203 réponses à ce sujet

[Bionuts]

The complaint is that there was an obvious bias towards the cure, since there was much conversation made to support it, and there was none at all except for RACIST MEANIE DALTRASS!!! It's a stupid thing games do.

Instead of really delving into the morality, consequences, etc., they call you an idiot and rightly so. Since most people will let their emotions pick the choices. And writers will just use a sympathetic character (Eve, Legion, Wrex, Mordin, Padok to represent the things they consider "good" and use meanie characters (the Quarian who almost had you killed, ROBOT LADY!! Quarian, Meanie DalatrASs!!)

It's pathetic.

[Wulfram]

And when Wreav is representing the cure?

[Bionuts]

Wulfram wrote...

And when Wreav is representing the cure?

He isn't. But he's not a counter to Wrex. He's almost nothing.

[Kataphrut94]

I don't see why people get so worked up about bias. If you think the game is biased towards the krogan/geth...scratch that, towards Paragons, because that's what they both are. If you think that, you'd be absolutely right and the series has always been biased towards Paragons. I mean, it took them 3 game to finally start writing basic Renegade conversation options that weren't completely stupid.

However...you don't have to cure the genophage. You don't have to save the geth. You can do whatever you damn well like and the game will support you for that. If you're afraid that you'll make Patrick Weekes cry by doing so, then that's his problem, not yours. Besides, the perceived notions of bias drop off after you actually go ahead with it. If you pull off the sabotage and save Mordin/Wiks in the process, Garrus and Hackett will congratulate you for getting both teams on board, and the Dalatrass starts preparing alibi's for when the krogan figure out the cure didn't work. Meanwhile, EVERYBODY on your ship loves you if you kill the geth, the only one who has anything nice to say about killing the quarians is EDI.

[Hazegurl]

Bionuts wrote...

cooldonkeyfish wrote...

The point was to make it a hard decision, you have to ask whether it's important to get that extra support from the Salarians or not.

They were not trying to make it a hard decision.

If they were, then you would've had 1 or 2 anti-cure people that talked in depth about the situation. Perhaps instead of "racist, meanie, DALATRASS!!! (<_< really bioware?)", they could've had someone very knowledgeable explain the situation in depth.

I agree. They used a very "appeal to emotions" bias in favor of the cure. With Wrex alive, the research to save Eve saved, Mordin and everyone under the sun all gunho for it...all except the "evil" Dalatrass. How could you not pick to cure the genophage to help your old buddy out?

 You have to read between the bias and focus on what you see and hear in game. I went to  their planet for the mission and saw the devastation they did to it. Saw how the planet was recovering without them on it. Wrex asking for another planet to repopulate without knowing whether or no the can truly keep the Krogan in line. However these things are very subtle. The story even gets rid of Wreav  for you. It's all set up to be the best choice of all to make. Regardless of if you pay attention to the other stuff.

[David7204]

Is 'bias' somehow a problem?

The narrative has every right to present one option as better.

[David7204]

Bionuts wrote...

The complaint is that there was an obvious bias towards the cure, since there was much conversation made to support it, and there was none at all except for RACIST MEANIE DALTRASS!!! It's a stupid thing games do.

Instead of really delving into the morality, consequences, etc., they call you an idiot and rightly so. Since most people will let their emotions pick the choices. And writers will just use a sympathetic character (Eve, Legion, Wrex, Mordin, Padok to represent the things they consider "good" and use meanie characters (the Quarian who almost had you killed, ROBOT LADY!! Quarian, Meanie DalatrASs!!)

It's pathetic.

This is the funniest thing.

Why you don't you think about what you wrote for a bit, and then read what you just said?

Bioware is 'pathetic' because they have unlikeable characters making stupid arguments based on insults. Hmm. You notice anything familiar?

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 12:52 .

[Bionuts]

David7204 wrote...

Is 'bias' somehow a problem?

The narrative has every right to present one option as better.

If it's done correctly then I don't mind. They didn't even delve into the pros and cons of the situation, even though curing the genophage is a bigger decision than most games ever offer.

Instead they deemed the gamers too stupid to make a decision apart from emotions. Why do you think instead of delving into morality, consequences, etc., they did the laziest thing a writer can do by using sympathetic characters to represent "good" and illogical meanie racist characters to represent "bad"? The situation did not call for such stupidity.

