419 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Don't be ridiculous. Bio gets to set how powerful the Reapers are. It's their universe.

Which doesn't make turning them into unbeatable forces of nature a good idea.

"can" and "should" are two very different things.

Whether the Reapers can or cannot be defeated via a certain means is Bio's call. It cannot be otherwise.

It is.  And forcing such a narrow range of possibilities is "railroading"  And bad railroading too.

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...
The downside is that that leaves us with something fairly straightforward and unimaginative but  that's better than trying to be different merely for the sake of it and falling flat on your face because you haven't got a way of making different work.

I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Bio was trying to be "different" with the Crucible plot. Defeating an unbeatable enemy with a superweapon is one of the oldest SF tropes there is. Avoiding a strictly military victory is even more common, since it gives the hero something decisive to do.

Does it make sense if I say "trying to be different in the same way that lots of other stories try to be different, even if that makes different the most common"? I'm not really sure if it does but I hope that it somehow manages to make my point.

I know where you're coming from with the "gives the hero something decisive to do" part and it is a problem with the more plausible-sounding scenarios that it doesn't. However I'd prefer the story to make sense than fall into pits due to trying to avoid such issues.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Whether the Reapers can or cannot be defeated via a certain means is Bio's call. It cannot be otherwise.

It is.  And forcing such a narrow range of possibilities is "railroading"  And bad railroading too.

The same way Tolkien railroaded Frodo? But that was good railroading, right?

What's your metric for distinguishing good railoradingh from bad railroading? Or is it just pure subjective taste?

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 octobre 2013 - 07:47 .

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Bio was trying to be "different" with the Crucible plot. Defeating an unbeatable enemy with a superweapon is one of the oldest SF tropes there is. Avoiding a strictly military victory is even more common, since it gives the hero something decisive to do.

Does it make sense if I say "trying to be different in the same way that lots of other stories try to be different, even if that makes different the most common"? I'm not really sure if it does but I hope that it somehow manages to make my point.

I'm actually a little more confused now. What is it you're saying all these stories are trying to be different from? Real life?

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 octobre 2013 - 07:49 .

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Bio was trying to be "different" with the Crucible plot. Defeating an unbeatable enemy with a superweapon is one of the oldest SF tropes there is. Avoiding a strictly military victory is even more common, since it gives the hero something decisive to do.

Does it make sense if I say "trying to be different in the same way that lots of other stories try to be different, even if that makes different the most common"? I'm not really sure if it does but I hope that it somehow manages to make my point.

I'm actually a little more confused now. What is it you're saying all these stories are trying to be different from? Real life?

I suppose so. Although they're obviously set in fictional universes (or perhaps because they are) there's possibly a sense of "Nah, that's too ordinary and how it would be done in the real world" so they try to make up something else instead.

Modifié par Reorte, 01 octobre 2013 - 08:23 .

[AlanC9]

OK. Yeah, I don't think there's been any RW war that could have been decided by a single heroic action since.. .the Wars of the Roses, maybe? Dynastic struggles can work that way since if the opposing king gets killed his faction might dissolve.

[Han Shot First]

erezike wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

erezike wrote...

Refuse is one of the only two logical choices to make.

Refuse is the least logical choice to make. Shepard refuses to use the superweapon the galaxy as spent a year(?) or so pooling all of its resources to build, and which the entire galactic war plan revolves around. In doing so Shepard sabotages the war effort and condemns every space-faring civilization to extinction including his (or her) own. Refuse turns Shepard into the most disastrously incompetent military commander in human history, responsible for by far the worst defeat in the history of warfare.

Refuse Shep makes Gaius Terentius Varro look like a military genius.

(Varro was responsible for Cannae)

there was nothing to sabotage. the crucible was an obvious reaper device. built to serve their goals.
its all in my quote.

The choice of using destroy or control are no choices at all. they are only there to create an illusion of choice for you to pick synthesis which is the only option the reapers truly want.

Or you can refuse and become independet from the reapers ploy.

Or you can choose destroy and annihilate every Reaper in existence including the Catalyst.

