

I would have taken that in a heartbeat (provided they didn't go nova like in Arrival) over any of the endings we
did get

Heck I'd even forgive the breath scene for Shepard in such a case.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I have to say, I'd rather the Geth and EDI die permanently than losing the Relays in Destroy.

I'm as pro-destroy/anti-Reaper as it gets, but I believe we can and should use their tech if they're dead.

That said, I think the concept goes a bit deeper than just the Destroy versus Control thematic difference.

I'm not anti-synthetic; a lot of people know me for my ardent defense of the Geth, but I believe the gateways to galactic civilization are more important. 

I'd be accepting of a destroy where Shepard can live, the relays remain intact, I can have my figurative, narrative, and thematic rejection of the Reapers verbalized, and all synthetics dead.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 juin 2013 - 06:58 .

[MegaSovereign]

It would have made Destroy an even harder sell for me because I personally believe the ME universe can't exist in the same way without the Mass Relays. The choice would have been even tougher to make. Oh well.

@MassivelyEffective0730

That's the point I'm making. I think there are heavier consequences in destroying the Mass Relays (which would affect every race) than destroying the Geth (who are already pretty isolated from the rest of the Galaxy). It also would have made more sense in context to the Crucible and the Reapers and as a result would seem less arbitrary.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 28 juin 2013 - 07:01 .

[CronoDragoon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Crikey, how long have you got? How about something that grounds the 'victory' afforded by destroy by acknowledging the cost of that making that particular choice? I'd have liked to see a CGI scene showing the Geth fighting the good fight for example. A death scene for EDI seems obvious, but we never got one. An end monologue that accepts that some things can never be rebuilt and that victory was gifted at great cost. Grieving Joker? An EC slide for the slaughtered Geth?

In the sense that more content is good, this is fine. But it would not have made me feel any differently about the ending. It would not have made it happier or more sad, because everything you mentioned I already had going on inside my noggin. In this case what we are discussing is making the implicit explicit. 


On a separate note, not everyone would have felt the same way about those scenes. I bet we'd have seen a lot of threads about BioWare twisting the knife with those death scenes. Myself I would not have taken them that way but opinions vary.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 07:08 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

If I recall correctly, people complained about how the original endings were too grim. Now BioWare's overcompensated by making it too happy. But then, you can't have destroy have all of these negative features, and perverting Synthesis makes it a non-choice. And Control either fails or it doesn't. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[SpamBot2000]

With all the lawyering going around in defense of wiping out an allied form of life as "collateral damage", a term that itself is blatant whitewash, BioWare must be awful proud of their work. But be that as it may, the heart of the problem doesn't even lie there. It's that the ending problem is an entirely different to the one we as players have been engaged with. We got suckered into this Sophie's Choice game by a totally different work. The art form the ending represents is most close to the ancient art of the "practical joke". Some of our mature audience might recall when Sir Ashton Kutcher was not yet a thespian of his current stature, and had a show called "Punk'd" on MTV. That's what ME3 is, only the buildup to the punchline took years for many targets.

And yeah, this is what some people like about it. They applaud the "punking" of the players, since this makes them feel superior to those who reacted with any degree of outrage. You see these comments such as "it was cool that for once, the players couldn't paragon their way out of a TOUGH CHOICE, yeah!" But it was not a tough choice. It was Ashton Walters, gloating at you, and you having to grin and tell the camera "Yeah, I got punk'd" like you really appreciated this **** humiliating you.

If you happen to take it seriously though, those are some serious atrocities you are confronted with. But you can't take it seriously, since the story is so goddamn broken. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 28 juin 2013 - 07:12 .

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

It would have made Destroy an even harder sell for me because I personally believe the ME universe can't exist in the same way without the Mass Relays. The choice would have been even tougher to make. Oh well.

ANd it would have made it a far better ending for me.  As you said it's a thematically far more relevant consequence than arbitrarilly smiting one race.  It forces teh galaxy to grow, adapt, and move beyond the relics of the past they have become so dependant upon.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Crikey, how long have you got? How about something that grounds the 'victory' afforded by destroy by acknowledging the cost of that making that particular choice? I'd have liked to see a CGI scene showing the Geth fighting the good fight for example. A death scene for EDI seems obvious, but we never got one. An end monologue that accepts that some things can never be rebuilt and that victory was gifted at great cost. Grieving Joker? An EC slide for the slaughtered Geth?

Maybe we should have two versions of the proposal. One for the existing EC resource levels, and one for, say, 50% more budget.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

It would have made Destroy an even harder sell for me because I personally believe the ME universe can't exist in the same way without the Mass Relays. The choice would have been even tougher to make. Oh well.

