192 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Deinon, you have a very lopsided idea of the power the audience has. You seem to think that unless the player has a dialogue option saying exactly what you would imagine yourself saying in that situation, the story is 'forcing' you to agree with the writers.

You need to give that up.

Consider every novel in existence. Every novel, in which the reader has absolutely no control. Characters say one thing and do one thing, period. No choice is given to the reader. Is it 'forcing' the reader to believe a certain thing? Do I, as the reader, have the power to enter the story and tell characters why they're wrong for what reasons?

No. Do you know what happens when I read a book that portrays themes I find absurd or tedious? I become disinterested and put it down.

You seem to think that because Mass Effect is a video game, you have the right to have whatever themes you wished portrayed in the best possible light. And you don't. Mass Effect has a theme of friendship. Is the story obligated to show every single reason why friendship might potentially backfire to satisfy people who might think 'friendship is stupid'? No. Mass Effect has a theme of heroism. Is the story obligated to portray heroism as a failure to satisfy anyone who might think 'heroism is stupid'? No.

If you don't like the themes in Mass Effect, the solution is to not play Mass Effect. Not conjure this idea that the writers are 'forcing' or oppressing you.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 06:36 .

[N7Gold]

Hazegurl wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...
My Shepard doesn't view the Geth as being alive yet he respects their opinion and their way of doing things and even told Tali that it was wrong to just pew pew the Geth for asking questions. I think the Quarians got what they deserved but the Geth are machines that can be broken just as much as organics can be melted into space goo. I don't see the big deal, but that's just me.

So Reapers aren't "alive," but whether or not something is "alive" isn't very important?

The Reapers aren't alive and I don't care if they think they are. Is more accurate.  

It goes to show that we have a limited perspective on what being alive means. There are many forms of life, organic, synthetic, and some others. Genes don't make us alive, it's our awareness, curiosity and capacity to evolve. That's something Shepard tells Adams and Chakwas in ME3 if you side with Adams about what makes organics and emotions not so different from machines and programming.

[ImaginaryMatter]

dreamgazer wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I personally preferred "I am the ship" over Joker's... uh... "shipping."

ba-dum-ch

I wish the movie 'her' came out before ME3 so the writers knew you could have a touching romance without the cliche sexy robot thing.

Have you seen it?

Ya.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Deinon, you have a very lopsided idea of the power the audience has. You seem to think that unless the player has a dialogue option saying exactly what you would imagine yourself saying in that situation, the story is 'forcing' you to agree with the writers.

You need to give that up.

Consider every novel in existence. Every novel, in which the reader has absolutely no control. Characters say one thing and do one thing, period. No choice is given to the reader. Is it 'forcing' the reader to believe a certain thing? Do I, as the reader, have the power to enter the story and tell characters why they're wrong for what reasons?

No. Do you know what happens when I read a book that portrays themes I find absurd or tedious? I become disinterested and put it down.

Then you can feel free to see everything written in this forum as one big book review. We're not forbidden to scrutinize and offer both praise and criticism of such works.

I view this as a failure in the writing, an area for improvement in future works even though this one is finalized. I think the writers of an RPG, if they're going to give players the ability to takes sides on an issue, should give both sides an honest hearing regardless of their personal feelings on the issue - representing the side they don't like with walking strawmen and painting the player as a racist oaf or whatnot for holding that position instead of trying to look at what argument someone who actually thinks that way would put forward cheapens the experience.

What it reminds me of is that episode of Friends where - who was it? Monica and Chandler? - were planning their wedding. She basically took control of everything, but offered him the choice of which flowers to use for the tables at the reception. She held up two drawings for him to choose from: roses or violets. He said roses, so she slowly pulled the images of roses away and pushed the violets in his face until he chose the one she wanted him to pick in the first place. That's sort of what it seems like when the writers really want you to choose one side, but don't really make the case for it.

*Waxing lyrical on Friendship and Heroism™*

*takes a shot*

If you don't like the themes in Mass Effect, the solution is to not play Mass Effect. Not conjure this idea that the writers are 'forcing' or oppressing you.

Sound advice for any form of media - though I believe the relevant term here is "railroading." I enjoy Mass Effect, this was simply an area which fell short.

[David7204]

Only if 'railroading' means 'the inclusion of themes in a game with choices.'

In which case 'railroading' is a good and necessary element of making a good story.

[Nightwriter]

David7204 wrote...

Deinon, you have a very lopsided idea of the power the audience has. You seem to think that unless the player has a dialogue option saying exactly what you would imagine yourself saying in that situation, the story is 'forcing' you to agree with the writers.

You need to give that up.

Consider every novel in existence. Every novel, in which the reader has absolutely no control. Characters say one thing and do one thing, period. No choice is given to the reader. Is it 'forcing' the reader to believe a certain thing? Do I, as the reader, have the power to enter the story and tell characters why they're wrong for what reasons?

No. Do you know what happens when I read a book that portrays themes I find absurd or tedious? I become disinterested and put it down.

