43796 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

Valmy wrote...


Oh she most certainly doesn't.  I think that is why she is so hesitant to have any personal connection, and afraid it will go away ("don't die etc...).

She really loves Oriana and wants her to be happy and is afraid she will ruin it somehow.  It is a real touching mission, it is also the moment I became really fond of Miranda as a character.  I also really like the respect and care that Yvonne Strahovski seemed to put into playing her.

I think watching her leave to talk to her sister was the moment I knew I'd have to start over as a MaleShep and romance her. Some days I just don't have any ruthlessness in me and just want to give her a hug.

I think she's internalized that people like her don't get happy endings and the best she can hope for is to live and die serving the greater good. Somewhere in the back of her mind, there was probably a little voice going, "You care for him. Of course, you won't get to keep him. People like you never get to keep things they love."

[jtav]

Valmy: ever read Twilight or seen the movie? That.

[Valmy]

jtav wrote...

Valmy: ever read Twilight or seen the movie? That.

Living out teenage girl fantasies of being desperately desired by supernaturally cute boys was not something that appealed to me so no

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Miranda Lawson would never be interested in descending to adolescence.  After all the defining aspect of her character is a constant need to challenge and prove herself.  I think part of that is a need to feel valued and based on pathology...but another part is simply a desire to not be bored.  She wants to constantly be challenged.  I guess I would also  revolt if that part of her was taken away but in the context of a Reaper invasion I find that unlikely.

[Valmy]

Actually sorry about mocking Twilight. I know nothing about it frankly.

[Andysilv]

Valmy wrote...

Actually sorry about mocking Twilight. I know nothing about it frankly.

You'll be okay as long as Flashy or Meg don't read this.

[Breakdown Boy]

I think the right word is commitment to the relationship. She is commited to Shep, but to what degree would she commit to him on a personal level. She will always remain her own person, and that is a big part of her appeal. They both will be facing some really unique relational problems not only that they work together but that they are kind of put in a position that they need to save the galaxy.

[MrNose]

jtav wrote...
Actually, I suspect it's going to take a  while for Shep and Miranda to sleep (as in actually sleep) together. No
particular reason for this, but I think they mostly sneaked back to their own quarters afterwards. I also think they keep their personal and professional relationships very separate.They treat each other very differently on duty than at other times.

I agree with jtav on this one.  I think that Miranda would be very much someone who manages to break her barrier right before a suicide mission and then puts it back up for a little while afterwards.  Also the crew seems kind of judgemental to me.

Valmy wrote...

Could you give me an example of what it
means to 'define yourself exclusively by' your relationship to
somebody? It keeps being brought up like it is some sort of huge danger
and sleeping together will completely destroy a persons independence.

Again
I guess as a married person who does sleep with my wife every night I
never noticed me becoming a dependent person who defined myself
entirely by my marriage.

I understand wanting to make sure
Miranda remains a strong and competent leader and character going
forward but she already has done that and there no reason to think that
will change. Where is the fear coming from?

You see it
more with people who aren't married than people who are.  These are the
people who will jump from relationship to relationship just for the
point of being in a relationship, rather than for quality.  Often once
they're in their relationship they end up depending pretty much
entirely on their partner for happiness.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I'd have preferred some remotely plausible
pseudoscience here instead of the grossly implausible pseudoscience of
the human Reaper.

A wizard did it.  There, science
solved.  But really, I'll forgive anything that uses "hyper advanced
technology" as an excuse.  When TIM wanted the collector ship my
reaction (not Shep's) was "er, they have hyper advanced technology, you
can't handle that."  Anything that can't be understood by a main
character is dangerous.

I also believe that Shep's body had to have gone oribital rather than through atmosphere otherwise...  That puppy would be too far gone.

Modifié par MrNose, 23 avril 2010 - 01:31 .

[Valmy]

MrNose wrote...
Also the crew seems kind of judgemental to me.

Everyone has their opinion and they love to tell you about it...when they are not cleaning engines or doing calibrations.

Getting that pack of nutters to act together as a team is why Shepard is a hero.

Modifié par Valmy, 23 avril 2010 - 01:29 .

[Jebel Krong]

Valmy wrote...

Could you give me an example of what it means to 'define yourself exclusively by' your relationship to somebody? It keeps being brought up like it is some sort of huge danger and sleeping together will completely destroy a persons independence.

Again I guess as a married person who does sleep with my wife every night I never noticed me becoming a dependent person who defined myself entirely by my marriage.

I understand wanting to make sure Miranda remains a strong and competent leader and character going forward but she already has done that and there no reason to think that will change. Where is the fear coming from?

this.

i could see the danger of in-game storytelling falling prey to characters just being ciphered one way and defined only by their relationship to shepard, but it hasn't happened yet in mass effect, and i don't see it happening in #3. even if it was a little like that, it's like movies - not all that a person/character is is put into view - you have to think about that individual and their place in the universe.

