67 réponses à ce sujet

[Sebby]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh god, not another Goldrush thread...

"The theme is sacrifice. It's not my fault you don't get it. Quit complaining"

- TxGoldrush.

I still get a chuckle with how he once claimed Kai Leng is "supposed" to be a joke. That's on par with David saying the NCR and Mr House in New Vegas have no reason to be against each other.

And it was just plain insulting to proper and good joke villains like Handsome Jack and Dr. Nefarious.

[SwobyJ]

Seboist wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The Illusion of Choice is the main theme of Mass Effect- especially illustrated in ME3.

Illusion of Choice.

There are other themes as well- Mostly trans-humanism, racism, sacrifice, deus ex machina, redemption, victory and so on.

But the main theme is the Illusion of Choice.

Mass Effect has illusion of illusion of choice. It's so transparent that your choices mean jack and that one is playing a linear gears clone with dialogue and  "choose your few second cutscenes" options.

Some have sadly bought into it though and I've even seen a few on here talking smack about JRPGs being "linear" and of regular (and better) shooters like Gears and CoD.

Ever since at least KOTOR it is been illusion of choice to some significant degree.

It's not like we get entirely different acts or ending scenarios. We really don't. Each game from Bioware has been gradually more and more narratively streamlined, and we'll have to see with DA:I/ME4 if Bioware decides to finally change that with this next console gen.

It is much easier, for peace of mind, to look at it all (in Mass Effect) like you're reading a sci-fi novel with a directed story, but as the 'player', we're able to tailor parts of it to fit our preferences, personal morality, and knowledge of the game world.


You are Commander Shepard as long as you participate in this story, but Commander Shepard will never be you.


There are still RPGs with very concrete and varied results of choice and character identity, but they're becoming very few and far between.

If Bioware wants to consider their games to be 'role playing', they need to figure out a different term from 'RPG', as 'RPG' this aint - there is roleplaying, and some 'RPG' mechanics, but it's not what the genre is supposed to be.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 14 novembre 2013 - 03:09 .

[Sebby]

SwobyJ wrote...

Seboist wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The Illusion of Choice is the main theme of Mass Effect- especially illustrated in ME3.

Illusion of Choice.

There are other themes as well- Mostly trans-humanism, racism, sacrifice, deus ex machina, redemption, victory and so on.

But the main theme is the Illusion of Choice.

Mass Effect has illusion of illusion of choice. It's so transparent that your choices mean jack and that one is playing a linear gears clone with dialogue and  "choose your few second cutscenes" options.

Some have sadly bought into it though and I've even seen a few on here talking smack about JRPGs being "linear" and of regular (and better) shooters like Gears and CoD.

Ever since at least KOTOR it is been illusion of choice to some significant degree.

It's not like we get entirely different acts or ending scenarios. We really don't. Each game from Bioware has been gradually more and more narratively streamlined, and we'll have to see with DA:I/ME4 if Bioware decides to finally change that with this next console gen.

It is much easier, for peace of mind, to look at it all (in Mass Effect) like you're reading a sci-fi novel with a directed story, but as the 'player', we're able to tailor parts of it to fit our preferences, personal morality, and knowledge of the game world.


You are Commander Shepard as long as you participate in this story, but Commander Shepard will never be you.


There are still RPGs with very concrete and varied results of choice and character identity, but they're becoming very few and far between.

If Bioware wants to consider their games to be 'role playing', they need to figure out a different term from 'RPG', as 'RPG' this aint - there is roleplaying, and some 'RPG' mechanics, but it's not what the genre is supposed to be.

My biggest issue with their handling of things is with their bogus claims of choices having a "big impact" (like Walters said of the collector base and rachni decisions) and then failing to deliver. If they were honest from the start that these would simply be minor "flavoring" choices then myself and others wouldn't be complaining.

In fact, in retrospect the trilogy would've been better off as a straight up TPS with no pretense of choices or at least small scale choices of how to tackle objectives ala DX:HR or Dishonored.

