876 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

durasteel wrote...
Green: You spread the taint to every living thing in Thedas, so now the darkspawn don't know who they should try to eat. At the same time, you give every darkspawn a soul and free will. You do this by lighting yourself on fire and jumping off the roof. Now can we all be friends?

Funny enough, that is pretty much what the Architect wanted. Well, aside from the setting yourself on fire part. 

Edit: Also the problem with your analogy is that the darkspawn were an actual threat in DA:O. If we spent the last 3 games with the Geth as genocidal antagonist, it might make a lot more sense for the ending to be about organics vs. synthetics. Instead, we had the reapers as genocidal antagonists... until they sort of weren't, despite the fact that their actual plan totally involved genocide for the sake of genocide. 

Modifié par In Exile, 09 décembre 2013 - 03:15 .

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So...when did Shepard have a different fate throughout the entire series? Outside of the off chance you royaly mess up the suicide mission in two, it is impossible to claim it so.

The story wasn't done yet.  Just like the Warden's story doesn't end at the end of DAO.

The problem is you are confusing narrative for plot. What is really dictating Shepard's death is necessity, not choice. The plot said he had to die in this (making him Walter White minus the drugs or depressing pathos) or else the thematic elements of the plot overall make no sense for the character.

No, Shepard's death was not necessary.  the thematic elements (lame though they were) were brought across just fine in the rest of the game.  The plot doesn't say Shepard has to die.  The plot says Shepard can die.  Mac Walters says Shepard had to die.

And to be clear, there is only one story that spans the three games. If there wasn't, then we would be playing Skyrim at this point.

Reductio ad absurdum.  I am not talking about a sandbox game.  DAO proves you can have an RPG where the protagonist can live or die without screwing up the story.

Similarly Baldur's Gate 2 can have the Bhaalspawn shed his/her physical form and become a god (for good or evil), or remain a mortal (control or destroy, you might say)

You have agency in what the characters do, yes, but  you don't fully own them though. You never did either, and once again, outside of power fantasy RPG's like Skyrim, you never will. That is the only way to ensure a story-based game tells an actual story, its a hybrid of a game that BioWare has been doing since Baldur's Gate, and most of the great RPG's have done for years, like Planescape Torment and Betrayal at Krondor.

Then Bioware should stop saying things like "these are your Shepards" "You are the Inquisitor" and such.

I should also point out, I can only name one game where you have numerous fates unfold on you done by BioWare, and it's Dragon Age Origins with a whopping three. Three different ways, with multiple variants, as to what happens to your Warden. Either you make a sacrifie, you don't, or you perform the ritual. No other BioWare game has ever deviated from the ploy to the point where it actually changes based on it. Characters dying? narrative decision. Light/Dark morality? Narrative flavor. Choices and consequences, always an illusion.

Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal

You refuse the Bhaal essence and remain a mortal
You accept the essence and become a god of Good
You accept the essence and become a god of Evil

Plus extra details based on whom if anyone you romanced

Jade Empire:   whether or not you romanced Silk Fox alters thing a lot.

Funny thing about live characters, and particularly DAO, a live Warden can talk about what they want to do next.  One could say the Warden gets as many fates as a player can imagine happening.  While a dead character is...dead.

Modifié par iakus, 09 décembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[KaiserShep]

Eh, I never considered Shepard's death a necessity, but I suppose this is a moot point, since it's at least possible to avoid it.

[AlanC9]

I think LinksOcarina is granting iakus's premise for the sake of the argument.

[KaiserShep]

Fair enough. I can't wait until the next game comes out so new complaints can be tossed about.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 04:23 .

[David7204]

Shepard's 'forced' death is absolutely repulsive. But the reason why has nothing to do with player agency. Players have never owned their characters. They never will. The player character is always 'forced' to do things players might not agree with.

It's repulsive because it's a thematic betrayal of the premises established by the story. Primarily, that heroism is meaningful. That love, friendship and unity triumph over despair and loneliness. Those themes are established throughout the story and the climax, as the most important moment of the conflict, needed to validate those themes. Instead, it abandoned them. Or even betrayed them.

Modifié par David7204, 09 décembre 2013 - 04:26 .

[Rusty Sandusky]

iakus wrote...