[David7204]

Yes. That I can agree on. The situation does not call for such stupidity, Bionuts.

Why don't explain to me how exactly the Dalatross is 'illogical'? How exactly the Dalatross is 'racist'? How exactly the Dalatross is a 'meanie'?

[Bionuts]

David7204 wrote...

This is the funniest thing.

Why you don't you think about what you wrote for a bit, and then read what you just said?

Bioware is 'pathetic' because they have unlikeable characters making stupid arguments based on insults. Hmm. You notice anything familiar?

Bioware is pathetic for avoiding in depth discussion of the genophage, instead reducing the decision to comic book status.

It's a stupid thing writers do. Use sympathetic characters to sway you to their morality, and use illogical characters to represent things they disagree on.

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

Yes. That I can agree on. The situation does not call for such stupidity, Bionuts.

Why don't explain to me how exactly the Dalatross is 'illogical'?

I don't think she is.

How exactly the Dalatross is 'racist'?

Calling all Krogan savages, brutes, etc. Way too obvious.

How exactly the Dalatross is a 'meanie'?

"Don't tell them, Commander. Just lie to them after gaining their trust." 

Modifié par Br3ad, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:00 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Is 'bias' somehow a problem?

The narrative has every right to present one option as better.

And we have every right to judge the writing on the basis of what it's trying to present as morally right.

If a writer establishes that a character or faction committed certain atrocities in the past, then pulls the "sweep the mountain of corpses under the rug and pretend they never existed" gambit later in their own narrative to make said character or faction more sympathetic, we, the audience, are in no way obligated to go along with it. If it were the fans recasting a character in this fashion, "draco in leather pants" would be the relevant trope. Not sure what to call it when it's done by the writers themselves, except "sloppy."

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:01 .

[Bionuts]

David7204 wrote...

Yes. That I can agree on. The situation does not call for such stupidity, Bionuts.

Why don't explain to me how exactly the Dalatross is 'illogical'? How exactly the Dalatross is 'racist'? How exactly the Dalatross is a 'meanie'?

She was the sole person that represented pro-genophage and they made her  loudmouthed, bully, and racist (against the Krogans, listen to her dialogue).

[David7204]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Is 'bias' somehow a problem?

The narrative has every right to present one option as better.

And we have every right to judge the writing on the basis of what it's trying to present as morally right.

If a writer establishes that a character or faction committed certain atrocities in the past, then pulls the "sweep the mountain of corpses under the rug and pretend they never existed" gambit later in their own narrative to make said character or faction more sympathetic, we, the audience, are in no way obligated to forget those things. If it were the fans recasting a character in this fashion, "draco in leather pants" would be the relevant trope. Not sure what to call it when it's done by the writers themselves, except "sloppy."

And you aren't obligated to forget.

You're perfectly free to chose to not cure the genophage. What exactly is the problem?

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:01 .

[David7204]

Bionuts wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. That I can agree on. The situation does not call for such stupidity, Bionuts.

Why don't explain to me how exactly the Dalatross is 'illogical'? How exactly the Dalatross is 'racist'? How exactly the Dalatross is a 'meanie'?

She was the sole person that represented pro-genophage and they made her  loudmouthed, bully, and racist (against the Krogans, listen to her dialogue).

Tell me. Would you consider an argument where someone shrieks that writers are 'pathetic,' that they 'did the laziest thing' loudmouthed and bullying?

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:02 .

[Sir DeLoria]

Br3ad wrote...

Necanor wrote...
I don't want to turn this into another Quarian/Geth debate,

Deep down inside, you know this is a lie. This is like Imperials/Stormcloaks or Templar/Assassins. 

Damn, you know me too well.

[KaiserShep]

Bionuts wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

And when Wreav is representing the cure?

He isn't. But he's not a counter to Wrex. He's almost nothing.

Wreav is basically Wrex's polar opposite, and represents the worst parts of the krogan. He'd be no different from the krogan we fight on Therum, Feros, or anywhere else. He only bolsters the Dalatrass' concerns.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Is 'bias' somehow a problem?

