692 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

Mr.House wrote...
You can be pro human while still getting uspport from aliens and easly have Shepard believe they are usaing them as fodder and to weaken other races. Instead, Bioware got rid of pro-human and forced every Shepard to be an alien loving chap is bullocks. You support this because you don't like the other opitions and you have proven in the past you don't give a dam but your own opinion and as long as you can play the way oyu want. Screw consistancy and giving players options as you have proven many times in the past.

Also the fact that you don't see a retcon shows you are blind.

There is a renegade option where you can outright state the Krogan are cannon fodder. Unfortunately you don't get an option to say this about any of your other "allies," the Geth and Quarians would seem to be prime candidates.

HellbirdIV wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

The
theme of ME1 was to prove renegade Shepard wrong? I disagree, I thought
the whole thing with the council was ambigious and ultimativly up for
the player to decide for themselves.

The choice with
setting up a "human-dominated" Council at the end is one of the things
that don't really work in context of the larger story - the theme I'm
referring to is more specifically the place the different alien
squadmates have in the story, which admittedly is downplayed a lot more
in ME1, though still present.

The human dominated Council is nonsensical based on what we are told of the balance of power in ME1. Whoever wrote that option must not have read the codex entries on military and economic strength.

HellbirdIV wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I
don't see how it would be impossible to have a version of ME3 where the
different species combines arms out of necessity and where everyone is
trying to manipulate the tide of the war to make sure that their species
comes out on top.

That's basically what happens already. Shepard just isn't one of those people.

The Asari and Krogan are though.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 11 août 2013 - 12:55 .

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Yes, because being pro-human means you're a racist. Yup.

Well, given that you contrasted it with "alien-loving," it certainly seems that your interpretation is such. Though I don't quite agree; my Shepard is certainly pro-human, she's just also pro-everyone-else.

Because it's true? In ME3 Shepard is alien loving, which pretty much takes a dump on anything in the past game if your Shepard acted diffrently. Just like ME2 did in certain areas.

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Yes, because being pro-human means you're a racist. Yup.

Well, given that you contrasted it with "alien-loving," it certainly seems that your interpretation is such. Though I don't quite agree; my Shepard is certainly pro-human, she's just also pro-everyone-else.

Because it's true? In ME3 Shepard is alien loving, which pretty much takes a dump on anything in the past game if your Shepard acted diffrently. Just like ME2 did in certain areas.

So... if "pro-human" doesn't mean "speciesist," doesn't that just mean that ME3 only took away speciesist options and not pro-human ones?

[OldSwede]

Here comes a long quote/quote/quote-thingie, but I've been/am ill, so I've been away, and this started at page 12 so I'm going to include it all. (it will probably have to include a lot of editing due to the quote-thingies ;-))

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think we all thought it would end for different reasons.

My Shepard knew full well that he was being used. He used them as well.

And he was planning on joining Cerberus for his own reasons after the mission.

Cerberus' goals and my Shepard's goals were conceptually not very different.

Then they became a bit more 'humanity at any cost'. That's a lot different.

Things became incompatible for them when they started wanting to wantonly use Reaper tech without regard to the risks and consequences. That did bite them in the ass.

[/quote]

[quote]OldSwede wrote...

First off, thank you for being really clear in this post (not saying you haven't earlier, but it's been a lot of talk in the thread and lots of replies that you've answered).[/quote]

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

You're welcome!
[/quote]

Thanks again, for taking the time to reply, and so thoroughly - even more than my poor excuse of questions deserved (as tired as I was, not to be apologizing really, more that I appreciate it)

[quote]OldSwede wrote...