Then Bioware should stop saying things like "these are your Shepards" "You are the Inquisitor" and such

You actually buy into BioWare's pre-release marketing?

[KaiserShep]

Lol that gif is hilarious and disturbing at the same time.

[chemiclord]

There are many words to describe that image.

Hilarious is not one of them. Disturbing is one. Nightmarish is another. Ripped from the pages of the Necronomicon are still others.

Modifié par chemiclord, 09 décembre 2013 - 05:01 .

[wolfhowwl]

I'm perfectly fine with Shepard dying at the end of Gears of War: My Alien Girlfriend Can't Be This Cute Edition.

[Jorji Costava]

There are probably some more interesting ways to have handled Shepard's death, if it had to be inevitable. My idea was to have it turn out that the Lazarus project didn't exactly go off without a hitch; Shepard's only got a very limited amount of time left (say, a year or two). Perhaps the idea is that Shep's living on "borrowed time," so to speak (similar to how Babylon 5 handled Sheridan's death and return, for anyone who's seen that show). Those dreams could be a symptom of the Lazarus implants breaking down. Now, you've got a rationale for why Shepard has to die no matter what, some thematic resonance, an explanation of those dreams, and an explanation of why Lazarus tech isn't being used all the time to resurrect whoever. My two cents, anyways.

[David7204]

And turn every relationship and romance into Thane? No way.

[ImaginaryMatter]

osbornep wrote...

There are probably some more interesting ways to have handled Shepard's death, if it had to be inevitable. My idea was to have it turn out that the Lazarus project didn't exactly go off without a hitch; Shepard's only got a very limited amount of time left (say, a year or two). Perhaps the idea is that Shep's living on "borrowed time," so to speak (similar to how Babylon 5 handled Sheridan's death and return, for anyone who's seen that show). Those dreams could be a symptom of the Lazarus implants breaking down. Now, you've got a rationale for why Shepard has to die no matter what, some thematic resonance, an explanation of those dreams, and an explanation of why Lazarus tech isn't being used all the time to resurrect whoever. My two cents, anyways.

Well I like your Lazarus idea; for whatever that's worth.

[Jorji Costava]

David7204 wrote...

And turn every relationship and romance into Thane? No way.

That's a fair objection. I have to admit that I'm coming at this from a different perspective, as someone who generally avoided the romances. Leaving that aside though, what I'd say is that if you had to make Shepard's death inevitable, then you may as well at least foreshadow it somehow some way, and this seems like a good way to do it. ME3 was pretty intent on turning Shepard into Space Jesus (the name is "Shepard" after all); a better setup might have made players more accepting of that.

Also, I don't think it necessarily has to turn into Thane. Thane is pretty up front about his condition from the beginning, which a player wouldn't necessarily have to do; you might conceal the facts about your condition for the party's benefit or some such. The player would still be able to exercise some degree of control over how this plot development affects Shepard's circle of friends. That may be not a huge amount to work with, but it's something, anyways.

If you're completely opposed to the idea of Shepard's inevitable death, that's totally fine. I'm not a huge fan of it myself, really. I'm just saying that if it had to happen, there were some interesting alternative ways to develop it.

[Stofsk]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


Well I like your Lazarus idea; for whatever that's worth.

As do I.

[txgoldrush]

In Exile wrote...

durasteel wrote...
Green: You spread the taint to every living thing in Thedas, so now the darkspawn don't know who they should try to eat. At the same time, you give every darkspawn a soul and free will. You do this by lighting yourself on fire and jumping off the roof. Now can we all be friends?

Funny enough, that is pretty much what the Architect wanted. Well, aside from the setting yourself on fire part. 

Edit: Also the problem with your analogy is that the darkspawn were an actual threat in DA:O. If we spent the last 3 games with the Geth as genocidal antagonist, it might make a lot more sense for the ending to be about organics vs. synthetics. Instead, we had the reapers as genocidal antagonists... until they sort of weren't, despite the fact that their actual plan totally involved genocide for the sake of genocide. 

No, the Reaper plan was not genocide....quite the opposite in a very twisted way.

[KaiserShep]

The overall plan was technically not genocide, but genocide was certainly part of its facilitation.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 09:29 .