The narrative has every right to present one option as better.

And we have every right to judge the writing on the basis of what it's trying to present as morally right.

If a writer establishes that a character or faction committed certain atrocities in the past, then pulls the "sweep the mountain of corpses under the rug and pretend they never existed" gambit later in their own narrative to make said character or faction more sympathetic, we, the audience, are in no way obligated to forget those things. If it were the fans recasting a character in this fashion, "draco in leather pants" would be the relevant trope. Not sure what to call it when it's done by the writers themselves, except "sloppy."

And you aren't obligated to forget.

You're perfectly free to chose to not cure the genophage. What exactly is the problem?

The problem is that "this is the best place to start the trilogy." It's about what they established previously, and what they chose to remind people about versus what was covered up. Both sides of the argument ought to be putting their strongest points forward, challenging the audience to make a hard decision after weighing all factors - only if we're going purely by ME3, one side of the argument sees significantly more weight thrown behind it. I personally think the Genophage arc still did a better job of this (by orders of magnitude) than the Rannoch arc, but I can see where the OP is coming from. Even if the weight of opinion presented by characters is pro-cure, Wreav provides a decent counterbalance, and we at least hear about things like the Krogan asteroid-bombing Turian colonies - they didn't avoid mentioning such things entirely.

Still, the point about the cure undermining Wrex's power base is a good one. We're not really afforded the opportunity to challenge Wrex/Wreav at all. Things like the logistical considerations EDI talks about probably should have been in dialogue BEFORE the cure decision, not after.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:11 .

[David7204]

Are you thinking this is somehow uncommon or bad writing?

The writers have every right to introduce new information that changes a scenario. And they have every right to throw their weight behind that information and focus less on what's been established previously.

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:14 .

[KaiserShep]

To be fair, you get a generally good idea of the extreme carnage of the rebellions if you talk to Victus in the war room. Even if the character is going along with the genophage cure plan, he still makes himself clear on his reservations, but it's obvious that the risk of the resurgent krogan is being weighed against the threat of the reapers.

I'm not sure where people are seeing another character expounding upon a counterpoint to the genophage cure fitting in here, considering that until the Dalatrass contacts you just before the mission, you don't know that it's even possible to sabotage the cure and potentially gain krogan support without the clan leader finding out. So without that knowledge, what do you do, tell the krogan "screw you, we'll just go on without you"? Not likely. Up until this point, anything another character says can be easily countered with the renegade interrupt you lay on the dalatrass. Nothing the krogan do, nothing, would amount to the same level of death and destruction as the reapers. The risk of the krogan is easily outweighed by the very apparent risk of the reapers.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:18 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Are you thinking this is somehow uncommon or bad writing?

The writers have every right to introduce new information that changes a scenario. And they have every right to throw their weight behind that information and focus less on what's been established previously.

And as I've said, the genophage arc was the better of the two on this score. Still, the OP does have valid points.

I suppose the worst example in the game is post-Thessia... but you already know the dialogue sequence I'm talking about, and we don't need to go down that road again.

[David7204]

What this seems to boil down is "If the story says something, it's bad writing."

I see no reason whatsoever to believe that. Quite the opposite.

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:20 .

[Bionuts]

KaiserShep wrote...
I'm not sure where people are seeing another character expounding upon a counterpoint to the genophage cure fitting in here, considering that until the Dalatrass contacts you just before the mission, you don't know that it's even possible to sabotage the cure and potentially gain krogan support without the clan leader finding out. So without that knowledge, what do you do, tell the krogan "screw you, we'll just go on without you"? Not likely. Up until this point, anything another character says can be easily countered with the renegade interrupt you lay on the dalatrass. Nothing the krogan do, nothing, would amount to the same level of death and destruction as the reapers. The risk of the krogan is easily outweighed by the very apparent risk of the reapers.

It's simple. Either the Dalatrass or some other Salarian on the comm talks to you the same as Mordin or Padok did.

Or perhaps EDI could've talked in depth about the situation (neutral), and you can make your own conclusions.

There many ways they could've done it. Way more than I mentioned. They were just trying to avoid an in-depth discussion about the genophage and relied on sympathetic characters to sway you.

[David7204]

That is simply nonsense.