157 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

I wouldn't say there was all that great a motive in place, Mordin aside. My enjoyment from ME2 was much less from the main story (which rightfully gets a lot of flack) and more from Bioware focusing on my single favorite of their games, bar none. But in general, this does form the basis for Smudboy's "ME2 plot analysis" where if I remember right he concludes something similar. 

 

Well, in the case of Tali, she has prior experience with eh Reapers.  And Okeer had experience with the Collectors which Grunt, sadly, lacks)  If we're going to recruit people for a mission, shouldn't we be recruiting them for particular knowledge or expertise that we think would be handy in the situation we'll be in?

 

 

 

That depends in what sense we want to consider them a classic. I've heard people talk about how much they enjoy Bioware characters, but I don't hear all too often acclaim in regards to just picking people up for the ride.

I don't for example consider Mission a "classic" Bioware character because she happens to unlock a door, at which point her relevance essentially evaporates. On the other hand, ME2 probably should have put more effort into an actual plot, but I'd argue most Bioware plotlines aren't all that great to begin with (Jade Empire aside).

 

Classic as in the companion decides to hang with you for their own reasons, rather than being recruited for an operation.  In KOTOR, Bastilla is the only character "assigned" to the player character, due to their Force-Bond.  Everyone else tags along because they want to (I'm talking story reasons, not that the characters are themselves optional.  Most aren't).  

 

Same with jade Empire.  Wild Flower and Zin Bou are the only companions who "must" follow you (well, there's also that ONE character you can get at the very end) All the other companions follow you because they "choose" to, or they have their own axe to grind with the villain.  I mean, the Spirit Monk doesn't tell the hermit in the swamp "I need you for a dangerous mission!"  He follows you for his own reasons.

[themikefest]

I loved those options so I would hate to lose them.  I love ME1   I had games where I left Kaiden, romanced Kaiden and left him, games where I saved him and if there had been another couple of options, save both, leave both, I'd eventually have done that too.

I would like to see how different the trilogy would be if both could be saved. 
 

ME2 I only had one or two games where everyone survived, for the same reason.   I never intentionally tried to kill anyone but I sent people to do jobs they were qualified for but the game system killed some of my team.  It was great.  I got teary when Jack was carried off because she saved Miranda and when Tali was killed or Garrus.

Its very rare that I have everyone survive. I do intentionally have characters die. In a majority of my playthroughs, I go through the relay with only 8 squadmates. A few are not loyal

 

Once or twice I intentionally tried to make Jack and Miranda get along, or Tali and Legion work together. But it was more fun for me to just play and see what happened.  I had some games where it worked and some where it didn't and this is a major reason I continued to play if for so long.   And I liked being a soldier who could get opposite groups to work together once in awhile.

In all my ME2 playthroughs, I've only encountered the Tali and Legion confrontation once.
 

Without these options I'd have stopped playing because story wise ME2 was not my favorite, but the way I could play kept me entertained from the day it was released to the day ME3 came out.

I agree. If a lot of the options weren't available in the games, I doubt I would as many playthroughs as I do

[Iakus]

You'll all get what you're given you little ingrates.

Sounds like that line from the Walking Dead preview "Bite.  Chew.  Swallow.  Repeat"

 

There's a RGB joke in there somewhere...

[ACika011]

That is part of the problem with gaming culture (and with popular culture in general) is that it is the consumer power fantasy.

Can you explain? What power fantasy, the whole point of this thread is to draw attention to the fact that there aren't any hard decisions in this game even tho its advertised as such. How do i have a "power fantasy" and why does it impact the gaming culture negatively.

[ACika011]

I am of the opinion that there is a place for three types of choices in RPGs. (Generally speaking)

 

1) The Virmire choice where it is a zero sum game you lose someone and there is no way around this. I think these are powerful choices because people who do dangerous jobs especially ones that include combat often have to make these choices. Also in mundane life we often have to make choices that are either or with no possibility of both. There is also power behind lose as a storytelling tool. Despite the mature =/= dark crowd, Lose isn't actually dark, lose is the INEVITABLE outcome of all relationships because we are finite beings. So lose should be an integral part of games. This doesn't have to just be limited to who lives or dies, it could be who do you support for an alliance. What speciality goods your colonies create. What equipment you lose on a mission. These are all examples where you have to make a choice that is one or the other not both.

 

2) The 'simple' choices of choice X gives the best result and choice Y gives an inferior result. This is rather simplistic but often a much maligned style of choice in games because it feels like no choice at all. The key to this choice is for some of these choices to have a DELAY in the consequences of the choice so that you don't immediately know which is the superior choice.  Games are notoriously bad for providing instant gratification and instant consequences because they want to keep the player hooked. Yet as a storytelling technique it lacks power and impact in the long run if every choice is instantly resolved in terms of reward and punishment.  Regardless there is a place for some choices being the 'right' one and some being the 'wrong' one. And as much as player complain that the 'wrong' one always seems skewed towards the 'bad' path game theory has pretty much definitively proven that the 'pragmatic' route is inferior to desired results that the 'altruistic' route. Don't believe me? just do a google search of prisoner's dilemma. It is a well studied aspect of 'game theory' and it pretty much debunks the idea the 'pragmatic' choices are superior. 

