1624 réponses à ce sujet

[PhroXenGold]

You'll note that I didn't, because you already have Andromeda, hint hint, its just as likely a ending that leads to Andromeda, also there is no need to reconcile it because everyone is dead. Basically its the same with ME2. If you let Shepard die at the end of ME2 (no one pulls them on to the Normandy) then that was the end of your ME Saga, you now have the option of not playing ME3, Reapers win same outcome, you can now play ME4 and feel that your story is still canon you are now simply playing a entirely new game. If you played ME3 you already are accepting that you aren't playing your original ME2 Shepard who you canon wise let die, if you choose refuse in this one. like I said you have Andromeda no need to reconcile anything.

 

The existence of ME:A does not necessarily imply that Refuse doesn't happen. It only would do if they tried to put in some kind of coherent post-ME3 start point for the Ark that aligns with the ME3 endings. And to do that they'd have to either pretty much ignore the endings (which would defeat the entire point of them) or jump through a ridiculous number of hoops.

 

Hell, if they were going to declare any of the endings canon/non-canon - which is what you are suggesting they do - Refuse is the most obvious one to make canon, as it means they can escape any attempts to explain what's going on in the MW post-colour picking. The Ark gets away without the Reapers knowing about it either pre-ME3, or even after the Battle of Earth but before the Reapers have hunted down all remaining organics. No need for any handwaving about the results of the colour you picked, just a nice simple backstory for you to start rebuilding humanity from the last few survivors who escaped to Andromeda. I'd rather they didn't do this, I'd rather they kept it open enough for all the endings to potentially be canon (likely with a pre-Battle of Earth lauch), but if they were to make certain endings canon, this would seem to be the simplest solution.

[In Exile]

It also let's them keep the original reapers around as villains.

[Natureguy85]

It's absolutely pathetic. It's like someone yelling at trees that "humans are beyond their comprehension" before starting to clear cut. It's absolutely ridiculous.

When I'm about to kill a spider I don't rant at it that humans "have no beginning", that we are "legion", that our numbers will "blot out the sky" and then mush it.

It's ridiculous to say that Sovereign would give it any weight at all.

 

Yes, but you don't seem insane. I assume you don't see any higher purpose in killing that spider; you simply want it out of your house. (maybe the plot should have been that). I further assume you don't need a different spider to perform some important task for you. Despite Sovereign's hate of Organics, he still needed their help to accomplish his goal.

 

There are several ways for Sovereign to make complete sense character wise. It could be stereotypical villain arrogance and gloating, it could be bluster to hide some vulnerability that we would later discover, or a machine version of insanity. As to saying they have no beginning, I always chalked that up to Sovereign being around so long that he forgot. Other options are that he was programmed to think so or that it's just bluster again.

 

I dont understand why they just don't over turn Casey's ending and open up Andromeda with you picking the ending you selected in ME3 and showing how no matter which one you picked the reapers are destroyed either immediately or over time, and Shepard either being saved (via destroy), or being honored via Control (despite them his new VI ordering all reapers to suicide run into the sun.), or the hybrid synthesis not holding over to the next generation and ultimately fading away entirely and the Reapers become inert and get harvested for parts and melted down for scraps. there, all the loose ends tied up. 

 

Destroy and Control wouldn't need too much differentiation other than the Synthetics being destroyed or not. While I question how, Hackett claims they can rebuild the Relays. The Reapers from Control could simply go away, either into a star, as you suggest, or anywhere. However Synthesis changes things far too fundamentally to work with any other ending. It's also still stupid.

 

 

(And yes, for me Refuse is the canon ending. It's the only one where I can actually stay in character as my canon Shep during the finale). 

 

This is true and why making this the "lose" ending was such as slap in the face. But I wonder if that's what they would do. It could be a way to explain why some races are missing. XCOM 2 starts from the premise that the Aliens won in XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

 

 And to do that they'd have to either pretty much ignore the endings

 

 

I approve of this idea.

