104 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In ME and ME2, Shepard's death during the game resulted in nothing more than a game over screen and a chance to reload.

I'd like to see ME3 offer an unsuccessful ending, wherein Shepard ultimately fails to stop the Reapers (or whomever) and they destroy civilization.

I'd rather victory not be guaranteed as long as we keep playing long enough.

[Haristo]

Shepard can die in ME2, at the end of [Spoilers !]. I consider it as a massive failure and as the ultimate destruction of the galaxy.

I hope you can fail too... it is allways more challenging this way.

[In Exile]

Well, Shepard still technically succeeds. Shepard just dies doing it.

[shadowreflexion]

If it comes down to failing, the only way I can see it presented are at plot points. Like in ME 2 if Joker failed on the Normandy. Game over but reload.

[Rogue-Element]

I don't recall reading or hearing anything about this but I guess it could be possible. Is Shepard was unsuccessful in gathering enough allies he/she may come op short during a final confrontation.

[Syreniac]

There should be three failure endings:

1. Shepard willing joins the Reapers to allow them to process humanity into a new Reaper, ensuring some sort of survival.

2. Shepard is indoctrinated and joins the Reapers, shown by events such as the little boy in the ducts slowly driving him mad.

3. Shepard tries his best to defeat the Reapers, but it all goes wrong.

In all the cases, it should be obvious after the event what exactly Shepard did wrong so the player can go back and fix it, but it should not necessarily be obvious in the run up; a few total failure endings will increase the drama.

[Medhia Nox]

Totally agree with Syreniac.

Just like Shepard dying in 2 - it won't count as "official". I think you should be able to "lose" ME 3 and have the Reapers win.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Well, Shepard still technically succeeds. Shepard just dies doing it.

Except that Shepard cannot then take part in the events of ME3, and presumably that dooms the galaxy.  Unless Shepard isn't actually that important to the events of ME3, but that seems unlikely.

[Captain_Obvious]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Totally agree with Syreniac.

Just like Shepard dying in 2 - it won't count as "official". I think you should be able to "lose" ME 3 and have the Reapers win.

I dunno, sometimes I die a lot.  I'd hate to see the "you lost and were pwned by the reapers" cutscene over and over.  Interesting thought, though. 

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Except that Shepard cannot then take part in the events of ME3, and presumably that dooms the galaxy.  Unless Shepard isn't actually that important to the events of ME3, but that seems unlikely.

Right. But insofar as ME2 is concerned, the suicide mission is still a success, just with a full casuality rate for the elite team. If no one can save the galaxy aside from Shepard, that's really the rest of the galaxy's failure.

[IndigoWolfe]

Did DAO have an end where you failed to kill the archdemon? No.
Did ME1 give you an option to join Saren? No.
Did ME2 have an ending where you failed your mission and the Collectors continued their harvest of human colonies? No.

All these games give you an objective. In ME3, the objective is stop the Reapers. And this will happen, this must happen, otherwise the entire point of the Mass Effect series is moot and void.

Now, how exactly you stop the Reapers and the means by which you attain that end is up for grabs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

IndigoWolfe wrote...

Did DAO have an end where you failed to kill the archdemon? No.
Did ME1 give you an option to join Saren? No.
Did ME2 have an ending where you failed your mission and the Collectors continued their harvest of human colonies? No.

All these games give you an objective. In ME3, the objective is stop the Reapers. And this will happen, this must happen, otherwise the entire point of the Mass Effect series is moot and void.

If victory is guaranteed, then the entire point of playing the game disasppears.  If Shepard was always going to succeed, why am I bothering to play the game.

That those other games you list don't offer this feature doesn't prevent it from being a good feature.  It's just an underused feature.

[shnizzler93]

Well, I remember them saying that there will be several different endings, both "good" and "bad," but I don't exactly know how Bioware will define that "bad" ending. If history repeats itself, then no, we won't be able to fail, just something along the lines of sacrificing ourselves in order to make sure the mission is carried out.

In some ways, I would like to see this happen, but I doubt that Bioware would let this happen.

