170 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Yes, and it's a sequence with a conflict that wasn't solved with science. It was solved by Shepard confronting the Reaper and husks, by making a choice to redeem or condemn the krogan, and by Mordin's actions. Thank you for supporting my point.

As I said earlier, "Can we produce the genophage cure (using science)?" was never a conflict of the arc and thus never given any importance. As it should be. 

Modifié par David7204, 01 janvier 2014 - 06:34 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think this is a case of you making things up. Again. So no new changes for the new year David?

Does a leopard change its spots?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think this is a case of you making things up. Again. So no new changes for the new year David?

Does a leopard change its spots?

I don't know whether to be disappointed or giddy.

He's making up a position to prove his own points. 

[Kurremurre]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If the story exists on the basis of problems the protagonist is 'qualified' to solve and proceeds to solve, there's no conflict and thus no real story at all. It's just watching someone complete a task.

So mass effect had no real conflict?

Of course it does, because the work wasn't smooth and easy. Conflicts arose. Challenges arose.

In comparison, consider Mordin making the genophage cure. Never does the story present this as a problem. Shepard needs the cure, Mordin says he can make it, he proceeds to do so. There's no conflict or challenges.

And it's consistently called one of the best sequences and plotlines in the entire trilogy.

I should hope that isn't true. You're talking about the entire Tuchanka/Krogan conflict, but David is talking strictly about the part of that conflict where Mordin produces the cure. The production of the cure - not the distribution of it or anything else surrounding it - is never shown or really brought up. It just happens in the background, as a prerequisite for the rest of the conflict to actually take place.

That part where Mordin actually invents the Genophage cure - the part that is never shown - is certainly not one of the best sequences and plotlines in the entire trilogy.

Simply put, you're both right, because you're talking about different things.

[Reorte]

Kurremurre wrote...

I should hope that isn't true. You're talking about the entire Tuchanka/Krogan conflict, but David is talking strictly about the part of that conflict where Mordin produces the cure. The production of the cure - not the distribution of it or anything else surrounding it - is never shown or really brought up. It just happens in the background, as a prerequisite for the rest of the conflict to actually take place.

That part where Mordin actually invents the Genophage cure - the part that is never shown - is certainly not one of the best sequences and plotlines in the entire trilogy.

Simply put, you're both right, because you're talking about different things.

The part of the cure involving the conflicts happened in ME2 with Maelon. We're in space opera rather than hard science fiction so we don't get any of the scientific challenges but other conflicts are there. It's all part of the same story; presumably Mordin's final bit of work on it is fairly straightforward and therefore not interesting to see.

[Kurremurre]

Reorte wrote...

Kurremurre wrote...

I should hope that isn't true. You're talking about the entire Tuchanka/Krogan conflict, but David is talking strictly about the part of that conflict where Mordin produces the cure. The production of the cure - not the distribution of it or anything else surrounding it - is never shown or really brought up. It just happens in the background, as a prerequisite for the rest of the conflict to actually take place.

That part where Mordin actually invents the Genophage cure - the part that is never shown - is certainly not one of the best sequences and plotlines in the entire trilogy.

Simply put, you're both right, because you're talking about different things.

The part of the cure involving the conflicts happened in ME2 with Maelon. We're in space opera rather than hard science fiction so we don't get any of the scientific challenges but other conflicts are there. It's all part of the same story; presumably Mordin's final bit of work on it is fairly straightforward and therefore not interesting to see.

Indeed. I believe that's the point David is making. The conflicts that engage us surround the production of the Genophage cure, but the production itself - the scientific part - is not what keeps the story interesting. We become interested in questions like "Should we really produce the cure?", but "Can we produce the cure?" is never in the foreground.

Modifié par Kurremurre, 01 janvier 2014 - 01:01 .

[Seival]

David7204 wrote...

I wrote this yesterday but felt it deserving of it's own thread. I want to talk a bit about supposedly 'smart' protagonists.

There have been countless posts on this forum suggesting that Shepard or one of her allies solve problems by 'doing research.' Kill the Reapers by 'doing research.' Control them by 'doing research.' Develop some super-duper weapons by 'doing research.' Cure Thane by 'doing research.' When I ask people what Shepard should have been doing when they complain about incarceration, pretty much the only answer I hear is Shepard 'doing research' on the Reapers. The list goes on.

