1042 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Again, I go back to the DR. To me, that's simply not a choice that makes the sacrifice worth it. The US ostensibly kills the soul of the AD, and erases me from existence too, in a setting that might have an afterlife. So I choose between oblivion and... what, trusting Morrigan? The choice is stupid, because the sacrifice isn't worth it, and I don't even have a payoff that erasing the soul of the OG is the "right" or good outcome. Instead of trusting Morrigan, I just have to trust that Riordan and the Wardens know what the suffering **** the're doing despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Well, save imports pretty much negate the possibility of implementing that payoff. This isn't necessarily a problem for any single choice; sometimes one option really is better.

[In Exile]

Well, save imports pretty much negate the possibility of implementing that payoff. This isn't necessarily a problem for any single choice; sometimes one option really is better.

But I'm talking about payoff in the game. Based on what we're told about the DR, the alternative (to me) has no real payoff unless I buy a lot of metaphysical claptrap being sold to me by someone parroting the party line of an organization that actively lies to every rung on the ladder. 

[straykat]

But I'm talking about payoff in the game. Based on what we're told about the DR, the alternative (to me) has no real payoff unless I buy a lot of metaphysical claptrap being sold to me by someone parroting the party line of an organization that actively lies to every rung on the ladder. 

 

You just traded one person's claptrap for another though. Exactly what makes Morrigan better? She's even worse, for being so secretive and selfish about it.

[In Exile]

What makes it a hard choice is you have an opportunity to end this Old God/Archdemon's evil once and for all.  TO completely remove its threat from Thedas, not just for now, but for all time.  The trick is, it will cost a life.  Your own or the other Grey Warden's.  Or, you can kick the can, trust Morrigan, and hope things turn out okay later on.  

 

The "Old God" and the AD aren't the same thing by any theory put forward before you. Assuming you accept Chantry dogma, which even Duncan challenges as the truth, the Old Gods may be responsible for unleashing the blight with horrific and disastrous consequences for themselves. We can all agree killing the AD is a good idea, but that doesn't mean killing the OG is a good idea. 

 

And the AD isn't all that evil. It's "corrupted" somehow, with the Blight being the true evil, and I'm doing jack all about it. If the plan works, a legion of darkspawn will leave to go find the next AD and start the next global apocalypse, and then I'm rolling the dice on hopefully someone figuring out what to do about the darkspawn before Thedas runs out of ADs and who knows what happens then. 

 

Assuming we trust the Wardens, we remove the AD from Earth for all time, and the OG. That's, to me, an incredible double-edged sword. The alternative is just as speculative, with the advantage that I'm around to fix any screw-up. 

 

I'm just not seeing the sense in the US. The thing is, I get it as a choice for the First Blight: there we had a legion of rape abominations that devastated the Earth for centuries and no better way. It makes perfect sense to give up anything, no matter the cost, for the respite from Dumat and the darkspawn. 

[straykat]

Oh, and besides that, Morrigan wants me to sacrifice caged City Elves (one who could even be my father) for.... Get this. 1 Con.

 

As if more was better.. But still. 1 Con.

[In Exile]

You just traded one person's claptrap for another though. Exactly what makes Morrigan better? She's even worse, for being so secretive and selfish about it.

 

I told you: I'm around to fix it. Only one choice gives me the option to actually address the real problem - the Blight. And that's Morrigan. Plus, the Wardens are both too. Morrigan's upside is way better than the US upside, and the downside just puts me back where I started, who knows how many years later with a lot more time to prepare and come up with countermeasures against an enemy I already killed once. 

 

Anyway, I'm derailing the thread with this talk about DA:O, and I don't want to re-hash it. I want to talk about what makes a choice hard. And a sacrifice worthwhile.

 

And, frankly, an ending good. Because I thought the DA:O ending trolled me just as hard as the ME3 ending, with the only difference being that at least DA:O was thematically consistent. Probably the least satisfying ending to a Bioware game, IMO, apart from ME3. 

[straykat]

I told you: I'm around to fix it. Only one choice gives me the option to actually address the real problem - the Blight. And that's Morrigan. Plus, the Wardens are both too. Morrigan's upside is way better than the US upside, and the downside just puts me back where I started, who knows how many years later with a lot more time to prepare and come up with countermeasures against an enemy I already killed once. 

 

See my other post above about the elves. How do I know I'm going to fix anything with a person like that? She's awful.

[ModernAcademic]

>Opens Andromeda thread

>Reads Morrigan's name

>Reads about Wardens

 

[straykat]

>Opens Andromeda thread

>Reads Morrigan's name

>Reads about Wardens

 

 

To be fair, it just started. It was originally something about the sacrifice endings, in each setting.

[AlanC9]

It cam from Shepard's (almost) inevitable death being one of the biggest complaints about the ending (standard disclaimer: It is not for me personally) ANd one of the major reasons for Destroy being so popular is because at it's highest value, it's the only ending that hints at Shepard's survival. I'd be willing to bet that if the other endings had a similar scene, Destroy wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is.