[GreedIgnored]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Well, Shepard still technically succeeds. Shepard just dies doing it.

Except that Shepard cannot then take part in the events of ME3, and presumably that dooms the galaxy.  Unless Shepard isn't actually that important to the events of ME3, but that seems unlikely.

We can only guess, since Bioware will not continue that story. We can only imagine they might have survived another way (someone taking the lead role instead of Shepard.) or the galaxy fails like the Prothean.
But again, we can only imagine and never see it happen.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If victory is guaranteed, then the entire point of playing the game disasppears.  If Shepard was always going to succeed, why am I bothering to play the game.

Well, you can always fail. Each time you die, you fail. That it just so happens that in the one sequence of events where the reapers are defeeated you don't fail, that's just coincidence. It's a meta-level complaint. The game never technically needs to allow you to fail for you to be able to fail.

A game could always implement living with failure... but that a game doesn't isn't equal to the claim that you can't fail. I think only one of the Prince of Persia was a game where failing was actually impossible.

[Battlepope190]

I'd love an ending or two that has us failing despite everything we do; sometimes it's just NOT going to work out and come to a happy ending.

[Sylvius the Mad]

GreedIgnored wrote...

We can only guess, since Bioware will not continue that story. We can only imagine they might have survived another way (someone taking the lead role instead of Shepard.) or the galaxy fails like the Prothean.
But again, we can only imagine and never see it happen.

It's possible that ME3's story will answer this question for us.  If the plot requires Shepard specifically, for some reason, then Shepard's death in ME2 will have doomed the galaxy.

In Exile wrote...

Well, you can always fail. Each time you die, you fail. That it just so happens that in the one sequence of events where the reapers are defeeated you don't fail, that's just coincidence. It's a meta-level complaint. The game never technically needs to allow you to fail for you to be able to fail.

Sure, but similarly the game could just end with a static "You Win!  Reload?" screen.  But it doesn't do that, because that's a lousy ending.

The current design assumes that death isn't ever an ending, and that every player will want to play through to a victorious result.  That's the only ending they treat like an ending.

A game could always implement living with failure... but that a game doesn't isn't equal to the claim that you can't fail. I think only one of the Prince of Persia was a game where failing was actually impossible.

The earliest game I can recall wherein failure was impossible was Pitfall 2.  The only possible result in Pitfall 2 was victory.  Your score was based entirely on how quickly you won the game, but you couldn't ever lose.

I think it was Prince of Persia: Sands of Time that made failure impossible.

[AresXX7]

I can see there being at least one scenario where you have the Reapers winning as a fail ending.

But, I think it would be more interesting to branch out on how much of the galaxy survives, based on our decisions.
Such as - did the Krogans make it, or Turians, Quarians, etc.

[IndigoWolfe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

IndigoWolfe wrote...

Did DAO have an end where you failed to kill the archdemon? No.
Did ME1 give you an option to join Saren? No.
Did ME2 have an ending where you failed your mission and the Collectors continued their harvest of human colonies? No.

All these games give you an objective. In ME3, the objective is stop the Reapers. And this will happen, this must happen, otherwise the entire point of the Mass Effect series is moot and void.

If victory is guaranteed, then the entire point of playing the game disasppears.  If Shepard was always going to succeed, why am I bothering to play the game.

That those other games you list don't offer this feature doesn't prevent it from being a good feature.  It's just an underused feature.

Ostensibly, you're playing the game because you want Shepard --and by proxy, you the player-- to succeed. Shepard couldn't have done it without you, because you are Shepard. And victory is not garanteed. You can get killed during combat, or due to a particularly dumb choice --like attempting to meld with an Aradt-Yakshi.

Ostensibly, the end of a game is supposed to be the ultimate reward. If a player made the "incorrect" choices that ultimately led to a "failure" ending, that would be no reward. The way I see it, it would be to the player like the game was telling them "You failed. You made stupid, wrong decisions".