[AlanC9]

How is that awful in comparison to actually having a ending that allows you to stay in the Milky Way galaxy and not potentially have to give up the entire Galaxy you were building and the races there in simply because, "Well some people might like to be hybrid techno-organic lifeforms so we have to build 3 potential games in one in every sequel until the franchise dies." and control is no different as it would require now having to explain why VI Shepard isn't saving the day whenever a new crisis arises, and like i said still requiring you to make 3 Games in one every single sequel that takes place in the Milky Way Galaxy's present and thereafter future.

Anyone who actually wants to import a Control or Synthesis save wouldn't be satisfied with your suggestion, because it trashes the substance of those saves. So who are you satisfying? You're only honoring one set of choices anyway, so why not be honest about it and canonize Destroy?

[AlanC9]

This is true and why making this the "lose" ending was such as slap in the face. But I wonder if that's what they would do. It could be a way to explain why some races are missing. XCOM 2 starts from the premise that the Aliens won in XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

Hey, any Shepard stupid enough to Refuse without realizing what will happen deserves to be slapped. And if he knew and did it anyway, then he got what he wanted from the choice.

I'd kind of like to see ME:A proceed from canon Refuse, if only to watch all the exploding heads here.

[animedreamer]

The existence of ME:A does not necessarily imply that Refuse doesn't happen. It only would do if they tried to put in some kind of coherent post-ME3 start point for the Ark that aligns with the ME3 endings. And to do that they'd have to either pretty much ignore the endings (which would defeat the entire point of them) or jump through a ridiculous number of hoops.

 

Hell, if they were going to declare any of the endings canon/non-canon - which is what you are suggesting they do - Refuse is the most obvious one to make canon, as it means they can escape any attempts to explain what's going on in the MW post-colour picking. The Ark gets away without the Reapers knowing about it either pre-ME3, or even after the Battle of Earth but before the Reapers have hunted down all remaining organics. No need for any handwaving about the results of the colour you picked, just a nice simple backstory for you to start rebuilding humanity from the last few survivors who escaped to Andromeda. I'd rather they didn't do this, I'd rather they kept it open enough for all the endings to potentially be canon (likely with a pre-Battle of Earth lauch), but if they were to make certain endings canon, this would seem to be the simplest solution.

if you picked Refuse then Andromeda exist to continue your story in other words no one is saying refuse doesn't happen, in fact it implies that it is JUST as likely a ending as any other one if not more so because Andromeda DOES exist.

[Natureguy85]

 Or what if they try to do some sort of combination of them all, like Deus Ex: Invisible War? That would get really messy.

 

Hey, any Shepard stupid enough to Refuse without realizing what will happen deserves to be slapped. And if he knew and did it anyway, then he got what he wanted from the choice.

I'd kind of like to see ME:A proceed from canon Refuse, if only to watch all the exploding heads here.

 

Without realizing what would happen? Shepard has no idea what will happen when he does any of the choices. What reason does he have to trust a word the Catalyst says?

[AlanC9]

Without realizing what would happen? Shepard has no idea what will happen when he does any of the choices? What reason does he have to trust a word the Catalyst says?

True, but trust is irrelevant for Refuse. Nothing the Catalyst says has anything to do with Refuse. It's 1945, and organics are the Axis.

I can see why Shepard might think that the other choices might not really work as advertised, but where does that get her?

[Natureguy85]

True, but trust is irrelevant. Nothing the Catalyst says has anything to do with Refuse. It's 1945, and organics are the Axis.

 

I see what you're getting at but I would say it's extremely relevant. Shepard has spent the entire series defying the Reapers and getting done what was supposedly impossible. Now at the end he just has to obediently obey the villain? Keeping in character and sticking with the themes of the game results in losing? And you're told the later cycle just uses the Crucible like you should have? No thanks.