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...

The MAIN THEME of the entire saga is this.

The series is about the conflict that arises when one attempts to control the destiny of another, for the best of intentions or the worst drives for power, ignorant or lacking understanding of the thoughts and feelings or the capabilities of those they try to control.

Not only does this incorporate the Krogan Rebellions and the Morning War storylines, but Cerberus and the Reapers themselves. Not only this, many sidequests and stories also deal with this theme, Project Overlord for example.

Alright I'm with you so far. That is what I largely see from the trilogy as a whole.

So saying that the endings do not match the themes of the series is not only wrong....its dishonest, ignorant, and plain dumb.

From the transportation up the beam to the firing of the crucible, the main theme of the entire saga is not only portrayed once, but THREE times over. How? TIM tries to control the Reapers ignorant that they have indoctrinated him, Leviathans created the Catalyst as a tool ignorant of the capability to turn against them, and then the big one, the Catalyst tries to control the destiny of all sentient life, ignorant or lacking understanding of their feelings, and their capabilities as well. And really this is how the Reapers are defeated, the Catalyst underestimated organics resourcefulness and the cycle finally can end. Nevermind the foreshadowing when Shepard states time and time again that the Reapers do not understand them. Of all the talk of Reapers saying that organics would never understand them, in the end, it was the Reapers never understanding organics...that's the twist. And that's the reason for the CONFLICT, not the Catalyst's motives. Its his METHODS.

However, the theme is NOT about resolving these conflicts, ONLY that they happen. In fact many of these conflicts Shepard doesn't resolve or resolve in a positive manner for both sides. And in the end, Shepard him or herself has to control the destiny of others to achieve victory, but here is the difference....he or she is mindful of thoughts and feelings, especially Paragon.

Combine this with the main theme of ME3 itself (while the series has its main theme, standalone, each title has its own main theme), which the main theme of mE3 is victory through sacrifice, well there you go, the ending DOES match the themes of the series.

And you've lost me. Conflict arises with from attempts to control the self determinism of various races true but you largely have the option to disagree with the decision to do so as well. That way if you don't think TIM shouldn't get to use the Collector base to jump start humanity you blow it up. Think the Krogan should decide their own place inthe galaxy? Cure the genophage. Think the Geth get a chance to self determinate? Keep them alive. Think the Rachni deserves a chance at the same thing? Also keep them alive. Keeping this in mind I'd imagine that at the end of the day there's an option that lets me preseve the self deteminism of the various races or not depending on how I play the character, I mean it's consistent right?

But wait, the red option prevents the self-determinsm of my robot friends, blue literally hands the reigns of the galaxy over to Shepalyst so that it's will dominates the galaxy via Reapers, and don't even get me started on how green violates this rule. So why than, if the this theme is consistent, when I get to these choices the only option where Shepard states that s/he stands for freedom of others to self determinate rocks fall, everyone dies and the cycle continues? I mean it's consistent right?

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 14 novembre 2013 - 04:50 .

[KevinT18]

SwobyJ wrote...

KevinT18 wrote...

This is a very Canadian game from a very Canadian studio. The main theme to me was always collaboration and tolerance.

ME1 told us space racists are bad and these uglies we were at first shocked at were lovable. ME2 was a band of misfits and dangerous criminals/assassins, but they all helped and learned to love. ME3 was this turned to a 10, the whole galaxy on board. If the UN's creators had a creative writing team, this would have been their space opera fantasy.

Yet the Mass Effect universe's version of the UN sucked and perpetuated lies in order to get everyone to work together..

What kind of story has no warts and is perfect? Also I didnt mean Citadel Council = UNSC, I meant more the ideals of globalist collaboration would have spawned a drama like ME in space...I think you're trolling me?

[SwobyJ]

Seboist wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Seboist wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The Illusion of Choice is the main theme of Mass Effect- especially illustrated in ME3.