Then I'd like to ask you (actually it was three questions, but I am too tired atm and I forgot one - so I will have to ask another time instead ;-)

I am wondering about what you said earlier, re: keeping your promise to 100%
From what I've read, is that you approve of the actions at Sanctuary -- that is one thing, but I'd like to ask if You (yourself, or your Shepard, or both) were in charge of Sanctuary, would you do the same thing?[/quote]

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

This is rather complex to answer. Yes and No. I would probably do preliminary research into the validity of finding a way to tactically manipulate indoctrination and use it against Reaper forces, possibly even against Reapers themselves. You know the Saren/Sovereign indoctrination connection that was used to defeat Sovereign? I want to find a way to possibly exploit that. Find a means to weaken Reapers through the destruction of a heavily indoctrinated/huskified vessel or avatar. When it comes time for a practical applied experiment with the concept, I might require the lives of civilians. I don't know how many or for how long. It's a bit theoretical.[/quote]

Yes, I see now (the bold) how it is a bit complex. It wasn't my intent. (see below)
I think I understand what you're saying. I still think I need to ponder that a little bit more, though (I'm not functioning 100% atm and I admit, at first sight/quick-read, it sounded, to me, kind of repulsive - but as I said, you gave me something to ponder, which is a good thing, imho).

[quote]OldSwede wrote...

I am asking since it is supposedly for refugees - but they are being lured into a trap. You would keep your promise, right (keeping it for refugees)?[/quote]

This was my real intent, to see if you'd keep the "promise" being made to the refugees.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I wouldn't make use of the word promise. I do intend to protect these people from the Reapers, and I will endeavor to keep as many alive as possible.... but by protecting them from the Reapers, I also mean in a bit of darker, more dubious manner, that I'll kill them before they can be killed/indoctrinated/huskified/harvested by the Reapers.

It brings me no joy, and I won't pretend I'm not doing something that is pretty bad, but any fate or method, even killing my own people, is preferable to making them suffer or die by the Reapers.

The policy of detente also comes in. I want to prevent the Reapers from utilizing as many husks or possible harvested individuals as possible.[/quote]

I, as probably we all did, wanted to stop the Reapers, AND also do all we could to gather a force, strong enough to do so.

I can relate to what you are saying here, although I wouldn't call it dubious, not at all.
E.g. IRL, I hit a bird with my car once, on a smaller road. It took me years to tell anyone (my sister is a vet. but she lives far away so I couldn't bring it to her, and I wish I had talked to her right away - now, when I know), but I stopped the car and ran the little bird over back and forth, to make sure it was dead.

I felt horrible, absolutely horrible for doing that, considering; if it was a dog, I would have taken it to the vet. clinic right away!

It took me years to tell anyone, especially my vet. sister, and she told me that it is extremely hard to treat small birds, even more so when they are wild -- and even if it had children, they'd died anyway when the bird came back (of course, I knew that part). After having told my sister, I could also tell my ex-non-ex-husband (we are married in the U.S. but divorced in Sweden, kind of complicated…not really, for us anyhow. LOL It's kind of weird, but now we laugh at it) Anyway, his father was a vet, too, and he worked with is father a lot in the animal hospital they had, and my ex-non-ex agreed with my sister.
So, in the end, I didn't have to feel that heavy guilt that I had carried for so many years. Silly me.

So, yes, I can relate to your answer there, and even agree. It would be the most humane thing to do, imo.

[quote]OldSwede wrote...

Now, I'd like to ask how you felt being forced to work for the Alliance?
(if you felt that way, that is)

I know I felt horrible in the beginning of ME2, being forced to work with Cerberus --- but I guess if it had been the other way around (ME1 starting with Shepard being in Cerberus), I might have felt just the same about suddenly working for the Alliance.[/quote]

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It's not so much about forced to work with (I say with because I am not part of the alliance again), but that I can't express any negativity about it. I can't be critical to the alliance. I can't tell them that I think it's their and the Council's fault, that I think they're being idiots, that I can't tell Hackett to shut up and get behind me. I have to like them in ME3. I have no choice. My Shepard, who was very critical and condemning towards the alliance in ME1 and ME2 (yes, you can be critical towards the alliance in ME1 if you try hard enough) and even expressing a desire to join Cerberus as well as crafting a more practical opinion about them. I can't express anything but condemnation towards Cerberus in ME3 - it's very morally hamfisted: Black and White. BW goes out of their way to make the game seem like you're either a white-shining-knight paragon, or a lunatic, crazed demented renegade. I blame SuperMac. I can't be the ruthless and calculating, though restrained and reserved practical idealist that I could be in ME1 and ME2. It's rather tiresome and frustrating.
[/quote]

I agree, and I do understand (since you can be very opposed, up-front, to TIM in ME2, but only oppose him in ME3)
(edit: I also agree with the "with" part)

[quote]OldSwede wrote...