[txgoldrush]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard's 'forced' death is absolutely repulsive. But the reason why has nothing to do with player agency. Players have never owned their characters. They never will. The player character is always 'forced' to do things players might not agree with.

It's repulsive because it's a thematic betrayal of the premises established by the story. Primarily, that heroism is meaningful. That love, friendship and unity triumph over despair and loneliness. Those themes are established throughout the story and the climax, as the most important moment of the conflict, needed to validate those themes. Instead, it abandoned them. Or even betrayed them.

Wrong....you missed half of the themes, conveniently leaving out the darker themes about sacrifice and making difficult decisions that affect others. That victory Is not without cost and sometimes, people will die for the necessary decisions you have to make. And really, Arrival is an example before ME3's ending.

And really, the ending is both idealistically hopeful but sorrowfully realistic.

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

The overall plan was technically not genocide, but genocide was certainly part of its facilitation.

Not according to the Catalyst, to him he is saving entire species.

But here is where the conflict occurs, the Catalyst is doing this because he does not understand truly organic life. Thats his logic problem, and that's Shepards conflict with him.

Sorry, but this board truly does not get this.

[KaiserShep]

What the Catalyst says doesn't very much matter here, and for one simple reason: whether or not it "saves"/"preserves" a portion of a species in the form of a reaper does not change the fact that millions upon millions of others were incinerated by the reapers, or simply left to rot by their monsters in other instances. Genocide does not necessarily involve the complete eradication of an entire species. All one has to do is destroy an exceptionally large number to qualify as such, and that's exactly what they did, like they did to Bekenstein, for example.

In any case, the species the reapers harvest are still extinct, regardless of this preservation process. The transition from individual, organic life to a slurried erector set sees to this. Javik, for example, is the very last of a functionally extinct species, regardless of whether or not a prothean-derived reaper is out there. Yes, I see what you're saying about the catalyst's view on organic life and how its perspective can skew certain definitions of things, but its perspective does not change the fact that it does commit genocide.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 09:45 .

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

What the Catalyst says doesn't very much matter here, and for one simple reason: whether or not it "saves"/"preserves" a portion of a species in the form of a reaper does not change the fact that millions upon millions of others were incinerated by the reapers, or simply left to rot by their monsters in other instances. Genocide does not necessarily involve the complete eradication of an entire species. All one has to do is destroy an exceptionally large number to qualify as such, and that's exactly what they did.

You are twisting it. The Reapers are only killing through military means because people are resisting them. They are not killing for the sake of knowingly wiping out an entire race.

[KaiserShep]

Whether or not people resist would not make a difference; the reapers would still kill the population just the same. They would either be hauled off to be processed, or they would be bombed if doing so was beneficial to their strategy, even if every single person were to surrender, because the interpretation of the mandate still calls for their removal. The why doesn't really matter, because it still requires genocide to function.

If I'm to substitute genocide with anything else, I guess I would simply go with the greatest industrial accident in the history of the universe.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:03 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Yes, yes, tx; we are all humbled by your supreme skills of observation and insight into the true meaning of the Mass Effect series that only you have been able to discern.

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

Whether or not people resist would not make a difference; the reapers would still kill the population just the same. They would either be hauled off to be processed, or they would be bombed if doing so was beneficial to their strategy, even if every single person were to surrender, because the interpretation of the mandate still calls for their removal. The why doesn't really matter, because it still requires genocide to function.

Still not genocide due to the fact that the Reapers are trying to preserve species and their knowledge, not wipe them out.

Bombing towns and killing people that are resisting is not genocide, its war. Would you call US bombing of Japan in WWII genocide? No.

You are really not getting it. What the Catalyst is doing is twisted and gross, but it isn't genocide. In fact, he is arguing against it, that they do not wipe civs out but preserve them before they are wiped out.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:06 .

[txgoldrush]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Yes, yes, tx; we are all humbled by your supreme skills of observation and insight into the true meaning of the Mass Effect series that only you have been able to discern.

Its easy, I get the obvious.

Its not my supreme skills, its  the bashers terrible skills at observation. ME3 is not that complex and it isn't hard to understand.

And yes I noted the sarcasm....might as well throw you in the pile.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:12 .