518 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

AndyAK79 wrote...

You are arguing the value of negative consequences in DAO - you say it is 'worth the price'. but you refuse to acknowledge the value of the same concept of balancing consequence in ME3 because there isn't an ending that suits you. 

I don't get my happy ending either. I don't want to sacrifice Shepard, I don't want to sacrifice the Geth. I want to win. I want to have an easy way out. But those options aren't available to my Shepard. He has to make a choice based on what's in front of him. This is the source of the drama in the climax of the game. 

It seems that your argument is less about the quality of the game and more about being entitled to your idea of what the game should be. Which is exactly why you keep plugging the appalling MEHEM. Your reaction to ME2,whilst less vociferous, was not disimilar. 

In short I suggest you are not judging games on their own merits but weighing them against your own expectations. And I will go far as to say this is a prime cause of much of the criticism of Mass Effect 3.

I can't comment on DAO since I've not played that but a big part of the problem with those circumstances in ME3 is that they neither fitted the tone of the overall trilogy nor made much sense. They are mostly there as crap happening because the writers have clearly decided that it must happen, rather than because they were a believable outcome of the story. Now you may argue that the bleak tone of ME3 meant that it did fit, but that's not true since the direction of that tone was being curbstomped by the Reapers; the game never actually refuted any feeling that they were going to be dealt with.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Anyway, that still leaves the US as a mistake. A mistake isn't a huge problem conceptually, but if the DA:O ending slides had made it clear that US Wardens died for nothing...... 

And yet there are those who prefer US.  I don't.  But I certainly don't begrudge them the option.  I've done it with one of my Wardens, and it's certainly a better sendoff than Shepard ever got.

You don't think it would have bothered people to immediately find out that the US was a mistake for the Warden?

Well fortunately it's not portrayed as a mistake either during or after the fact.

[Mr.House]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Anyway, that still leaves the US as a mistake. A mistake isn't a huge problem conceptually, but if the DA:O ending slides had made it clear that US Wardens died for nothing...... 

And yet there are those who prefer US.  I don't.  But I certainly don't begrudge them the option.  I've done it with one of my Wardens, and it's certainly a better sendoff than Shepard ever got.

You don't think it would have bothered people to immediately find out that the US was a mistake for the Warden?

How is the US a mistake? Because you don't get into Morrigans robes and do some creepy ass sex ritual?

[Sir DeLoria]

Mr.House wrote...
Because you don't get into Morrigans robes and do some creepy ass sex ritual? 

What do you think Alistair is for?

[Mr.House]

Necanor wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Because you don't get into Morrigans robes and do some creepy ass sex ritual? 

What do you think Alistair is for?

So let's make a baby with the soul of an old god who has royal blood? YES THAT'S EVEN LESS CREEPY.

[Sir DeLoria]

Mr.House wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Because you don't get into Morrigans robes and do some creepy ass sex ritual? 

What do you think Alistair is for?

So let's make a baby with the soul of an old god who has royal blood? YES THAT'S EVEN LESS CREEPY.

Sure, why not?

[KaiserShep]

Creepy sex rituals? I need to play Dragon Age.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

See, playing a female warden, there wasn't this issue with "ooo, I have to do this 'creepy sex ritual'" It was a matter of my BFF comes to me and says, "Hey, I've got this way you can survive this thing. All you've got to do is talk one of the other wardens into f****** me." And I said. "You got a way for me to survive this? Cool sis. I'll hook you up. You just wait here."

So I go tell Loghain "Hey, Morrigan's got a way for us both to survive this thing. All you got to do is f*** her." And Loghain said. "Are you sure this will work?" And I said. "Are you an idiot? Go." And so he did, and we both survived. The End.

[The Twilight God]

dreamgazer wrote...

Any ending that actually results in the defeat of the Reapers is an implausible "happy ending", really. Y'know, these things?



The more you try and do so by any kind of conventional, no-sacrifice means, the more ridiculous it becomes. It's a problem in the series' DNA that goes back to the first game.

The moment the Crucible was announced (out of the blue) the Reaper threat ceased to be. It was no longer implausible. It was no longer a miracle. Their defeat happen right then and there on Mars. No figuring out how to, no real sense of desperation because you knew right then and there that they were toast and the Crucible is why. It was cheesy unimaginative writing. A 4 year old could just write in an super weapon that drops in the hero's lap.