NB: I think you and I are not very alike. I cannot even kill a fly IRL (meaning, I am very emotional and will spare lifes when I can, e.g. letting a fly/whasp/mosquito out of the window instead of killing them) and I have a very hard time playing games being a "badass" (not saying you are a badass, I just do not agree with what Cerberus has done). I actually think it would do me good to play more renegade (in games in general), but I've tried, and always failed. I guess I just need to practice more ;-)
[/quote]

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Hey man, we're more alike than you think. Don't worry about who or what you are. That's who you are.
[/quote]

Yeah, that's probably true, and my bad really.   I think I rather laughed at myself, as everyone else does, about me rescuing a mosquito rather than killing it (here in Sweden, we do not have any dangerous insects. A mosquito bite itches, and that's it, unless you're allergic, then it can get very serious, of course --- and I do not get mosquito bites - tada, but as I said, I'd do the same thing with a wasp, bee, ant, whatever---and people laugh at me, and I laugh back at me
-- but, that's who I am!)

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Me, I'm typically a bit more... practical and dark. I don't necessarily play as a renegade Shepard. Mine is pretty much a true neutral guy. "Do what works, do what's necessary." He does paragon options a lot, not because he's a paragon, but because he weighs the consequences and considers outcomes. He has his own sense of idealism too. It's not necessarily naive or straigtforward, but he thinks a lot more would be better off if they tried to see his perspective and looked at his idea's.

Don't worry about playing paragon or renegade or whatever if it bothers you.

The key essence of my solutions is that, in the end, if I have to do ruthless, brutal, and cruel means to achieve a desirable outcome, I might do it. I weigh the risks, benefits, consequences, and try to account for as many externalities as possible prior to a decision.

[/quote]

I can see it from your point of view, taking the necessary steps. I do, too, consider what would be best, even if it sometimes makes me feel bad. Like the support-thing with the guy who wants to "park" (is that correct word? Well anyhow...) their ship on the Citadel, I've supported the clerk, but I've felt bad afterwards --- heck, it's just one family, after all, but anyway considering the war assets...

I do however, really believe it would do me good to play more renegade...well, in the ME-series I have done so a few times, depending on the situation, and also very much how I feel IRL, at the very moment. Being in a lot of pain 24/7 can make one very angry at times (at the pain itself). That's why I believe it could do me good.

Also in e.g. Oblivion, Skyrim (not to mention Fable's stalker-NPCs; Yikes!) where NPCs comment my character wherever I go, even if my character do not speak to them (that was huge a relief for me in ME), I sometimes save, go on a killing spree, and then I go back to my nice, helpful character. Hahaha! :innocent:


Now, I have a lot of catching up to do. Read more of your replies, that can maybe help with my current brain cramps.

(edit)
PS: So far, I'd say You'd make a whole lot better TIM, than he does!

Modifié par OldSwede, 11 août 2013 - 01:47 .

[Fixers0]

Mass Effect 3's storytelling in general plays favorites, heavily favouring certain scenerio and outright invalidating the ones it doesn't like. the narratives themself are generally portrayed in a very biased manner. the primary cause of this being the Writers and narrative designers that have a very limited peception on the story. There used to be a time were writers such as Chris L'Etoile and Drew karphysn and cinematic designers such as Armando Troisi at least managed to keep narrative objective, but with them all gone in Mass Effect 3, the more reckless parts of the design team took over and created a narrative that abbadons almost all narrative qualities of the previous games. Also known as the "agreement".

[wolfhowwl]

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
...

So it's fine to get rid of options that exsisted because you and other people don't like them.

Well, yeah. Are you not familiar with Xil?

