203 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

David7204 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Relationships were a theme in the series, which consists of (shocking I know) - friendships, lovers, enemies, lack of heroism. 

I guess I just didn't say this simply enough.

What kind of person do you want a romantic relationship with' was never a theme of the series.

Never was, do you want to become friends with all these people, but we'll force it anyway because 

BIAS.  

[Bionuts]

David7204 wrote...

What point is there against curing the genophage that isn't made abundantly clear or easily deduced? What is this 'debate' going to add? That lots of krogan require lots of resources? That they're physically strong? These are all incredibly obvious conclusions.

You're missing the point.

It's bad writing when a person relies on sympathetic characters to sway you to their reasoning instead of presenting their reasoning weighing in the pros and cons of a situation. It's more to say that Bioware thought its gamers were stupid.

They were making an effort to sway you to be pro-cure, but resorted to comic book cliches and racists to do so.

They should've had presented the pros and cons thoroughly. After all, the fate of an entire species hangs in the balance.

[David7204]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

David7204 wrote...

There's absolutely no obligation for the story to be balanced.

If the choice is supposed to be even a little thought provoking or challenging I think it should be. 

I see. So then that would mean nearly all philosphy in existence is not the least thought provoking or challenging, then? Since for the most part, philosophers make assertions. 'This is the way the world is, the way life is, the way such-and-such is.' They don't explicitly invite the reader to question. The tell the reader how things are, and that's the end of it.

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:54 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

What's being said here is, if you're going to have someone make this kind of decision, arm them with the facts. If you want the audience to sympathize with person A, don't establish early on that person A did something horrific, then never mention it again and expect the audience to forget about it.

That is just completely silly. By that logic, you can't ever have a sympathtic character in fiction that has done bad things. Because if you do, you're 'expecting the audience to forget about them.' Is that right?

Not even close.

I'm trying to think of a way I could get my point across to you; an argument you wouldn't try to twist back in this direction, but it's just not coming to me.

What I'm saying is, if it's established early in the narrative that person "A" committed war crime "B," don't go the rest of the narrative never exploring the implications of that act and expect sympathy for the character. If the narrative later expects us to sympathize with them, not because we see they've learned from it, but because it expects us to have forgotten what they did it in the first place... that just doesn't work, unless the reader forgets (or joins the narrative at a point where they never learn of it to begin with).

EDIT: Bionuts just said it better than I did.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:55 .

[Bionuts]

KaiserShep wrote...


Again, this balance depends largely on the choices you made in the previous games. To what length should this issue be discussed without being wholly redundant or a massive codex entry on the krogan rebellions until it meets your satisfaction? This seems more like an issue if you're coming into ME3 without much knowledge about the universe in general, in which case tough luck.
.

I already said plenty of times.

Have 1 person present the pros and cons of the situation (neutral), or have someone like the Dalatrass present the cons thoroughly. It would've balanced things out just fine.

[David7204]

No.

The implications are incredibly obvious. We know what murder is. We know what killing is. We know what violence is. They don't need to be explored for them to be effective. What is there to explore in the first place? The audience immediately realizes that murder is 'bad.' The story doesn't need to hold our hand and remind us of that every time a sympathtic moment occurs for a character who might have done something bad in the past.

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 01:57 .

[KaiserShep]

What cons should we be told that we aren't told already? From EDI, we learn just how many clutches a fertile female krogan can actually lay. From the Primarch, we learn just how far the krogan were willing to go during the rebellions, and it doesn't get much worse than pummeling planets with asteroids and occupying whole worlds under violent rule. What other information could a different character present to bolster the counterpoint against the cure for the genophage? Unless there's something new, there's no point in being thorough, because without that, it's just being redundant.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 octobre 2013 - 02:03 .

[Bionuts]

KaiserShep wrote...

Why should anyone browbeat the cons? We know what the cons are. We know from the primarch how far the krogan were willing to go when they fought in the rebellions. It doesn't really get much worse than pummeling planets with asteroids.

Bionuts wrote...

You're missing the point.

It's bad
writing when a person relies on sympathetic characters  to sway you to
their reasoning instead of presenting their reasoning weighing in the
pros and cons of a situation. It's more to say that Bioware thought its
gamers were stupid.

They were making an effort to sway you to be pro-cure, but resorted to comic book cliches and racists to do so.

They should've had presented the pros and cons thoroughly. After all, the fate of an entire species hangs in the balance.

[David7204]

No, we're not missing any point.

Since you responded with a quote, I'll do the same.

David 7204 wrote...

This idea that using sympathetic characters to influence the audience is somehow bad writing is laughable. It's not only perfectly good writing, but an absolute cornerstone of morally grey characters and situations in the first place.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

No.

The implications are incredibly obvious. We know what murder is. We know what killing is. We know what violence is. They don't need to be explored for them to be effective. What is there to explore in the first place? The audience immediately realizes that murder is 'bad.' The story doesn't need to hold our hand and remind us of that every time a sympathtic moment occurs for a character who might have done something bad in the past.

And my point is that if the only way sympathy can be generated for a character is by never again mentioning those things that they did (even characters who have every reason to make that point), that's where a narrative fails.

When I see a softball argument being made when stronger ones were established earlier, I know I'm being manipulated, and I don't like it. In Battlestar Galactica, the trial of Gaius Baltar (season 3, I believe), I knew where they were taking the narrative the moment I saw the prosecution's opening argument.