They even weakened the Reapers... and yet didn't. It took the focus fire of the entire Qurian fleet to down a little reaper destroyer. But then a dreadnaught reaper get's it's leg blown off in the first volley in the end which wasn't even focused on that particular reaper. We're told the Turians actually took down multiple reapers. Yet it's treated as some kind or miracle when the Rannoch Reaper goes down. They couldn't even keep their story straight in a single game.

[The Twilight God]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

See, playing a female warden, there wasn't this issue with "ooo, I have to do this 'creepy sex ritual'" It was a matter of my BFF comes to me and says, "Hey, I've got this way you can survive this thing. All you've got to do is talk one of the other wardens into f****** me." And I said. "You got a way for me to survive this? Cool sis. I'll hook you up. You just wait here."

So I go tell Loghain "Hey, Morrigan's got a way for us both to survive this thing. All you got to do is f*** her." And Loghain said. "Are you sure this will work?" And I said. "Are you an idiot? Go." And so he did, and we both survived. The End.

I wish Morrigan would have brought it up sooner. It was fairly obvious that first playthrough that the guy who kills the AD always died from the lore I'd collected. Riordan's insistence that Loghain be allowed to warden up confirmed it. I didn't want Alistair (or the Warden) to die so I let Loghain live. But Alistair left. Seeing as I only let him live so he could die in our place the ritual was pretty much off the table:) So I lost Morrigan too. She was my only offensive mage so that sucked.

[Reorte]

dreamgazer wrote...

Any ending that actually results in the defeat of the Reapers is an implausible "happy ending", really. Y'know, these things?



The more you try and do so by any kind of conventional, no-sacrifice means, the more ridiculous it becomes. It's a problem in the series' DNA that goes back to the first game.

So in other words if you have any sort of victory at all then it's just as implausible as having one without contrived losses inflicted by petty writers, so if victory is possible via space magic then it's just as realistic to make it turn out better (and indeed it gets horribly inconsistent anyway in what its negative consequences are - can do Synthesis but not the far easier Destroy without losses, and what it does destroy with Destroy is actually more complicated than just targetting the Reapers? Oh please.)

Interesting that you say a conventional "no-sacrifice" means. This "sacrifice" obesession from some quarters is frankly ludicrous, since they seem to always take it way beyond just plain wartime losses, of which there are plenty anyway. There's no good reason to have to end with any particular indivdual or group dead and whilst a fixed medium like a book or a film will have to pick individuals to die and stick with them it's hopeless when a game does it.

[AndyAK79]

iakus wrote...

Oh THE DRAMA!  Why didn't you say so?  That makes the endings great!  It has DRAMA!  And feelz too!  And maybe a side of Dark and Gritty Realism!

What exactly is your point? What is wrong with drama, emotional engagement or 'dark and gritty realism' as you put it? Are you suggesting that games shouldn't have these things because YOU don't like them? Should all games be shallow and cheerful to suit you?

If you are going to respond please actually respond to the questions in the context of what you actually wrote, instead of just mentioning how much you like Dragon Age as though it suddenly changes your original post. 

Yeah, right.  If I don't have the options to "win" a game as you put it, why should I bother playing?  Why should I play a game where completing it feels like I've done something wrong?

Clearly you shouldn't. You should play something else.

I bought a game, so I feel entitled to have a game I can play without going all hollow inside. Something even ME2 managed to accomplish.

You don't like it, trade it in. You are entitled to is a quality product. you are not entitled to have your every whim satisfied by its creators. As pointed about before you were less than happy with ME2 because it wasn't what you wanted. My suggestion is that you find a series that better suits your sensibilities.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 13 octobre 2013 - 11:07 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

While I don't entirely agree with iakus on the idea of there being such thing as too high prices (in the context of destroy), I do feel as though the game does not reflect player effort into the series or give enough context into the galaxy, Shepard, or the end-decision. It feels empty, and I, as a player, feel cheated by the narrative and gameplay. I believe having Shepard alive and well in ending cutscenes, with a reflection on how you played your game and a reflection on the choices you made throughout the series, from Shepard's own perspective, was something that would have made the game much better. The whole concept of the ending itself was very poorly executed.