 

3) Complex choices These are choices that are not resolved simply in the moment but are resolved by the choices make before reaching this point. ME3 had two examples of this the ME1 squad mate believing you or Udina at the climax of the Cerberus attack on the citadel. The other was the Quarian/Geth choice where it is possible to broker peace between them. I find this system far superior than the paragon/Renegade reputation checks as it truly creates a dynamic where your choices in the game have impact in ways that you normally wouldn't expect.

 

Some issues I see with choices in games;

 

The war assets system is flawed in that there were so many ways to gain war assets that it created no consequences to the game. You literally play all the trilogy just to make only one choice that matters what colour do you prefer? This is because all the choices were boiled down into war assets. So it is important not to boil down all your choices into an abstract representation because in so doing you trivialize all the choices in the end if your choices options are gated by reaching x score in your abstract representation.

 

In hindsight which is always 20/20, in other words it is so much easier to be an armchair developer after the fact, I would have gated the synthesis choice to only those players able to bring about a Geth/Quarian peace and control for those who built up so many 'control' points based on choices like siding or not siding with TIM at the ME2 or doing side quests against Cerberus in me1 and me3. The point being that your ability to gain this option should hinge on choices made in the entire series not the mid range option based on war assets gained.

 

The choice I hated the most was the Rachni queen because this changed nothing it was pointless. If you killed her the reapers find another 'queen' to create the rachni husks out of and you have to fight them in all the same locations. If you save her she gets captured by the reapers resulting in rachni husks. It was a fraking pointless choice. Yet it was tied to the binary morality system so it ruined any kind of thought provoking analysis of the choice because you have to 'game' the choice because of the fraked up mechanics of the paragon/renegade system. This should have been a brilliant choice killer her and you never run into rachni husks and any battles where these husks would have been are made easier. Save her and you have to deal with Rachni husks and do the quest to stop the husk production as is in ME3. Kill her and you find a failed attempt by the reapers to create rachni husks with grunt and you basically fight your way into the facility and fight your way out with against non rachni husks. But that means the developers have to make two quests vs one and be willing to have less diverse enemies in your battles for some playthroughs. Perhaps not a feasible approach but it would have felt like this was a 'real' choice as the results to game play were actually divergent by more than what texture the rachni queen had in ME3.

 

There is one thing i think some choices need for a mature title and that is unintended consequences not all choices should resolve in the ways we intend life is filled with unintended consequences both good and bad. Games should do a better job of adding this very real part of life to their game play.

Very well said, i particularly like the part where you mention that we should get the synthesis option only if we make peace between the Geth and Quarians, but i do think that that requirement would disprove even more the star childs logic which is already heavily flawed.

[Gothfather]

Virmire choice is kinda lame, as it ultimately boils down to "who do you want to bang?" or "who do you like less?".

Only if that was your motivation.

 

For myself I save the diversion team and leave the bomb. Which means the choice of who lives or dies happens at the start of the mission not near the end. Why do I make the choice like this? Because the bomb was set up to according to the Salarians to be undisarmable. So leaving the team there to finish arming the bomb means even if they all die the bomb is safe and will explode. So saving them means i have to let a larger force die and I gain nothing by doing so. The bomb isn't going to explode better if I am there. Saving the diversion team does two things it reinforces that the diversion is the real target hence why the Normandy and most of our assets are concentrated there. Second it allows more people under your command to survive the operation. So yeah if you decide the choice is oh no I can't let X die because i want to F@ck then then sure the choice is trivialized but that isn't because the choice is actually trivial it is because the players reasons behind it are immature and childish. Yet again it requires the player to use shallow reasons to make their choice. The same could be said for all choices. i killed the geth off because I wanted to bang Tali is just as shallow if the reasoning behind your choice is actually shallow. The choice itself isn't shallow. 

 

As to people who think they could have saved both all I can say is pffft. I have a feeling none of these people who claim to be able to save them both were ever in combat and pretty confident none of them were in command in combat situations. The confidence of "I could save both" seems to be born out of someone who doesn't understand no plan survives contact with the enemy.

[Gothfather]

Very well said, i particularly like the part where you mention that we should get the synthesis option only if we make peace between the Geth and Quarians, but i do think that that requirement would disprove even more the star childs logic which is already heavily flawed.

