3588 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

There's only really a tonal problem if you play something like full paragon, if you play the default story, which according to Bioware's stats most people who bought ME3 did (though you probably won't find those people on sites like BSN), then the tone is super consistent because nothing ends in sunshine and rainbows at all, not even curing the Genophage, because of that damn warmonger Wreave. I think I've told this story before, but my first run of ME3 was with the default story on the suggestion of Chris Priestly, and I loved it, alot. I could feel the constant tension and all the hopelessness throughout every mission, and how just whenever you thought you had made it, tragedy struck, like with Jason Prangley who got killed by Cerberus whilst  trying to save his classmate, and, in my playthrough, the Quarians who got blown out of the sky by the Geth because peace is impossible on a default run, an event which had me legit shook because I was not expecting it at all (Quarians had it coming though ).
 
It felt like I was playing an interactive G. R. R Martin game because everytime I thought something good was about to happen, the game was like, "Nope, if you think that this has a happy ending then you haven't been paying attention fam", and it was awesome. So really, when I reached the ending I saw nothing out of place, (except for teleporting squadmates lol), the tone was the same and how it ended and the Catalyst's logic made sense, and I chose control because I had actually agreed with TIM's idea, his methods were what bothered me. When I came on the internet to praise the game and call it the best ever, you can guess at how shocked I was to find BSN and the rest of the internet in flames with hate lol, I couldn't understand what was going on. 
 
It's super blatant that Bioware wrote the main story and the original endings around the default Shepard because it makes perfect sense with him, and it's the story most people would end up playing so it made choice from a business decision to do that, whilst things like a full Paragon run are pretty much a "What if?". But yeah, the default run  is honestly a damn good run, I would advise everyone to experience the default story at some point, hell, I enjoyed it so much that I modelled my canon run around it.

The default Shepard, that's what you get if don't import decisions from ME2 and ME1, and that actually pinpoints one of ME3's problems well. ME3 works reasonably well as a standalone story in those circumstances, but fails in most cases where people import their earlier games in the trilogy. Which indicates to me that the writers designed ME3's main thematic arc without taking into account it's part of a trilogy. That's also apparent in the way they presented the organic/synthetic conflict, and even the nature of synthetic life, against everything ME2 had to say about it.

A good business decision that may have been, but from an artistic viewpoint it's disastrous. The trilogy as a whole lacks thematic and narrative coherence, and that's what causes problems for players who played it as a trilogy rather than a series of standalone stories loosely connected by a protagonist who was supposedly the same yet also lacked coherence between the different parts of the trilogy, even if the player did their best to avoid that. Shepard went from a reasonably grounded soldier in ME1 (at least you could play them as such) to a comic-book superhero in ME2 and then to a guilt-ridden idiot in ME3.

You might be able to avoid that tonal shift if you play ME3 standalone, but the plain fact is that it *was* part of a trilogy, and even if you played the trilogy and did all the same decisions in ME1 and ME2 that would lead to default outcomes in ME3, those inconsistencies would still...hmm, how do I say it...adversely affect your experience.

There's a reason why people said that ME3 was set up to anger those most invested in the setting. As I see it, ME1 made a promise that ME2 compromised, and ME3 ultimately betrayed.

[themikefest]

Even with a bullet in his arm or shoulder, he still has a greater capacity to kill Tevos than he would as a corpse, but I guess that depends on where your priorities lie: keeping the potential victim alive, or getting a potential source of information from the assailant. Thinking about it, it might have been interesting if this was an actual option, where you could wound Udina, but he manages to take Tevos out in the process, but you at least have your guy to interrogate. 

 

Edit: I forgot about the VS. If Udina is simply wounded, Ashley or Kaidan would probably shoot him anyway. 

Tevos? The councilor from ME1? Yeah about that. She's never been around in ME3 in any of my playthroughs.

 

I don't care if he shoots the councilor or not. Shooting him in the arm or shoulder would more than likely stop him from using the weapon since his natural reaction would be to grab his arm in pain giving a moment for the councilor to crawl away while someone tackles him or he probably gives up at that point.