Illusion of Choice.

There are other themes as well- Mostly trans-humanism, racism, sacrifice, deus ex machina, redemption, victory and so on.

But the main theme is the Illusion of Choice.

Mass Effect has illusion of illusion of choice. It's so transparent that your choices mean jack and that one is playing a linear gears clone with dialogue and  "choose your few second cutscenes" options.

Some have sadly bought into it though and I've even seen a few on here talking smack about JRPGs being "linear" and of regular (and better) shooters like Gears and CoD.

Ever since at least KOTOR it is been illusion of choice to some significant degree.

It's not like we get entirely different acts or ending scenarios. We really don't. Each game from Bioware has been gradually more and more narratively streamlined, and we'll have to see with DA:I/ME4 if Bioware decides to finally change that with this next console gen.

It is much easier, for peace of mind, to look at it all (in Mass Effect) like you're reading a sci-fi novel with a directed story, but as the 'player', we're able to tailor parts of it to fit our preferences, personal morality, and knowledge of the game world.


You are Commander Shepard as long as you participate in this story, but Commander Shepard will never be you.


There are still RPGs with very concrete and varied results of choice and character identity, but they're becoming very few and far between.

If Bioware wants to consider their games to be 'role playing', they need to figure out a different term from 'RPG', as 'RPG' this aint - there is roleplaying, and some 'RPG' mechanics, but it's not what the genre is supposed to be.

My biggest issue with their handling of things is with their bogus claims of choices having a "big impact" (like Walters said of the collector base and rachni decisions) and then failing to deliver. If they were honest from the start that these would simply be minor "flavoring" choices then myself and others wouldn't be complaining.

In fact, in retrospect the trilogy would've been better off as a straight up TPS with no pretense of choices or at least small scale choices of how to tackle objectives ala DX:HR or Dishonored.

The only way we can take their words without considering it a lie, is that everything we do in the series, if we put ourselves in full immersion (metagaming can screw off here), we consider the impact of every major choice made.

For example, the Rachni have proven themselves highly vulnerable to mental influence. Whole armies could quickly be created from them. That might impact how YOU, the player, make the choice at the end.

[SwobyJ]

KevinT18 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

KevinT18 wrote...

This is a very Canadian game from a very Canadian studio. The main theme to me was always collaboration and tolerance.

ME1 told us space racists are bad and these uglies we were at first shocked at were lovable. ME2 was a band of misfits and dangerous criminals/assassins, but they all helped and learned to love. ME3 was this turned to a 10, the whole galaxy on board. If the UN's creators had a creative writing team, this would have been their space opera fantasy.

Yet the Mass Effect universe's version of the UN sucked and perpetuated lies in order to get everyone to work together..

What kind of story has no warts and is perfect? Also I didnt mean Citadel Council = UNSC, I meant more the ideals of globalist collaboration would have spawned a drama like ME in space...I think you're trolling me?

No I'm not. I'm just saying that if this was a UN propaganda piece, the Council would be written MUCH more favorably, and "I hate politicians" would have never existed in the script.

[txgoldrush]

Greylycantrope wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The MAIN THEME of the entire saga is this.

The series is about the conflict that arises when one attempts to control the destiny of another, for the best of intentions or the worst drives for power, ignorant or lacking understanding of the thoughts and feelings or the capabilities of those they try to control.

Not only does this incorporate the Krogan Rebellions and the Morning War storylines, but Cerberus and the Reapers themselves. Not only this, many sidequests and stories also deal with this theme, Project Overlord for example.

Alright I'm with you so far. That is what I largely see from the trilogy as a whole.

So saying that the endings do not match the themes of the series is not only wrong....its dishonest, ignorant, and plain dumb.