Really, all I'm getting from this Andy guy is that he's a less-insulting, slightly more eloquent version of Txgoldrush or Grey Nayr. That's all I really think about him here. No different than any other anti-anti-ender who goes too far with his idea that he see's the picture and that everyone else is missing the point. Nothing new. I know not to take him seriously.

[AndyAK79]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

While I don't entirely agree with iakus on the idea of there being such thing as too high prices (in the context of destroy), I do feel as though the game does not reflect player effort into the series or give enough context into the galaxy, Shepard, or the end-decision. It feels empty, and I, as a player, feel cheated by the narrative and gameplay. I believe having Shepard alive and well in ending cutscenes, with a reflection on how you played your game and a reflection on the choices you made throughout the series, from Shepard's own perspective, was something that would have made the game much better. The whole concept of the ending itself was very poorly executed.

Really, all I'm getting from this Andy guy is that he's a less-insulting, slightly more eloquent version of Txgoldrush or Grey Nayr. That's all I really think about him here. No different than any other anti-anti-ender who goes too far with his idea that he see's the picture and that everyone else is missing the point. Nothing new. I know not to take him seriously.

Stop spamming your posts, please.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

That's not spam. I'm reposting something that is related to this discussion.

And you were the one who bothered to spam it by pointlessly quoting me. 

Practice what you preach.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 13 octobre 2013 - 11:30 .

[Cobalt2113]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Really, all I'm getting from this Andy guy is that he's a less-insulting, slightly more eloquent version of Txgoldrush or Grey Nayr. That's all I really think about him here. No different than any other anti-anti-ender who goes too far with his idea that he see's the picture and that everyone else is missing the point. Nothing new. I know not to take him seriously.

Really? That's what you have to say?

Frankly I think it says a lot about your perspective that you literally cannot see him as someone who's actually arguing their own point and just as somone who's against you.

Anyway, Andy, I think you're doing a good job of arguing some very valid points, that as far as I can see have yet to be refuted.

Modifié par Cobalt2113, 13 octobre 2013 - 12:52 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Really, all I'm getting from this Andy guy is that he's a less-insulting, slightly more eloquent version of Txgoldrush or Grey Nayr. That's all I really think about him here. No different than any other anti-anti-ender who goes too far with his idea that he see's the picture and that everyone else is missing the point. Nothing new. I know not to take him seriously.

Really? That's what you have to say?

Frankly I think it says a lot about your perspective that you literally cannot see him as someone who's actually arguing their own point and just as somone who's against you.

Anyway, Andy, I think you're doing a good job of arguing some very valid points, that as far as I can see have yet to be refuted.

I'm not saying anything about him being pro-ending. I'm saying that he's more or less decrying the people who don't like the ending by pretty much saying they don't get it, and that his own perspective is objectively good, and that people who wanted and expected something different, and, may I say it subjectively, 'better' aren't really worth considering with their own opinions. He's more or less said that I'm wrong for wanting a much stronger ending and that I felt the current ending was horribly lacking in  narrative, thematic, and general quality.

As I understand it, you yourself are against many of the people who don't like the ending. You really don't have to look far to refute his points here. As for Andy's thread, it really is a less insulting version anything you'd get from a Txgoldrush thread.

[Dubozz]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

While I don't entirely agree with iakus on the idea of there being such thing as too high prices (in the context of destroy), I do feel as though the game does not reflect player effort into the series or give enough context into the galaxy, Shepard, or the end-decision. It feels empty, and I, as a player, feel cheated by the narrative and gameplay. I believe having Shepard alive and well in ending cutscenes, with a reflection on how you played your game and a reflection on the choices you made throughout the series, from Shepard's own perspective, was something that would have made the game much better. The whole concept of the ending itself was very poorly executed.

Really, all I'm getting from this Andy guy is that he's a less-insulting, slightly more eloquent version of Txgoldrush or Grey Nayr. That's all I really think about him here. No different than any other anti-anti-ender who goes too far with his idea that he see's the picture and that everyone else is missing the point. Nothing new. I know not to take him seriously.

