Most people don't connect with random kids they don't get know that gets blown up and then is forced to chase down in dreams, that look and sound like indoctrination.
Shhh! You'll draw them out!
If people don't connect with it well it's not a good symbol plain a simple.
Hm, I don't believe that's a requirement for symbols at all. Nobody connects with the One Ring. Rosebud is effective because it represents lost innocence, but nobody cares about the guy's actual sled.
We actually don't know why Udina suddenly turned Cerberus lap dog only EDI theorized that he was indoctrinated which I really don't see how that could have happened
This is one of my pet peeves. It's an event that gets some vague ideas from characters as to how it came to be, but is never explained fully.
Upon beginning ME3, I had hopes that Udina was going to be done justice as a character- upon first meeting him after leaving Earth he seems just as frustrated as Shepard is, and a person who, despite a past of personal differences with Shep, still has humanity's best interests at heart. He could have been portrayed as an excellent wartime leader- someone who is not necessarily well-loved, but is willing to do what's necessary.
Unfortunately this all thrown out the window once the Cerberus coup comes around. The writing capitalises on the fact that players saw him as antagonistic or just flatly didn't like him as a person in the previous games, counting on this so a player won't hesitate to gun him down when it comes to the final confrontation. Initially, I have to admit once Bailey showed up after killing Udina that I believed I'd been played, and that Bailey was the real Cerberus mole (LotSB dossiers alluded to as much). Sadly, I was mistaken. Udina becomes just another villain, and a few generalised explanations as to why he turned get wafted about afterwards, without really being expanded upon.
He was a waste of a more morally ambiguous character, who shouldn't have become a full-blown antagonist just because he wasn't liked.
I actually think the kid works because he's so far removed from Shepard. Let's say we substitute the kid with the squadmate that died on Virmire in Shepard's dreams. Isn't this going to make people more confused? Since the Virmire sacrifice might actually have a lot of sentimental value, you'd be more justified in believing the dreams are just about that person, which diminishes their purpose as a symbol. On the other hand, having the kid in the dreams with the whispers of everyone else in the background including the Virmire sacrifice, you have established a clear purpose and meaning with the dreams (or at least established that Shepard isn't having the dreams just about one person).
Or at least I thought it was clear until I came to the BSN.
I think most people understood what the kid was supposed to symbolize.
We just hate him because the symbolism is obnoxious. Add to that how the kid is clearly meant to emotionally tug at your heart strings because of no other reason than that he's a kid (with sad piano music to boot) and the nonsensical decision of the Catalyst to take on his appearance and his (even more grating) voice, the brat is conspicuously meant to be the focal point of the dreams, symbol or no symbol.
Had we actually gotten to know this kid to some extent, and or he had a relationship with someone Shepard knew (like say, Bailey's grandson), he'd be a lot less infuriating.
I think most people understood what the kid was supposed to symbolize.
Not on the BSN, it seems.
We just hate him because the symbolism is obnoxious. Add to that how the kid is clearly meant to emotionally tug at your heart strings because of no other reason than that he's a kid (with sad piano music to boot) and the nonsensical decision of the Catalyst to take on his appearance and his (even more grating) voice, the brat is conspicuously meant to be the focal point of the dreams, symbol or no symbol.
Had we actually gotten to know this kid to some extent, and or he had a relationship with someone Shepard knew (like say, Bailey's grandson), he'd be a lot less infuriating.
I guess that's fair; I certainly wouldn't claim it's subtle symbolism, and unsubtle symbolism can rub a lot of people the wrong way. But having read a lot of war books the writer often remembers things the most clearly that aren't necessarily the most connected to him. Sometimes an image just sticks with you, and for Shepard that was a kid getting blown up trying to escape the Reapers.
The obvious reasons for a lot of things will be "because the plot needed it to happen now" but this doesn't automatically make the story point bad. Why does Shepard survive the beacon in ME1? Magical "Shepard is teh man/woman" reasons to serve the plot.