There's a reason why conflicts with great enemies are solved by violence, not by 'doing research.' And a reason why people need to give up this idea of protagonists solving problems by 'doing research' or whatever it is they imagine smart people do. It's poor writing.

All the things the audiences associate with science -beakers of bubbling chemicals, equations on whiteboards, lasers and lab coats - those are all just props. The real science is the thought. And the thought is invisible. The audience can't see it. Can't perceive it. Can't appreciate it.

Technology begins with an idea. An applied principle or series of principles. And once the ideas are in place...it's just a matter of work - the tremendous and often difficult process of building and refining that applied principle. But work is work. There's no interesting themes in a villain being defeated with work.

So when a problem is solved by 'science' and science alone...it's really nothing more than a Deus Ex Machina. One moment a person has no idea how to solve a problem. The next they do. One moment the galaxy is helpless as the Reapers are on the cusp of invading. The next moment Shepard comes up with an idea for a super-weapon. Or super-technology. Or super-whatever. After which, it's just a process of refining the idea and building the thing. And even if the weapon is actually somehow scientifically and logistically possible against the Reapers, it would be ridiculous. Because where's the conflict in that premise? Where's the drama? Where are the themes? There are none.

So allthrough scientific work requires intelligence and experience, it's thematically no different than other work. And conflicts solved by work and nothing else are boring and narratively pointless. How thematically ridiculous would it be to have the Reapers defeated and conflict lasting millions of years solved because factories produced a certain amount of weapons? Because shipyards built a certain number of ships? Incredibly ridiculous and incredibly lame. Scientific work is ultimately no different. There's no meaning in a great villain being defeated because a bunch of scientists spent X number of hours in the lab.

Which brings us back to what seems to be the general BSN sneering at violence in stories as immature and mindless and praising science as the supposed smart and mature writer's way to solve conflicts.

Stories have protagonists confront conflicts with violence because violence does carry themes. Themes of courage. Themes of unity, friendship, and love as characters see their friends and lovers at risk. Themes of loyalty and sacrifice. Themes of strength and honor. Of despair, of loss, of hope, and of triumph. And these themes simply don't apply to the labors and invisible thoughts of a scientist 'researching.'

I think of Gandalf speaking to Pippen in Minas Tirith about 'a far green country' as a troll and their death hammers on the door a few feet away. I think about Aragorn speaking to his men before the Black Gates. (Lord of the Rings is very good with this sort of thing.) I think of Shepard kissing Liara after the battle in Lair of the Shadow Broker. Incredibly strong moments, and all heavily and directly associated with violence.

You know how many such moments I've seen taking place in a laboratory? Taking place as characters sit and type at computers? Zero.

Consider Breaking Bad. A protagonist hailed as someone who solves their problems with science. But look carefully. When the audience knows about the plan beforehand, Walter never comes up with the idea himself. Every time the plan is known ahead of time to the viewer, the original idea comes from somewhere else.

Walter builds a battery in the desert...after Jesse suggests it. Walter breaks into the evidence room using a magnet...after Jesse suggests a magnet. Robs the train using a clever weight idea...after Jesse suggests the method how. Why? Because the writers understand that a person just coming up with an idea and successfully applying it is off the table. Because it's boring. Because it carries no themes.

Science always exists on the periphery in these kinds of stories. There's science in the weapons and defences the characters use, science in the ships and other vehicles they travel on. Science in AIs and electronic warfare. Science in the characters overriding locks and hacking drones and disrupting shields. But thinking science to be some sort of glorious arrow of rationality and intelligence that pierces through the muck of mysticism and immaturity to solve whatever conflict the story focuses on conveys a failure to understand both stories and science.

I feel I should cap things off by reminding the BSN that even if this sort of thing wasn't a huge problem from a narrative standpoint, the chancesof anyone coming up with a plausible scientific solution to a very difficult problem faced by people with lots of resources (which is going to be any epic story, including Mass Effect) might as well be zero. It  can be done with a small group of people facing a relatively small challenge (such as breaking into a vault), but it's next to impossible for large-scale conflicts. Either the science itself is going to be fabricated, or it's going to be so effective and obvious that everyone else looks like a complete and total idiot for not using the solution  beforehand. I'm reminded of science fiction stories where the good guys defeat the enemy ship by scanning and then 'matching their shield frequency' to the enemy's 'weapon frequency,' upon which the enemy's weapons apparently bounce off and blow up their own ship. Pretty much every 'Reaper killing' suggestion I've seen on the BSN has fit these two problems like a glove.