Now, there's another way you can fail and the game tells you so; it's called being killed in combat. The difference between these two failure endings is one would necessitate a massive amount of backtracking and meta-gaming in order to attain the ending that I feel quite confident in saying that most of the player base would want. And the other ending does not.

In short; I think having a "failure" ending would be unneccesary and would be a distinct punishment for players finishing the game, which in and of itself is supposed to be a reward.

Modifié par IndigoWolfe, 09 juin 2011 - 09:45 .

[GreedIgnored]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

GreedIgnored wrote...

We can only guess, since Bioware will not continue that story. We can only imagine they might have survived another way (someone taking the lead role instead of Shepard.) or the galaxy fails like the Prothean.
But again, we can only imagine and never see it happen.

It's possible that ME3's story will answer this question for us.  If the plot requires Shepard specifically, for some reason, then Shepard's death in ME2 will have doomed the galaxy.

Still impossible to tell. You are right that some action could have doomed the galaxy... like letting Cerberus aquire the Collector technology, but we will never know. I'd like to think that it isn't 100% doomed without Shepard, since some people did find other Prothean beacons throught the galaxy.

[wizardryforever]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If victory is guaranteed, then the entire point of playing the game disasppears.  If Shepard was always going to succeed, why am I bothering to play the game.

Why watch a movie, when you know the hero is going to win and the villains lose?  Why read a book, when you know that it will ultimately end with something positive being achieved?  Because this is popular media, and most people like stories that end well.  That said, I'd be okay with an "all is lost" ending, but only from gameplay decisions.  Say for instance, Shepard is aboard a Reaper and is attempting to destroy it from within (like it's a load-bearing boss or something), and he must do so within a certain time limit to keep from being indoctrinated.  Failing to do so results in a non-standard game over where the Reapers win.  But please don't make it so that decisions from past games determine the outcome all on their own.  The rage, at having to go back two games and redo everything in order to see the ending, will be nuclear.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wizardryforever wrote...

That said, I'd be okay with an "all is lost" ending, but only from gameplay decisions.  Say for instance, Shepard is aboard a Reaper and is attempting to destroy it from within (like it's a load-bearing boss or something), and he must do so within a certain time limit to keep from being indoctrinated.  Failing to do so results in a non-standard game over where the Reapers win.  But please don't make it so that decisions from past games determine the outcome all on their own.

I agree entirely.  Having something the player did a year ago in a different game be hugely relevant here would be a disaster.  Ideally I'd like to see the consequences of a fail event be visible immediately.

BioWare's been very clear that they never want to trap a player and not let the player know immediately what has happened (even though they did do this in ME with the Ilos trench run).

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I agree entirely.  Having something the player did a year ago in a different game be hugely relevant here would be a disaster.  Ideally I'd like to see the consequences of a fail event be visible immediately.

BioWare's been very clear that they never want to trap a player and not let the player know immediately what has happened (even though they did do this in ME with the Ilos trench run).

There's a side of me that thinks it might be cool to have all of us who wasted the Rachni find out you needed their strength to stop the reapers. Still, that's a bit harsh but I would want a failure option. Shep makes bad decisions and the Reapers win, yet again.

Beyond that, which most RPG's won't let happen, I'd still like to be able to fail at lower level quests. The sense that I am either going to die or win and there's no in between isn't the best feeling.

[Chris Priestly]

Sylvius, more than any other forum member, I have faith in your ability to fail.

[Sylvius the Mad]

IndigoWolfe wrote...

Ostensibly, the end of a game is supposed to be the ultimate reward.

I disagree.  The reward is the gameplay itself.

In short; I think having a "failure" ending would be unneccesary and would be a distinct punishment for players finishing the game, which in and of itself is supposed to be a reward.

This makes no sense at all.  People who finish the game would still get their ending.  We're not taking anything away from them at all.

If I give you an apple, and then I give someone another apple, that doesn't diminish your apple.  It's still the same apple.  Whether I give someone else an apple makes no material difference to the state of your apple.

It would be completely irrational for players who want one ending to be annoyed by the existence of another ending, unless they're making zot arguments.