From the transportation up the beam to the firing of the crucible, the main theme of the entire saga is not only portrayed once, but THREE times over. How? TIM tries to control the Reapers ignorant that they have indoctrinated him, Leviathans created the Catalyst as a tool ignorant of the capability to turn against them, and then the big one, the Catalyst tries to control the destiny of all sentient life, ignorant or lacking understanding of their feelings, and their capabilities as well. And really this is how the Reapers are defeated, the Catalyst underestimated organics resourcefulness and the cycle finally can end. Nevermind the foreshadowing when Shepard states time and time again that the Reapers do not understand them. Of all the talk of Reapers saying that organics would never understand them, in the end, it was the Reapers never understanding organics...that's the twist. And that's the reason for the CONFLICT, not the Catalyst's motives. Its his METHODS.

However, the theme is NOT about resolving these conflicts, ONLY that they happen. In fact many of these conflicts Shepard doesn't resolve or resolve in a positive manner for both sides. And in the end, Shepard him or herself has to control the destiny of others to achieve victory, but here is the difference....he or she is mindful of thoughts and feelings, especially Paragon.

Combine this with the main theme of ME3 itself (while the series has its main theme, standalone, each title has its own main theme), which the main theme of mE3 is victory through sacrifice, well there you go, the ending DOES match the themes of the series.

And you've lost me. Conflict arises with from attempts to control the self determinism of various races true but you largely have the option to disagree with the decision to do so as well. That way if you don't think TIM shouldn't get to use the Collector base to jump start humanity you blow it up. Think the Krogan should decide their own place inthe galaxy? Cure the genophage. Think the Geth get a chance to self determinate? Keep them alive. Think the Rachni deserves a chance at the same thing? Also keep them alive. Keeping this in mind I'd imagine that at the end of the day there's an option that lets me preseve the self deteminism of the various races or not depending on how I play the character, I mean it's consistent right?

But wait, the red option prevents the self-determinsm of my robot friends, blue literally hands the reigns of the galaxy over to Shepalyst so that it's will dominates the galaxy via Reapers, and don't even get me started on how green violates this rule. So why than, if the this theme is consistent, when I get to these choices the only option where Shepard states that s/he stands for freedom of others to self determinate rocks fall, everyone dies and the cycle continues? I mean it's consistent right?

No, you missed what I just said, so let me repeat it.

However, the theme is NOT about resolving these conflicts, ONLY that they happen.

and

And in the end, Shepard him or herself has to control the destiny of others to achieve victory, but here is the difference....he or she is mindful of thoughts and feelings, especially Paragon.




There is a reason why Shepard is wary of synthesis, even when he or she isn't rebuking it, it gives him or her pause unlike the first two options.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 novembre 2013 - 05:53 .

[txgoldrush]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I always assumed the main theme was something along the lines of unity. In the first game you ride around in a ship that is a collaborative effort with a multi-species squad of loveable misfits. In the second game you build a different squad of loveable misfits, deal with their problems, win their loyalties, and beat a no-win situation through friendship. In the third game you gather War Assets of every sentient race to build something called a Crucible, which is hardly a subtle name.

No, its not.

In ME1, you can easily win by being the most pro human possible and by belittling your teammates, an dthen have humanity take over the council because the other races are too "useless" to deal with the problems of the reapers.

ME2 is NOT about unity, but about loyalty to the commander. In fact, they are not really unified, and the inter squad relationships in ME2 are so poor that unity cannot even be a theme. They barely talk to each other outside Miranda, Jacob, and Mordin. The only unity is their trust for Shepard NOT to eachother.

It was ME3 that brought the theme of unity, but sorry, its a secondary theme.

[txgoldrush]

Seboist wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh god, not another Goldrush thread...

"The theme is sacrifice. It's not my fault you don't get it. Quit complaining"

- TxGoldrush.

I still get a chuckle with how he once claimed Kai Leng is "supposed" to be a joke. That's on par with David saying the NCR and Mr House in New Vegas have no reason to be against each other.

And it was just plain insulting to proper and good joke villains like Handsome Jack and Dr. Nefarious.