You seem to think that because Mass Effect is a video game, you have the right to have whatever themes you wished portrayed in the best possible light. And you don't. Mass Effect has a theme of friendship. Is the story obligated to show every single reason why friendship might potentially backfire to satisfy people who might think 'friendship is stupid'? No. Mass Effect has a theme of heroism. Is the story obligated to portray heroism as a failure to satisfy anyone who might think 'heroism is stupid'? No.

If you don't like the themes in Mass Effect, the solution is to not play Mass Effect. Not conjure this idea that the writers are 'forcing' or oppressing you.

Comparing a passive experience to an interactive one. Oh lawdy. You's just a chasin' debate away. Chasin' it. "Get outta here, debate! I shouldn't be listened to! You, there, I see you're still responding to me! Stop that at once, you are wasting your time!"

[DeinonSlayer]

@Nightwriter
Inb4 "The Shepard is An Hero, not you."

*reads own post*
Oh, dammit... *takes a shot*

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:41 .

[David7204]

Nightwriter wrote...

Comparing a passive experience to an interactive one. Oh lawdy. You's just a chasin' debate away. Chasin' it. "Get outta here, debate! I shouldn't be listened to! You, there, I see you're still responding to me! Stop that at once, you are wasting your time!"

It makes no difference. The player does not get to decide the themes of the story.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:43 .

[Nightwriter]

David7204 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Comparing a passive experience to an interactive one. Oh lawdy. You's just a chasin' debate away. Chasin' it. "Get outta here, debate! I shouldn't be listened to! You, there, I see you're still responding to me! Stop that at once, you are wasting your time!"

It makes no difference. The player does not get to decide the themes of the story.

Hey now why should I listen to anything you have to say about themes if you cannot grasp the basic differences between the medium of literature and the medium of videogames.

[David7204]

Why should I listen to anything you have to say about themes if you cannot grasp the basic similarities between the medium of literature and the medium of videogames?

[SwobyJ]

I'm gonna be a hero, betray the krogan, and get more assets as a result! Go me!!

EDIT: Also go Tali! Jump off that cliff! Muahaha-I mean, poor girl!  I be heroic!

Modifié par SwobyJ, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:56 .

[Nightwriter]

David7204 wrote...

Why should I listen to anything you have to say about themes if you cannot grasp the basic similarities between the medium of literature and the medium of videogames?

Ohhh but we didn't say the two mediums had basic similarities did we?

No, no. We said that a player in a roleplaying game which actively invites you to select your own opinions, background, and dialogue options has exactly the same rights as a reader who is merely invited to passively observe a protagonist in a book. 

[Hazegurl]

N7Gold wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...
My Shepard doesn't view the Geth as being alive yet he respects their opinion and their way of doing things and even told Tali that it was wrong to just pew pew the Geth for asking questions. I think the Quarians got what they deserved but the Geth are machines that can be broken just as much as organics can be melted into space goo. I don't see the big deal, but that's just me.

So Reapers aren't "alive," but whether or not something is "alive" isn't very important?

The Reapers aren't alive and I don't care if they think they are. Is more accurate.  

It goes to show that we have a limited perspective on what being alive means. There are many forms of life, organic, synthetic, and some others. Genes don't make us alive, it's our awareness, curiosity and capacity to evolve. That's something Shepard tells Adams and Chakwas in ME3 if you side with Adams about what makes organics and emotions not so different from machines and programming.

And I don't side with Adams. Not even on his claim that EDI is the Normandy. She's not and destroy pretty much proves it when she ceases the function. I do like those little debates they added into the game, it would have been nice if they went a bit deeper into them and Shepard's responses. But they sort of set up Shepard's reasons behind his end choices depending upon the player.  

[shodiswe]

It did fit, Sovereign was presenting itself as some kind of invincible godlike creature... Sovereigns dialogue was even more over the top and insane...

Which made that respons valid. In the end sovereign did die/was destroyed. Which further validated that response.

If it had been a human male who said those things Sovereign said then Shepard could have said, "You are just one man, and you can be killed."

Even if it's a group of synthetics or organics then they can be killed or destroyed. It's just a question of how difficult or nearly impossible it would be.

[Ravensword]

Nightwriter wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Why should I listen to anything you have to say about themes if you cannot grasp the basic similarities between the medium of literature and the medium of videogames?

Ohhh but we didn't say the two mediums had basic similarities did we?

No, no. We said that a player in a roleplaying game which actively invites you to select your own opinions, background, and dialogue options has exactly the same rights as a reader who is merely invited to passively observe a protagonist in a book. 

This is a concept that David can't grasp. He sees no difference between the storytelling within books and video games. To him, the person playing the game is very much as passive as the person reading the book. Simply put, the player and the reader are both passive observers regardless of the fact that video games are an interactive medium in which the player participates in.

[Nightwriter]

Ravensword wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Why should I listen to anything you have to say about themes if you cannot grasp the basic similarities between the medium of literature and the medium of videogames?

Ohhh but we didn't say the two mediums had basic similarities did we?