[Iakus]

 

It's super blatant that Bioware wrote the main story and the original endings around the default Shepard because it makes perfect sense with him, and it's the story most people would end up playing so it made choice from a business decision to do that, whilst things like a full Paragon run are pretty much a "What if?". But yeah, the default run  is honestly a damn good run, I would advise everyone to experience the default story at some point, hell, I enjoyed it so much that I modelled my canon run around it. 

If diverging from default Shepard is "doing it wrong" then why the hell did they allow for paragon/renegade choices at all?

[Iakus]

Tevos? The councilor from ME1? Yeah about that. She's never been around in ME3 in any of my playthroughs.

 

I don't care if he shoots the councilor or not. Shooting him in the arm or shoulder would more than likely stop him from using the weapon since his natural reaction would be to grab his arm in pain giving a moment for the councilor to crawl away while someone tackles him or he probably gives up at that point.

Pretty sure it's a lot harder to hit someone in the arm or shoulder than the torso.

 

In fact, I believe most firearm training teaches one to aim for the center of mass.

[themikefest]

Pretty sure it's a lot harder to hit someone in the arm or shoulder than the torso.

 

In fact, I believe most firearm training teaches one to aim for the center of mass.

For one who's not trained, yes. One who is trained using that weapon, its not especially being that close to the target.

[Natureguy85]

Pretty sure it's a lot harder to hit someone in the arm or shoulder than the torso.

 

In fact, I believe most firearm training teaches one to aim for the center of mass.

 

Yeah, I was going to do this later, since I'm writing a response to something earlier (or rewriting thanks to Firefox and this forum) but I'll hit it now.
 

I know Shepard is military, but the situation is more akin to police action. You shoot to stop the threat. There are no warning shots and there is no shooting to wound. A gun is always lethal force because any shot could be lethal. If it's not a lethal force situation, the gun shouldn't be used. Udina pulls a gun and you need to shoot him and make sure you hit. If he lives, great. If not, he shouldn't have pulled a gun.

All of that said, how about the biotic asari protect herself? Throw Udina off the cliff. Also, kinetic barriers, Councilors?

 

 

 

For one who's not trained, yes. One who is trained using that weapon, its not especially being that close to the target.

 

That's not true. The training is to shoot center mass. Now, will someone with a high level of skill be able to make that arm shot? Yes, but that's not what they've been trained to do.

[themikefest]

That's not true. The training is to shoot center mass. Now, will someone with a high level of skill be able to make that arm shot? Yes, but that's not what they've been trained to do.

I never said its not to hit center mass did I? One who is trained can hit the target in the arm or shoulder at that range. Its not that hard. I've seen it done many times when I was at a firing range.

[Natureguy85]

I never said its not to hit center mass did I? One who is trained can hit the target in the arm or shoulder at that range. Its not that hard. I've seen it done many times when I was at a firing range.

That's at the range though. And usually in a stressful situation, your core training takes over. Here, Shepard has his gun ready and things are tense but not boiling over. The greatest threat from Udina is that he will open a door. Suddenly he pulls a gun and points it at someone. This totally changes the situation and requires immediate intervention. It would take a lot for someone to be able to react that quickly and aim and hit a smaller target. However, it does help that the rounds move at a high fraction of the speed of light.

 

So you might be right but it's a stretch for me.

[rossler]

Why wouldn't shooting him in the arm or shoulder stop him from attempting to kill her?

 

It only slows him down. 

[themikefest]

It only slows him down. 

Does it? How often have you been shot in the arm or shoulder to know it would slow him down?

[rossler]

The pain slows him down. 

 

Either way, if Shepard doesn't kill Udina, Ashley or Kaidan finish him off. 

 

Does it? How often have you been shot in the arm or shoulder to know it would slow him down?

 

I've had a dislocated shoulder before. Hurt like hell. Have you ever dislocated your shoulder before?

[themikefest]

The pain slows him down.

That varies from person to person since people can tolerate more pain than others 
 

Either way, if Shepard doesn't kill Udina, Ashley or Kaidan finish him off.

