585 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

Oh dear oh dear. I'm not your schoolteacher.

 

 

Well that was a great explanation. I'll be sure to take your opinion on things seriously in the future.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

"We need to save the Ascension, no matter what the cost!"  SACRIFICE. 

 

For the record, I blame you for the fact that I clicked on this thread. 

 

(  )

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

There isn't one, beyond the fact that it's war and people die. That's not the same as sacrifice despite the desperate attempts of some people here to think otherwise. To actually make that as a theme would be idiotic.

 

I will inform the great writers and storytellers of the last 5000 years that they are idiots, and to go back and re-write everything until Reorte of BSN gets what he wants. 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Oh dear oh dear. I'm not your schoolteacher.

 

 

I appreciate this.

[dreamgazer]

]I don't see it as a theme, and it doesn't make a good theme for a whole series. There are occasions in the game where it's a part, but there's certainly no overarching theme of it.

I see it as a theme (it's commonly acknowledged as one of the most common themes in literature), and I think it makes for a meaningful theme for a whole series driven by moral and strategic dilemmas. There are countless occasions in the game where it's a significant component, and there's definitely an overarching purpose to that: that we have to make the most of situations we're thrown into and rationalize through tough parameters, instead of folding our arms and petulantly denying to take action when we don't get what we want. Concessions, both physical and existential, are crucial to existence, as is critical thinking based on working within them. Placing faith in unknowns isn't always wise, but it can reap benefits with the right choice. Deciding what's right and wrong isn't as black and white as some make it out to be, nor is it an objective barometer of how situations should be handled. Bravery takes on many different appearances. Play the hand you're dealt. The show must go on.

That's all hinged on the thresholds of sacrifice.
 

For the record, I blame you for the fact that I clicked on this thread. 
 
(  )

Oooooops.

[Reorte]

Well that was a great explanation. I'll be sure to take your opinion on things seriously in the future.

Good, if you ever manage to make a few sensible posts I might do the same for you.

[Reorte]

I will inform the great writers and storytellers of the last 5000 years that they are idiots, and to go back and re-write everything until Reorte of BSN gets what he wants.

You're still not managing to do more than bleat "You're wrong."

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Classy.

[Farangbaa]

Good, if you ever manage to make a few sensible posts I might do the same for you.

 

I still don't see a single word in here why exactly it was stupid. YOU think it's stupid, but that doesn't mean it is.

[SwobyJ]

Well... no. Saren clearly didn't want to stop the cycles with synthesis that wasn't his goal and TIM wanted to use the reapers to assure human dominance. More importantly they were both indoctrinated before they came up with those ideas, they didn't become indoctrinated because they had those ideas. A while ago you could argue that shepard himself was indoctrinated but the IT theory is kind of dead in the water now. TIM believed in control only because the reapers wanted to give him something he could believe in to fight the galaxy for the reapers same with saren.

 

You can debate which ending is the best based on the implications and so on but you can't just judge which is the "best" based on whether an indoctrinated bad guy did it or not. 

 

I still think Shepard is under indoctrination. And I still think we got good endings.

 

Everyone can come at me, bros.

 

Shepard maintained his will through his journey and the Reapers learned just enough about organics to let him. They were not controlling him.

 

Now lets see what Bioware has in story for us next.
 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

You're still not managing to do more than bleat "You're wrong."

 

You see, a school teacher would know that to use the word "still" would only makes sense if I had previously told you that you were wrong, or that I had told you that you were wrong in the post that you responded to.

 

Neither of which is the case.

 

Just a sec, I have Jeremiah* on the phone, and he says he can hook me up with Isis, Siddartha, and Gilgamesh. I should be able to fix four of them for you in one go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Not me, tho'

[Iakus]

The problem is that the "theme of the trilogy" very much depends on how you play the games. And I think that the endings unfortunately don't reflect that variety.

 

If you play a persuasive paragorn Shepard, I'd say that it can be argued that the theme of the trilogy is very much about overcoming incredibly slim odds together and prevail in the face of an overwhelming threat.

If you play a persuasive renegade Shepard, it may go more in the direction of "doing whatever is necessary to win"

If you play a non persuasive Shepard the theme is more about the fact that you can not always win but have to make though choices nonetheless.

 

My point is, the trilogy takes on a very different message, depending on how you play it and the endings unfortunately failed to maintain that variety.

 

Using sacrifice as an example does not work IMO. It can even be argues, that when played a certain way, the game makes "avoiding sacrifices" a theme, especially from ME2 onwards. You can avoid sacrificing the Normandy's crew. You can avoid sacrificing squad members in the Suicide Mission (of all things). Liara can avoid sacrificing Feron to the Broker. You can avoid sacrificing the Krogan Genophage cure without loosing anyone (the Salarians wills till join later). You can avoid sacrificing either the Quarians or the Geth. You can avoid sacrificing the Kaidan/Ash in the Cerberus crew.

