447 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Throwing money at a situation doesn't magically create a fleet of cruisers able to take on home fleets of entire star empires.  

Who ever said that they "took on" anybody's home fleet? They didn't do that at Sur'Kesh, except in the same sense that the Mumbai terrorists "took on" the Indian Army.

Did you listen to the salrians commenting on the odd events leading up to the attack?

Or Campbell and Westmoreland talking about it afterwards?

[fainmaca]

AlanC9 wrote...
What's the difference?

I actually came across a video by Totalbiscuit recently that accurately explained my stance on this. In it, he explained (paraphrasing here) that games have to allow for players to express themselves, whereas movies/books etc are entirely the author expressing himself.

As I explained in a recent post on another thread, player expression comes in a variety of ways, such as creatively in solving puzzles or creating things, strategically in RTS, shooters and so on, artistically in music/art based games, or ethically in RPGs or a morality-based game like Bioware ones.

The problem that has come to light with Walters at the helm of the writing of the ME franchise, is that his writing crowds out the kind of player expression many of us had come to expect from a BW game. In expressing his own ideals and philosophies, he leaves no space for us to express our own as Shepard (leading into the issue of our/their Shepard).

[Mcfly616]

iakus wrote...

Throwing money at a situation doesn't magically create a fleet of cruisers able to take on home fleets of entire star empires. 

As I said, they already had a military branch. Who says anything was magically created? Nothing in the trilogy contradicts the existence of Cerberus ships.

And in terms of money, if you're as well funded as that particular system, you most certainly can.

No, we don't know what Biwoare saw.  And they didn't see fit to tell us either.  Heck, it's never even determined if Udina was indoctrinated or not.

But hey, "lots of speculations for everyone" amirite?

I don't see why it warrants an explaination. Multiple logical explainations are possible with the information provided. I just gave one of them. Speculation isn't the problem in this instance. Whether people prefer to speculate or not, is another matter entirely.

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

The whole freaking trilogy is about breaking cycles and self-determination.

What the whole trilogy was about is subjective. And it probably doesn't boil down to one individual theme.

Some would say it was Shepard's destiny to break the cycle. Much the same way Neo was destined to break the cycle (hence "the One"), or the way Anakin was destined to bring balance to the Force ("The Chosen One"). It also seems the Master Chief is on the same type of path in the Halo saga, but it's still a bit early to tell.

Faceless torso drawing a breath =/= clarity or closure.

What does that same scene mean when you see it at the end of a movie? (Countless movies, in fact)

There is so much wrong with this sentance I don't even know where to begin

Not really. When you experience any medium and/or genre of fiction, you should keep your real world logic in check. If a narrative defies the logic of the fictional universe it's set in, that's a separate matter.

[KaiserShep]

I don't think Star Trek really went that route in the series either, at least not in TOS and TNG. The movies are the big disconnect, but they largely abandoned the profundity part too, especially most of the TNG and both Abrams movies.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

And if they do that, they've learned nothing.

Because whatever Mac Walters claims, film and games are not the same thing.

What's the difference?

Passive viewer vs active participant

[ElSuperGecko]

Tsunami Chef wrote...
If you believe the ME directors created IT you believe they made one of the mysterious, if not the most mysterious endings in gaming history....

To be fair, Bioware does have an established history of plot twists and mindfunks...

- Baldur's Gate dreams & revelations
- KOTOR Revan revelations
- Jade Empire ending
- Neverwinter Nights Hordes of the Underdark "celebration"
- The Fade dreams in Dragon Age

...it's just that over time, the experiences have become more immersive and the stories have become more cinematic.  Bioware have always had grand designs and big ideas when it comes to storytelling - they've always tried to throw their audience with a twist or surprise - some examples are just more direct, obvious and deliberate than others.

Ask yourself - why would Bioware implent the "don't trust anyone" mechanic of Reaper indoctrination into the game in the first place - let alone make it such an integral theme of the series and tool of your enemies - if they didn't want you (as the player) to experience moments of doubt and question what you are being told?

Tsunami Chef wrote...
....as well as basically the most incomplete ending in gaming history.

...nope, that honour still goes to Halo 2...

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:13 .

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

Hell, Oliver Stone wouldn't be bad at all. I was just thinking the other day how many of his movies I don't hate. And besides the obvious stuff he's known for, he wrote one of the best fantasy movies of all time (Conan the Barbarian).

He wrote an early script of Conan, which was extensively rewritten by the film's director, John Milius, to adapt to budgetary constraints and creative differences.  I'm hit and miss with Stone in general: it depends on whether his messages are heavy-handed or too heavy-handed.