The problem with that is they're closer to Udina than Shepard making it easier to shoot the guy in the arm or shoulder
 
 

I've had a dislocated shoulder before. Hurt like hell. Have you ever dislocated your shoulder before?

So no you haven't been shot in the arm or shoulder.

[Natureguy85]

I've had a dislocated shoulder before. Hurt like hell. Have you ever dislocated your shoulder before?

 

 

So no you haven't been shot in the arm or shoulder.

 

It's clearly all the same I know what both feel like because I have a small tear in my shoulder muscle from lifting weights.

[gothpunkboy89]

You skipped one important detail. Logic would solve anything if we, humanity, (and other organic species if we talk Mass Effect) would use it constantly like Vulcan do in Star Trek. You however talk about AI using logic in relation to us.

Yes, logically we are parasites of the Earth and in the long term it will be better for ecosystems to have us erradicated. BUT, that's not what Catalyst's mandate is. Its mandate is to preserve organic species from synthetic threat, not preserve ecosystems from a human threat so yes, Catalyst's logic is flawed.

If the Catalyst is so excited to stop the harvest then why doesn't he just do so after Shepard deals with the geth one way or the other?
Nope, logically Reapers are not a perfect solution or even if they are he certainly uses them the wrong way. If you can't keep organics alive (!) from synthetics then just don't bother with it, this is the logical decision. If you kill them and make Reapers out of them then you have already failed your mission.
If you could bring Geth and EDI to chat with Catalyst then they would easily convince him that the only threat to organic life are the Reapers themselves.


About AI being unique, whatever, they may be. If so, creating a new AI is no more dangerous then giving birth to a human being. Unless the society is so flawed there are factors that a human can become a murderer or a psycho. The same can be applied to AI if these flawed organics create an AI with a purpose of destruction. We saw EDI being able to fight other AIs and win like she did with Eva Coré. If the new AI is dangerous then simply destroy it.

 

And there is a route that seems we use logic more then anything else. That is the synthesis ending that so many people complain about. But that is a bad ending according to so many because a homicidal maniac is no longer a homicidal maniac. I would generally see that as a good thing but apparently that thought isn't popular on the forums.

 

By harvesting humans the ecosystem is preserved and organic life and flourish again. Allowing a new species to develop over time and become the planet's apex species. So not only do they protect organic life from creating synthetic life that would then kill them off they give planets a chance to recover and rebuild their ecosystems allowing new life to grow and develop.

 

It is actually an interesting concept that what we think of as dinosaurs were just like us millions of years ago. Harvested by the Reapers leaving only a few bones behind to become fossilized. As well as all these large metal deposits in the planet simply being chunks of their cities that were demolished and reclaimed by the planet.

 

Catalyst wasn't eager to stop the harvest because at that point it was still the best option. It is only after the Crucible is docked do things alter to the point it is a viable choice to change how things are going.  Up to that point it is same old same old. Catalyst never said the Reapers were the best solution just the only solution that worked. There is a world of differences between the two and trying to claim they are the same is just silly. Turning advanced organic life into Reapers doesn't fail the mission because other less advanced organic life still exists and new organic life continues to develop. The Catalyst seems to be following the logic of organic or synthetic life is still life and to pick one over the other doesn't make any logical sense. Organic life suppressing synthetic life development makes the same amount of logic as synthetic life suppressing organic life development. That is why the Reapers harvest both organic and Synthetic life.

 

EDI and the Geth not so much you are talking about a singular AI who has only been around less then a decade and a Synthetic race that spent the last 300 years killing any organic that wondered into their path as some how disproving millions of years of observations?

 

Well actually there is more of a danger creating an AI then a new life. Particularly as technology becomes more interconnected and more integrated with every day life. That is basically how the Geth beat the Quarians in the Morning War. Both have great potential for good or evil the difference is going bad anyways is like choosing between an F2 (organic) or an F4(synthetic) tornado. Neither are good and both can result in a lot of problems but one is slightly less destructive then the other.