[AndyAK79]

Reorte wrote...

Interesting that you say a conventional "no-sacrifice" means. This "sacrifice" obesession from some quarters is frankly ludicrous, since they seem to always take it way beyond just plain wartime losses, of which there are plenty anyway. There's no good reason to have to end with any particular indivdual or group dead and whilst a fixed medium like a book or a film will have to pick individuals to die and stick with them it's hopeless when a game does it.

The 'obsession' with sacrifice is anything but ludicrous: It is what lends the final choice weight. If you had three endings in which there were no losses beyond what had already been suffered, what would be the dramatic value of the choices? The reason that each choice has to have negative consequences is that otherwise you are just choosing between three happy endings. The finale would be shallow and lack emotional engagement.

Your statement that things that work in a book or film or hopeless in a game requires qualification. Whatever the differences, they are all dramatic art forms (at least in a game with a heavy story-teling content such as ME) and I can see no reason why dramatic concepts shouldn't carry across perfectly well.

[dreamgazer]

Reorte wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Any ending that actually results in the defeat of the Reapers is an implausible "happy ending", really. Y'know, these things?



The more you try and do so by any kind of conventional, no-sacrifice means, the more ridiculous it becomes. It's a problem in the series' DNA that goes back to the first game.

So in other words if you have any sort of victory at all then it's just as implausible as having one without contrived losses inflicted by petty writers, so if victory is possible via space magic then it's just as realistic to make it turn out better (and indeed it gets horribly inconsistent anyway in what its negative consequences are - can do Synthesis but not the far easier Destroy without losses, and what it does destroy with Destroy is actually more complicated than just targetting the Reapers? Oh please.)

Interesting that you say a conventional "no-sacrifice" means. This "sacrifice" obesession from some quarters is frankly ludicrous, since they seem to always take it way beyond just plain wartime losses, of which there are plenty anyway. There's no good reason to have to end with any particular indivdual or group dead and whilst a fixed medium like a book or a film will have to pick individuals to die and stick with them it's hopeless when a game does it.

At least the designed super-weapon does some justice to the Reapers' prowess, instead of "F*CK YEAH, GALAXY! Go out there and blow up the ancient, colossal, near-invincible mecha-Cthulhu that have been doing this for eons!".  To me, a conventional attrition victory would absolutely be more ridiculous than a vague relay-exploiting mega-device that can't operate to the extent of his destructive capabilities (the reason why all synthetics are targeted by the overload relay beam). I would have felt insulted as an audience member to see anything remotely resembling Independence Day ... or Babylon 5's "Get out of my galaxy!" shtick, for that matter. The execution simply needed to be better: different introduction of the plans, different discussion of the Crucible's capabilities across the galaxy, addressing lore questions. 

And trust me, I don't have any kind of "obsession" with sacrifice.  What I do care about is the fact that the Reapers have been ingrained in the operations of the universe since time immemorial, something established in the first game, that they're the creators of the life-sustaining relays and Citadel, and that we're rushing to build a complex super-weapon to defeat them in a very, very short time period.  Right out removing all of them with the destroy option without repercussions (the unavoidable "sacrifice") with this hasty weapon amounts to even more of a reckless power-fantasy than even I can stomach.

There's no excusing Synthesis' execution and place in all this, but it might have been interesting under different circumstances. Like I've said, I don't think the execution is solid, but I'd rather have a better version of the infrastructure of what we received---therefore tolerating what we've got---than the alternatives. 

[GreatBlueHeron]

High EMS Control and Synthesis are happy unbelievable Disney endings as shown in-game. The only conflict/downside happens in the player's mind, if at all. Everyone magically is OK with the reapers. Everyone magically gets along. I don't buy it. I would LOVE these choices if they had downsides relevent to the lore/universe. Bioware wanted to go the sacrifice route, so all 3 options should have drawbacks. Destroy, as much as I hate seeing the geth and edi die, at least makes sense. Reaperized AI goes *poof*. Where's the drawback in control and green beam? Shep becomes part of the Intelligence in one and goes *poof* in the beam. If you don't have high enough EMS in destroy, Shep goes *poof*.

