Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

First wave of threads will be moving stuff I posted on the blog over here. Idea repositories and TL;DRs.

This one wasn't either, but was about how more people could have criticized the ME1 decision in ME2 or 3.

Blogged on 5/12/2011.
===

Another of those 'Dean thinks he can suggest story improvements because he's a grandstanding pseudo-intellectual idiot' pieces. Read at your own risk.

---

Starting off, I’d like to make clear that for the most part, I greatly enjoyed the 'Galactic' response to the Human Council in ME2: confrontational, hostile, and largely utterly ungrateful aliens were perfectly reasonable reactions to the consequences of the destruction of the Destiny Ascension, regardless of the player’s motivation. I liked it because it didn't cater to the player by giving a nice pat on the head, even if the Human attitudes were largely indistinguishable from between the Paragon and Renegade outcomes. In fact, I rather wish there more aliens, and possibly even a dissident Human, grousing over Human control of the Galaxy. Being underappreciated is a nice change to the constant praise and acceptance Commander Shepard usually gets from anyone who isn’t strictly in the cartoonish-villain category.

But at the same time, while I like elements of how the ME1 endgame choice carried over, I think more could have been done with it, and on both sides of the decision. We ourselves don’t live in a world where anyone gets universal praise, and I’ve never seen why a Paragon Shepard experience wouldn’t have been improved by some sensible under-appreciation.

Consider this. Shepard saves the Destiny Ascension. Humanity is at last trusted by the galaxy, and given its prized seat on the Council, which has for so long been the answer to every problem facing the Alliance. ‘If only we had a Council Seat, the Council Fleets would help us.’ So a great number of Human lives, and apparently a quite significant amount of Human military strength, is sacrificed to save the galaxy. Over the next two years and still weak, the Alliance comes into trouble, and turns to the Council for help. What happens next?

Well, a number of things presumably, and none of them living up to the popular expectations Humanity had of a Council seat. Trade deals won’t simply see compromises. Citadel Fleets won’t mobilize to defend the colonies. Alien interests are still entrenched against Human expansion. And now the Alliance can’t even have the military power to support itself when the Council falls short or is disinclined.

In pretty much every human history, when that sort of popular expectation falls, the failure is often attributed to the most directly responsible person. In this case… Shepard. It needn’t be a majority opinion in any sense, but actual criticism from Humans towards Shepard would have not only been reasonable, but expected following Shepard’s actions at the Citadel in a Paragon Council universe.

Alien adoration was well received and all, but the near absolute lack of criticism (except from Al-Jilani, who's hostile regardless) rather undermined Shepard’s effects and consequences on Humanity. In a galaxy in which Humanity is still being left dry by the Council despite the promises/expectations of membership, and in a context in which the Alliance's very means to deal with the Collectors were lost by Commander Shepard, the lack of any public/open criticism against Shepard by humans was more than a little strange.

Is it unreasonable to blame Shepard for the failure of unreasonable expectations? Sure. Is it any less human? It’d probably be more amazing without the criticism. Shaping and accenting human views for both Council scenarios would have been a reasonable, and interesting, expansion on what already was. Not only are we expanding the ‘realism’, but also the sense of balance between Paragon and Renegade. Both are appreciated by some, and not appreciated by others, in a logical extension of the effects of each. Think of this hypothetical setup:

In a Human Council setting, Shepard and Humanity should still be largely be detested by the politically-disadvantaged Council Aliens, but there should be noticeably greater support for Shepard within the Alliance and most of Humanity. While the Council races recoil to Shepard, even if the minor races are implied to not much care since they lost nothing, Humanity as a whole more or less rallies behind Shepard in a 'Shepard can do no wrong' attitude. This could be reflected in news broadcasts, character discussions overheard from Alliance officers/civilians, and so on. An accented point would be the post-Arrival/early ME3 setting of Shepard’s trial, in which the Alliance public is inclined to pardon/forgive Shepard even as the aliens/Batarians are baying for the execution. In short, while the aliens who care may despise Shepard, most Humans are notably more favorable, both in the Alliance military and outside. A tone shift occurs, with a human-narrative that the rest of the Council races just doesn't appreciate what/how Humanity saved them from themselves, and that sacrificing the Destiny Ascension was ‘necessary’ for victory.

Mostly the same for the Renegades. The flip side gets a bit more interesting, however.