 

I don't find the Catalyst's reasoning flawed after Leviathan. If we realize that the "preservation of life" isn't the goal of the catalyst but the means by which it achieves it goal then it makes more sense. The Cycles are the ultimate manifestation of the tribute system the Leviathan race created. Then the catalyst's solution to the problem isn't filled with logic holes so much as a case of unintended consequences by the Leviathan's not being more specific how tribute should be handled.

 

The key points of logic from a post in another thread

Spoiler

The "space kid" actually creates a very reasoned and intelligent solution to the problem.

 

Here are the key points to the logic.

 

Dead races don't give tribute.

 

Organics WILL create machines to improve their lives.

 

Those Machines will have limits so the organics will continue to try and improve their machines to further make their lives easier.

 

To solve this issue organics will create machine that can evolve.

 

With this evolution the machines will surpass their creators and rebel.

 

These wars will result in species destroying themselves.

 

Tribute does not flow from a dead race.

 

So the catalyst harvest the 'Master' race creating harbinger the 'leader' of the reapers.

 

Then it harvest every advance race taking all their resources, knowledge, genetics material, technology and history and preserves them into a new set of reapers to serve their leader harbinger. Each race is preserved in the form of a new servitor reaper and thus nothing is lost to the constant wars between organics and synthetics.

 

The cycles are the ultimate manifestation of the tribute system. It isn't a "dumb" solution at all.

 

Reapers are not machines they are cybernetic organisms, both synthetic and organic.

 

The catalyst is aware that its solution is imperfect because organics have shown that they can communicate across cycles and it's efforts to destroy the knowledge of the crucible have failed over multiple cycles. Now organics have built it and reached the citadel proving that the status quo of the cycles is unsustainable now. So a new solution must be found.

 

Then we get those stupid choices that really come down to pick your favourite colour because nothing you did in the series before mattered up until that very moment. The entire ending of the series is hinged upon that one choice. That is why those endings were so bad.

 

http://forum.bioware...-it-too/page-10

 

Here is a post the provides sources for those key points and addresses the situation in more detail. While the post is mainly showing the scope of the reaper problem and thus concentrates on this issue it does provide a clear understanding of what the problem was that the Leviathan's wanted the catalyst to solve. And how the cycles are the solution to said problem.

 

Spoiler

Do you know what context is? Do you know that context can change the meaning of words, in fact context can take a group of words and actually have them mean the exact opposite. "Joe is so smart," sounds like someone is saying a person named Joe is intelligent, but the context could be that the person means the exact opposite. Joe claims that a tin foil hat will keep the aliens from reading his mind. So Cindy says in a mocking tone, "Joe is so smart." Context is "everything" to meaning.

 

CONTEXT is as vital if not more vital to a determine a conversations meaning than just the text.

 

Here are some pieces of evidence that we know about the situation of the galaxy with regards to the Leviathans, the catalyst and the other races in the galaxy at the time catalyst was created.

 

Leviathan were the apex of  life in the GALAXY. Lesser life forms were in our thrall, serving our needs. (This establishes that the other races there servitors to the leviathans and note makes this statement in the context of THIS galaxy only. This single statement provides the context of what SCOPE the leviathan is speaking of for the entire conversation.)

 

Source: https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=2m26s

 

Leviathans grew more powerful but the servitor races could not be saved from themselves. "Over time, the species(note the plural) created machines that then destroyed them. TRIBUTE does not flow from a DEAD race." (The problem is not races are dying or killing themselves off the problem is you get no tribute from a dead people. This is the second piece of evidence for the CONTEXT of what the leviathan is telling you.)

 

Source: https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=2m33s

 

"To solve this problem,..." (Note you are specifically told right after, "tribute does not flow from a dead race." that this is the problem. So the REASON the catalyst is created is NOT to preserve life. It is created to keep tribute flowing by preserving the life of the servitor races. This is a non subtle difference. In one case the mandate is to preserve life in another the mandate to maintain tribute by preserving life. It is this "distinction" that allows for the harvests. The harvests don't make any sense if the mandate is to preserve life period. They make perfect sense if the mandate is to preserve life for tribute, because the harvests become the ultimate representation of the tribute system. The reapers take all of a race's knowledge, technology, genetic material, resources and history and "preserves" it in the form of a new reaper under the command of harbinger the first reaper who was created from harvested Leviathans. When the preservation of life is to maintain the tribute system, creating "organic living goo" for the next set of reapers to serve the Leviathan reaper Harbinger makes sense. Yet if the mandate is just to preserve life for its own sake then the solution makes no sense.

 

let us continue...

 

"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost." In fact you use this quote but you seem to have DELIBERATELY removed the first part of the sentence, 'To solve this problem," and you don't quote it like this either "...we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost." Which would indicate that you are not quoting the whole sentence, no you quote it in a manner that deliberately misleads the reader, because the entire context of what the mandate is, is in reference to the statement, "Tribute does not flow from a dead race.To solve this problem,..."  Context is so vital for meaning.

