416 réponses à ce sujet

[nikki191]

we will get the ME1 choice.. save ashley or kaiden. save human lives or save the council.. but this will be on a much grander scale with huge ramifications

[CaptainZaysh]

jamesp81 wrote...

Reality doesn't have a whole lot of application in a fictional story about millenia old genocidal war machines coming to kill us all, either.

It does actually!  It's called willing suspension of disbelief.  The idea is that an audience finds it easier to accept the fantastic elements of a story if everything else seems realistic.

TV Tropes...

A common way of putting this is "You can ask an audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable." For example, people will accept that the Grand Mage can teleport across the world, or that the spaceship has technology that makes it completely invisible without rendering its own sensors blind, but they won't accept that the ferocious carnivore just happened to have a heart attack and die right before it attacked the main character, or that the hacker guessed his enemy's password on the first try just by typing random letters, at least without some prior detail justifying it...What is in Real Life impossible just has to be made the norm in the setting and kept consistent.

[78stonewobble]

According to the we can't win against reapers thread we can only loose.

So... Let's have whole galaxy dies as only ending.

[gosimmons]

Why would you go into a game that starts-
"Two million dead in the first day, another seven million by the end of the first week."
-expecting a completely happy story? A war with sacrifice is the kind of climax we've been building up for since the end of the first game.

Modifié par gosimmons, 22 juin 2011 - 04:02 .

[Rockworm503]

You try not to get anybody killed, you wind up getting everybody killed.

[jamesp81]

CajNatalie wrote...

There's a difference between Fiction and Fairy Tale.
Fairy Tales give up all reality for the sake of sunshine, bunnies, and happily ever after.
Fiction maintains some adherence to reality; it's simply not literally 'real'.

If you want fairy tales in your computer games, go buy a Disney game. =P

And I'm sure bioware will give you a nice, ugly, depressing ending that should suit you.  I'm fine with that as long as I get a happy ending, assuming correct choices.

Again, I think Lord of the Rings is the proper model to follow here for the happy ending.  Drag the player down the darkest depths of despair, but in the end there's a still path to complete victory.

[KainrycKarr]

I don't think people are grasping what I was arguing against.

I am okay with forced deaths, but I am against forced deaths of certain squadmates.

If someone HAS to die at some point, the players decisions up to that point should factor in to who it is that winds up dead.

Savvy?

[jamesp81]

gosimmons wrote...

Why would you go into a game that starts-
"Two million dead in the first day, another seven million by the end of the first week."
-expecting a completely happy story? A war with sacrifice is the kind of climax we've been building up for since the end of the first game.

I didn't say a completely happy story.

I said a happy ending.  Those two are not the same.

[KainrycKarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

gosimmons wrote...

Why would you go into a game that starts-
"Two million dead in the first day, another seven million by the end of the first week."
-expecting a completely happy story? A war with sacrifice is the kind of climax we've been building up for since the end of the first game.

I didn't say a completely happy story.

I said a happy ending.  Those two are not the same.

A subtle difference, but a very important one, that I think many people aren't quite grasping.

[Rockworm503]

LOL people really like to twist words here. A possible happy ending (probably one thats harder to get then the others) is a huge cry from "omg you want sappy disney fluffy bunny story!!!"
Stop overreacting I'm not a big fan of uber happy endings myself but the option should still be there. I'm gonna go both ways!

Also its not fair calling it emo to want a more realistic someone dies ending.  I think the new cliche is using labels to quickly.

Modifié par Rockworm503, 22 juin 2011 - 04:25 .

[jamesp81]

KainrycKarr wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

gosimmons wrote...

Why would you go into a game that starts-
"Two million dead in the first day, another seven million by the end of the first week."
-expecting a completely happy story? A war with sacrifice is the kind of climax we've been building up for since the end of the first game.

I didn't say a completely happy story.

I said a happy ending.  Those two are not the same.

A subtle difference, but a very important one, that I think many people aren't quite grasping.

No one is grasping it.  People in this thread seem to think I'm asking for The Smurfs or My Little Pony throughout the entire story.  This is why I have, multiple times, made the comparison to Lord of the Rings.  No one would say it was a happy story throughout, but it did have a happy ending where the goodguys killed the badguy and saved the world (and the shire)

But I can't force anyone to understand, either.

[KainrycKarr]

Rockworm503 wrote...

LOL people really like to twist words here. A possible happy ending (probably one thats harder to get then the others) is a huge cry from "omg you want sappy disney fluffy bunny story!!!"
Stop overreacting I'm not a big fan of uber happy endings myself but the option should still be there. I'm gonna go both ways!

That's what this thread was asking for.

[CaptainZaysh]

KainrycKarr wrote...

I don't think people are grasping what I was arguing against.

I am okay with forced deaths, but I am against forced deaths of certain squadmates.

If someone HAS to die at some point, the players decisions up to that point should factor in to who it is that winds up dead.

Savvy?

I understand but I don't think restricting the writing team like that works for me.  But then again, I'm one of those who thinks you shouldn't have been able to talk Wrex down on Virmire.

[RolandX9]

KainrycKarr wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I think the multiple endings you suggest is a given.

The reason for all these threads is that people don't want some wishy-washy Star Wars type ending where everything is fine, everyone is happy. This war is not one that can be won without sacrifice. To just have a happy ending without loss lessens the dramatic impact of the story.