ANd it would have made it a far better ending for me.  As you said it's a thematically far more relevant consequence than arbitrarilly smiting one race.  It forces teh galaxy to grow, adapt, and move beyond the relics of the past they have become so dependant upon.

Not continuing the universe in the same way wasn't a problem for me either. I've been lobbying for ME4 to be set in a post-Destroy MEU with non-functional relays since before the EC.

[MegaSovereign]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

With all the lawyering going around in defense of wiping out an allied form of life as "collateral damage", a term that itself is blatant whitewash, BioWare must be awful proud of their work. But be that as it may, the heart of the problem doesn't even lie there. It's that the ending problem is an entirely different to the one we as players have been engaged with. We got suckered into this Sophie's Choice game by a totally different work. The art form the ending represents is most close to the ancient art of the "practical joke". Some of our mature audience might recall when Sir Ashton Kutcher was not yet a thespian of his current stature, and had a show called "Punk'd" on MTV. That's what ME3 is, only the buildup to the punchline took years for many targets.

And yeah, this is what some people like about it. They applaud the "punking" of the players, since this makes them feel superior to those who reacted with any degree of outrage. You see these comments such as "it was cool that for once, the players couldn't paragon their way out of a TOUGH CHOICE, yeah!" But it was not a tough choice. It was Ashton Walters, gloating at you, and you having to grin and tell the camera "Yeah, I got punk'd" like you really appreciated this **** humiliating you.

If you happen to take it seriously though, those are some serious atrocities you are confronted with. But you can't take it seriously, since the story is so goddamn broken. 

If every choice boils down to how much reputation you have then it's not really a choice. You make a lot of outrageous assumptions about player pysche and motivation. I don't believe those that do like the setup are as pretentious as you make them sound.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
In the sense that more content is good, this is fine. But it would not have made me feel any differently about the ending. It would not have made it happier or more sad, because everything you mentioned I already had going on inside my noggin. In this case what we are discussing is making the implicit explicit. 

Sure, but I would rather the game acknowledge the full consequences of each solution for the benefit of those who would rather it didn't.

I'm still not quite sure what actual problem this is solving. There are some people who deny the consequences happened, yes, but they aren't many and they are stupid. 

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Maybe we should have two versions of the proposal. One for the existing EC resource levels, and one for, say, 50% more budget.

I was asked a question Alan. Besides, I'd have been happier with ME3 had Bioware cut Priority Earth in its entirety and replaced it with the Looney Tunes outro.

I know you were asked a question. I was suggesting a more productive form for the answer.

[SpamBot2000]

MegaSovereign wrote...

If every choice boils down to how much reputation you have then it's not really a choice. You make a lot of outrageous assumptions about player pysche and motivation. I don't believe those that do like the setup are as pretentious as you make them sound.

I don't really get what you are referring to with that reputation thing. As for my assumptions, they are based on empirical observation. And what's so pretentious about any of it? 

[MegaSovereign]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

If every choice boils down to how much reputation you have then it's not really a choice. You make a lot of outrageous assumptions about player pysche and motivation. I don't believe those that do like the setup are as pretentious as you make them sound.

I don't really get what you are referring to with that reputation thing. As for my assumptions, they are based on empirical observation. And what's so pretentious about any of it? 

Reputation refers to paragon/renegade values.

You're assuming people only like the setup because it makes them feel superior to those that don't. "Empirical Observation" sounds like a euphemism....

[CronoDragoon]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

With all the lawyering going around in defense of wiping out an allied form of life as "collateral damage", a term that itself is blatant whitewash, BioWare must be awful proud of their work.

My main reason for getting people to stop using the word genocide is that it precludes discussion. Nowhere did I say because it isn't technically genocide that this makes it okay. I also don't like the endings, and I certainly don't like them because they are "hard". I've always said that Mass Effect turned out to be less about hard choices and more about Shepard being able to prevail over the circumstances of a situation. I would have preferred the ending to follow suit.

[SpamBot2000]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Reputation refers to paragon/renegade values.

You're assuming people only like the setup because it makes them feel superior to those that don't. "Empirical Observation" sounds like a euphemism....

Ah, OK. I don't really like the whole Paragon/Renegade thing, I wouldn't want a game to be based on that kind of thing really.

And the setup is what I always liked, it's the punchline that I hate. And I've come to realize that I simply am unable to believe what takes place. Seriously. A ghost kid comes up and spins me this wacked out ABC choice. I cannot believe that happened in Mass Effect. And it ruins the whole thing I loved for me.

I assume what I do simply because I know this kind of thing from personal experience. These are basic mechanisms that we all have. And I've had some practice in trying to pin down my own behavior patterns, so I guess I have just thought about this kind of thing a lot. Hence "empirical observation". I don't really know what it could be an euphemism for.