 

Source: https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=2m51s

 

"As the intelligence evolved, it studied the development of civilizations. Its understanding grew until it found a solution." A solution to what? The "problem." Which was what?

 

"Tribute does not flow from a dead race."

 

There can be no misinterpretation as to what the problem is and to what the solution is for. The solution isn't to preserve life for life's sake it is to preserve life to keep tribute flowing.

 

Source: https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=3m1s

 

We are then told that the catalyst "betrayed" the leviathan race and that they were the first race harvest creating the first reaper harbinger. This further strengthens the argument that tribute is the key to the entire reaper cycle.

 

https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=3m10s

 

Again we get a FURTHER confirmation that the scope of the Leviathan's perspective on the problem was galactic not larger.

 

"You cannot conceive of a GALAXY that bends to your will."

 

This statement reaffirms the context of what scope the entire conversation is about, what scope they created the catalyst to preform within. How do we know this? Because this is telling us what perspective the Leviathans are viewing their situation and problem from. And it is clearly GALACTIC.

 

https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=3m29s

 

"There was no mistake. It still serves its purpose."

 

And that purpose it to keep tribute flowing. We know this because this was already identified as the PROBLEM in the conversation and that the catalyst was created for this solution. So if the catalyst is doing what it was programmed to do we can infer that the entire harvesting cycle is to provide tribute to the Leviathans in for form of Harbinger.

 

https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=3m52s

 

Further into the conversation we actually see that the scope of the catalyst itself is LIMITED to the Galaxy created yet a third piece of evidence that the catalyst was looking to create a solution on the GALACTIC scale.

 

"To find a solution, it required information--physical drawn from organic life in the cosmos. It created an army of pawns that searched the GALAXY, gathering this data."

 

If the catalyst had a mandate that spans beyond the milky way galaxy then it would have search beyond just our galaxy for a solution but it does not. Why? because again we can CLEARLY see from the conversation the entire content of the catalyst's scope is within out galaxy. We are give very explicit limitations to its scope in this conversation we constantly have the scope commented on within a galactic context.

 

https://youtu.be/lEqlG6bhZ80?t=4m54s

 

 

Everything the Leviathan tells us about the reapers and the "intelligence" is within the context of the above. When it talks about preservation of life it is within the context of that being a solution to the problem of tribute not flowing from a dead race. With this core context the idea that preservation of all life outside the milky way makes no sense when everything about the conversation was talked about on a galactic scale.

 

Did the reapers have the capability to reach other galaxies? Yes but their mandate was limited to the Galaxy and this is confirmed multiple times in the conversation and once specifically speaking about what the catalyst does to solve the problem.

 

Here is the evidence. Is it proof? No but i always said "evidence (not proof)" when stating there is evidence that the reapers are confined to the milky way.

 

So I again ask you what evidence do you have that the reapers are extra galactic in scope? You asked me for my evidence and I went into considerable detail providing it. Why do I doubt I will get anything close to this level of response back?

 

Anyway it is very late so i will stop here and maybe break down further conversations about what reapers do between cycles. To further show the scale to be GALACTIC. And yet i doubt it will change anyone's mind because most people are opinion based not evidence based.

 

On the same thread as I posted earlier just on page nine vs ten.

 

I do think that Leviathan DLC content should never have been made after the game's release as it was too vital to explain star brat. Too vital to explain the motivations behind its creation and the problem it was designed to fix. But of all the things you can say that ruin the end star brats logic isn't really all that flawed.

[tesla21]

You can either have meanigful but only story telling wise choices a la The Walking Dead game or you can have "important" choices that feel tense in the moment but bite you in the rear later on.

 

Virmire was abit of a best of both worlds imo, as it was both felt meaningful in the long run while also being of a relatively small scope, but when you have something like Rachni Queen situation where one scenario or the other should have drastically changed the sequels yet the developers can't actually work around making those 2 drastically different world states then the choice ends up losing all it's value. That's why tough choices should be on a more personal level imo, choices should develop who you are rather than pretending to be on a universe changing scale, save those for the very ending of the franchise. Make the main cast around you react and give life to those choices, that's the kind of choice that leaves a good taste at the end of the day. Did your hero sacrifice to kill the arch demon? did he pact with Morrigan instead because? Did he make someone sacrifice on it's place? Did you get X objective done by being ruthless  or did you took a more noble yet naive way instead? etc. That kind of choice defines who your character is and how the journey is percieved while staying away from touching big plot points that ruin the illusion of consequence.

 

I am hoping Bioware fully commits to one or the other, either focus on smaller story telling consequences or take the big plot choices and make them actually matter by having real consequences in the story like they should have (save or let council die, free or kill Rachni Queen, destroy/keep Collector base, all meaningless)