If the Crucible was some sort of Reaper trap, why would it come with the option to destroy the Reapers? And choosing Refuse is choosing to roll over and die. You're allowing the Reapers to slaughter everyone. It is the equivalent of waving a white flag.

[Han Shot First]

I'm fine with the Reapers being portayed as more powerful and much more technologicaly advanced than the organic space-faring species. Sure, that necessitates defeating via a supweapon of some kind. But there is nothing wrong with a superweapon as a plot device. In fact it makes a lot more sense than a conventional victory for a RPG, as it gives the player a role beyond passive observer in the end game. The problem was not with the concept itself but rather with the way it was executed by the writers.

[KaiserShep]

The AI was hoping that Shepard would see the light and take a leap of faith into the beam of death. How wrong it was.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What's the point of a conventional ending if it's losing?

In fact, that's exactly what Refuse is in the first place. A conventional ending with the galaxy losing.

Lots of stories end in tragedy. In fact, many of them are highly-regarded.

Mass Effect isn't one of those stories. More importantly, it's poor game design to flesh out an alternate path that ends in failure no matter what.

Mass Effect is also a series of RPGs. You know, where people mold their protagonist and have them make important decisions. I'm more disappointed that there wasn a failure option from the start.

[Andrew Lucas]

What i like in this ending is Shepard speech,lame that you are gived a big slap in the face so yeah,i choose destroy because i think it is a "fresh start"...

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

The same way Tolkien railroaded Frodo? But that was good railroading, right?

What's your metric for distinguishing good railoradingh from bad railroading? Or is it just pure subjective taste?

Good railroading takes teh player where they'd want to go in the first place.

And comparing the plaot to a novel where the reader is merely a passive observer, and a roleplaying game where the player is (supposedly) an active participant in the events that take place is rather silly.  You know that, right?

Modifié par iakus, 01 octobre 2013 - 10:07 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The same way Tolkien railroaded Frodo? But that was good railroading, right?

What's your metric for distinguishing good railoradingh from bad railroading? Or is it just pure subjective taste?

Good railroading takes teh player where they'd want to go in the first place.

So you wanted happyend and didn't get it = bad railroading.
I wanted some kind of heroic sacrifice and got it = good railroading.

Sure, absolutely nothing subjective here.

[Obadiah]

Think the only thing I wanted was a good story.

I got that.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

So you wanted happyend and didn't get it = bad railroading.
I wanted some kind of heroic sacrifice and got it = good railroading.

Sure, absolutely nothing subjective here.

Given that a lot of people wanted that.  It should have been in the cards, yeah.

Or at least, not "pick a color and die.  Or murder your own allies and maybe live"

And certainly not "Accede to the Reapers' own philosophy no matter what you pick"

How many people have to be p*ssed off before it stops being subjective?

Modifié par iakus, 01 octobre 2013 - 11:14 .

[Iakus]

Obadiah wrote...

Think the only thing I wanted was a good story.

I got that.

I wanted more thanjust  a good story

And I didn't even get that.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The same way Tolkien railroaded Frodo? But that was good railroading, right?
What's your metric for distinguishing good railoradingh from bad railroading? Or is it just pure subjective taste?

Good railroading takes teh player where they'd want to go in the first place.

So it is purely subjective. Oh boy; right again.

And comparing the plaot to a novel where the reader is merely a passive observer, and a roleplaying game where the player is (supposedly) an active participant in the events that take place is rather silly.  You know that, right?

No, I don't know that. Just because it's an RPG rather than a novel doesn't mean that there needs to be a way to defeat the bad guys that my PC actually likes. I don't think the genre needs to be so limited.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...


How many people have to be p*ssed off before it stops being subjective?

All of them?

Actually, even that wouldn't do it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 octobre 2013 - 11:28 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

So you wanted happyend and didn't get it = bad railroading.
I wanted some kind of heroic sacrifice and got it = good railroading.

Sure, absolutely nothing subjective here.

Given that a lot of people wanted that.  It should have been in the cards, yeah.

Or at least, not "pick a color and die.  Or murder your own allies and maybe live"

And certainly not "Accede to the Reapers' own philosophy no matter what you pick"

How many people have to be p*ssed off before it stops being subjective?