Of course, this all depends on a certain play style but I can see wy - for a person that played the game in this fashion - the ending does not fit (btw, just as a railroaded happy ending would not fit for every character).

It's the lack of variety in the endings that is the problem, not the particular theme they do show.

 

THANK YOU!!!

[Vazgen]

I understand the point that MrFob brought earlier. In words of Conrad Roth from new Tomb Raider "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."

Example, Kaidan/Ash situation on Virmire. We are forced into choosing one or the other and have no control over the situation to prevent that choice. Thus - loss. Same goes for Legion, Mordin, Thane...

A good example of sacrifice is not sending anyone to escort the crew on the Collector base in ME2. You make a choice to sacrifice them not to compromise the mission. Another example - triggering alarms on Virmire to clear a path for your team but making it harder for salarians.

I think a Paragon player faces loss a lot more than sacrifice and it's vice versa for a Renegade player. There are some choices that are fixed for both alignments but they are too few compared to the choices player makes throughout the game to be considered a theme of the trilogy.

ME3 ending is one of those moments, nothing more nothing less. It's just more pronounced than similar moments in previous games.

[Reorte]

I see it as a theme (it's commonly acknowledged as one of the most common themes in literature), and I think it makes for a meaningful theme for a whole series driven by moral and strategic dilemmas. There are countless occasions in the game where it's a significant component, and there's definitely an overarching purpose to that: that we have to make the most of situations we're thrown into and rationalize through tough parameters, instead of folding our arms and petulantly denying to take action when we don't get what we want. Concessions, both physical and existential, are crucial to existence, as is critical thinking based on working within them. Placing faith in unknowns isn't always wise, but it can reap benefits with the right choice. Deciding what's right and wrong isn't as black and white as some make it out to be, nor is it an objective barometer of how situations should be handled. Bravery takes on many different appearances. Play the hand you're dealt. The show must go on.

That's all hinged on the thresholds of sacrifice.

Finally, a thoughtful, intelligent, sensible post.

I think the mistake is seeing all of those as being centrally about sacrifice. They may involve elements of it - commit to a fight and you know you'll almost certainly lose people for example, but that's just part of the consequences, not the theme. Making it a theme is saying that "This has to be lost for it to work" - it's the loss that's required rather than a consequence of something else. That is is why I'm saying it's stupid. It's the whole SpaceJesus thing.

It's an inevitable consequence of war. The theme is war, either heroic or horrific or some combination of both, depending on how it's portrayed. There are other themes surrounding involved - they can be having to reach out and work together, having to stand on your own and for what you believe in, having to make tough choices, and something that you could describe as sacrifice may be a consequence of those, but a consequence, not a theme.

As for the "desperate" parts that comes from the people who complain about the whole rainbows and butterflies thing. They'd have a point if the losses we got weren't just as far-fetched. More negative consequence would be an inevitable consequence of a more believable resolution, I've no problem with that, but I've often got the impression that some people think they should be there for their own sake. What ones we did get felt more like "Can't have everything too nice so we'll arbitrarily kill Shepard, or the geth, or whatever" instead of a natural consequence of the story.

[Reorte]

You see, a school teacher would know that to use the word "still" would only makes sense if I had previously told you that you were wrong, or that I had told you that you were wrong in the post that you responded to.

There was more than one post that took that position. If I wasn't paying sufficient attention to who had written them then I apologise.

I also did say that I'm not his teacher. I'm not claiming to be anyone else's, either.

[Iakus]

http://youtu.be/bNnd6oUEQ2I?t=3m7s
 
Sorry, but it's will. Unless you're ignoring Ashley and the crew now. You're kidding yourself if you think the casualties weren't going to be comparable.

 

"We need to save the Ascension, no matter what the cost!"  SACRIFICE. 
 

Is someone fighting an enemy while armed, armored, and supported by allies the same as a person tied to a chair, helpless and alone?

 

 

 

They die on the orders of Commander Shepard, instead of preserving precious numbers to focus on the direct threat. "If they do die" is a idealistic way of avoiding the truth.  There's a reason the neutral option is to "Concentrate on Sovereign".

 

 

And the geth will just go away after destroying the DA?  Gonna high-five each other and go drink some synthetic brewskies?

 

Or they going to try and flank the fleet while it's busy with Sovereign?

 

 

 

So, it's "fun" to sacrifice troops for an optional rescue mission that's going to kill nearly ten-thousand of their numbers?
How about the rachni?

 

https://www.youtube....PAlE6yUKHU#t=50

 

Alliance losses ended up being about 2400.  And they all died to enemy fire, not to a bolt of space magic I unleashed on them.  If you can't understand the difference, then there's really not much left to speak about.