In the simplest terms, it's better for side A to win by making a stronger argument than side B, than for side A to win in a narrative because side B's previously-established argument was scaled back and weakened because the writer wanted side A to win.

[David7204]

Denion, you're really just saying "If the audience isn't constantly reminded the character is a murderer/arsonist/jaywalker, it's a softball argument and bad writing."

And that's just not true. Like I said, we know what murder is. We know what killing is. We know what violence is. They don't need to be explored for them to be effective. What is there to explore in the first place?

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Denion, you're really just saying "If the audience isn't constantly reminded the character is a murderer/arsonist/jaywalker, it's a softball argument and bad writing."

And that's just not true. Like I said, we know what murder is. We know what killing is. We know what violence is. They don't need to be explored for them to be effective. What is there to explore in the first place?

If you look at the trilogy all together, it works.

If you look at ME3 by itself, "the best place to start the trilogy," it doesn't work as well.

The genophage arc was the lesser offender by far here, but still, I couldn't help but keep thinking throughout that Wrex was undermining his own power base by curing the genophage.

[David7204]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Is 'bias' somehow a problem?

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

Now normally I'm an advocate for choices having a negative consequence, but this was practically a rigged choice that has absolutely no upside. They could've at least been less obvious about it. It honestly makes me laugh when I look at it. They are leading their audience instead of letting them make the decision they want to make themselves, kind of like slanted/yellow journalism.

I don't even know where to start with this.

An explanation of the completely different merits, restrictions, and obligations of fiction and journalism?

Addressing that ludacris idea that a story supporting someone is 'forcing' the audience to believe it? That having a theme somehow deprives the audience of thinking otherwise?

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 02:11 .

[Bionuts]

David7204 wrote...

This idea that using sympathetic characters to influence the audience is somehow bad writing is laughable. It's not only perfectly good writing, but an absolute cornerstone of morally grey characters and situations in the first place.

It is bad writing, because it shows how naive the reader is if their morals, ideals, and reasoning can be swayed that easily.

If you want "morally grey" then check out Witcher 2.

I spared King Henselt. A man that raped my character's girlfriend, killed the unit of my friend (Roche was conspiring against the King that's why), and a known sadist that tries to use rape as a baragining tool. He's not sympathetic in the least.

But the game presented the pros and cons of the killing him thoroughly. So I spared his life.

[KaiserShep]

That whole "best place to start" statement sure messes with discussions about stories that actually require the entire trilogy to gain proper context for.

[The Night Mammoth]

David7204 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

David7204 wrote...

There's absolutely no obligation for the story to be balanced.

If the choice is supposed to be even a little thought provoking or challenging I think it should be. 

I see. So then that would mean nearly all philosphy in existence is not the least thought provoking or challenging, then? Since for the most part, philosophers make assertions. 'This is the way the world is, the way life is, the way such-and-such is.' They don't explicitly invite the reader to question. The tell the reader how things are, and that's the end of it.

Wow, way to take my post out of context. 

BioWare are presenting a choice in a video game. They aren't examining an aspect of our reality, or making a philosophical point, they're presenting a binary choice. Cure the genophage, or don't. I don't think this choice has as much merit as it could, doesn't challenge the player as much as it could, because it's biased one way. I am not making a broader argument. That's it. Your post is tangential nonsense.

[DeinonSlayer]

KaiserShep wrote...

That whole "best place to start" statement sure messes with discussions about stories that actually require the entire trilogy to gain proper context for.

This. Exactly this. Someone who starts with ME3 isn't going to be tempered by having watched Urdnot Torsk burn a man alive in LotSB and heard Patriarch talking casually about krogan hatchlings killing each other in the nest. With that context, one might view Eve as overly-optimistic.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 octobre 2013 - 02:18 .

[David7204]

Oh, but you're completely wrong Mammoth. That's precisely what they're doing. They are examining an aspect of reality. They are making a philosophical point. Why do you think stories include such themes to begin with?

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 02:15 .

[The Night Mammoth]

What aspect of reality? What philosophical point?

[David7204]

Does a fallen society deserve redemption? Do the ends justify the means? What is the value of life? Is sentient life something that should inherently worked to save? All of those questions are addressed by the genophage arc.

Modifié par David7204, 05 octobre 2013 - 02:20 .

[The Night Mammoth]

The answers to those questions are yes, yes, valuable, yes, according to the game. Not even anything more complicated than that, really.

Hence, why I don't think the choice has as much merit or provokes as much thought as it could have.

[DeinonSlayer]

Something that might have helped balance the narrative in ME3, I think, would be to have the player fighting Krogan at some point. I've discussed this before. Two opportunities come to mind: the N7 mission with the orbital cannon, and Tuchanka: Bomb.

I think it would have been interesting if in the N7 mission, Cerberus were replaced with a Krogan clan which was NOT allied with Urdnot, taking the opportunity to target the Turian ships in orbit. We got a taste of this in the first mission with Victus, where the Krogan were deliberately not assisting in the rescue effort (as discussed by your squad). We spent far too much time fighting Cerberus anyway.

For Tuchanka: Bomb, the first part of the mission (up until you reached the bomb) could have pit you against Reaper troops who were trying to unearth and activate it. The Reapers captured the area and armed the bomb. The Krogan pushed them out of the area and found the bomb, and they're pissed. You and the Turians show up to disarm the bomb (which the Krogan do not know to be armed). You'd basically be helping the Turians instigate a cover-up for the sake of the alliance.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 octobre 2013 - 02:27 .

[Steelcan]

no heroism Deinon