365 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

You can try to justify it all you want...
He's a monster who doubles down on monster at the end of the story...
There's no redemptive character arc, just more monster...

Didn't do Arrival. Geth were already dead (OK, so I did get a bit trigger-happy on the VI). Only friendly casualty of the Wave was EDI.

Where's the problem?

Problem is, killing the geth over Rannoch is (read italicized text in broody voice) raaaaay-cist!

But really, though, nothing. Ole moat-monster is just here to feed.

It's gotta get that daily hatred/moral-superiority fix, y'know.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Weak.

Not as weak as your trolling attempt, seriously it's like your not even trying anymore.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
I suppose that I over-simplified because some should just make things different but "reward or kick" is the key reason why they have impact on the player - you can really feel great when you've achieved something, or awful when it's really your fault that things have gone wrong. That's the big advantage games have as a storytelling medium, they can magnify the emotional impact of events by the player being responsible for them.

True, but it's seldom that games actually do this. ME3 does it more than other Bio games; it's far more typical for Bio to have all the choices reward you in some fashion. In DA:O your choices at the end of the major quests just determine what kind of army sprites you get in the endgame. I suppose werewolves are tougher than elves, but in practice an army's sn army, and you can't fail to get one. In KotOR both LS and DS choices help you on your wsy.

When Bio kicks you, you typicall never had a way to avoid the kick.

[MegaSovereign]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

You can try to justify it all you want...
He's a monster who doubles down on monster at the end of the story...
There's no redemptive character arc, just more monster...

Didn't do Arrival. Geth were already dead (OK, so I did get a bit trigger-happy on the VI). Only friendly casualty of the Wave was EDI.

Where's the problem?

Problem is, killing the geth over Rannoch is (read italicized text in broody voice) raaaaay-cist!

It could be, not necessarily though. Not wanting Legion to take the risk of uploading Reaper code is fairly rational. The choice starts to appear racist whenever you metagame the fact that there are alternatives. That's why I hate having ideal choices; they intentionally make the other choices look like failed scenarios based on player effort (or the lack of).

I don't care if I'm in the minority for saying this but one thing that I actually liked about the endings is that the choices weren't based on metagaming efforts. I truly do believe that if the consequence to Destroy didn't seem as contrived, and if the choices weren't necessarily presented by the Catalyst that a lot less people would complain about the endings. I don't think the solution is to remove choices and add ideal scenarios.

[Bill Casey]

KaiserShep wrote...

Bill,

That's not an explanation. It's just more moralizing and complaining. What you're basically saying is that the only moral thing to do is lay down and die and take everyone with you. Misguided self righteousness doesn't really make one a ok 

That's a false dichotomy...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 07 juillet 2013 - 12:41 .

[Bill Casey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

But really, though, nothing. Ole moat-monster is just here to feed.

It's gotta get that daily hatred/moral-superiority fix, y'know.

I DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE THIS

[MegaSovereign]

It's okay Bill. None of this is real. Everything is going to be alright.

[SilJeff]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Weak.

Not as weak as your trolling attempt, seriously it's like your not even trying anymore.

how is he trolling? He's just asserting his opinion

[Clayless]

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

Welcome to BSN. People don't give a **** what happens, they just want Shepard to survive.

[AresKeith]

SilJeff wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Weak.

Not as weak as your trolling attempt, seriously it's like your not even trying anymore.

how is he trolling? He's just asserting his opinion

You obviously didn't read his other posts then

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Didn't do Arrival? I'm seeing you're relieved of duty instead of in lock up, but they still didn't fix the Spectre status thing. I'm guessing Udina stabbed you in the back, but you're Shepard. No one stabs me in the back and gets away with it.

Got a little trigger happy with Geth VI? not really a problem.

EDI? The Normandy was fully operational before they installed EDI. EDI is a collection of parts programmed to perform certain operations on the Normandy. EDI is now capable of making modifications to her program. EDI has ways she prefers to do things: ways that are more efficient than other ways of doing things -- she says that she "likes" to do things this way to other members of the crew -- it is what she calls "shorthand". It has nothing to do with enjoyment like organics experience.

So EDI ends up the casualty at the end. It is unfortunate. i'm sure another blue box can be built for her software: One that does not contain genuine Reaper parts.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 07 juillet 2013 - 02:28 .

[Iakus]

Redbelle wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

And there's the second half of the problem with the endings

Aside from everyone he killed in his duties as a soldier. Are you referring to an event?

Shepard being forced to do something horrific in order to "save" the galaxy.

[Sumthing]

If the Catalyst was so powerful, why couldn't it just destroy the reapers but not all synthetics?

[Clayless]

Sumthing wrote...

If the Catalyst was so powerful, why couldn't it just destroy the reapers but not all synthetics?

It was a function of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.

[jtav]

I did get a good ending. I became an AI god and used the Reapers to rebuild and ensure everyone has a voice. I have no serious moral qualms and the only character that's still alive that I care about looks fulfilled. My life was worth it.

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

I did get a good ending. I became an AI god and used the Reapers to rebuild and ensure everyone has a voice. I have no serious moral qualms and the only character that's still alive that I care about looks fulfilled. My life was worth it.

Unfortunately, that's not everyone's idea of a good ending.  Even Baldur's Gate 2 let you turn down divinity and stay with your LI.  And without wiping out the elves at that!

[christrek1982]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Well, my usual response to complaints about space magic is that ME was always crammed with space magic.