My go-to example there is why Shepard always arrives on Ilos just as Saren's entering the tunnel leading to the Conduit. The answer is that if Shepard arrives earlier it's anticlimactic, and if he arrives later Saren wins.
Shhh! You'll draw them out!
Hm, I don't believe that's a requirement for symbols at all. Nobody connects with the One Ring.
I'm just saying what I saw and heard in ME3 dreams.
Connect was a poor choice of words on my part sorry I'm not English.
I should have said people need something to relate that the symbol, like the One Ring which are like a drug you know it's bad for you, but at the same time once you have tried it you need more of it.
First let me say sorry for the super late reply I'm at work so I've been pretty busy, and I know most what im gonna say has probably been gone over but I'm gonna reply anyways.ME1 Ash's appearance
ME3 Ash's appearance
Yeah, I think he's serious.
He was a waste of a more morally ambiguous character, who shouldn't have become a full-blown antagonist just because he wasn't liked.
I'd actually say this is more of a concern with TIM. ME3 comes dangerously close to boiling down Shepard and TIM's differences to "he was indoctrinated" when there's real ethical and practical distinctions and that underline their differences. It's why I like the scene a lot more if you shoot him as opposed to him shooting himself: I like to think the line "I wish you could see it like I do, Shepard. It's beautiful" when looking at the Earth, is TIM speaking without Reaper influence, lamenting their unreconcilable differences while maintaining that his methods were correct.
Depending on what you're trying to go for, Miranda's attire can use her appearance to put people at an impasse. I'm not really seeing anything but an advantage as far as what she's trying to do. She's using her own outfit as a tool, and to assert dominance. Trust me, it takes a special kind of confidence to be able to pull off what Miranda's doing and succeeding. And you really can't say she doesn't succeed. Everyone on the Normandy crew praises her for her competence, and they all seem to have a high regard for her. Appearance does shape how people see you. As does personal bias. I see Ashley for example as a try hard trying to compensate, and I find her unprofessional. In ME3, I see her the same way that you see Miranda. To me, she's partly doing what she does in an effort to try and get Shepard's attention. Doesn't work. Personality and compatibility aside, Miranda is a McLaren P1, and Ashley is a Dodge Challenger. I don't know about you, but I'll take the hybrid Supercar over the Muscle car. Nothing against it, but the Supercar is going to be a lot prettier.
If Miranda really was a femme fatale, who used her looks to seduce and befuddle her enemies, I could agree. In such a case, she would be using her outfit as a tool. But she is the head of one of Cerberus' science projects. As such, a snappy business suit or perhaps a paramilitary outfit (w/light armor for combat) would be more appropriate. As it is, the outfit is literally there for no purpose but to make her look pretty. Much like Ash's ME3 outfit.
It may take a "special kind of confidence" to pull of that look but that's not always a good thing 
I guess that's fair; I certainly wouldn't claim it's subtle symbolism, and unsubtle symbolism can rub a lot of people the wrong way. But having read a lot of war books the writer often remembers things the most clearly that aren't necessarily the most connected to him. Sometimes an image just sticks with you, and for Shepard that was a kid getting blown up trying to escape the Reapers.
Don't forget the whole "It's my character and Bio shouldn't decide what's meaningful to her" argument -- some folks would be bothered just as much by good symbolism as they were by the ham-handed version ME3 gave us.
Does that symbolize the same thing?
It's the fate of the galaxy in the Prothean cycle. Something Shepard got to witness through the beacons.,
And now the same thing is happening to the galaxy in this cycle.
I think that's plenty of Nightmare Fuel for any Shepard. Paragon or Renegade.
Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd put Miranda in a more elaborate version of the Cerberus officer uniform.
I guess that's fair; I certainly wouldn't claim it's subtle symbolism, and unsubtle symbolism can rub a lot of people the wrong way. But having read a lot of war books the writer often remembers things the most clearly that aren't necessarily the most connected to him. Sometimes an image just sticks with you, and for Shepard that was a kid getting blown up trying to escape the Reapers.