 

As to the rachni, I save the queen.  I'm not going to kill her for what her ancestors did.

[Iakus]

Finally, a thoughtful, intelligent, sensible post.

I think the mistake is seeing all of those as being centrally about sacrifice. They may involve elements of it - commit to a fight and you know you'll almost certainly lose people for example, but that's just part of the consequences, not the theme. Making it a theme is saying that "This has to be lost for it to work" - it's the loss that's required rather than a consequence of something else. That is is why I'm saying it's stupid. It's the whole SpaceJesus thing.

It's an inevitable consequence of war. The theme is war, either heroic or horrific or some combination of both, depending on how it's portrayed. There are other themes surrounding involved - they can be having to reach out and work together, having to stand on your own and for what you believe in, having to make tough choices, and something that you could describe as sacrifice may be a consequence of those, but a consequence, not a theme.

As for the "desperate" parts that comes from the people who complain about the whole rainbows and butterflies thing. They'd have a point if the losses we got weren't just as far-fetched. More negative consequence would be an inevitable consequence of a more believable resolution, I've no problem with that, but I've often got the impression that some people think they should be there for their own sake. What ones we did get felt more like "Can't have everything too nice so we'll arbitrarily kill Shepard, or the geth, or whatever" instead of a natural consequence of the story.

And another THANK YOU!!!!

[Reorte]

And the geth will just go away after destroying the DA?  Gonna high-five each other and go drink some synthetic brewskies?
 
Or they going to try and flank the fleet while it's busy with Sovereign?

That's the thing with the DA decision IMO. I can't see how it makes any sense tactically not to save it, the more friendly forces in the battle the sooner the better, should give fewer losses overall. The only reason not to is to strengthen the Alliance's hand relative to the other races.

[Iakus]

Been a while, so why not?

 

 

I didn't realize that because some people believed something, that made it true.

 

It doesn't.  But some do think that the Catalyst is infallible in its belief.  and I (mistakenly, it seems) thought DrBlingzle was one of them

 

 

There's enough nonsense and unfortunate implications to every ending that this point is completely moot. No one is wrong for the ending they choose.

People are free to pick whatever ending they want, and justify it however they like.  But  by that token I am not wrong for despising the choices.

[dreamgazer]

Finally, a thoughtful, intelligent, sensible post.

How sweet of you.
 

I think the mistake is seeing all of those as being centrally about sacrifice. They may involve elements of it - commit to a fight and you know you'll almost certainly lose people for example, but that's just part of the consequences, not the theme. Making it a theme is saying that "This has to be lost for it to work" - it's the loss that's required rather than a consequence of something else. That is is why I'm saying it's stupid. It's the whole SpaceJesus thing.

It's the whole "tough decisions" and "moral dilemmas" thing, and they all factor into different forms of sacrifice, of things you're willing to give up in order to obtain what you need (or what you think you need). Every single Shepard, no matter the play-style, must endure those.
 

It's an inevitable consequence of war. The theme is war, either heroic or horrific or some combination of both, depending on how it's portrayed. There are other themes surrounding involved - they can be having to reach out and work together, having to stand on your own and for what you believe in, having to make tough choices, and something that you could describe as sacrifice may be a consequence of those, but a consequence, not a theme.

And every step of the way, a sacrificial decision barricades your progression. Because that's the way the world works. You have to give to get.
 

As for the "desperate" parts that comes from the people who complain about the whole rainbows and butterflies thing. They'd have a point if the losses we got weren't just as far-fetched. More negative consequence would be an inevitable consequence of a more believable resolution, I've no problem with that, but I've often got the impression that some people think they should be there for their own sake.

I don't think the losses are that far-fetched, if you're referring to synthetic life getting overloaded with the Reapers. The universe's tech backs most of it up.

As far as rainbows and butterflies? Eh. This thread runs the risk of reaffirming some of that thinking, unfortunately, since people apparently have been wanting to triumph over all of BioWare's presented dilemmas instead of enjoying the adjustment to them.

[AlanC9]

I guess ME3 writer is a fan of robots, right? It certainly seems so.

If "fan of robots" means thinking that sapient robots should be treated just like sapient organics, then sure.

Is there anybody on this site who says "robots" who isn't some kind of organic-supremacist?

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think I wouldn't go that far. I do appreciate that BioWare had to compromise in the choice and consequence system. Given all the variables, accumulating over the three games, I actually personally think that they did a pretty good job giving consequences to previous choices. It may not always have been what we expected or what we wanted but there are a lot of different variation on things, depending on the previous games and ME3 has a lot of content as a game. I do not begrudge them that they had to draw the line at some point.