[Mr.House]

Fixers0 wrote...

Mass Effect 3's storytelling in general plays favorites, heavily favouring certain scenerio and outright invalidating the ones it doesn't like. the narratives themself are generally portrayed in a very biased manner. the primary cause of this being the Writers and narrative designers that have a very limited peception on the story. There used to be a time were writers such as Chris L'Etoile and Drew karphysn and cinematic designers such as Armando Troisi at least managed to keep narrative objective, but with them all gone in Mass Effect 3, the more reckless parts of the design team took over and created a narrative that abbadons almost all narrative qualities of the previous games. Also known as the "agreement".

You do know it was Drew who started the Cerberus derp train yes? And he had idiotic ideas like Shepard turning out to really be an alien that was considered? So ya, including Drew in that sentance is funny. He's just as bad as Mac, if not worse.

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Mass Effect 3's storytelling in general plays favorites, heavily favouring certain scenerio and outright invalidating the ones it doesn't like. the narratives themself are generally portrayed in a very biased manner. the primary cause of this being the Writers and narrative designers that have a very limited peception on the story. There used to be a time were writers such as Chris L'Etoile and Drew karphysn and cinematic designers such as Armando Troisi at least managed to keep narrative objective, but with them all gone in Mass Effect 3, the more reckless parts of the design team took over and created a narrative that abbadons almost all narrative qualities of the previous games. Also known as the "agreement".

You do know it was Drew who started the Cerberus derp train yes? And he had idiotic ideas like Shepard turning out to really be an alien that was considered? So ya, including Drew in that sentance is funny. He's just as bad as Mac, if not worse.

Why was that in particular idiotic?

[HellbirdIV]

wolfhowwl wrote...

The human dominated Council is nonsensical based on what we are told of the balance of power in ME1. Whoever wrote that option must not have read the codex entries on military and economic strength.

It is not surprising, given how many "pro-human" players seem to forget to read those Codex entries, too, claiming that the Alliance navy can totally take on the other races... even though the salarian fleet alone is about twice as big, the asari even greater, and the turian fleet has so many dreadnoughts they can annihilate all life on a planet's surface in a single volley if they wanted to.

I guess the First Contact War codex entry is to blame because it puts the whole conflict in extremely vague terms. A "turian patrol" could be anything from a frigate picket to a cruiser flotilla, and Kaidan reminisces about how Vyrrnus (who was probably just full of ****) claims that he commanded a Dreadnought at Shanxi. It also gives no fleet composition for the liberating Alliance forces.

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

idiotic ideas like Shepard turning out to
really be an alien that was considered?

Why was that in particular idiotic?

Well it would have been very silly, having a twist just for the sake of having a twist. It's lazy writing, honestly - just like the endings they did end up using, it assumes that just because you throw a twist in at the end it makes the story somehow better.

It does not. A good twist needs setup that puts the entire story in a different light in retrospect - ala Sixth Sense, or even District 9 in a way.

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 11 août 2013 - 01:05 .

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Mass Effect 3's storytelling in general plays favorites, heavily favouring certain scenerio and outright invalidating the ones it doesn't like. the narratives themself are generally portrayed in a very biased manner. the primary cause of this being the Writers and narrative designers that have a very limited peception on the story. There used to be a time were writers such as Chris L'Etoile and Drew karphysn and cinematic designers such as Armando Troisi at least managed to keep narrative objective, but with them all gone in Mass Effect 3, the more reckless parts of the design team took over and created a narrative that abbadons almost all narrative qualities of the previous games. Also known as the "agreement".

You do know it was Drew who started the Cerberus derp train yes? And he had idiotic ideas like Shepard turning out to really be an alien that was considered? So ya, including Drew in that sentance is funny. He's just as bad as Mac, if not worse.

Why was that in particular idiotic?

It's a stupid cliche that hardly ever works and would not fit and after Drews track record post ME it would probaly make Starbrat look amazing.