In the Paragon Council, Shepard and reputation with the Council and galaxy has never been higher... but with a notable under-appreciation by the Alliance. Council status hasn't been all it promised to be, and in light of the lore-stated 'devastating' loss of strength thanks to Shepard's decision, Shepard becomes a lightning rod for criticism when the Alliance lacks the strength to do something and the Council doesn't want to help. So while Shepard may go 'I got us a Council seat, show some respect', anti-Shepard civilian/military officer may go 'And what did getting a seat do for us, huh? Now look how we can't protect our own.' This would be a distinctly minority view, but a significant undercurrent: Al-Jilani would only be the first of a significant few Humans who aren’t afraid to tell Commander Shepard that Shepard screwed up vis-à-vis Sovereign. This undercurrent would culminate in the post-Arrival/early ME3 context, in which Shepard, rather than see the humans rally around and the aliens bay for blood, would instead see a significant number of humans want to sacrifice Shepard to appease the Batarians, while the aliens whose favor Shepard curried do little but provide moral support, instead choosing to remember how Shepard saved the galaxy and that sacrificing the Human forces was ‘necessary’ for victory.

In this setup, both the Paragon/Renegade Councils are balanced in terms of support and antagonism generated by their actions. Renegades are highly favored by most Humans, but despised by the Council Races: Paragons are adored by the Aliens and even most Humans, but have a significant undercurrent of opposition by Human elements. Gratitude and ingratitude, favor and antagonism, are mixed accordingly.

To reflect this setup, a couple of potential elements could be/could have been added to reflect the changes of galactic opinion. While some could be in other emails, I’ll provide examples on the assumption of short dialogue characters and setups. Presume that existing reflections on the Citadel are sustained.

===

-The Al-Jilani Interview: More of an extension than a replacement, recasting Al-Jilani less as a hack-reporter she was made in ME2 and more of the ME1 reporter with fair but difficult questions. Her questions, critical as always, underline and outline the views opposed to Shepard.

In the Renegade Context, Al-Jilani’s questions focus on the former Council opposition. Top three questions would likely include ‘why focus on Sovereign if it could be beaten’, ‘what do you think of the Human-restructured Council’, and ‘did you violate your Spectre obligations in letting the Council be destroyed?’

In the Paragon Context, Al-Jilani’s questions focus on the Human sub-current opposition. Top three questions would likely include ‘why not focus on Sovereign if you didn’t know it could be beat’, ‘do you think the Council is short-changing the new member’, and ‘Did you violate your Alliance obligations in sacrificing Alliance lives?’

-The Alliance Officer: Ideally Admiral Mikhailovich, the confrontational Rear Admiral who inspected the Normandy in a cameo role, an Alliance Officer would reflect the Alliance Military view of Shepard two years after the Battle of the Citadel.

In a Renegade Council, the Alliance Officer reflects the glowing support of Shepard by the Human military-establishment: praise for Shepard for ‘doing what was necessary’, for allowing the Alliance to gain the power to defend its interests and colonies to its fullest, and even reflecting the canonical Renegade Council’s willingness to send the Council Fleet into the Terminus to defend Human colonies, the Renegade version of this meeting is far more pleasant than in ME1, and reflects a fully supportive Alliance.

The Paragon encounter, however, isn’t near as pleasant. Mikhailovich is even more confrontational than last time, if possible, and will even go so far as to directly question Shepard’s loyalty to the Alliance. Though Shepard can defend against the charge however the player desires, Mikhailovich will dismiss any defense given (and even argue that, had the Council been left to die, a new Council would have stood up soon enough) and begin citing a short list of ‘needless human deaths’, reflecting a significant undercurrent in the Alliance military that views Shepard with distrust and dislike for the ‘waste’ of Alliance strength.

-The Widow(1): A generic woman who will approach Shepard on Illium after Horizon, the Widow’s nature and exact story will change on the basis of the decision, while the theme of both is the same.

In the Renegade universe, the Widow is a Human Woman who lost her husband during the Battle of the Citadel. She notes that while he died in the charge against Sovereign, Shepard’s choice have reassured her that his life was not sacrificed needlessly. She’ll make a note about how the Human Council really has done a better job in defending most Human colonies than the prior Council ever helped before, just like her Husband had joined the Alliance to do. She gives Shepard thanks for his/her decision for how it benefited Humans sense, gives a trinket, and leaves.