Fair enough. I can't really disagree with that sentiment.
Like, say, this
It works mostly because it's not completely clear what happens in the vision.
Not on the BSN, it seems.
I guess that's fair; I certainly wouldn't claim it's subtle symbolism, and unsubtle symbolism can rub a lot of people the wrong way. But having read a lot of war books the writer often remembers things the most clearly that aren't necessarily the most connected to him. Sometimes an image just sticks with you, and for Shepard that was a kid getting blown up trying to escape the Reapers.
BSN is a breed on their own, I rarely move and post in the main forums, because this place is crazy most of the time.
Well Shepard didn't feel like Shepard in ME3 at least not to me.
I'd actually say this is more of a concern with TIM. ME3 comes dangerously close to boiling down Shepard and TIM's differences to "he was indoctrinated" when there's real ethical and practical distinctions and that underline their differences. It's why I like the scene a lot more if you shoot him as opposed to him shooting himself: I like to think the line "I wish you could see it like I do, Shepard. It's beautiful" when looking at the Earth, is TIM speaking without Reaper influence, lamenting their unreconcilable differences while maintaining that his methods were correct.
TIM was far from a character people loved to hate however. For the most part people disagreed with his modus operandi rather than his personality, which had a far warmer reception. Udina on the other hand seemed to be a character where the writers simply said "well the players dislike him, so let's make him a villain".
I agree however that having TIM be indoctrinated was a poor decision given the more fundamental differences (or similarities, depending on how you play) between him and Shepard. People should oppose him because they believe he's wrong, not because the Reapers were ultimately pulling his strings- players should feel conflicted as to whether TIM was right or not, especially given his obvious link to the Control decision. Having him be yet another Reaper pawn just vindicates Shepard in the end.
Nobody connects with the One Ring.
Don't forget the whole "It's my character and Bio shouldn't decide what's meaningful to her" argument -- some folks would be bothered just as much by good symbolism as they were by the ham-handed version ME3 gave us.
On the one hand, I'm not sympathetic to the player wanting to control the presence, frequency, or content of their character's psychological affliction, as that misses the point of psychological afflictions.
On the other hand, it's been pointed out to me that post-dream when Liara asks what the nightmare is about, Shepard does talk about, I believe, either the kid or Virmire. There should have been more options there for the player to decide how their character interprets the dreams.
Well...it's the result of sliding lower on the moh's scale of Sci Fi hardness
***pulls increase exponentially and the answer to all is "midichlorians"
I thought all the games were on the same level of sci-fi.
The problem was that as the series progressed the consistency of the universe, characters, and the lore gave way to drama and other such things.
as an exampleI thought all the games were on the same level of sci-fi.
The problem was that as the series progressed the consistency of the universe, characters, and the lore gave way to drama and other such things.
as an example
ME1 sticks relatively closer to the lore, everyone wears armor in battle and so on....
rule of cool started taking over from ME2 on
Speaking personally, thank the gods. Those ME1 armors were a fashion nightmare. I probably spent a damn hour customizing Shepard's armor pattern in ME2.
as an example
ME1 sticks relatively closer to the lore, everyone wears armor in battle and so on....
rule of cool started taking over from ME2 on
Biotics were a great example of this. In ME1 it was just moving stuff around, by ME2 Shepard could effectively mind control people and drain their life essence. Not exactly keeping with the established lore...
as an example
ME1 sticks relatively closer to the lore, everyone wears armor in battle and so on....
rule of cool started taking over from ME2 on
I'll give you the lack of battle armour.
However, generally speaking, the only reason ME1 sticks so close to the lore is because the lore was literally built around the gameplay. If they wanted to include some gameplay because it was "cool", Chris L'Etoile had to write the lore around it.
So when ME2 and 3 wanted to add new gameplay aspects like thermal clips and new biotic powers, they were compelled to break said absurdly specific lore.
Retour en haut