OK, sure. So Shepard's survival or lack thereof counts as part of the total score for the various endings. As it should, although RP-wise it's a little odd since there's no really good reason to think that Shepard will survive; higher probability than the other choices, but that's not saying much. Although RP-wise it doesn't matter since it's hard to imagine a Shepard who would consider personal survival when making this choice anyway.

"Not be punished" means no "SO BE IT" and a long game over screen for refusing to sacrifice yourself. The outcome should be different, with different gains and losses than choosing not to sacrifice. Whether those gains and losses are better or worse should be up to the player.

Wait... you think Refusing is about Shepard not sacrificing her life? Interesting take; It never occurred to me to think of it that way, since there's no way for Shepard to survive in Refuse. I don't see how you ended up there; if anything, Refuse is more of a sacrifice than Destroy or Control. (Synth's a wash.)

What would be enough of a reward? Life and liberty. Freedom for the galaxy to choose its own path going forward. Freedom to be who and what they are.

Don't you get those things in Destroy? (Or even Control if your Shepard trusts herself)

[straykat]

Refuse is just telling a Reaper to do his worst.

 

Maybe it's not sacrifice, but it's a death wish nonetheless. I suppose there's a distinction, but either way, it will get fulfilled. Along with dragging trillions of others with you. All of these people who put their hope in you, looking up at the Citadel, waiting expectantly. Only to find the worst kind of horror. And no miracle, last moment save-the-day rescue....like they're probably still expecting at the last second.

[Iakus]

OK, sure. So Shepard's survival or lack thereof counts as part of the total score for the various endings. As it should, although RP-wise it's a little odd since there's no really good reason to think that Shepard will survive. Although RP-wise it doesn't matter since it's hard to imagine a Shepard who would consider personal survival when making this choice anyway.
 

And if there were more permutations of survival vs sacrifice, I think the outrage over the endings would have been much less, yes.

 

 

 

Wait... you think Refusing is about Shepard not sacrificing her life? Interesting take; It never occurred to me to think of it that way, since there's no way for Shepard to survive in Refuse. I don't see how you ended up there; if anything, Refuse is more of a sacrifice than Destroy or Control. (Synth's a wash.)

 

It's about Shepard not sacrificing the geth, the freedom of the galaxy, or their identity.  It's about calling BS on the Catalyst trying to turn him.her into a butcher, its replacement, or doing the Reapers' dirty work for them.

 

 

Don't you get that in Destroy?

For meatbags, sure.  The geth, EDI, etc are all frakked though

[straykat]

And if there were more permutations of survival vs sacrifice, I think the outrage over the endings would have been much less, yes.

 

It's about Shepard not sacrificing the geth, the freedom of the galaxy, or their identity.  It's about calling BS on the Catalyst trying to turn him.her into a butcher, its replacement, or doing the Reapers' dirty work for them.

 

For meatbags, sure.  The geth, EDI, etc are all frakked though

 

If you're so determined to save everyone, then why not Control?

 

You're in this category that values AI (and went so far as to save the Geth), yet doesn't want to take the next step to save them.

[AlanC9]

And if there were more permutations of survival vs sacrifice, I think the outrage over the endings would have been much less, yes.

But DA:O worked fine, you say, with some endings where the PC lives and some where the PC doesn't. What's the difference?

It's about Shepard not sacrificing the geth, the freedom of the galaxy, or their identity. It's about calling BS on the Catalyst trying to turn him.her into a butcher, its replacement, or doing the Reapers' dirty work for them.

OK, so "sacrifice" is now a catchall term for any downside to a choice? I didn't realize that's how you were using the term. I think most choices should include sacrifice, then.

[straykat]

I don't think the Catalyst is turning you into a butcher. Isn't the Crucible built up over cycles, by just mortals? And Destroy would be it's default function.

[Iakus]

If you're so determined to save everyone, then why not Control?

 

You're in this category that values AI (and went so far as to save the Geth), yet doesn't want to take the next step to save them.

 

Everyone (but SHepard) lives in control, but they live under the Reapers'...thumb?  Tentacle?  Thy're ruled by Space Cthulhu with no guarantee the Shepalyst doesn't fall prey to the same glitch that started the cycles to begin with.

But DA:O worked fine, you say, with some endings where the PC lives and some where the PC doesn't. What's the difference?
 

The Warden's survival wasn't based on an easter egg of a suit of armor drawing a breath, for one thing...

 

 

OK, so "sacrifice" is now a catchall term for any downside to a choice? I didn't realize that's how you were using the term. I think most choices should include sacrifice, then.

What else would you call a sacrifice but a negative consequence?

 

And you're right, most choices should.  But the sacrifice has to be worth the cost.  And as I said, mere survival isn't enough.  

[straykat]

Everyone (but SHepard) lives in control, but they live under the Reapers'...thumb?  Tentacle?  Thy're ruled by Space Cthulhu with no guarantee the Shepalyst doesn't fall prey to the same glitch that started the cycles to begin with.

 

I thought that might be the case, but it's kind of open ended. One poster here told me they'd just mind their own business. lol...who am I to argue?

[themikefest]

If the quarians are chosen over the geth, there is no sacrifice when choosing destroy. Shepard can survive depending on the players ems.