[AlanC9]

I dunno about keeping in character. Is it really in character for Shepard to decide that since he's been lucky before, he can just sit back and wait for his luck to bail out the galaxy again? Depends on the Shepard, I guess.

"Themes of the game" aren't a thing Shepard can be aware of anyway. Unless he knows he's a fictional character? I don't really want to go there.

[Natureguy85]

I dunno about keeping in character. Is it really in character for Shepard to decide that since he's been lucky before, he can just sit back and wait for his luck to bail out the galaxy again? Depends on the Shepard, I guess.

"Themes of the game" aren't a thing Shepard can be aware of anyway. Unless he knows he's a fictional character? I don't really want to go there.

Well if the story was properly written there would be something for Shepard to do. He would actually be able to find his own way or would be able to show the Catalyst how wrong it is. Or even make Shepard make the case and his argument is stronger or weaker based on his choices through the series.

 

Shepard is aware of the themes of the game in the sense that they are what everything that has happened points to. In the literal sense, you're right; that's more for you the player.

[BabyPuncher]

"Themes of the game" aren't a thing Shepard can be aware of anyway. Unless he knows he's a fictional character? I don't really want to go there.

 

Not so.

 

'Themes of the story' are never just about the story and nothing else. If they were they'd become meaningless as soon as the story is concluded.

 

No, they're about reality as a whole.

 

As I spoke about in another thread, it's very often the case that protagonists speak out the truth of the story. It occurs particularly often when the protagonists confronts the antagonist, and speaks of what he's learned on his journey. His truth is the truth of the story, which is the reason why he's the protagonist and the reason why the resolution of the conflict is in his favor.
 

[Lady Artifice]

Not so.

'Themes of the story' are never just about the story and nothing else. If they were they'd become meaningless as soon as the story is concluded.

No, they're about reality as a whole.

As I spoke about in another thread, it's very often the case that protagonists speak out the truth of the story. It occurs particularly often when the protagonists confronts the antagonist, and speaks of what he's learned on his journey. His truth is the truth of the story, which is the reason why he's the protagonist and the reason why the resolution of the conflict is in his favor.

And, in the case of intentionally unreliable narrators? What dictates the theme then?

[BabyPuncher]

Any number of things can contribute to establishing a theme. You don't need a narrator or protagonist explicitly sounding it out. It happens often in the case of protagonists, but far from always.

[Natureguy85]

And, in the case of intentionally unreliable narrators? What dictates the theme then?

 

 

Any number of things can contribute to establishing a theme. You don't need a narrator or protagonist explicitly sounding it out. It happens often in the case of protagonists, but far from always.

 

The theme is expressed by the events of the story. Those events must point to it.

[AlanC9]

Not so.

'Themes of the story' are never just about the story and nothing else. If they were they'd become meaningless as soon as the story is concluded.

No, they're about reality as a whole.

As I spoke about in another thread, it's very often the case that protagonists speak out the truth of the story. It occurs particularly often when the protagonists confronts the antagonist, and speaks of what he's learned on his journey. His truth is the truth of the story, which is the reason why he's the protagonist and the reason why the resolution of the conflict is in his favor.

Are you talking about reality, or stories? Or can you really not see the difference anymore?

Remember, the specific question here is whether Shepard, who doesn't know he's fictional, would be justified in Refusing because his story up to that point has included accomplishing some things that people thought were impossible. Is it rational to decide that doing the impossible is a theme of his life? Rational for him, of course.

[AlanC9]

Well if the story was properly written there would be something for Shepard to do. He would actually be able to find his own way or would be able to show the Catalyst how wrong it is. Or even make Shepard make the case and his argument is stronger or weaker based on his choices through the series.

Shepard is aware of the themes of the game in the sense that they are what everything that has happened points to. In the literal sense, you're right; that's more for you the player.

Well, that's the thing. I'm one of those RP radicals, like Sylvius. I play my character and whatever happens, happens. I don't think the game universe owes my PC successful options that fit his character any more than this universe owes such options to me.