[Vanilka]

If diverging from default Shepard is "doing it wrong" then why the hell did they allow for paragon/renegade choices at all?

 
I don't understand this, either. I mean, this is a trilogy with the option to import our characters and their worldstates, so why should I ever want to start each game with the default Shepard and ignore who they were and what they did in my previous game? Especially during my first playthrough. If this was going to be a trilogy, I sure as hell was going to play through the entire thing with the same character so that their story makes sense and means something.
 
Plus, I feel like getting second-hand characters like Wreav instead of Wrex, the other guy instead of Jack, etc. is kind of lame. Basically, the signature characters are missing from the default game and I don't understand this decision.
 
I'm sure playing the default thing might be interesting as well and great points have been made in its favour by Daemul (Thanks for sharing!), but I feel like I shouldn't have to give up on my character and the rest of the trilogy to have the ending of the third game make a little bit more sense. (It's not like it actually fixes the actual nonsense anyway.) Because having to ignore the previous two games or having to play in a very specific way for it to somewhat work at least tonally and thematically is ridiculous.

[Natureguy85]

 
I don't understand this, either. I mean, this is a trilogy with the option to import our characters and their worldstates, so why should I ever want to start each game with the default Shepard and ignore who they were and what they did in my previous game? Especially during my first playthrough. If this was going to be a trilogy, I sure as hell was going to play through the entire thing with the same character so that their story makes sense and means something.
 
Plus, I feel like getting second-hand characters like Wreav instead of Wrex, the other guy instead of Jack, etc. is kind of lame. Basically, the signature characters are missing from the default game and I don't understand this decision.

 

I see where you're coming from but I actually like it in a way. "Default" often is the result of not taking paragon or renegade options, such as with Wrex. Obviously some don't have a neutral option, such as the Rachni Queen, and some have alternate ways of solving the issue, such as saving Wrex by getting his family armor. But I like it as "Commander Shepard wasn't a very good leader." Heck, since after the first game Shepard is nothing more than a really good soldier, default playthrough really is "anybody else could have done it." It's the It's a Wonderful Life playthrough.

[Daemul]

I see where you're coming from but I actually like it in a way. "Default" often is the result of not taking paragon or renegade options, such as with Wrex. Obviously some don't have a neutral option, such as the Rachni Queen, and some have alternate ways of solving the issue, such as saving Wrex by getting his family armor. But I like it as "Commander Shepard wasn't a very good leader." Heck, since after the first game Shepard is nothing more than a really good soldier, default playthrough really is "anybody else could have done it." It's the It's a Wonderful Life playthrough.

 

Default isn't really a "Commander Shepard wasn't a very good Leader" but more of a "Commander Shepard was a realistic leader". The default playthrough completely strips away many(not all of them, but enough to make a huge difference) of the Mary Sueish aspects that Shepard normally has and makes him actually feel like an actual person and relatable, for the first time ever I actually liked Shepard.

 

 

 Plus, I feel like getting second-hand characters like Wreav instead of Wrex, the other guy instead of Jack, etc. is kind of lame. Basically, the signature characters are missing from the default game and I don't understand this decision.

 

I preferred Wreave to Wrex tbh, with him around the narrative was much less whitewashed and the genophage choice became an actual grey decision.  Grissom Academy without Jack was actually far superior as well,  Jack completely overshadows the students when shes around and the whole mission just becomes about how awesome she is. With her dead you actually get to see how the war is affecting the kids and teenagers and how they cope with war, one of the students even has a sad conversation with Shepard about how he felt when he killed someone for the first time because she had just killed for the first time when Cerberus invaded her school that day, a conversation which doesn't happen at all with Jack around. Not to mention the speech that Shepard gives to the kids if you choose to send them to the front lines about using their anger at Jason Prangley's death to keep themselves alive is awesome.

 

So for me, Bioware made the right choice choosing the options they did, it made the story much better. 