Interesting thoughts.

I agree. And there are many examples of great sci-fi drama stories that prove you are correct.

Deathworld. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Appleseed. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Ghost in the Shell. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Killzone: Shadow Fall. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Remember Me: Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Elysium. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Prometheus. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.
Matrix. Pure sci-fi background, philosophical thoughts, and violence as the problem-solver.

All great and powerful stories. Also, let's not forget about ME Trilogy of course.

...And there are examples of really bad writing of course, where "science solves everything": War of the Worlds, Independence Day, etc.

Modifié par Seival, 01 janvier 2014 - 05:03 .

[spirosz]

Deus Ex: HR - I didn't use any violence.

[AresKeith]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Deus Ex: HR - I didn't use any violence.

You're forced to kill the bosses, aren't you?

Anyway, I'd like to see more of Seival/David conversing - it's a real meeting of the minds.

They need to argue not agree with each other

[Invisible Man]

spirosz wrote...

Deus Ex: HR - I didn't use any violence.

I remember way back when playing DX: invisible war as a stealth dual club wielding dude. simply because every time someone fired a gun everything got laggy to the point of being unplayable.

[Reorte]

Kurremurre wrote...

Indeed. I believe that's the point David is making. The conflicts that engage us surround the production of the Genophage cure, but the production itself - the scientific part - is not what keeps the story interesting. We become interested in questions like "Should we really produce the cure?", but "Can we produce the cure?" is never in the foreground.

Erk, hope that I'm not agreeing with David.

It really depends upon the story, a good intellectual challenge can be just as good as a good physical one (and I wish Mass Effect had a few more, all we had was Towers of Hanoi back in ME1 and that was both avoidable and not that hard). Mass Effect isn't in quite the right genre for a scientifc challenge to work though.

[thehomeworld]

Doing research in a game about god like machines who want you dead is a very logical thing to do considering how in ME2 we pretty much skipped over all that in favor of oceans 11 in space with terminator baby.

It wasn't asking much at all to actually have to figure out a way to prevent your doom since the governments also to busy to do any research of their own the biggest example of this no homework crowd is the Asari who lost Thessia and then some. Taking the time to find leads, fallow them up,and go to uncharted worlds to gain blue prints, meld with beacons, and meet with say the Rachni whom you rescued all the way back in ME so they can tell you the numbers of your enemy, or go on recon black op missions yourself isn't asking for a whole heck of alot. Replace useless sidequest with missions that will gain you knowledge on the enemy, their whereabouts, or give you new stratagies, technology, or guns/powers to use in the actual ingame battles to fight them would've been better then upping our useless score card of readiness.

Remember how we had to go on that little hunt with EDI? We did research there to find Lev! And recall how we needed to find that signal in a sidequest that was also research. In L.A. Noir you inspected the crime scene that was research, in The Bureau (an indie title) its all about researching the histories, the cover stories, and information you gain from your interviews and peiceing it all together to solve the case, that wasn't boring they just had you pull up you phone and spend a few moments and limited time on research if you spent your time poorly you couldn't research curtain things and had to then present your case to your boss using your memroy of all the info you researched and what was given to you over the games progression get it right your case progresses get it wrong and you're done the criminal gets away.

It's all in how the developers make the undertaking of that research engauging them not doing so and skipping it for the shooting gallery option is poor story telling sure you're asking your audience to think and for some who game for the gun porn that isn't going to interest them but for the players who enjoy the world of ME that would've gone a long way to immersing them and making them feel more in control of their stories out come.

And why not tie how much or how little research you did into your endings? Maybe you needed to research, meet, and undertake so many black ops recon missions yourself in order to gain enough insight to be able to say we've got intel of a reaper ship heading for planet Y but great news because of our extensive research we now know how to take out their shields so lets use this reaper as a test and team up with the Turians and blow it into pieces. If you didn't undertake those requirements then the reaper kills the planet you hear about it on the news and don't gain the ability to take down reaper shields making your mission to retake Earth more costly in man and machine loss.