[Obadiah]

Mcfly616 wrote...
...
Who's the kid? Did you play the first 10 minutes of the game?


The dreams can be attributed to PTSD, or from a fictional standpoint it can be seen as a hero having hauntings of his pasast as he hurtles ever closer to his destiny.
...

I always rather liked the idea that Sheapard in ME3 was in some kind of indoctrination/contact with the Catalyst.

It sort of plays into my theory that indoctrination as a form of mind control is actually the organic mind being brought into the Reaper collective. First the mind experiences sensations of other members of the collective (ME2 scientists on the derelect Reaper), and then accepts the same motivations and goals(Saren), and eventually is overwhlemed to the point of uselessness.

Perhaps not at first, but dreams being as nebulous as they are, that image of Shep and the kid burning in the final dream is aweful close to the Catalyst's explanation of "cleansing fire."

Also, I liked the idea that Harbinger is interested in Shep as the perceived danger because the Reapers cannot seem to overwhelm his mind as they can others. At least not yet.

Modifié par Obadiah, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:15 .

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

And if they do that, they've learned nothing.

Because whatever Mac Walters claims, film and games are not the same thing.

What's the difference?

Passive viewer vs active participant

Your participation only goes so far, though.  

For a story claiming to have "no canon", there's a whole lot of canon going on.

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

It's funny, there's these people that say they "don't play games for realism, but for escapism. Life is depressing enough". You know, the ones that specifically complain that Shepard is (realistically) helpless in regards to his own life at the end of the game. Yet, these same people complain when his survival isn't explained in realistic terms.....Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too.

We should be checking our brains at the door before we step into any fictional universe. Especially videogames. No matter how far its come as a story-telling medium, its still not on the level of books and movies.

I think it's not so much that games haven't evolved as a medium, it's that gamers don't interpret games the same way they interpret films. Some things in cinema's bag of tricks get misinterpreted when they're in a game. I imagine Bio's going to go to more of an Oliver Stone style in the future, pounding their intended meaning into the head of every singke viewer.

Stone is a terrible director. Dear god.....Nixon, Any Given Sunday, Alexander, Savages. All trash. I think I'd have to go back over 25 years in order to find a a Stone flick that isn't absolutely cringe worthy in almost every aspect (plot, pacing, editing/cinematography) The guy is the epitome of "style over substance", and imo his style is just straight up garbage.

Sorry I came off as aggressive there. There's just very few directors I look at as lowly as Oliver Stone. Applying that kind of story-telling into the next game, would definitely get me to disavow my favorite game franchise.

[ElSuperGecko]

Obadiah wrote...
Also, I liked the idea that Harbinger is interested in Shep as the perceived danger because the Reapers cannot seem to overwhelm his mind as they can others. At least not yet...

I always saw Harbinger's interest in Shepard as not as a threat, but as a potential ally.  Hence the attempt to build the Human Reaper in ME2.  All it required was the right mind controlling it...

(Oh, look at all the human bodies being gathered around the Citadel Beam in Me3.  And what's happening on the Citadel itself.  "Reminds me of your description of the Collector base!", says Anderson...)

[Mcfly616]

Obadiah wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
...
Who's the kid? Did you play the first 10 minutes of the game?


The dreams can be attributed to PTSD, or from a fictional standpoint it can be seen as a hero having hauntings of his pasast as he hurtles ever closer to his destiny.
...

I always rather liked the idea that Sheapard in ME3 was in some kind of indoctrination/contact with the Catalyst.

It sort of plays into my theory that indoctrination as a form of mind control is actually the organic mind being brought into the Reaper collective. First the mind experiences sensations of other members of the collective (ME2 scientists on the derelect Reaper), and then accepts the same motivations and goals(Saren), and eventually is overwhlemed to the point of uselessness.

Perhaps not at first, but dreams being as nebulous as they are, that image of Shep and the kid burning in the final dream is aweful close to the Catalyst's explanation of "cleansing fire."

Also, I liked the idea that Harbinger is interested in Shep as the perceived danger because the Reapers cannot seem to overwhelm his mind as they can others. At least not yet.

that's actually a cool way of thinking about it. This is why I'm glad they left certain things up to interpretation, instead of spelling every little thing out concretely. Sci Fi should always leave a bit of room for some imagination.

[AlanC9]

Mcfly616 wrote...
Stone is a terrible director. Dear god.....Nixon, Any Given Sunday, Alexander, Savages. All trash. I think I'd have to go back over 25 years in order to find a a Stone flick that isn't absolutely cringe worthy in almost every aspect (plot, pacing, editing/cinematography) The guy is the epitome of "style over substance", and imo his style is just straight up garbage.