I feely admit I LOVE happy endings. Nothing wrong with them at all. But happy endings have to make sense. Control and green beam makes no sense. Make them believable by putting in believable drawbacks akin to the destroy ending and I'll have "my closure" (yes, my closure. It's gonna be different for everyone). As it is, I've accepted the endings are what they are. Awesome game. And look, people are still talking about it. Maybe that was the intent, but so what.

[dreamgazer]

The Twilight God wrote...

The moment the Crucible was announced (out of the blue) the Reaper threat ceased to be. It was no longer implausible. It was no longer a miracle. Their defeat happen right then and there on Mars. No figuring out how to, no real sense of desperation because you knew right then and there that they were toast and the Crucible is why. It was cheesy unimaginative writing. A 4 year old could just write in an super weapon that drops in the hero's lap.

And a three year old could write "make them weaker and blow them up" (no, really!), simply by watching a combo of Return of the Jedi and Independence Day and remebering how it happened.

They even weakened the Reapers... and yet didn't. It took the focus fire of the entire Qurian fleet to down a little reaper destroyer. But then a dreadnaught reaper get's it's leg blown off in the first volley in the end which wasn't even focused on that particular reaper. We're told the Turians actually took down multiple reapers. Yet it's treated as some kind or miracle when the Rannoch Reaper goes down. They couldn't even keep their story straight in a single game.

How many Reapers are there in total?

You might eventually destroy a mountain with a pickaxe, but surviving to tell the tale is another matter altogether. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Structurally, I agree with dream. The Crucible was poorly implemented (and it's presentation and execution were plain disastrous; we did not need a DEM construct, period), but it's overall purpose was needed to beat the Reapers. Granted, and I might sound a bit Davidian here, but Shepard also needed to play a vital role. I do think we should have gotten something about how Shepard alone, when all the pieces were in place, was the only being to be able to stop them. And, yes, I believe that there should have been in option to have him live and be able to see it. Some kind of DAO style ending in the throneroom, and a small scene with each squadmate (and one additional one for each LI), with a reflection on Shepard's choices and ideology throughout the trilogy, and the ramifications those decisions and ideas had on the galaxy. This can be done if Shepard of course does not survive as well. Granted, I know that this was plain wishful thinking on my part.

[RatThing]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Granted, and I might sound a bit Davidian here, but Shepard also needed to play a vital role. I do think we should have gotten something about how Shepard alone, when all the pieces were in place, was the only being to be able to stop them.

No we certainly did not need that. If people want to roleplay a larger than life messiah Shepard they can do that. I need  my heroes to be good at what they're doing but on the other hand a simple human being. Flawed, bad attitudes, not popular with everyone and all. A simple problem solver as another user called it. The game allows more or less both types and it's ok that way. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

RatThing wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Granted, and I might sound a bit Davidian here, but Shepard also needed to play a vital role. I do think we should have gotten something about how Shepard alone, when all the pieces were in place, was the only being to be able to stop them.

No we certainly did not need that. If people want to roleplay a larger than life messiah Shepard they can do that. I need  my heroes to be good at what they're doing but on the other hand a simple human being. Flawed, bad attitudes, not popular with everyone and all. A simple problem solver as another user called it. The game allows more or less both types and it's ok that way. 

Well, I sympathize with you there, since that's actually how my Shepard is. Though my Shepard is still the only person who can beat the Reapers. He's not a hero (much more of an byronic and slightly sociopathic anti-hero), but he is the ultimate problem solver, troubleshooter, and determinator. He's the machine. That's how I mold my Shepard. Everyone and everything else is a cog in the machine. Without those cogs, Shepard, the machine, can't function, and without Shepard, all the pieces can not be greater than the sum of their parts. Shepard, imo, is what makes everything and everyone greater than the sum of their parts. He doesn't have to be a great hero at all (and he's not, he openly advocates Cerberus and their methods. He has no problem at all sacrificing innocents for the greater good. He hates the alliance and the Council, he doesn't trust Wrex or the Krogan. He's not heroic at all in the Davidian sense.) But he's the only being who can stop the Reapers. No other being or race or civilization, past, present, or future could hope to defeat them. That's how I view it. I guess it is some of the 'power of one' crap you hear, but hey, that's how I'm rolling with it.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 13 octobre 2013 - 03:40 .