No what I said is Kai Leng is supposed to be foolhardy and easily outsmarted, which he is, time and time again.

And Handsome Jack is NOT a joke villain, this is clear regarding Angel and then Roland.

[txgoldrush]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

If that's the theory then cool.

But isn't the point of the decision chamber that each of the four choices will have lasting impact on the universe? Essentially forcing our will over others rather they like it or not? That makes it sound like Shepard is becoming what the Reapers represent and that should not be a good thing.

Reject=Condemn the galaxy to defeat/Mass Suicide
Control=Become the Catalyst and use the Reapers as a galactic protection force/Mass Slavery
Synthesis=Turn everyone into synthetic/organic hybrids and homogenize every species/Mass Molestation
Destroy=Destroy all synthetic life to end the reaper threat to organic life once and for all/Mass Genocide

And even if we accept the notion that this theory is the central theme of Mass Effect, it's so-called "climax" in the form of the Catalyst and the Decision Chamber is implemented in such a way that it causes the plot to collapse in on itself because the Catalyst's existence contradicts the main plot of ME1 which itself was the founding stone of the whole series.

In short, the theme may be good, but internal consistency and narrative cohesion are far more important. If neither of these things are present, then your theme won't be able to maintain itself.

Sorry, the narrative was consistent. Vigil simply is wrong about some things because he lacks some knowledge. You are ignoring the fact that sometimes not everything a character says is true.

Even the codex can be wrong, that's not bad writing, that's intentional. Because simply put, the truth is not known.

Just because Vigil and Sovereign said it in ME1 does not make it true.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 novembre 2013 - 06:06 .

[ShallowlLife9871]

 for me, the main themes have always been, Hope, Endurance and  well, unity.

and ponies:wub:

[ShadowLordXII]

txgoldrush wrote...
Sorry, the narrative was consistent. Vigil simply is wrong about some things because he lacks some knowledge. You are ignoring the fact that sometimes not everything a character says is true.

Even the codex can be wrong, that's not bad writing, that's intentional. Because simply put, the truth is not known.

Just because Vigil and Sovereign said it in ME1 does not make it true.

No, the narrative falls apart as soon as the StarChild shows up. Any theme that's conveyed with him is doomed because he's a walking plothole. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's no point to having Sovereign as the reaper Vanguard or for any of his driving actions(Not what Sovereign said, but what he did) in and prior to ME1 when the Central Conciousness, Controller, Creator of the Reapers lives within/part of the Citadel that has a built-in mass relay to Dark Space.

Why bother with the keepers or Sovereign when the brat could've activated the Dark Relay at anytime? Either he can't or he won't. It makes no sense for him to have made the Citadel and purposefully rendering himself unable to activate the relay; and considering how much he stresses the threat of the synthetic-organic conflict and the necessity of the reaper cycles, he has no reason not to.

Back on topic, the OP's central theme would be alright. The concept of inevitability and fate...if implemented better and without destroying that the narrative. Because even if the StarChild is not a walking plothole, his presence still pulls the rug out from under the player's feet and arbitrarily changes the central conflict and theme of the whole series in less than fifteen minutes.

[iOnlySignIn]

I think the main theme is punching/shooting people in the face and saying witty things around the same time as the punching/shooting.

I think that's more fun than your serious stuff.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 14 novembre 2013 - 10:17 .

[KaiserShep]

So basically, the theme is "enemies everywhere".

[Fixers0]

Thanks for your opinion.

[KaiserShep]

"You must die!"

[TheProtheans]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh god, not another Goldrush thread...

"The theme is sacrifice. It's not my fault you don't get it. Quit complaining"

- TxGoldrush.

I like goldrush.
The quote below is why I love him, such ignorance can only be praised.

So saying that the endings do not match the themes of the series is not only wrong....its dishonest, ignorant, and plain dumb.

Stakrin wrote...

they go together really well actually. 