Sorry I came off as aggressive there. There's just very few directors I look at as lowly as Oliver Stone. Applying that kind of story-telling into the next game, would definitely get me to disavow my favorite game franchise.

Would you prefer Michael Bay? 

Actually, they're probably going to shoot for Spielberg, or maybe Cuaron, but end up with Zack Snyder.

[dreamgazer]

AlanC9 wrote...

Would you prefer Michael Bay? 

To be honest, I prefer stuff like The Rock and The Island above a lot of Oliver Stone's message-wankery work.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

And if they do that, they've learned nothing.

Because whatever Mac Walters claims, film and games are not the same thing.

What's the difference?

Passive viewer vs active participant

Sure. What does that mean a film can do but a game shouldn't? I can't think of anything offhand.

[69_Gio_69]

Mcfly616 wrote...

69_Gio_69 wrote...

No, I am not satisfied because a lot of plotlines aren't explained to us or just aren't finished yet. I want to know why Cerberus did a 180 on us, started a coup on the citadel, why Udina betrayed us, why Shepard had those weird dreams, who the kid is, why Shepard is so special to everybody, what Leviathan is studying, how TIM got on the Citadel, how Shepard survived the destroy ending and I could go on.

These are all questions that are easily answered by in-game information.

Cerberus was bad from the start. In regards to the narrative, the 180 occurred in ME2. If anything, Cerberus is back to being their old evil selves in ME3. Also, TIM literally tells you that he's after what he's "always" been after. The only difference now is that the Reapers are actually here.

Udina has always been shady, with ulterior motives. (The game even implies he's such a schemer, that he manipulated an unknowing Captain Bailey into killing the Executor). He's always been a snake.

Who's the kid? Did you play the first 10 minutes of the game?


The dreams can be attributed to PTSD, or from a fictional standpoint it can be seen as a hero having hauntings of his past as he hurtles ever closer to his destiny.


How did Shepard survive? "A stubborn enough person can survive just about anything. Rage is a hell of an anesthetic." —Zaeed Massani

I know that Cerberus has always been bad. But, that was a different 'bad' then they were in the end.  Now they make husks out of human refugees and kill them in the streets on the Citadel. Cerberus had human interest first and their objective was to stop the reapers.That objective is somewhat changed in the last game. Now he wants to control them. Okay, that is indeed related to things he did in both ME1 and ME2, but now he's also hindering our actions. TIM needs the crucible to control the reapers. But he is doing everything in his power to stop us from achieving that goal. He is fighting for humans, but also killing them and making husks out of them. He want's to control reapers but is hindering his own plan, or does he have his own crucible? I need more things explained to really understand his motives. It doesn't add up for me. So over three games in the end TIM, one of the three main villains (Reapers and Saren), isn't fleshed out enough.  

Udina is the kind of guy that could betray us. He knows how to play political games and is very egoïstic. But that doesn't tell us why he did it. I think he was plotting something with making Kaiden/Ashley a specter and promoting Bailey to commander, but it is nothing more than speculation. Again all we know is he betrayed us and that his motives are unknown. (Btw Udina is the first voice you hear in ME1 and for the whole trillogy for that matter, he helped you become a specter, he has been there for the whole trillogy and yet his motives weren't clear in the end.)

Yes I played the first 10 minutes. And, even if you don't believe in IT, it is obvious that the kid is a indoctrination method. Never seen before, goes in a closed door, is in the building that got reaperblasted, you are the only one that sees him, reaper noices when Anderson calls you, no one helps him on the kodiak and pops up in dreams with whispers and reaper noises. This was so obvious I cannot go with a litteral explanaition here. So what do I need to make of this? In the end are we indoctrinated? I don't think so. Otherwise Bioware wouldn't cast of IT topic to a 'groups forum'. So that isn't the way to go. So what is the way to go then? Again, totally not elaborated so that we can only speculate. 

PTSD, that is a explanation but how is that more than a theory? There is nothing in the game that's supports this view. The only case of PTSD we see in the game is with the asari in Huerta Memorial. If you take that as evidence, there are much more cases of indoctrination and it makes a lot more sense because of the kid in them. And the dreams are very important in ME3. There are even three of them. So how come we never got a mention of it, outside of those dreams themself. Again not elaborated enough. My own opinion is that it is indoctrination, but can't prove it though.  

Your last point.. I don't know if you are serious here. If you look at the pics Dreamgazer showed, it doesn't look possible Shepard is going to survive. He was also in the middle of it. 

