170 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

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.

No reasonable person, opponent or otherwise, could possibly get tired of your sarcastiposts

[Nightwriter]

Bah. Of course they could. It's all well and good for you, you're on my side of Opinion Avenue, those aren't your arguments I am sarcastislamming.

Amazing how many sarcastiwords one can event.

I think I will have a sarcastimuffin.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Bah. Of course they could. It's all well and good for you, you're on my side of Opinion Avenue, those aren't your arguments I am sarcastislamming.

Amazing how many sarcastiwords one can event.

I think I will have a sarcastimuffin.

Sarcasterrific!

[CroGamer002]

spirosz wrote...

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

Wait, like not at all?

Not even non-lethal violence?

Excluding bosses?

[Kurremurre]

Reorte wrote...

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.

That's not the point, though. Science is certainly interesting as an academic field, and scientific challenges can be extremely stimulating and satisfying. We're talking specifically about stories, though, not challenges; novels, not textbooks.

Also, a story involving nothing but a bunch of guys shooting at each other is an equally bad story. David's point, however, is that such a scenario allows for more opportunities for good storytelling, exploring themes like loss, courage, honour, morality etc.

Modifié par Kurremurre, 04 janvier 2014 - 04:45 .

[Reorte]

Kurremurre wrote...

That's not the point, though. Science is certainly interesting as an academic field, and scientific challenges can be extremely stimulating and satisfying. We're talking specifically about stories, though, not challenges; novels, not textbooks.

And why should those challenges, pitfalls, trials, successes and failures be any worse material for a story than other kinds?

Also, a story involving nothing but a bunch of guys shooting at each other is an equally bad story. David's point, however, is that such a scenario allows for more opportunities for good storytelling, exploring themes like loss, courage, honour, morality etc.

Plenty of themes to explore around scientific issues too.

[Kurremurre]

And why should those challenges, pitfalls, trials, successes and failures be any worse material for a story than other kinds?

You can certainly build a good story around scientific endeavours, but a story about science would be devoid of tension. As a story, it would be meaningless.

Plenty of themes to explore around scientific issues too.

Such as?

[David7204]

It's been established from the very beginning that this is a story about fighting the Reapers.

Could have been a story told about some researcher working on one technology or another? Sure. Just like there could have been a story told about pretty much anything or anyone in the Mass Effect universe.

This is not it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Kurremurre wrote...

Plenty of themes to explore around scientific issues too.

Such as?

Themes pertaining to issues of ethics and morality, law, humanity, science.. there's many themes that can be explored through science.

[David7204]

How many times has this point been explained throughout this thread? Not enough, apparently.

If it's an issue surrounding science such as ethics or law or morality, the conflict is not the science. Just as the krogan genophage carries many such themes, but there's conflict whatsoever in actually producing the cure. Mordin makes it off-screen, with no problems.

As I said, The conflict is never 'Can we produce the genophage cure (using science)?' None of the characters run into problems with the actual science.

Modifié par David7204, 05 janvier 2014 - 09:19 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Your original post though spoke of solving conflict with violence vs science. Similarly how conflicts being resolved by science and science alone is boring and makes for bad stories, solving conflicts through violence and just violence and just violence is also boring and bad for stories. You say that science is just work, so is violence; it's probably more entertaining, but equally meaningless.

I think the point people are trying to make is if violence can carry themes then so can science. It's not like having two people running and shooting instantly carries themes, that's up to the writers. True, for the genophage the actually science doesn't add anything, it is the implications of using such technology that makes it interesting. Same with how two people fighting isn't interesting (unless your like 12), it's what that fight means that's interesting.

[Sion1138]

How about Sherlock Holmes?

[Kurremurre]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Your original post though spoke of solving conflict with violence vs science. Similarly how conflicts being resolved by science and science alone is boring and makes for bad stories, solving conflicts through violence and just violence and just violence is also boring and bad for stories. You say that science is just work, so is violence; it's probably more entertaining, but equally meaningless.

I think the point people are trying to make is if violence can carry themes then so can science. It's not like having two people running and shooting instantly carries themes, that's up to the writers. True, for the genophage the actually science doesn't add anything, it is the implications of using such technology that makes it interesting. Same with how two people fighting isn't interesting (unless your like 12), it's what that fight means that's interesting.