[Fixers0]

Mr.House wrote...
You do know it was Drew who started the Cerberus derp train yes? And he had idiotic ideas like Shepard turning out to really be an alien that was considered? So ya, including Drew in that sentance is funny. He's just as bad as Mac, if not worse. 

I Won't deny he wrote some pretty awfull things, but at least he had some form inhibition that at least allowed for a somewhat objective narrative, unlike Walters.

[Mr.House]

Fixers0 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
You do know it was Drew who started the Cerberus derp train yes? And he had idiotic ideas like Shepard turning out to really be an alien that was considered? So ya, including Drew in that sentance is funny. He's just as bad as Mac, if not worse. 

I Won't deny he wrote some pretty awfull things, but at least he had some form inhibition that at least allowed for a somewhat objective narrative, unlike Walters.

Well more he listen to his peers, where Mac does not.

[Barquiel]

I really don't see how the pro-Human options are removed. Take, for example, the first council meeting. Shep basically was all "Earth is worse, come help me, forget Palaven and Thessia." How is that not Pro-Human? I find it harder to roleplay an "alien-loving" Shepard in ME3.

[Xilizhra]

It's a stupid cliche that hardly ever works and would not fit and after Drews track record post ME it would probaly make Starbrat look amazing.

I also repeat my prior question: So... if "pro-human" doesn't mean "speciesist," doesn't that just mean that ME3 only took away speciesist options and not pro-human ones?

[wolfhowwl]

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Mass Effect 3's storytelling in general plays favorites, heavily favouring certain scenerio and outright invalidating the ones it doesn't like. the narratives themself are generally portrayed in a very biased manner. the primary cause of this being the Writers and narrative designers that have a very limited peception on the story. There used to be a time were writers such as Chris L'Etoile and Drew karphysn and cinematic designers such as Armando Troisi at least managed to keep narrative objective, but with them all gone in Mass Effect 3, the more reckless parts of the design team took over and created a narrative that abbadons almost all narrative qualities of the previous games. Also known as the "agreement".

You do know it was Drew who started the Cerberus derp train yes? And he had idiotic ideas like Shepard turning out to really be an alien that was considered? So ya, including Drew in that sentance is funny. He's just as bad as Mac, if not worse.

Why was that in particular idiotic?

It's a stupid cliche that hardly ever works and would not fit and after Drews track record post ME it would probaly make Starbrat look amazing.

Joining the Armed Forces requires a medical examination and one would think they might notice something like that.

[Fixers0]

Barquiel wrote...
I really don't see how the pro-Human options are removed. Take, for example, the first council meeting. Shep basically was all "Earth is worse, come help me, forget Palaven and Thessia." How is that not Pro-Human? I find it harder to roleplay an "alien-loving" Shepard in ME3.

Because it's not pro-human, it's dumb,  It's just another moment of Treadhead Shepard demonstrating his lack of knowledge on military strategy.


And the whole council meeting had like... one dialogue option? way to RPG elements!

[Mr.House]

Barquiel wrote...

I really don't see how the pro-Human options are removed. Take, for example, the first council meeting. Shep basically was all "Earth is worse, come help me, forget Palaven and Thessia." How is that not Pro-Human? I find it harder to roleplay an "alien-loving" Shepard in ME3.

Every characer is looking after their homeworld, this is not uniuqe to Shepard, and Shepard is hardly that vocal compared to others(I will not list the characters as to not cause thist hread to turn into a typical certain hate thread) Not to mention minus the very stupid dialog in that scene, Shepard is int he right to ask for aid when the Reapers have not attacked Thessia or Palaven to teh extent that happen on Earth and Sur'Kesh does not get attacked until near the end of the game.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

The theme
of ME1 was to prove renegade Shepard wrong? I disagree, I thought the
whole thing with the council was ambigious and ultimativly up for the
player to decide for themselves. I don't see how it would be impossible
to have a version of ME3 where the different species combines arms out
of necessity and where everyone is trying to manipulate the tide of the
war to make sure that their species comes out on top.

Given
that killing the Council did absolutely nothing helpful, and in fact
hinders you later on, I doubt there was that much ambiguity.