I'm not even sure the premise works in the first place. Offhand, I can think of quite a few stories where acting in character isn't a viable solution. Most of those are tragedies, of course. Paging Ned Stark!

[KaiserShep]

Well if the story was properly written there would be something for Shepard to do. He would actually be able to find his own way or would be able to show the Catalyst how wrong it is. Or even make Shepard make the case and his argument is stronger or weaker based on his choices through the series.

 

Shepard is aware of the themes of the game in the sense that they are what everything that has happened points to. In the literal sense, you're right; that's more for you the player.

 

Eh, showing the Catalyst it's wrong is pointless. It's like training a cow to fetch just before you butcher it. 

[BabyPuncher]

Are you talking about reality, or stories? Or can you really not see the difference anymore?

Remember, the specific question here is whether Shepard, who doesn't know he's fictional, would be justified in Refusing because his story up to that point has included accomplishing some things that people thought were impossible. Is it rational to decide that doing the impossible is a theme of his life? Rational for him, of course.

 

If the ending had stood by these principles it wouldn't have been the utter mess that it is.

 

Doing the impossible isn't really a theme. Pretty much all big budget stories involve characters 'doing the impossible' in one form or fashion or another. There's no truth in it by itself. A theme might be why the character in question is able to do 'the impossible.' And if there's a valid reason to that 'why,' then yes, they're justified in taking that action.

[CronoDragoon]

Well if the story was properly written there would be something for Shepard to do. He would actually be able to find his own way or would be able to show the Catalyst how wrong it is. 

 

Alan could turn around and say that if the series was properly written, then he would have been forced into these situations much more often throughout.

 

Remember, the specific question here is whether Shepard, who doesn't know he's fictional, would be justified in Refusing because his story up to that point has included accomplishing some things that people thought were impossible. Is it rational to decide that doing the impossible is a theme of his life? Rational for him, of course.

 

Is there even a way to RP Shepard in the rest of ME3 such that he doesn't believe the Crucible is the only way to victory? Convincing the galaxy to throw themselves at the Reapers so they can dock the Crucible, only then to reject its consequences reeks more of cowardice than strength to me.

 

Cowardice is a perfectly fine RP choice, I guess.

[Natureguy85]

Well, that's the thing. I'm one of those RP radicals, like Sylvius. I play my character and whatever happens, happens. I don't think the game universe owes my PC successful options that fit his character any more than this universe owes such options to me.

I'm not even sure the premise works in the first place. Offhand, I can think of quite a few stories where acting in character isn't a viable solution. Most of those are tragedies, of course. Paging Ned Stark!

 

Yeah, I see  what you're saying if you're trying to treat it as real life throwing a situation at you. I always saw it as a story that I got to participate in.

 

Now your second paragraph is important. You are absolutely correct, but Mass Effect is not one of those stories. It is not a tragedy. Shepard's lack of character development, while extremely annoying considering he died, is not a theme. It's never even addressed.

 

 

Alan could turn around and say that if the series was properly written, then he would have been forced into these situations much more often throughout.

 

 

Is there even a way to RP Shepard in the rest of ME3 such that he doesn't believe the Crucible is the only way to victory? Convincing the galaxy to throw themselves at the Reapers so they can dock the Crucible, only then to reject its consequences reeks more of cowardice than strength to me.

 

Cowardice is a perfectly fine RP choice, I guess.

 

You are absolutely correct about turning it around. Having been faced with such situations before would have made the end more fitting.That would require going back and changing a lot more though.

 

As to rejecting the Crucible, I must painfully refer to something the Catalyst said. The variables have changed. There is new information. We've just been told that our enemy wants us to use the Crucible. Not wanting to use it is perfectly understandable. Now, you can point out that there is no alternative, but that's exactly the problem with the story.