No, no. We said that a player in a roleplaying game which actively invites you to select your own opinions, background, and dialogue options has exactly the same rights as a reader who is merely invited to passively observe a protagonist in a book. 

This is a concept that David can't grasp. He sees no difference between the storytelling within books and video games. To him, the person playing the game is very much as passive as the person reading the book. Simply put, the player and the reader are both passive observers regardless of the fact that video games are an interactive medium in which the player participates in.

Well I never

[MassivelyEffective0730]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Deinon, you have a very lopsided idea of the power the audience has. You seem to think that unless the player has a dialogue option saying exactly what you would imagine yourself saying in that situation, the story is 'forcing' you to agree with the writers.

You need to give that up.

Consider every novel in existence. Every novel, in which the reader has absolutely no control. Characters say one thing and do one thing, period. No choice is given to the reader. Is it 'forcing' the reader to believe a certain thing? Do I, as the reader, have the power to enter the story and tell characters why they're wrong for what reasons?

No. Do you know what happens when I read a book that portrays themes I find absurd or tedious? I become disinterested and put it down.

Then you can feel free to see everything written in this forum as one big book review. We're not forbidden to scrutinize and offer both praise and criticism of such works.

I view this as a failure in the writing, an area for improvement in future works even though this one is finalized. I think the writers of an RPG, if they're going to give players the ability to takes sides on an issue, should give both sides an honest hearing regardless of their personal feelings on the issue - representing the side they don't like with walking strawmen and painting the player as a racist oaf or whatnot for holding that position instead of trying to look at what argument someone who actually thinks that way would put forward cheapens the experience.

What it reminds me of is that episode of Friends where - who was it? Monica and Chandler? - were planning their wedding. She basically took control of everything, but offered him the choice of which flowers to use for the tables at the reception. She held up two drawings for him to choose from: roses or violets. He said roses, so she slowly pulled the images of roses away and pushed the violets in his face until he chose the one she wanted him to pick in the first place. That's sort of what it seems like when the writers really want you to choose one side, but don't really make the case for it.

*Waxing lyrical on Friendship and Heroism™*

*takes a shot*

If you don't like the themes in Mass Effect, the solution is to not play Mass Effect. Not conjure this idea that the writers are 'forcing' or oppressing you.

Sound advice for any form of media - though I believe the relevant term here is "railroading." I enjoy Mass Effect, this was simply an area which fell short.

Hey, I found a good thing to like about the ending!

It completely takes a **** on David's concepts of friendship and heroism.

Really, they are childish. As I've said, any character who uses those as their main theme to fight a galactic war against giant killer robots deserves to be a miserable failure.

I'd kill them myself so that they didn't ruin my chances of defeating the Reapers by throwing it away in some Hollywood zerg rush using the Epic charge of heroism!

[FlyingSquirrel]

RatThing wrote...
Yes, I know that one, what exactly are you trying to tell me with that? There are enough people in the MEU who just don't see AI's as alive. Not only punching bag Raan, it's also Chakwas, Javik, Ashley, TIM, the Salarian counsilor who calls Legion a trophy. Liara is uncertain. Only TIM and Raan express the desire to use them as "slaves". It's a possible view in the MEU, just not a popular one among the writers.

Do you mean Gerrel and/or Xen? Raan seems more ambivalent about the whole thing - she supported going to war, but she also gets mad at Gerrel for firing on the dreadnought and doesn't argue one way or the other if Shepard tries to make peace (at least if Tali is alive - I don't remember what she does if she's standing in for Tali at the end of the Rannoch mission).

[FlyingSquirrel]

RatThing wrote...
I couldn't have said it any better, and it's a big problem throughout the whole trilogy ( in lots of situations). Also, the writers task is to ask questions, not to give answers. That's at least what my literature teacher taught me at school.

I'd just like to say one thing on the writers' behalf here - what we're dealing with is a very controversial but also potentially very important issue, i.e. the nature of life itself. So if they have a strong opinion that AIs *are* alive, they might consider it socially irresponsible to give too much support to the notion that they aren't. Yes, it's just a game, but it's a game that purports to have parallels to real-life issues, and the creation of AIs like EDI or the geth could conceivably become possible in the future.

To take an example, and I'm not trying to start a political debate here or get us off the subject, but I have a pretty firm belief that factory farming is unethical. If I were a game designer working on a game where factory farming is a plot point, I would have a very difficult time justifying giving equal time to a notion like, "Oh, well animals don't really feel pain or suffering so it doesn't matter how they are treated," because I feel an ethical responsibility not to lend support or credibility to that notion.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think it's okay for the writers to lean in one direction on an issue (like the 'aliveness' of the AI characters). I think the problem is they go a little too overboard sometimes. In the Geth/Quarian conflict I sympathize with the Geth but I still roll my eyes during the Rannoch arc.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well it is a very philosophical question and one that will probably never have an answer, which is why I think things like stories are important. But generally I don't like thinking of such things outside the context of such stories which is why I stick to history and physics.