Now that's a good point. If the theme in a science-focused story isn't related to science - but instead, say, ethics - then that must surely be true of violence-focused stories as well.

Modifié par Kurremurre, 05 janvier 2014 - 09:15 .

[MrFob]

I would agree with David that have Shepard do research in the third game would not have been a great idea. Shepard is a soldier and it has been well established that his/her talents do not lie in research.

However, I strongly disagree with the generalisation that has been made at least in the OP. Science and scientific methodology can make for great drama and it's application can be visualised really well. I recommend watching the great Canadian tv series ReGenesis as case in point (especially the first two seasons). Of course, things are over-simplified and exaggerated but that is just part of the show business (soldiers aver exaggerated in war movies, docters are exaggerated in hospital tv shows, etc.). As someone working in the field myself, I think this is a very good example of how science can work in a visual medium to tell a dramatic story.

Would this have worked for Mass Effect 3? Obviously not. First, as said above, it's not Shepard who would do the science. Secondly, while this works well in a tv show or film, it would be tough to come up with a game mechanic that is interesting long term (and I think we all remember Shepard's little venture into biochemistry in ME1 ).
However, this does not mean that research wouldn't have worked in the plot of the game. It could have been Shepard's goal to support a research effort, organise supplies, gather intel and new specimens (read: reapers), not to mention to keep the research facility safe. There are even hints of this in the actual game as you gather war assets that help the crucible, etc.
I do think the plot would have benefited from giving our cycle a bit more agency in the fight against the reapers and not - yet again - relying on some miracle machine from the past. At the end of Retribution, Anderson and Sanders even talk about building a research unit to find a way to fight the reapers. I was rather disappointed that we never heard of it again in ME3.
All that said, I also believe that given the way the trilogy was (not) layed out, starting the effort at the beginning of ME3, when the reapers are already there would have been too late. This research theme would have been the perfect plot for ME2 in my opinion. I mean, in terms of the story, whoever actually needed the collectors? Having Shepard and research team discover a way to defeat the reapers in ME2 and then struggle to implement the plan in ME3, that would have been the way to go for a coherent trilogy. Ah well, too late now.

And just on my way out, here is another way to show science in a visual medium.

[Nightwriter]

Likely wanting Shepard to "do research" comes down to wanting Shepard to be more proactive. People may throw out the word research if you grill them for painfully explicit specifics on what they wanted to see, but generally what I see behind it is just them wanting Shepard to Do Something™.

For 2+ games you know the Reapers are coming and everyone will die, yet you don't really see the hustle to prepare that you want to see. By the time ME3 rolls around and the Reapers have arrived, you still have no plan at all and it feels kind of inexcusable.

Thus the desire for Shepard to Do Something™.

This can really extend to any area where the player wanted to take action they didn't get to take, like Thane's disease or what have you.

But in games investigation almost never involves scientific minutia and it's really beyond me why anyone would imagine it would. I mean really. In games "researching" and "investigating" usually means fighting your way through hordes of enemies that are for some reason between and a potentially vital technology/mad scientist, or engaging in dialogue, or exploring, or performing some kind of information gathering/resource building minigame. Almost nothing is put into the game that developers don't videogamify for you, science and research included.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 06 janvier 2014 - 10:05 .

[David7204]

You should have no plan at the start the ME 3.

Introducing the solution in ME 2 would be incredibly mediocre writing, because all the drama goes down the drain before the threat has even arrived. As I've said many times, the question no longer is "How the hell are we going to do this?" It becomes "How the hell is this artifact/technology/whatever going to save us (because we all know that it will.)" And that's boring.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 11:13 .

[David7204]

MrFob wrote...

However, this does not mean that research wouldn't have worked in the plot of the game. It could have been Shepard's goal to support a research effort, organise supplies, gather intel and new specimens (read: reapers), not to mention to keep the research facility safe. There are even hints of this in the actual game as you gather war assets that help the crucible, etc.

To what end, exactly?

[shodiswe]

That whole scene with Shepard and the catalyst seemed lacking, there was no drama. All of the options were given by the Catalyst, most of the reasoning came from the catalyst.