Modifié par thehomeworld, 02 janvier 2014 - 05:29 .

[Kurremurre]

Reorte wrote...

It really depends upon the story, a good intellectual challenge can be just as good as a good physical one (and I wish Mass Effect had a few more, all we had was Towers of Hanoi back in ME1 and that was both avoidable and not that hard). Mass Effect isn't in quite the right genre for a scientifc challenge to work though.

Certainly! But if I understand David right, the point is that a challenge is just that - a challenge. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's any sort of interesting story being told. A meaningful story requires more than just a goal and a description of the work the characters go through to reach that goal.

[Stakrin]

Or they just can't make Shep a genius, because the average gamer isn't. If the big final solution was research, and my Shep was suddenly smarter than myself, there'd be a disconnection.

And the game was always about a war. I don't see how making the final fight a physical fight poor writing.

[Syphon2008]

I like how many technologies weren't looked into that had definite results/effects like the conduit (the only relay that allowed you to phase through the outer walls of the citadel.) or the reaper weapons from sovereign (thanix cannons). Instead we spend unknown amounts of moneys stopping collectors in me2 and building the crucible on a terrible theory of "No one knows what this thing does but we should build it anyways." in Me3.

To me a phasing technology seems like the better route... but then again, I'm not a scientist, or a storywriter.

[Reorte]

Kurremurre wrote...

Reorte wrote...

It really depends upon the story, a good intellectual challenge can be just as good as a good physical one (and I wish Mass Effect had a few more, all we had was Towers of Hanoi back in ME1 and that was both avoidable and not that hard). Mass Effect isn't in quite the right genre for a scientifc challenge to work though.

Certainly! But if I understand David right, the point is that a challenge is just that - a challenge. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's any sort of interesting story being told. A meaningful story requires more than just a goal and a description of the work the characters go through to reach that goal.

But that goal and description is the basic framework that has to be there to begin with. Once you've got then you can set about making it into something interesting.

[Kurremurre]

Reorte wrote...

Kurremurre wrote...

Reorte wrote...

It really depends upon the story, a good intellectual challenge can be just as good as a good physical one (and I wish Mass Effect had a few more, all we had was Towers of Hanoi back in ME1 and that was both avoidable and not that hard). Mass Effect isn't in quite the right genre for a scientifc challenge to work though.

Certainly! But if I understand David right, the point is that a challenge is just that - a challenge. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's any sort of interesting story being told. A meaningful story requires more than just a goal and a description of the work the characters go through to reach that goal.

But that goal and description is the basic framework that has to be there to begin with. Once you've got then you can set about making it into something interesting.

Exactly! However, in order to do that, we have to create some sort of conflict. That conflict, according to David, will hardly be anything interesting if it's a scientific type of conflict. For the story to become interesting, we will need to introduce new elements.

Imagine if the story in question was all about a scientist who was trying to create a weapon to fight the Reapers. If that story was nothing but a description of his scientific work, it would come off as more of a textbook than a story. There would hardly be any tension, and the story would essentially be pointless. There would be no themes, because it would all be clinical description of the procedure.

For the story to actually become interesting, something unrelated to the scientific work would have to happen. Reaper forces might attack the lab, or the scientist's wife might be kidnapped - or she could be cheating on him. Another possibility could be that the scientist realises he will need a component for his weapon - something heavily guarded and only possible to acquire illegally. These things would open up the story to tension and themes, and would also take the focus off the scientific part of it.

If, however, the story were to remain focused on the science, any plot point would have to be in accordance with that. The abovementioned component might be something he has on the shelf, so he'll get it and keep working. It might turn out that he's made a mistake in the construction of the weapon - and he'll simply go back and fix it. It might be tricky - an entire chapter could be written about how difficult it is to fix, and how he has to call on his assistant for help, and how tired the scientist is afterwards. It would be a challenge indeed, but it would hardly make the story any good.

Modifié par Kurremurre, 04 janvier 2014 - 08:31 .

[Reorte]

Kurremurre wrote...