Though this comes of very negatively I am intrigued by these types of questions. These 'flaws' are also what makes ME special to me. 'Speculation for everyone'. But my opinion is that it is too much. After more than a year of speculation the writers could at least give us some hints or pointed us in the right direction. They cannot just keep it like that. In my opinion the next game should be about giving us decisive answers to those questions. I think you could fill up the whole game of just elaborations of the story if done correctly.

Also I am almost done with my second playthrough of the trillogy, but have never done the Citadel DLC before. I'll be doing that very soon though. Maybe it will soften my view on Bioware a bit.  

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

What the hell is wrong with Nixon? Platoon and Wall Street is where he really shined though.

In any case, it'd be nice if someone channeled Ash from Army of Darkness or something. That's my example of "uplifting". haha. If you're going for cinematic, I'll welcome that wholeheartedly. It seems like too many people want to grow up beyond stuff like that. I'm in my 30s, and still don't care to grow up.

Platoon was great. In fact, that was the movie that came to mind when I said I'd have to go back 25yrs in order to enjoy a Stone movie.

Nixon and Wall Street both had great acting. Just the way he shoots a film, the shameless over-the-top extremes he goes to, and the fact it feels like he pushes his agenda in many of his films. It almost comes off as fictional propaganda, whether its concerning politics, stocks, Vietnam, the drug trade, pro football etc.

It's just very jarring for me as he uses blatant stereotypes in films he's trying to portray as realistic and biographical. (I know he hasn't done a legitimate Biography. I'm just saying he pushes his films as "this is what it's like", when in reality its just a plethora of steretypes tied together with some Hollywood flare.

Stone's edgy. That's his calling card. If you like him, you probably like the edginess. Those that don't like him, they think he's way to far over the top and not grounded enough in reality.


I hate to throw him in a hole with Michael Bay.....but yeah, he's like the Michael Bay for adults. Michael Bay is for the kiddies still, he doesn't realize that a little bit of coherence in a plot is a good thing. Stone atleast tries to tell understandable story (albeit, over-saturating it with his "style")

Modifié par Mcfly616, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:41 .

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Throwing money at a situation doesn't magically create a fleet of cruisers able to take on home fleets of entire star empires. 

As I said, they already had a military branch. Who says anything was magically created? Nothing in the trilogy contradicts the existence of Cerberus ships.

And in terms of money, if you're as well funded as that particular system, you most certainly can.

Yeap, they owned minimally one legal corporation specialized on construction of starships - Cord Hislop Aerospace, it isn't so unbeliavable, that they owned other shipyards.

[JamesFaith]

StreetMagic wrote...

I saw Illusive Man as a sort of super Dick Cheney, tied in with a lot of military/industrial complex of humanity. So some of the Cerberus army is plausible. They're still mega-overpowered though. And their tactics are kind of out of place. Humanity in general was said way back in the codex to rely a lot more on infiltration tactics and such.. Shepard personifies that kind of success the best. Cerberus was just straight up brute force/shocktrooper. Even the space ninjas were brute force. Could have been neat to see more underhanded and infltration based stuff. More intrigue. They seemed to only limit that to sleeper agents.

Well, when you didnť see enemy infiltration operations and other secret intriques, does it mean that there weren't such things?

[JamesFaith]

StreetMagic wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Well, when you didnť see enemy infiltration operations and other secret intriques, does it mean that there weren't such things?

I wouldn't doubt there were.. just would have liked to play a variety of scenarios and seen it for myself.

Sure, but this was already set by choice of main hero - marine Shepard.

When one or two infiltration missions can be used, main quest have to be fighting ones. 

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

Would you prefer Michael Bay? 

see my previous post regarding Bay.

Wouldn't mind Cuaron. He's one of the best directors out there right now (and I haven't even seen Gravity). Children of Men is fantastic. Though, he likes to shoot 20 minute scenes without cutting, so I'm not sure how well it'll work with the type of story Mass Effect is telling. Who knows. I'm iffy on Spielberg. I feel like he's fallen off a bit.

Bryan Singer (X2 X-Men United), I loathe superhero movies, but this and Nolan's The Dark Knight are head and shoulders above the rest. He could do a good job of displaying the interworkings and relations of a handful of people on a mission to save the galaxy.

Neill Blomkamp (District 9), his debut was a pleasant surprise, and still praised. Unfortunately, with his latest effort (Elysium) his storytelling took a slight hit (it's alright, District 9's narrative was so well done, a little wake up call is all it should take to get back to that type of quality). But he sure knows how to capture the atmosphere and feel of a Sci Fi setting.