[goishen]

There are several ways for Sovereign to make complete sense character wise. It could be stereotypical villain arrogance and gloating, it could be bluster to hide some vulnerability that we would later discover, or a machine version of insanity. As to saying they have no beginning, I always chalked that up to Sovereign being around so long that he forgot. Other options are that he was programmed to think so or that it's just bluster again.

 

 

 

But doesn't the ending, two out the four (destroy and control), show that this was all just bluster?  And somewhat synthesis. 

 

I mean, you come off as making no sense, sometimes.   You are expecting someone to tell what's going on in the story.  That is bad writing.  Stories are supposed to show us, not tell us.

[Iakus]

Well, that's the thing. I'm one of those RP radicals, like Sylvius. I play my character and whatever happens, happens. I don't think the game universe owes my PC successful options that fit his character any more than this universe owes such options to me.

I'm not even sure the premise works in the first place. Offhand, I can think of quite a few stories where acting in character isn't a viable solution. Most of those are tragedies, of course. Paging Ned Stark!

If I run about in a maze, I expect a piece of cheese at the end.  

 

If there are several ways out of the maze, I expect several different types of cheese, some I may like, and some I don't.

 

I don't expect a cup of Velveeta at every exit.

 

Also, being a role-playing game, not everyone is going to play Ned Stark.  Nor is everyone going to play as Walter White.  So forcing a tragedy on everyone is just a bad idea all around.  Tragedy should be a result of a player's actions.  Not DM Fiat.

[CronoDragoon]

You are absolutely correct about turning it around. Having been faced with such situations before would have made the end more fitting.That would require going back and changing a lot more though.

 

Definitely, which is why I'd favor changing the endings instead, as I quite enjoyed the other 99% of the trilogy (I enjoy being Space Jesus).

 

As to rejecting the Crucible, I must painfully refer to something the Catalyst said. The variables have changed. There is new information. We've just been told that our enemy wants us to use the Crucible. Not wanting to use it is perfectly understandable. Now, you can point out that there is no alternative, but that's exactly the problem with the story.

 

Sure, but the new information doesn't change that Shepard and the rest of the galaxy believe the Crucible is the only way to victory. It may change whether or not Shepard believes the galaxy is worth saving given the consequences, I suppose, but that would be quite a sociopathic, egotistical Shepard (ie, my moral integrity is more important than billions of lives).

 

Anyway, I was responding to the role-playing topic of the convo, so changing the story wasn't really in play. Given the hypothetical, Refuse is - in my mind - clearly cowardice. It can't even be arrogant stupidity, since Shepard has been on board with the Crucible precisely because he believes in the low odds of success otherwise. If it's meant as a meta commentary (ie not RPing the decision as Shepard) then I can understand Refuse as a rejection of the hypothetical entirely due to player disgust.

 

To tie this in with MEA, my preference would be DA2's approach. Contrary to what Iakus believes, I assert that the player should sometimes be subjected to unavoidable tragedy. And sometimes they should be able to avoid it. The best approach to moral choice is, in my opinion, consistent inconsistency. This is different from the ME trilogy, which was consistent all the way until the end, when it wasn't. DA2, on the other hand, is throughout the game keeping the player on his or her toes. Having the player get whatever they want or have everything determinable by their actions is a bit boring, and so is the player always winning or losing no matter what. Somewhere in between is Dragon Age 2, where you don't know how things will turn out, and sometimes your actions make a difference, and sometimes they don't. The result of this is a deep discomfort within the player in a good way, since suddenly choices presented in the game can have really dire consequences (ie, taking your sibling to the Deep Roads) and you aren't really reassured that everything will be on right. On the other hand, sometimes you can make a difference (most times, let's say), which prevents player apathy. This type of choice paradigm also has the benefit of being more true to life than either of the extremes.

[Sandrita87]

It had more sense, to me, to place a new ME game in the events before the start of ME triology, at the start of human space exploration, war with Turians and such, but will give ME:A a chance