[Vanilka]

I see where you're coming from but I actually like it in a way. "Default" often is the result of not taking paragon or renegade options, such as with Wrex. Obviously some don't have a neutral option, such as the Rachni Queen, and some have alternate ways of solving the issue, such as saving Wrex by getting his family armor. But I like it as "Commander Shepard wasn't a very good leader." Heck, since after the first game Shepard is nothing more than a really good soldier, default playthrough really is "anybody else could have done it." It's the It's a Wonderful Life playthrough.

 

I wasn't very clear in the point I was trying to make with that paragraph, I think. I'm not saying that the default Shep must do a remarkable job. I just think it's weird that some of the most notable characters are missing. (I know those things are connected in their respective games, but it still seems weird to make it the default. Maybe it's just me.) I have a friend who started the trilogy from the second game and she mentioned how she had heard about how awesome Wrex is, but she didn't get to meet him because she skipped the first game. (Of course, once she figured out that she missed out on some really great stuff, she immediately picked up ME1.)

 

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with more "messy" playthroughs. I think other players here made some good points that it can make the games more dramatic or exciting. Me? I love my power fantasies, but I also like to roleplay and try different things eventually. Ultimately, I'm glad they didn't go for the "ideal" in the default. Not that I will ever respect it as "canon", but I think it's fine. I just think it's weird to get a cheap replacement for Jack and co. by default.

[rossler]

So no you haven't been shot in the arm or shoulder.

 

No, where I live, only hunters and police officers are allowed to carry guns. 

[Natureguy85]

No, where I live, only hunters and police officers are allowed to carry guns. 

 

Also known as a "soft target."

[Vanilka]

I preferred Wreave to Wrex tbh, with him around the narrative was much less whitewashed and the genophage choice became an actual grey decision.  Grissom Academy without Jack was actually far superior as well,  Jack completely overshadows the students when shes around and the whole mission just becomes about how awesome she is. With her dead you actually get to see how the war is affecting the kids and teenagers and how they cope with war, one of the students even has a sad conversation with Shepard about how he felt when he killed someone for the first time because she had just killed for the first time when Cerberus invaded her school that day, a conversation which doesn't happen at all with Jack around. Not to mention the speech that Shepard gives to the kids if you choose to send them to the front lines about using their anger at Jason Prangley's death to keep themselves alive is awesome.

 

So for me, Bioware made the right choice choosing the options they did, it made the story much better. 

 

Is that a problem with the characters in question being there or is it a problem with how inconsistently these things are portrayed in different worldstates? It's not Jack's fault that the writing neglects the students if she's there. It's not Wrex's problem if the writing simplifies the issues with him there. If you feel there's a shift in quality, then that's just it. A shift in quality. It's not the fact you got a random replacement dude number 3 that made the experience better. Consistently good experience is what should've been there regardless of worldstate and I'm not going to abandon my entire previous experience just because BW didn't care.

 

Honestly, I freaking hate that they made this game with the idea in mind that the third game is the best place to start the trilogy and the less you know about the previous games, the better. As a loyal ME fan, how am I not supposed to be sickened and disappointed by this approach?

[Daemul]

Is that a problem with the characters in question being there or is it a problem with how inconsistently these things are portrayed in different worldstates? It's not Jack's fault that the writing neglects the students if she's there. It's not Wrex's problem if the writing simplifies the issues with him there. If you feel there's a shift in quality, then that's just it. A shift in quality. It's not the fact you got a random replacement dude number 3 that made the experience better. Consistently good experience is what should've been there regardless of worldstate and I'm not going to abandon my entire previous experience because BW didn't care.

 

Honestly, I freaking hate that they made this game with the idea in mind that the third game is the best place to start the trilogy and the less you know about the previous games, the better. As a loyal ME fan, how am I not supposed to be sickened and disappointed by this approach?

 

I actually agree, Bioware clearly only put effort into ensuring that one worldstate, the default one, was consistent because since like you said,  "ME3 is the best place to start the trilogy" according to them, and then they half arsed the other options which weren't part of the narrative they chose. You can actually visibly see how the quality of certain of missions, like Grissom, deteriorates when someone, in this case Jack, is alive, because her being there was clearly not part of what they envisioned for that misson, in fact the whole thing about her becoming a teacher is so damn random that it feels like they threw it together in order to fit her somewhere in the game, because it made no damn sense.