In the Paragon Universe, the Widow is an Asari who lost her mate on the Destiny Ascension. Shepard, and Humanity’s, decision to save decision has given her peace to know that her mate wasn’t left to die meaninglessly, and gratitude at how Humans would sacrifice themselves to help others. She’ll make a note that she, personally, wishes the Council would do more to return the favor and help defend human colonies, and how she herself is volunteering to help Human survivors on Horizon. She gives Shepard thanks for how his/her decision saved many Alien lives, gives a trinket, and leaves.

The Widower: Another interpretation of the Window concept, but inverted to reflect a minority view of the race relations: a non-hostile thanks from a grieving person from the opposing 'side'. A generic man who will approach Shepard, the Widower’s nature and exact story will change on the basis of the decision, while the theme of both is the same.

In a Renegade Context, the Widower is a Salarian/some other alien who lost family due to Shepard's decision. Instead of taking it out on Shepard, however, the Alien offers a shaky gratitude: citing the Council's complacence in regards to Saren/the Geth while Humans were fighting, possibly the Reapers, but especially the need to defeat Sovereign, the Alien Widower thanks Shepard for the necessary sacrifice. The Widower recognizes that his view is a minority among aliens.

In the Paragon Context, the Widower is a human who lost someone important in the wave that saved the Destiny Ascension. The Widower talks mentions how they don't blame Shepard because the other loved space and all the diversity of the Council, and was proud to have fought and died for this galactic peace. The Widower will acknowledge that while many Humans who have lost friends and loved ones blame Shepard, he will remind Shepard that those people are but a loud minority, and that Shepard is still respected by many humans as well.

-The Fellow Soldier: A generic male soldier who will approach Shepard on the Citadel, greeting with a sucker punch. The counterpart to The Widow, the Soldier reflects the personal animosity of people who lost strictly because of Shepard’s actions that day.

In the Renegade Context, the Soldier is a Turian soldier who lost family due to the Destiny Ascension and its surrounding ships being left to die. The Turian blasts Shepard as honor-less and demonstrative of Humanity as a whole as a pack of jackals who profit off of the deaths of others, and promises/threatens that the Turian Hegemony won’t let the Alliance get away with its crimes.

In the Paragon Context, the Soldier is a Human soldier who lost a good friend in the wave of Human fighters who died relieving the Destiny Ascension. The Human blasts Shepard for abandoning the Human Race for aliens who even now don’t recognize the dangers/don’t help Humans, and blames Shepard not only for the death of his/her friend but also for the loss of the Human colonies in the Terminus, arguing that if Humanity hadn’t been crippled by Benedict-xenophile Shepard, it could still defend itself.

(An alternative re-combination of the above to is to re-order the characters into two separate characters who have alternating pro/anti responses: a Human who will thank/blame for the human survival/death from the Human perspective, or the Asari/Turian who will do the reverse.)

-The Resigned Hanar: A Hanar who can be encountered on the Citadel, possibly during Thane’s Loyalty Mission, the Resigned Hanar offers a minor-race’s view on the Galactic balance of power, and the continued exclusion of the minor races regardless.

In a Renegade Context, the Hanar reflects a general apathy by the non-Council races towards the Human seizure of power. The minor races didn’t have power before, and don’t have power now, so they really didn’t lose much and so don’t bear much more ill-will towards the Humans regardless of what the Council Races feel. At best, a modest hope that the Hanar can strike a political deal with the Humans to get some advantage they didn’t have before. If challenged for a lack of gratitude towards humans for saving the Citadel, the Hanar gives a resigned equivalent of ‘the galaxy would continue and we’d still be without power.’

In the Paragon Context, the Hanar reflects on a general envy by the non-Council races towards the Human seizure of power. Humanity achieved in a lifetime what other races have been kept waiting for hundreds of years for, and still the prospects for Council membership for them look no brighter now that there’s another race with an interest in keeping them out. At best, a modest hope that the Hanar can be someone’s political client and so gain concessions that way. If challenged for a lack of gratitude for the Human lives that dies to save the Council, the Hanar gives a resigned equivalent of ‘the galaxy would continue and we’d still be without power.’

Two characters who may or may not actually be more present, via cutscene or recorded datalogs, on Horizon with the Virmire Survivor.

-The Colonist Perspective: A rather self-centered colonist who reflects on how the two settings for Human colony development thanks to Alliance relative strength. His view is reflected in datapads/emails the player can read, urging a relative to come immigrate to Horizon.