[straykat]

My problem with control is I want to get rid of Reaper tech and start from scratch. I don't want anything to do with TIM's vision especially.. where he thinks evolution can only happen through this path.

 

But you don't have that problem, since you condoned Legion.

[AlanC9]

The Warden's survival wasn't based on an easter egg of a suit of armor drawing a breath, for one thing...

Again, that's presentation rather than substance. And yeah, some of us were confused by the presentation.

What else would you call a sacrifice but a negative consequence?

Well, I'd have reserved "sacrifice" for talking about losing Shepard's life in this context, just to keep things clearer. But as long as we're on the same page now, it's OK.

And you're right, most choices should. But the sacrifice has to be worth the cost. And as I said, mere survival isn't enough.

But it wasn't "mere survival". It was everything you asked for, with a few more casualties. "Few" because AIs, as far as we know,are heavily outnumbered by organics.

Anyway, what's the principle here that can be applied to future choices? Recapping your agony over the ME3 ending isn't all that useful unless we can come up with some rules for games that aren't ME3.

[Iakus]

Again, that's presentation rather than substance. And yeah, some of us were confused by the presentation.
 

Untrue.  The writers' own words confirmed the breath scene was only intended to be a "ray of hope" not confirmation of survival.  THe Warden otoh, clearly lives.

 

Gah, deja vu all over agaiN!

 

 

 

 But it wasn't "mere survival". It was everything you asked for, with a few more casualties. "Few" because AIs, as far as we know,are heavily outnumbered by organics.

 

First, all synthetics in the galaxy die.  SO who knows how many synthetic races are out there in 99% of the galaxy that's unexplored?

 

Second, genocide is still genocide.  I actually find it funny (in a sad way) that Destroy gets cheered on so much when it fits Ashley Williams' "racist" bear-and-the-dog analogy to a T

 

 

Anyway, what's the principle here that can be applied to future choices? Recapping your agony over the ME3 ending isn't all that useful unless we can come up with some rules for games that aren't ME3.

 

1) Keep the choices and consequences logical.  Don't tack on arbitrary consequences just for the sake of some arbitrary sense of bittersweetness.

2) Limit the scope of choices.  Let's try not to affect the ENTIRE FREAKING GALAXY with  a single choice.  Heck affecting an entire planet or the fate of an entire race  is too much

3) Keep in mind that the player has a sense of ownership with the protagonist, and respect that.

[AlanC9]

Untrue.  The writers' own words confirmed the breath scene was only intended to be a "ray of hope" not confirmation of survival.  THe Warden otoh, clearly lives.
 
Gah, deja vu all over agaiN!

Of course it is. Why should either of our views change after all these years?

In the end, "hope" means the player's choice. Bio's done with Shepard, so believe what you like.
 

First, all synthetics in the galaxy die.  SO who knows how many synthetic races are out there in 99% of the galaxy that's unexplored?

Hence my "as far as we know." Maybe it's a higher proportion, sure, but you have to judge things based on information you have rather than information you don't have and can't get.
 

Second, genocide is still genocide.  I actually find it funny (in a sad way) that Destroy gets cheered on so much when it fits Ashley Williams' "racist" bear-and-the-dog analogy to a T

Again, sure. (I'll let themikefest and straykat handle the negative on that proposition.)

So, yep, you can't get what you want without genocide (leaving Control aside for the moment). But genocide is a heck of a lot better than universal extermination. Destroy is still a good thing on balance.
 

1) Keep the choices and consequences logical.  Don't tack on arbitrary consequences just for the sake of some arbitrary sense of bittersweetness.
2) Limit the scope of choices.  Let's try not to affect the ENTIRE FREAKING GALAXY with  a single choice.  Heck affecting an entire planet or the fate of an entire race  is too much
3) Keep in mind that the player has a sense of ownership with the protagonist, and respect that.

I'll sign on with points 1 and 2. I have no idea what point 3 means in practice.

[straykat]

Again, sure. (I'll let themikefest and straykat handle the negative on that proposition.)
 

 

All I'll say he likes to place emphasis on the Geth especially, as if everyone takes that choice (or even could take that choice.. I know I couldn't my first playthrough)  -- and that the Geth only die in the end. Therefore, genocide is always linked in his mind. When destroy fans have problems with reaper tech to begin with. 

 

I just kind of see destroy like the Geth virtual world mission, where Legion wants to wipe out all of the brown code from the system. Except you end up having to do this in the real world too. And on Legion himself. Then later on others. It isn't my fault that it's there. I'm just a janitor.

[Chealec]

If you're so determined to save everyone, then why not Control?

 

You're in this category that values AI (and went so far as to save the Geth), yet doesn't want to take the next step to save them.

 

Control is the 2nd best ending after Refuse...

 

Everybody dies or nobody dies (except Shep) - those are the only acceptable options; anything else is madness!

[straykat]

Control is the 2nd best ending after Refuse...

 

Everybody dies or nobody dies (except Shep) - those are the only acceptable options; anything else is madness!

 

To each their own. I'll let TIM do the job. Saren can do Synthesis. Lets see if they can beat me.

 

Oh wait..