Take your example of the rachni: Yes, we always get the mission and if we kill the queen now, there is literally no difference but if we keep her, there is quite the difference. If the queen was saved in ME1, we get the rachni as allies. If we trust the reaper creation, the rachni will not only betray us and leave but also kill a bunch of other guys from the crucible project on their way out. Yes, it's only a text box, not very glamorous and yes, I think as well that it may have been better to make the rachni mission exclusive to the people who saved the queen. But then, what about Grunt for example? So since there are differences in the story and since the workload to create branching consequences is enormous, I can sympathize with a lot of BW's design decisions throughout the game. I may not always like them but I understand them.

 

However, the ending is a special case in that regard because this was the point where they had the freedom to really branch out. They didn't have to keep in mind what happens next, so there was there chance. With the extended cut, they even did branch out as far as the state of the galaxy is concerned but unfortunately, they didn't branch out in the tone that the endings set. And therein lies the problem IMO. Different playstyles required a different tone, for the ending to fit in. The endings do not provide that variety.

 

That starts getting into authorial intent though, in fact, I'm sure the game was intended to be precisely the opposite of anything fatalism related given how often the marketing includes stuff about meaningful choices. But I view authorial intent as largely irrelevant and stories should be viewed as just stories, not a breakdown of what writers or developers are trying to say or do. And in that vacuum I find the ring of fatalism in the story very clear or at least clearer than anything else. I think the story is too much of a jumble to really draw anything deep or consistent out of it, so the only thing to do is throw out those 1 word themes. The precise problem I have with something along the lines of fatalism is that it's often inserted through contrivance.

[dreamgazer]

Is someone fighting an enemy while armed, armored, and supported by allies the same as a person tied to a chair, helpless and alone?

Nope, but the geth aren't "tied to a chair, helpless, and alone". They know the stakes, and they've proclaimed their position on synthetic destruction to Shepard. Blowback is, sometimes, unavoidable. You couldn't avoid it with the Battle of the Citadel, and you couldn't avoid it in using the Crucible (well, if you wanted to destroy all Reapers).
 

And the geth will just go away after destroying the DA?  Gonna high-five each other and go drink some synthetic brewskies?
 
Or they going to try and flank the fleet while it's busy with Sovereign?

They'll change their tune when their Reaper leader has been taken out and their plan foiled. "Concentrate on Sovereign".
 
 

https://www.youtube....PAlE6yUKHU#t=50
 
Alliance losses ended up being about 2400.  And they all died to enemy fire, not to a bolt of space magic I unleashed on them.  If you can't understand the difference, then there's really not much left to speak about.

Both sides "died" as a result of throwing them under the bus for Shepard's desired agenda. They're not that different.
 

As to the rachni, I save the queen.  I'm not going to kill her for what her ancestors did.

And yet, you had no idea what they'd do, given how hospitable the rachni were throughout the mission and throughout their history.

[AlanC9]

That's the thing with the DA decision IMO. I can't see how it makes any sense tactically not to save it, the more friendly forces in the battle the sooner the better, should give fewer losses overall. The only reason not to is to strengthen the Alliance's hand relative to the other races.

While this is tactically sensible, it does require you to ignore the way Bio presents the "neutral" option, which says explicitly that only destroying Sovereign matters. It sounds like the design intent was that saving the DA would take the Alliance fleet out of position for an immediate attack on Sovereign, but they don't actually show that happening.

[Reorte]

It's the whole "tough decisions" and "moral dilemmas" thing, and they all factor into different forms of sacrifice, of things you're willing to give up in order to obtain what you need (or what you think you need). Every single Shepard, no matter the play-style, must endure those.

And every step of the way, a sacrificial decision barricades your progression. Because that's the way the world works. You have to give to get.

No, not a sacrificial decision. A risk, a chance, a danger, yes. A sacrifice, no. I don't take the position that every time a military commander makes a decision to send his troops into battle, knowing that they won't all come out alive, he's making a sacrificial decision. If you've got a lot of decisions where it's definitely "You WILL die to save us all" then you've either got a crap commander or a problem with your story.

Play an RTS. Sometimes you'll send units to almost certain doom and fine, argue that you're sacrificing them, but it doesn't really define the battle. If you do it most of the time you'll probably lose.

I don't think the losses are that far-fetched, if you're referring to synthetic life getting overloaded with the Reapers. The universe's tech backs backs most of it up.

I disagree with that but it's been discussed thoroughly enough elsewhere.

As far as rainbows and butterflies? Eh. This thread runs the risk of reaffirming some of that thinking, unfortunately, since people apparently have been wanting to triumph over all of BioWare's presented dilemmas instead of enjoying the adjustment to them.

Like I said there would be far, far less of a grumble about the losses if they hadn't seemed so arbitrary. The thing is to keep it convincing. Part of a dilemma though is trying to work out the best choice. Never having an ideal one is as bad as always having an ideal one, and having the better outcomes should require a lot more work (that the worst outcome of ME3 is the hardest to get is a problem).