In a Renegade Context, the Colonist writes about how the Terminus is actually safer to settle in because of the Human Council’s proactive pro-Human defense policies, and how even though the Terminus have been traditionally no-go the Alliance is sending defense towers that could make the Colony the safest in the area.

In a Paragon Context, the Colonist writes about how the Terminus is actually safer to settle in because the Council stays away and leaves the Human colonies unnoticed. Apparently publicly-interpreted Alliance weakness has seen an upsurge in attempted pirate attacks in the Traverse, and the Colonist urges the relative to come to Horizon, which has far less notice and now has defense towers that make it safest and hidden.

-The Dissident: A Human opposition figure who opposes whichever the dominant Human political view is in either route. Unsympathetic, the Dissident represents whatever political view has gone out of favor in the Human political spectrum.

In the Renegade Context, the Dissident blasts the Virmire Survivor and/or Shepard for making Humanity an neo-imperialist power. Blasting the Council as a Human-puppet fixated on Human interests, the Dissident vocally wants the Alliance off of Horizon, even if she recognizes her view as a minority view in the Alliance.

In the Paragon Context, the Dissident blasts the Virmire Survivor and/or Shepard for ‘cripling’ the Alliance and making Humanity kow-tow to the Council. Blasting the Alliance as a Council-puppet fixated on its own interests, the Dissident vocally wants the Alliance/Council off of Horizon, even if she recognizes her view as a minority view in the Alliance.

From Warlock Adam, a new 'background' crewmember(s) concept for the Normandy SR2.

-The Loyalists: A couple of Cerberus crew members to the SR2. Perhaps a pair of security officers including the one who guards Legion, male and female. These guys are the traditional/more stereotypical pro-human Cerberus vets, who judge Shepard based on his actions in the previous game. They wouldn't be overtly racist, just dismissive of alien cooperation. The Loyalists would provide the 'edge' to the crew that Cerberus truly possesses, and remind Shepard who he's dealing with.

In a Renegade context, these guys love Shepard for making the necessary sacrifice, and greatly applaud his choice for Council chairman (whoever it is). They support Shep and TIM during the game during background dialogues, and have unrivaled faith in Shepard.

In a Paragon context, they condemn Shepard for saving the Council and sacrificing human lives, and throughout the game question his commitment to humanity. Their faith in Shepard is dubious, but trust the Illusive Man who is trusting Shepard. When they're rescued (by aliens) at the end of the game, their views may change appropriately towards valuing alien cooperation.

So, some notes for the conclusion! Some points were trying to be made, but may not have come out as well (or have been overdone).

-Ingratitude is a theme for both approaches. Aliens who don't appreciate that Shepard saved the galaxy from Saren and the Geth hoard over the Council's objections, or Humans who don't appreciate how Shepard got the species a Council seat, there are always those who don't appreciate what was done... even if for the Paragon that group is a much smaller(loud)minority of humans.

-'Necessary' defense varies: regardless of what the player chose, those who favor it will defend Shepard's actions as necessary. The Human-Council advocates will raise it as a necessity to defeat Sovereign and the Geth before they controlled the entire Mass Relay network: the Paragon Council will claim that saving the Council was necessary to allow a post-battle galactic stability to continue to protect the Citadel from subsequent Geth attacks.

-Inaccurate assumptions by the galaxy. Some NPC's will raise hypotheticals of what might have happened had Shepard chosen otherwise. These presumptions are generally wrong, and reflect a divergence between metagaming knowledge (what actually would have happened) and in-universe views. In the Renegade universe, this would take the form of assertions that Sovereign wouldn't have been able to be beaten otherwise, and that only the Human Council's initiative and firm hand was able to wage war against the Geth in the aftermath. In the Paragon universe, the alternatives focus on the indespensibility of the full Council in organizing afterwards, or Mikhailovich's hypothetical that the Alliance would have handed over control to a new Council soon after. These assertions and beliefs of 'what if' are, as they frequently are, misguided, mistaken, and self-serving in favor of the person making them. No matter what choice Shepard makes, there will be some who insist the alternative was hell or utopia.

-Everyone gets some support, and some opposition. While the amounts are not equal in terms of raw numbers (the Council races sorely outnumber a Human minority), every player can get both positive and negative feedback from the various facets of the galaxy. People who approve and people who don't, people who lost and people who didn't. Shepard's choice was never in any sense a no-lose decision for either option, nor would it have been a no-win as well. There is a balance to be found in both paths.