[Jebel Krong]

jtav wrote...

I think she's internalized that people like her don't get happy endings and the best she can hope for is to live and die serving the greater good. Somewhere in the back of her mind, there was probably a little voice going, "You care for him. Of course, you won't get to keep him. People like you never get to keep things they love."

yep i can totally see that too. but then people like that would often then do it anyway...

and Valmy: there's always time for calibrations!

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 23 avril 2010 - 01:50 .

[jtav]

Yeah, she does it anyway, despite the fact that there's a very good chance that one or both of them are going to be dead in a few weeks. My Shep's going to do everything in his power to see she never regrets that decision. He's shamelessly besotted with her, now that he's gotten past the whole Cerberus thing. Real softy when it comes to love.

[Ieldra]

MrNose wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I'd have preferred some remotely plausible pseudoscience here instead of the grossly implausible pseudoscience of the human Reaper.

A wizard did it.  There, science solved.  But really, I'll forgive anything that uses "hyper advanced technology" as an excuse.

That's not a problem when pseudoscience goes to extend technology into the unknown, for instance with the attributes of eezo. It becomes a problem when pseudoscience directly contradicts something that's rather well known. With the current reasoning, it would have been enough - and far more effective in terms of both resource allocation and strategy - to collect cell samples of millions of humans instead of their whole bodies. There is no way building the human Reaper can plausibly depend on grinding millions of humans to pulp. Not unless the biochemical compounds making up a human suddenly aquire some mysterious non-chemical property. If the writers of the story wanted millions of humans turned into victims, it would have been far better to invent something like "the Reapers need to subsume human thought processes and the information in their brains", but that would have required the brains remaining intact. Instead, they went for the cheap horror version. O can understand throwing science out of the window for something ultra-cool and impressive, but throwing it away for cheap thrill that appeals to disgust more than to empathy, that I resent. 

When TIM wanted the collector ship my reaction (not Shep's) was "er, they have hyper advanced technology, you can't handle that."  Anything that can't be understood by a main character is dangerous.

Dangerous, yes. But not evil. The question is whether it's worth the risk, but it's not a moral question.

[Ieldra]

Valmy wrote...
Could you give me an example of what it means to 'define yourself exclusively by' your relationship to somebody? It keeps being brought up like it is some sort of huge danger and sleeping together will completely destroy a persons independence.

Again I guess as a married person who does sleep with my wife every night I never noticed me becoming a dependent person who defined myself entirely by my marriage.

I understand wanting to make sure Miranda remains a strong and competent leader and character going forward but she already has done that and there no reason to think that will change. Where is the fear coming from?

The fear comes from reading and watching too much fiction where a female protagonist starts strong, but suddenly shrinks to no more than a satellite as soon as she acquires a male companion.

No, of course sleeping together does not necessarily create such a result. It was not that that triggered my response, but Breakdown Boy's expression of "not giving everything to another" causing problems.

[Jebel Krong]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dangerous, yes. But not evil. The question is whether it's worth the risk, but it's not a moral question.

unfortunately it was presented as such in the game though

[Ieldra]

@jtav:
The way you talk about relationships in fiction, I'd never have guessed you like to read romance novels (you did say that, if I recall things correctly). I've pretty much consigned the whole genre to the trash heap. Are there actually any good romance novels?

[TheSixthghoul]

Has anyone noticed when you go on the elevator and look up squad mates you'd notice on commanders quarter's is say's party member's none. Could this be for a dlc or number three?

[Ieldra]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Dangerous, yes. But not evil. The question is whether it's worth the risk, but it's not a moral question.

unfortunately it was presented as such in the game though

Indeed. That's why this is the only scene I can't identify with. I want my Shepard to express some doubts and actually think about possible consequences, but not of the kind the writers put into his mouth. I actually get angry with this scene.

[Ieldra]

Sixth Goul wrote...

Has anyone noticed when you go on the elevator and look up squad mates you'd notice on commanders quarter's is say's party member's none. Could this be for a dlc or number three?

No. That's simply a result of programming. It's set to say "Party members", followed by either a list or "none" if the list is empty.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 avril 2010 - 02:33 .

[jtav]

I do indeed. I don't know that I've read any that I'd classify as great literature, but there have definitely been many I've enjoyed, It has its genre conventions like everything else, though, so it really depends on how much you can buy into those conventions.

[MrNose]

Ieldra2 wrote...

When TIM wanted the collector ship my reaction (not Shep's) was "er, they have hyper advanced technology, you can't handle that."  Anything that can't be understood by a main character is dangerous.