Imagine if the story in question was all about a scientist who was trying to create a weapon to fight the Reapers. If that story was nothing but a description of his scientific work, it would come off as more of a textbook than a story. There would hardly be any tension, and the story would essentially be pointless. There would be no themes, because it would all be clinical description of the procedure.

For the story to actually become interesting, something unrelated to the scientific work would have to happen.

(hope I've edited enough to still keep the relevent parts and not have a huge quote)

I disagree with that - it's assuming that conflict is the only interesting challenge, and that the challenges posed by scientific problems themselve can't ever be interesting. They can be - that's precisely why quite a lot of scientists get in to science. It can be a lot more interesting and dramatic than a bunch of guys shooting at each other, as well as, in a science fiction setting, exploring various ideas. That's not to say that a good story can't have that and conflict in it - of course it can, it can make it more interesting still, in the same way as a story that's just a bunch of guys shooting at each other can be made more interesting if it has more to it than just that.

Unfortunately I see claims that science itself is fundamentally souless and unexciting as part of the plague of anti-intellectualism that's all too rife these days.

Modifié par Reorte, 04 janvier 2014 - 02:28 .

[Nightwriter]

I'm struggling to summarize your OP in my mind.

• People who wanted Shepard to be more intelligent or proactive were asking for prolonged eventless sedentary lab work.
• Intelligence and scientific awareness are incompatible with dramatic storytelling.
• People wanted ME3 to start with Shepard saying "Hey gang I have invented a Reaper superweapon in my laboratory with beakers and bubbling chemicals."
• Nonviolent solutions in games suck.
• Anyone who would like more focus on nonviolent elements hates combat gameplay and holds it in contempt.
• Violence is the only medium in which themes can be expressed.
• It's boring when progagonists come up with their own solutions.

[shodiswe]

Sometimes you can have an idea, but that idea needs to take form.

You got this end product idea but the exact engineering details are still unclear, especialy if it's a massive time consuming project.

You will either have to work hard to create all components from scratch... ask people with experience of said component to help your development project, or buy the thign you need form.... I don't know... Depends what it is... IKEA?

Then you need more people or you buy the components, you might need a few techs or engineers to help you assemble the thinf and test the components and different functions.
Sometimes you might want some programmers or systemengineers to help you setup a reliable operating system.

Sometimes you will come to the realisation that you will have to redesign or change things due to technical limitations of the components at hand.

In a way, shepards job was to help collect experts for the crusible project and gather the military support needed for deployment of this unknown superweapon.

Some of the research involved tracking down the people they needed. Shepards primary function wasn't to fight reapers but to collect the resources needed to build and deploy the Crusible and to figure out how to use it. Which is research even if that research invovled a lot of running around, talking, shooting those trying to prevent your research.

It isn't until you get to priority earth that the "Research" part is entierly completed, thats where you get to the purely military deployment process of the finnished Crusible and recruited military support personel.

[shodiswe]

Nightwriter wrote...

I'm struggling to summarize your OP in my mind.

• People who wanted Shepard to be more intelligent or proactive were asking for prolonged eventless sedentary lab work.
• Intelligence and scientific awareness are incompatible with dramatic storytelling.
  
• People wanted ME3 to start with Shepard saying "Hey gang I have invented a Reaper superweapon in my laboratory with beakers and bubbling chemicals."
  
• Nonviolent solutions in games suck.
  
• Anyone who would like more focus on nonviolent elements hates combat gameplay and holds it in contempt.
  
• Violence is the only medium in which themes can be expressed.
  
• It's boring when progagonists come up with their own solutions.

That last point is one of the reasons I didn't like the endign with the Catalyst, the catalyst gave you all of the options.... It was just Shepard and the catalyst and the Catalyst did all of the talking and all of the work. The Catalyst had a monopoly on giving "options".

[Nightwriter]

Pfft, you are woefully incorrect to be unsatisfied with that. The Catalyst was a mere mouthpiece with no emotional value, a machine, a nonentity. It was just presenting your options to you and if you walked away feeling like you didn't succeed on your own steam that is your problem.

I better shut up before my more reasonable opponents get too tired of my snide sarcastiposts and start mailing me canned farts again. They label them "macadamia cookies" to make sure I open them, cruel ****ing bastards.