You're right actually, they both are full of ignorance and idiocy.

[Star fury]

There is no "main theme" in ME because it wasn't planned as a trilogy since the beginning. That's why ME1 and 2 have so much different themes and, well, ME3 dropped the ball trying to mix and bring closure to many different themes while portraying a galactic war.

[txgoldrush]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Sorry, the narrative was consistent. Vigil simply is wrong about some things because he lacks some knowledge. You are ignoring the fact that sometimes not everything a character says is true.

Even the codex can be wrong, that's not bad writing, that's intentional. Because simply put, the truth is not known.

Just because Vigil and Sovereign said it in ME1 does not make it true.

No, the narrative falls apart as soon as the StarChild shows up. Any theme that's conveyed with him is doomed because he's a walking plothole. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's no point to having Sovereign as the reaper Vanguard or for any of his driving actions(Not what Sovereign said, but what he did) in and prior to ME1 when the Central Conciousness, Controller, Creator of the Reapers lives within/part of the Citadel that has a built-in mass relay to Dark Space.

Why bother with the keepers or Sovereign when the brat could've activated the Dark Relay at anytime? Either he can't or he won't. It makes no sense for him to have made the Citadel and purposefully rendering himself unable to activate the relay; and considering how much he stresses the threat of the synthetic-organic conflict and the necessity of the reaper cycles, he has no reason not to.

Back on topic, the OP's central theme would be alright. The concept of inevitability and fate...if implemented better and without destroying that the narrative. Because even if the StarChild is not a walking plothole, his presence still pulls the rug out from under the player's feet and arbitrarily changes the central conflict and theme of the whole series in less than fifteen minutes.

Sorry, you simply do not know the whole story, so you can't just claim "plot hole", we do not know HOW the Protheans jammed the signal from the Keepers to the Citadel....that's right. They did not jam the signal from the Vanguard to the Keepers, but they prevented the Keepers from relaying that signal to the Citadel, which is revealed to be the Catalyst. So basically, they prevented the Catalyst from opening the gate. Also remember that the Catalyst is the embodiment of all Reapers. We do not know how the Catalyst operates the Citadel, so we cannot claim plot hole because a contradiction cannot be proven. I can easily say that the Catalyst operates the Citadel through the Keepers, through inference, therefore destroying your claims of a plot hole.

And no the theme didn't just change in the ending. It was the same themes foreshadowed by the characters not only all through ME3, but some through past games. And the central conflict never changed, in fact, the conflict is confirmed because its a conflict of METHOD, not MOTIVE. And really, the motive is irrelevant.

And I am going to say this, The Catalyst EMBODIES the main theme of the trilogy.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 novembre 2013 - 11:55 .

[txgoldrush]

Star fury wrote...

There is no "main theme" in ME because it wasn't planned as a trilogy since the beginning. That's why ME1 and 2 have so much different themes and, well, ME3 dropped the ball trying to mix and bring closure to many different themes while portraying a galactic war.

Wrong.

While each of the games have their own main themes as stand alone stories, the entire saga's theme is what I stated above, the main theme from the sum of all three games.

And ME1 and ME2 had many missions where things go bad because someone tried to control something or someone without understanding their feelings or capabilities, including many ME2 character backstories. Nevermind the Morning War and the Krogan Rebellions, introduced into the narrative in ME1.

[txgoldrush]

TheProtheans wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh god, not another Goldrush thread...

"The theme is sacrifice. It's not my fault you don't get it. Quit complaining"

- TxGoldrush.

I like goldrush.
The quote below is why I love him, such ignorance can only be praised.

So saying that the endings do not match the themes of the series is not only wrong....its dishonest, ignorant, and plain dumb.

Stakrin wrote...

they go together really well actually. 

You're right actually, they both are full of ignorance and idiocy.

And all you anti enders go good together...a bunch of daft fans who ignore the narrative to criticize the ending because you don't like it or understand it.