It will never stop being subjective because every single person judge it by his/her own merits.

Creative works can be considered bad, but it will not make them objectively bad for everyone.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

So it is purely subjective. Oh boy; right again.

Well, yeah.  Do you seriously think that's a bad thing?

That's the point of railroading, forcing players to go in a direction they don't want to go.  
 
If you want to go in that direction anyway or aren't at least willing to see what happens, you aren't being forced.

If Bioware wants to make a game that will please millions of fans, inspire them to come back for more, they'll have to realizse that railroading Shepard to a tragic outcome regardless of choice is not the answer.  The people who wanted to go in that directon may be satisfied  Maybe even teh curious.  but the rest they just p*ssed off.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

No, I don't know that. Just because it's an RPG rather than a novel doesn't mean that there needs to be a way to defeat the bad guys that my PC actually likes. I don't think the genre needs to be so limited.

Forcing only one path on a game where choices are supposed to matter is far more limiting.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

No, I don't know that. Just because it's an RPG rather than a novel doesn't mean that there needs to be a way to defeat the bad guys that my PC actually likes. I don't think the genre needs to be so limited.

Forcing only one path on a game where choices are supposed to matter is far more limiting.

Forcing one (three, later four) path or rather skipping your preferred path?

Choices which didn't matter or rather choices which didn't bring you your preferred outcome?

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Forcing one (three, later four) path or rather skipping your preferred path?

Choices which didn't matter or rather choices which didn't bring you your preferred outcome?

Not a preferred path, any path I would feel worth taking.  Every path Bioware laid out as legitimate felt to be an absolute betrayal.  Genocide, slavery, genetic violation?  Yeah that's not hyperbole to my mind.  Those are the so-called "options" which I am apaprantly a bad, bad person for not liking and calling Boiware on it.

Then they offer an option that actually sounds like one worth taking.  Only it turns out Bioware was just trolling.  And I'm an even worse person for calling Bioware on that too.

But look at the choices!  Wow!  So many options I have no idea where to start!

That was sarcasm 

[DarthSideus2]

Although I agree with Bioware giving fans the choice to be a d*** by making this particular non-decision and dooming the entirety of the advanced races, how could anybody make this choice, other than curiosity. The whole of the entire Trilogy is built around Shepard finding a way to stop this impending mass extinction, you're even brought back from the dead. To reach the point that you have spent three games to get to, be given several choices where everybody lives (they may not be the best choice, but at least we get to live), or do NOTHING and watch everyone die. NO. A thousand times, NO!

I did not get resurrected from the dead, help find a cure for the Genophage, end the Geth War, unite the galaxy and build the Crucible, "to let the Outer Rim burn for the sake of the Jedi teachings" (KOTOR II reference). This last choice betrays everything that Shephard has fought for, and everybody dies because of it. As Marvin the Martian would say "THIS MAKES ME ANGRY, VERY ANGRY!"

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Two separate issues that aren't related. Uniting the galaxy provides you the fleet and troops necessary to dock the Crucible. It undeniably allows you to win in Mass Effect 3, in concert with actually using the device.

Except we see very little of those fleets or troops (which could be a genral complaint about Priority Earth in general, I know)

In addition, it exacts a horrific price upon Shepard and quite arguably the galaxy on top of everything that has already been sacrificed

"I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate"

I guess even Bioware kinda admits picking a color is abdicating that right, even if they laugh at us for taking a stand

The second issue is how the Crucible actually functions to achieve victory. Had the Crucible simply destroyed the Reapers there would be zero doubt about the game's theme of strength through unity.

Except what I wanted wasn't the proverbial "Reaper off button" but the ability to stand against the Reapers on a battleground as equals. You know, like that line in The Avengers:

"Big man in a suit of armor.  Take that off, what are you?"
 
If people have to die to stop the Reapers, let them die, fighting Reapers, not as collateral damage

If you don't want the collateral damage, then choose Control or Synthesis. Both of those stop the Reapers, and without necessarily inducing collateral damage.