[Vanilka]

I actually agree, Bioware clearly only put effort into ensuring that one worldstate, the default one, was consistent because since like you said,  "ME3 is the best place to start the trilogy" according to them, and then they half arsed the other options which weren't part of the narrative they chose. You can actually visibly see how the quality of certain of missions, like Grissom, deteriorates when someone, in this case Jack, is alive, because her being there was clearly not part of what they envisioned for that misson, in fact the whole thing about her becoming a teacher is so damn random that it feels like they threw it together in order to fit her somewhere in the game, because it made no damn sense.

 

I actually like the idea of the hurt, abused person helping others, a treatment she never got yet gives others. But it's true that after ME2, that's a crazy amount of development in just a few months and finding her there was a surprise, I admit. Either way, I suppose that they might have thought that putting a popular character in was going to automatically win hearts without much effort. I did like the mission, but hearing about the students' experiences lacking now when she's in makes me sad because I can see how that's relevant and interesting and why somebody would prefer that.

[Prince Enigmatic]

No, where I live, only hunters and police officers are allowed to carry guns. 

 

And in an ideal world, even they shouldn't be allowed. 

[Ieldra]

 I don't understand this, either. I mean, this is a trilogy with the option to import our characters and their worldstates, so why should I ever want to start each game with the default Shepard and ignore who they were and what they did in my previous game? Especially during my first playthrough. If this was going to be a trilogy, I sure as hell was going to play through the entire thing with the same character so that their story makes sense and means something.
 
Plus, I feel like getting second-hand characters like Wreav instead of Wrex, the other guy instead of Jack, etc. is kind of lame. Basically, the signature characters are missing from the default game and I don't understand this decision.
 
I'm sure playing the default thing might be interesting as well and great points have been made in its favour by Daemul (Thanks for sharing!), but I feel like I shouldn't have to give up on my character and the rest of the trilogy to have the ending of the third game make a little bit more sense. (It's not like it actually fixes the actual nonsense anyway.) Because having to ignore the previous two games or having to play in a very specific way for it to somewhat work at least tonally and thematically is ridiculous.

I think that ever since Bioware started to take a screenwriter's approach to video game storytelling with ME1 they increasing neglected the roleplaying aspects of their games. I've discussed some of the effects here and here. There has been a reversal in DAI (not drastic, but at least significant), but up to ME3 that trend remained unbroken in both of their active universes. I summarized this as follows:

 

I think ME3 is the current culmination of a trend that increasingly doesn't let players act, but lets games act upon them instead. Increasingly, developers didn't think about what the player might want to do rather than what they wanted the player to do, which is, in my point of view, anathema to roleplaying.

 

There is, of course, a natural antagonism between a storyteller and a roleplaying and their respective needs, Bioware has managed, in the past, to find a number of sweet spots, and made games that were reasonably good in both storytelling and roleplaying. They appeared to have forgotten how to find those with the advent of fully voiced protagonists and the consequent focus on character drama which often came at the expense of common sense and plot coherence. The strong focus on controversy contributed to that inability to find those sweet spots, because of course controversial themes need more plot forking and most importantly, more options for character expression to work in a game that takes its roleplaying seriously, and both had become increasingly expensive.

 

In any case, neglecting roleplaying as much as in ME3 backfired at least with a lot of old fans. I have no idea if that played any role in the decision to make DAI less restrictive, but the post-ME3 explosion was certainly big enough that they should've started thinking about what went wrong. The direction taken with DAI was right from my POV, but they haven't found those sweet spots of their older games again. In DAI we were forced into a role defined by faith, another controversial theme that barely avoided exploding in their faces again because they actually facilitated roleplaying at a few key points (as opposed to ME3), but it still wasn't enough to feel natural in the face of the role we were put into and to which I could never object as strongly as I wanted.

 

I am somewhat curious what they'll come up with next.