I think it would have benefited from additional actors. Even if they wern't there physicly.

But the priority Earth mission and the lack of activites and options beyond shooting the zombies seemed lacking imo. Also, I wish warassets had been given more recognition beyond mere numbers on a screen.

Military warassets should have affected your journey from the FOB to the beam.
Crusible research&development and resources should have affected the endresults more.
Fleet assets should have affected how much damage if any the Crusible takes on the way in.& Perhaps even losses to the ground assault forces before they reach the ground.

The EC did add some closure to several questions, so it has already helped imo, though the above could have been handled better imo. Vermire had more options and non-combat choices.

ME2 employed your whole crew for the endmission. ME3 should have been able to handle war assets and crew better for the endbattle. To make it more interesting, I was actualy getting bored with shooting zombies towards the end of Priority earth. The turret defence portion in the FOB should have had some kind of objective, there were no consequences or rewards for using the turret other than the ability to use it. While I guess it didn't hurt to let us play with a turret like on Palavens moon, since it was already ingame, it wouldn't have taken a lot to put in a few survivors with some intel for you to protect with that turret.

[David7204]

That's great, but I don't see what it much has to do with science in narratives.

[OriginalTibs]

@OP your original hypothesis is incorrect. It is conflict that makes the story, not the tool(s) the protagonist uses to achieve resolution. Saying it has to be violence is recommending a single tool from the array available. Violence as the instrument of resolution is arguably even a crutch. Your hero is magnified by the quality of the villain. If you need to magnify the hero beyond who the hero's character is (in this case the variable player) you can resort to increasing the difficulty overcoming the villain by providing more difficult or dangerous means to said resolution, such as battle.

[David7204]

I never said it 'has' to be violence. I was explaining why the protagonist of epic fiction tends to use violence in an effort to dispel the notion that violence is 'bad writing' or somesuch nonsense.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 07:56 .

[jamesp81]

First of all, I think the OP was pretty spot on, though it wasn't what I'd thought it was going to be from the thread title.

I think one thing BSN needs to keep in mind is that Shepard is not even billed as a scientist.  He's a soldier through and through.  Even the Engineer class is not a scientist (I've long thought that people here don't really understand what an engineer in the armed forces does).

Point is, it's going to be hard to tell a story about science when the protagonist is not a scientist.

[ImaginaryMatter]

David7204 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Thank you for reminding us that you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about. Blundering around without a plan or even a clue is bad, dramaless writing. There is a lot of dramatic potential in putting a plan into action. You do know that plans don't always go smoothly, don't you? And even if they do there's still risks in pulling it off. What we got was pulling a random piece of technology out of the plot's arse right at the last minute precisely because there was no plan.

I'm sorry you're too incompetent to imagine any way a satisfying solution could be introduced in ME 3. I can assure you that not everyone in this world shares your shortcomings.

Don't feel bad about it Reorte. Every one is incompetent before the light of David's awesomeness.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Thank you for reminding us that you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about. Blundering around without a plan or even a clue is bad, dramaless writing. There is a lot of dramatic potential in putting a plan into action. You do know that plans don't always go smoothly, don't you? And even if they do there's still risks in pulling it off. What we got was pulling a random piece of technology out of the plot's arse right at the last minute precisely because there was no plan.

I'm sorry you're too incompetent to imagine any way a satisfying solution could be introduced in ME 3. I can assure you that not everyone in this world shares your shortcomings.

Nor is anyone 'blundering around without a plan.' In ME 2, the characters are concerned about the conflict of ME 2, and in ME 3 the characters are concerned about the conflict of ME 3. A solution would be introduced very early.

Classic David. Insult, belittle, insult again, then give a non-reason why he's right.

Reported.

[AlexMBrennan]

Introducing the solution in ME 2 would be incredibly mediocre writing, because all the drama goes down the drain before the threat has even arrived

Nope, it's the exact opposite: The fact that we didn't even start to look before the Reapers had already invaded and still managed to win renders all the sacrifices we made to delay the Reapers (stopping Saren in ME1, Arrival in ME2) meaningless - because we didn't use the two years to prepare, we might just as well have let Saren open the gate and have had it out then and there.