As for this context, my usual response is that games can be about different things. I'm OK with sometimes playing a guy who doesn't get what he deserves. 

Though I should put a disclaimer here; as a card-carrying member of the "Shepard obviously lives through high-EMS Destroy camp,"  maybe I ought to be attacking erezike's premises. Though I suppose we can say that there's still a moral cost in Destroy, which is as real as the physical cost in Control. And in Synthesis you pay both.

Five years

Three games

Hundreds of dollars spent.

Only to be told "Gee, sometimes people don't get what they deserve"



You know, that's not the way to hold onto throngs of omniblade-waving fans.  That's not a good long-term business strategy at all.  If you're going to tell people "You guide the story" you better darn well allow for fans to be able to let their protagonist walk away (walk away, not lie gasping in rubble) because chances are a big segment of your fans want and expect this outcome.

And there's a moral cost to all of the choices.  Just because Bioware downplayed the negative repercussions doesn't alter moral cost of the acts.  Robbing a bank and getting away with it is not more moral than robbing a bank and getting caught.

Damm right I can't agree more I have nothing against the protagonist dieing (see DA:O) but in a game like ME that is so story and chracter driven you need to a tleast give the player that choice and make that choice as worth while as all the others.  High EMS destroy was disapointing they should of made it clear rather than hinting.

[christrek1982]

iakus wrote...

jtav wrote...

I did get a good ending. I became an AI god and used the Reapers to rebuild and ensure everyone has a voice. I have no serious moral qualms and the only character that's still alive that I care about looks fulfilled. My life was worth it.

Unfortunately, that's not everyone's idea of a good ending.  Even Baldur's Gate 2 let you turn down divinity and stay with your LI.  And without wiping out the elves at that!

rely should play that game the more I hear about it the better it sounds:huh:

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

And there's the second half of the problem with the endings

Aside from everyone he killed in his duties as a soldier. Are you referring to an event?

Shepard being forced to do something horrific in order to "save" the galaxy.

.  Shepard would be immune to prosecution given his SPECTRE status, even if his actions were judged to be war crimes.

[ruggly]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wondering if they intend to canonize High EMS destroy (like they canonize survival in ME2). Traditionally with games, the most investment towards winning is the most validated outcome. But this isn't a typical game, of course.. it's an RPG, where every outcome has potential. Speaking strictly in game terms though, people who take their time to get that high of an outcome should be rewarded (in any game).

Strangely, they slimmed down the requirements. I wonder why? Because of forced multiplayer? I don't know if that was necessary. Maybe they could have slimmed it down to the point where a single player run through, plus DLC content, would just barely get you to the high EMS requirements.

Oh well, it's done. Not sure what they were thinking now.

As it is, the biggest scrub who bought it at Wal-Mart and barely played is equal to the most invested player. The series is apparently over, and all of their endings are equally true.

I'm thinking they won't canonize anything.  What I'm hoping is they do an alternate timeline, and leave the Shepard trilogy alone.

[MegaSovereign]

ruggly wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I wondering if they intend to canonize High EMS destroy (like they canonize survival in ME2). Traditionally with games, the most investment towards winning is the most validated outcome. But this isn't a typical game, of course.. it's an RPG, where every outcome has potential. Speaking strictly in game terms though, people who take their time to get that high of an outcome should be rewarded (in any game).

Strangely, they slimmed down the requirements. I wonder why? Because of forced multiplayer? I don't know if that was necessary. Maybe they could have slimmed it down to the point where a single player run through, plus DLC content, would just barely get you to the high EMS requirements.

Oh well, it's done. Not sure what they were thinking now.

As it is, the biggest scrub who bought it at Wal-Mart and barely played is equal to the most invested player. The series is apparently over, and all of their endings are equally true.

I'm thinking they won't canonize anything.  What I'm hoping is they do an alternate timeline, and leave the Shepard trilogy alone.

Judging by Hudson's latest comments on the next game it probably will be an alternate timeline. It's probably too much work to do a direct follow up given the millions of permutations and the fact that game saves can't be carried over to next generation platforms (aside from PC).

We'll see how it goes I guess.

[Nole]

ME3 should've had a good and a bad ending, and something in between the two.

[Iakus]

Steelcan wrote...

iakus wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

And there's the second half of the problem with the endings

Aside from everyone he killed in his duties as a soldier. Are you referring to an event?

Shepard being forced to do something horrific in order to "save" the galaxy.

.  Shepard would be immune to prosecution given his SPECTRE status, even if his actions were judged to be war crimes.

Lack of consequences doesn't make an act less horrific.  EC should have taught Bioware that.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

MegaSovereign wrote...

It could be, not necessarily though. Not wanting Legion to take the risk of uploading Reaper code is fairly rational. The choice starts to appear racist whenever you metagame the fact that there are alternatives. That's why I hate having ideal choices; they intentionally make the other choices look like failed scenarios based on player effort (or the lack of).

I don't care if I'm in the minority for saying this but one thing that I actually liked about the endings is that the choices weren't based on metagaming efforts. I truly do believe that if the consequence to Destroy didn't seem as contrived, and if the choices weren't necessarily presented by the Catalyst that a lot less people would complain about the endings. I don't think the solution is to remove choices and add ideal scenarios.

Well yeah, I was being facetious (sp?).

Calling every unfortunate event in the story "raaaaay-cist" is just a meme of mine. I do it often while playing.

I got the idea from this place. BSN hyperbole -- It's clllllassic!