585 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Is it time?

 

I think it's time.

 

-Javik snip-

 

I'm going to miss Dombrow's writing in the MEU, but it'll be fun to see what he brings to the table at Telltale Games. Wonder if he's working on Game of Thrones.

[Reorte]

Bloody hell, some people still swallowing all that sacrifice crap? Ooh, people have to die, got to have all the feelz, screw making any sense, everything is inevitable etc. etc.

[dreamgazer]

Bloody hell, some people still swallowing all that sacrifice crap? Ooh, people have to die, got to have all the feelz, screw making any sense, everything is inevitable etc. etc.

 

Since it's been fed to the audience from the beginning of the series, yeah.  It's (arguably) the most consistent and unavoidable theme.

 

Shepard's first big "railroaded" action in ME1, taking the beacon's heat instead of K or A, was one of sacrifice. 

[themikefest]

Yep. My femshep sacrificed a lot to get the breath scene.

[SporkFu]

Since it's been fed to the audience from the beginning of the series, yeah.  It's (arguably) the most consistent and unavoidable theme.

 

Shepard's first big "railroaded" action in ME1, taking the beacon's heat instead of K or A, was one of sacrifice. 

Be kinda odd to have Ash/Kaidan get the beacon vision, then leave them on Virmire. 

[dreamgazer]

Be kinda odd to have Ash/Kaidan get the beacon vision, then leave them on Virmire. 

 

Yeah, it would. Whichever one had been left alone to take the vision wouldn't have been a killable variable on Virmire, though, I'm sure. 

[MrFob]

Since it's been fed to the audience from the beginning of the series, yeah.  It's (arguably) the most consistent and unavoidable theme.

 

Shepard's first big "railroaded" action in ME1, taking the beacon's heat instead of K or A, was one of sacrifice. 

 

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.

[Farangbaa]

You cannot avoid the sacrifice theme, no matter how you play.

[von uber]

There is no good ending.

 

There is only the Harvest.

[SporkFu]

Yeah, it would. Whichever one had been left alone to take the vision wouldn't have been a killable variable on Virmire, though, I'm sure. 

Would also mean you'd have to take them on any mission where the beacon came into play.

Saren: You saw the beacon's warning, Shepard! you know-

shep: Uhh, well...

Saren: If it wasn't you, then who used the beacon on Eden Prime?

shep: One of my crew. Unfortunately they stayed behind to make sure we blew your cloning facility to hell. So what do you think of that?

Saren: You mean you don't know what's really going on here? 

shep: Well they talked a lot about death and destruction and blah blah. Hey, I'm in command here. I decide what's worth knowing.

Saren *shakes head*: Goodbye, Shepard. 

 

Nah, better to have that one tiny bit of railroading at the beginning. 

[Reorte]

You cannot avoid the sacrifice theme, no matter how you play.

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.

To be fair there may be one after all considering the frankly ludicrous Messiah complex the ending has, I perhaps have been giving BioWare too much credit for the rest of the story.

[ImaginaryMatter]

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). 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.

 

If the game is about anything, it's probably something about the reality of fatalism and it's conflict with the illusion of choice. This isn't because some parts of the story are railroaded. Often choices that were made in past games end up in the same place. Destroyed the Rachni queen? The Reapers sew another one together. Destroyed the base? TIM scavenges the baby Reaper largely intact. Supported Mordin's work on the Genophage? He changes his mind any way. Killed him? Mordin 2.0 replaces him. And so on. Even the original endings fit into this mold. Three large options which ostensibly are the same because the Relays' destruction kills almost everybody anyway, rendering any past choice largely irrelevant.

[dreamgazer]

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.

 

Please explain why sacrifice as a theme in a game series hinged on moral dilemmas is "idiotic", and why folks are somehow "desperate" for seeing precisely what the series has presented since the beginning.  

[Obadiah]

Aside from the fact that I thought, taken as a whole, the trilogy did have a consistent theme of understanding differences, perseverence, and making difficult decisions, I don't think there is a rule that says for a story to be good the theme has to be consistent.