Those things did not happen in ME1.

HellbirdIV wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

The theme of ME1 was to prove renegade Shepard wrong? I disagree, I thought the whole thing with the council was ambigious and ultimativly up for the player to decide for themselves.

The choice with setting up a "human-dominated" Council at the end is one of the things that don't really work in context of the larger story - the theme I'm referring to is more specifically the place the different alien squadmates have in the story, which admittedly is downplayed a lot more in ME1, though still present.

Why not? The renegade ending has humanity taking full control of the council because they are the only ones capable of leading the galaxy. One could show that by having Shepard, a human, forcing the alien crewmembers to stay and help onboard the ship because without Shepard's leadership, they won't get anything done themselves.

HellbirdIV wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I don't see how it would be impossible to have a version of ME3 where the different species combines arms out of necessity and where everyone is trying to manipulate the tide of the war to make sure that their species comes out on top.

That's basically what happens already. Shepard just isn't one of those people.

If that is what happens, then why remove the RP option for Shepard to be nationalistic? It would have been a perfect fit.

[Xilizhra]

Those things did not happen in ME1.

True, ME1 had no resolution at all. But it wasn't in favor of that ending either. And I have no qualms with it being clarified otherwise, because the ending as ME1 presented it was idiotic.

[Seboist]

The notion of a human council was sensible as humans found themselves in control of the entire relay network via the master control unit on the citadel, on top of the weakening of the citadel fleets and with the fear of an upcoming reaper invasion.

Naturally, the whole business about the master control unit was retconned/ignored as evidenced by the Reapers' refusal to control the relays in 3 and we also had "ah yes reapers" in ME2.

Modifié par Seboist, 11 août 2013 - 01:20 .

[Barquiel]

Mr.House wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I really don't see how the pro-Human options are removed. Take, for example, the first council meeting. Shep basically was all "Earth is worse, come help me, forget Palaven and Thessia." How is that not Pro-Human? I find it harder to roleplay an "alien-loving" Shepard in ME3.

Every characer is looking after their homeworld, this is not uniuqe to Shepard, and Shepard is hardly that vocal compared to others(I will not list the characters as to not cause thist hread to turn into a typical certain hate thread) Not to mention minus the very stupid dialog in that scene, Shepard is int he right to ask for aid when the Reapers have not attacked Thessia or Palaven to teh extent that happen on Earth and Sur'Kesh does not get attacked until near the end of the game.

I know, and I don't blame them. I just think it's incorrect to say "Shepard can't be pro-human/pro-Earth in ME3"

[HellbirdIV]

Lizardviking wrote...

why remove the RP option for Shepard to be nationalistic?

She is. Obnoxiously so.

Honestly I wish I could RP Shepard as giving no ****s about Earth. She was born there, but that's kind of the thing - Earthborn Shep had basically the worst of her life there (well, unless you picked Sole Survivor later... Ouch.) so what does she care about it being Reaped?

Earth was an overpopulated craphole before the Reapers invaded, so when they're gone it'll be a decently populated craphole. Let's focus on killing the Reapers instead of obsessing about Earth when we can't do anything about it!

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

Those things did not happen in ME1.

True, ME1 had no resolution at all. But it wasn't in favor of that ending either.

And I never once claimed that. I stated that the game was ambigious about the subject and let the player themself come to a conclusion about it.. Both endings were potrayed fairly equal.

Xilizhra wrote...
And I have no qualms with it being clarified otherwise, because the ending as ME1 presented it was idiotic.

Seboist a few post up have got that one covered.

[Xilizhra]

And I never once claimed that. I stated that the game was ambigious about the subject and let the player themself come to a conclusion about it.. Both endings were potrayed fairly equal.

Which works... if there's no sequel.

Seboist a few post up have got that one covered.

It doesn't help. It's completely unsustainable over the long term, not least because the Alliance doesn't have the kind of resources necessary to take over the galaxy. And the Alliance fleet was never even close to being the strongest; only the standing Citadel defense fleet was damaged by Sovereign, all the Council race's home fleets are fully intact.