Dangerous, yes. But not evil. The question is whether it's worth the risk, but it's not a moral question.

I think it has moral components.  Its not a "good vs. evil" question, but it is a moral one.  Miranda (or someone else? I've only seen her say this) mentions that she feels it would be unethical to use a ship that has been used to harvest thousands of humans, I see it like allied forces using Auschwitz as a military base after WW2 or something like that.

Additionally, doing something dangerous that could affect the galaxy as a whole is a moral choice.  The classical moral failing in mythology and in Shakespeare is hubris.  To take that ship and believe you can control it is the definition of hubris in my opinion.  It's a bit of a different moral setting, usually ME2 presents you with "bad action, good action" while in this it was more "not failing morally; failing morally."  The main problem I have with it is that the scene is driven by meta-knowledge.  If it hadn't been for Saren I would have thought "okay, whatever, lets take the ship it could be sweet," and we should have seen Shepard discuss this.  Instead we were only presented with Miranda's morality on the issue, and Shepard continued to be a blank slate.  

Of course, that's an issue with ME as a whole.  Shepard is largely defined by the people around him.  He never addresses his own past, only other people in the series do. 

So basically, what I'm saying is that there are two moral dynamics to this scene.  One is addressed by Miranda, which is fine and shows how awesome she's become; and one is driven by the meta-knowledge, and is less well done.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I do indeed. I don't know that I've read any that I'd classify as great literature, but there have definitely been many I've enjoyed, It has its genre conventions like everything else, though, so it really depends on how much you can buy into those conventions.

My shelves are full of books that are not great literature, so that's not a problem. I think a good love story can spice up almost any plot, but usually, if the love story becomes the main plot, things start to degenerate into the silly and make me go facepalm every five minutes. I don't know if this is an inevitable result of genre conventions but it's my experience with romance novels (those I've read are usually set in an SF universe). Mostly, what I can't stand is emotion overriding the last shred of good sense in a way that makes the character concept implausible. For instance, you can't start with a competent woman with a job that absolutely requires her to be professional at certain times, who repeatedly throws good sense out of the window at exactly these times and then manages to keep her job, as if such things were completely normal.


 

[Valmy]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The fear comes from reading and watching too much fiction where a female protagonist starts strong, but suddenly shrinks to no more than a satellite as soon as she acquires a male companion.

Yes but that will never happen to Miranda or any of the other LIs for very reason there are 9 of them.

[Valmy]

MrNose wrote...
Of course, that's an issue with ME as a whole.  Shepard is largely defined by the people around him.  He never addresses his own past, only other people in the series do. 

....Shep DOES have a past.  He has an origin story and a background.  It was addressed to some extent in both games.

[Ieldra]

MrNose wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

When TIM wanted the collector ship my reaction (not Shep's) was "er, they have hyper advanced technology, you can't handle that."  Anything that can't be understood by a main character is dangerous.

Dangerous, yes. But not evil. The question is whether it's worth the risk, but it's not a moral question.

I think it has moral components.  Its not a "good vs. evil" question, but it is a moral one.  Miranda (or someone else? I've only seen her say this) mentions that she feels it would be unethical to use a ship that has been used to harvest thousands of humans, I see it like allied forces using Auschwitz as a military base after WW2 or something like that.

This is not a correct analogy IMO. That would be sending scientists in to find out exactly how people were killed in these camps. And they did that IIRC.

Additionally, doing something dangerous that could affect the galaxy as a whole is a moral choice.  The classical moral failing in mythology and in Shakespeare is hubris.  To take that ship and believe you can control it is the definition of hubris in my opinion.  It's a bit of a different moral setting, usually ME2 presents you with "bad action, good action" while in this it was more "not failing morally; failing morally."

That's the kind of thinking I've always resented. You never know if you can control something before you've tried. Thus, you will never make any progress if you always adhere to the precept that "thou shalt not usurp the powers of the gods". One of the main reasons I like most SF is that while it deals with chances as well as risks, and sometimes disastrous consequences, of technology, it's ultimately about what humans can do, not what they cannot.

My take on the matter: if the Reapers' technology cannot be controlled, and their knowledge cannot be decipherd,
by humans (or Citadel civilization), then it also cannot be protected against by them, and they'll have no chance against the Reapers in the first place. Human "spirit" cannot reasonably make up for that difference on its own, and if ME3 proceeds to show just that, I'll throw it away as bad SF (may be good fantasy, though).

[Ieldra]

Valmy wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The fear comes from reading and watching too much fiction where a female protagonist starts strong, but suddenly shrinks to no more than a satellite as soon as she acquires a male companion.

Yes but that will never happen to Miranda or any of the other LIs for very reason there are 9 of them.

I fail to see the connection.