[Reorte]

Please explain why sacrifice as a theme in a game series hinged on moral dilemmas is "idiotic", and why folks are somehow "desperate" for seeing precisely what the series has presented since the beginning.

Sacrifice as a theme is a stupid one. If you think that it's been there as a theme from the start then there's no helping you, because it hasn't beyond, like I said, it's war and people die, and that's not the same thing. The only possible exception (although IMO it's still more "war and people die" is Virmire, and that's one bit of it, hardly a theme. That you can go through it regarding every decision that results in a death as a sacrifice is your problem.

As for why some people seem desperate for it and what the series hasn't presented to anyone with their eyes open, you'd have to ask them.

[dreamgazer]

Sacrifice as a theme is a stupid one.

As for why some people seem desperate for it and what the series hasn't presented to anyone with their eyes open, you'd have to ask them.

Eloquent. Try again?

[MrFob]

If the game is about anything, it's probably something about the reality of fatalism and it's conflict with the illusion of choice. This isn't because some parts of the story are railroaded. Often choices that were made in past games end up in the same place. Destroyed the Rachni queen? The Reapers sew another one together. Destroyed the base? TIM scavenges the baby Reaper largely intact. Supported Mordin's work on the Genophage? He changes his mind any way. Killed him? Mordin 2.0 replaces him. And so on. Even the original endings fit into this mold. Three large options which ostensibly are the same because the Relays' destruction kills almost everybody anyway, rendering any past choice largely irrelevant.

 

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.

[Farangbaa]

Sacrifice as a theme is a stupid one. If you think that it's been there as a theme from the start then there's no helping you, because it hasn't beyond, like I said, it's war and people die, and that's not the same thing. The only possible exception (although IMO it's still more "war and people die" is Virmire, and that's one bit of it, hardly a theme. That you can go through it regarding every decision that results in a death as a sacrifice is your problem.

As for why some people seem desperate for it and what the series hasn't presented to anyone with their eyes open, you'd have to ask them.

 

Ah, the I-don't-like-it-so-it's-stupid-reason.

[dreamgazer]

Sacrifice as a theme is a stupid one. If you think that it's been there as a theme from the start then there's no helping you, because it hasn't beyond, like I said, it's war and people die, and that's not the same thing. The only possible exception (although IMO it's still more "war and people die" is Virmire, and that's one bit of it, hardly a theme. That you can go through it regarding every decision that results in a death as a sacrifice is your problem.

Huh. That's ... better, I guess. Inaccurate and a little angsty, but better.

So, you don't see going with a choice in a moral dilemma a form of sacrifice? Sacrifice isn't purely about death, you know.

[dreamgazer]

Ah, the I-don't-like-it-so-it's-stupid-reason.

I like the fact that the poster's suggesting that it's not even there, and those who see it are somehow stupid and desperate.

[Reorte]

Huh. That's ... better, I guess. Inaccurate and a little angsty, but better.

Ooh, I'm being patronised now. How nice.

So, you don't see going with a choice in a moral dilemma a form of sacrifice? Sacrifice isn't purely about death, you know.

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.

[Reorte]

Ah, the I-don't-like-it-so-it's-stupid-reason.

Try arguing why you think it isn't stupid instead of having a go at what I said.

[Farangbaa]

Try arguing why you think it isn't stupid instead of having a go at what I said.

 

How about you explain why it is stupid? I've yet to see you do that. You've only claimed it's stupid and then proceeded to call people who do see it desperate.

 

Which is absolutely hilarious.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Been a while, so why not?

 

Sorry, but a lot of pro-ending folks refuse to accept that the geth-quarian peace is a valid example of organics and synthetics being able to coexist.  They think it's an anomaly at best, temporary at worst.

 

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

 

Synthesis=peace without looking at the nonsense (as well as the really unfortunate impolications) behind it and such.

 

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.

[Reorte]

How about you explain why it is stupid? I've yet to see you do that. You've only claimed it's stupid and then proceeded to call people who do see it desperate.
 
Which is absolutely hilarious.

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