Sidenote: BSG is a dark, gritty, "realistic" show that was like a punch to the gut at times. However, it's final message is one of optimism, hope, and resilience. Without all the dark bits, that message would feel contrived.

I agree; so why can't we have both? Happy endings, and sacrificial endings? Most of these threads seem to not even want a happy ending to be possible.

Some people aren't happy unless other people aren't happy. Sure, we know that the galaxy is FUBAR at the beginning of the game ("seven million dead in the first week," Cerberus attacking everybody, Palaven's been evacuated), so it's not exactly going to be sunshine and bunnies even if you save every major civilization, but that's not enough for, ahem, a certain point of view.

[KainrycKarr]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

I don't think people are grasping what I was arguing against.

I am okay with forced deaths, but I am against forced deaths of certain squadmates.

If someone HAS to die at some point, the players decisions up to that point should factor in to who it is that winds up dead.

Savvy?

I understand but I don't think restricting the writing team like that works for me.  But then again, I'm one of those who thinks you shouldn't have been able to talk Wrex down on Virmire.

I don't think it restricts them at all; I think that's exactly what they were already aiming for with Virmire and the Suicide Mission.

What they haven't been able to do, is make those decisions not blatantly obvious as to what will happen.

In fact, forcing a specific person to die is "restricting" from a writing point of view. You are restricted to THAT path and ONLY that path.

[jamesp81]

RolandX9 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I think the multiple endings you suggest is a given.

The reason for all these threads is that people don't want some wishy-washy Star Wars type ending where everything is fine, everyone is happy. This war is not one that can be won without sacrifice. To just have a happy ending without loss lessens the dramatic impact of the story.

Sidenote: BSG is a dark, gritty, "realistic" show that was like a punch to the gut at times. However, it's final message is one of optimism, hope, and resilience. Without all the dark bits, that message would feel contrived.

I agree; so why can't we have both? Happy endings, and sacrificial endings? Most of these threads seem to not even want a happy ending to be possible.

Some people aren't happy unless other people aren't happy. Sure, we know that the galaxy is FUBAR at the beginning of the game ("seven million dead in the first week," Cerberus attacking everybody, Palaven's been evacuated), so it's not exactly going to be sunshine and bunnies even if you save every major civilization, but that's not enough for, ahem, a certain point of view.

I don't mind being dragged into the deepest pits of despair, as long as I have the option, through correct choices obviously, to score a stunning come from behind victory.

Those are the best kind.

[Liou]

I don't like sad endings. Never have, never will. The only good thing about sad endings is that they add that uncertainty to the story, you can never be absolutely sure if the story does indeed have a happy ending, because you know that not all stories does. There is always a chance that the protagonist will die, a small chance but still. That really is the only good thing about sad endings from my perspective. But while i dislike sad endings, it's nothing compared to the disgust i feel when a story just kill all the characters and the world goes under. I feel i have just wasted my time when a story does that. It's completely pointless. I have neverr understood people who like this kind of endings, atleast i can understand why they sometimes kill off the progagonist, though i think it has been done to the point where it is exactly as cliché as the happy ending.

[gosimmons]

jamesp81 wrote...
I didn't say a completely happy story.

I said a happy ending.  Those two are not the same.

But a lot of people are saying happy endings equal Everybody Lives ending.

I'm not saying the ending should be completely dismal no matter what we do, but I think there should be sacrifice to get to it.

[Aedan_Cousland]

gosimmons wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
I didn't say a completely happy story.

I said a happy ending.  Those two are not the same.

But a lot of people are saying happy endings equal Everybody Lives ending.

I'm not saying the ending should be completely dismal no matter what we do, but I think there should be sacrifice to get to it.

I don't understand that at all.

Why is 'everyone lives' being used as the definition of a happy ending? Was the ending of Mass Effect 1 sad because Ash or Kaidan was dead? I thought that ending was hopeful and upbeat, besides being EPIC. The ending of Mass Effect 3 will be a happy one regardless of whether or not squadmates (or Shepard) dies, because it will end with the destruction of the Reapers and the galaxy being saved. That is hardly a downer..

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 22 juin 2011 - 06:57 .

[Repearized Miranda]

gosimmons wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
I didn't say a completely happy story.

I said a happy ending.  Those two are not the same.

But a lot of people are saying happy endings equal Everybody Lives ending.

I'm not saying the ending should be completely dismal no matter what we do, but I think there should be sacrifice to get to it.

People think this way because it's been portrayed this way! It's hard to go against your own beliefs even if you really aren't right. Why do think people use the "Riding off into the sunset" or "fairytale" idioms to describe "happy endings." It's because it's what we've been lead to believe.

People are thinking in terms of black and white though the gray  is visibly there. However, I think most would rather dwell on the ONE they saved vs. brooding over the millions they couldn't or vice versa.

Very trivial, but the mission in ME2 where you had to choose which missle to stop. Save a colony or save a building? Metagaming purposes both would be done, but I would imagine utter brooding if you took human lives - given that you yourself - are human. (Buildings can be rebuilt; human lives can not)

If we could get that bittersweet ending, I think many would be happy. Some good choices having bad consequences and vice versa. Good beginnings don't always lead to good endings - nor do bad beginnings lead to such endings. 

IAH, it'll all come down to how everything is written regardless of what ending is achieved.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Aedan_Cousland wrote..
I don't understand that all.

Why is 'everyone lives' being used as the definition of a happy ending? Was the ending of Mass Effect 1 sad because Ash or Kaidan was dead? I thought that ending was hopeful and upbeat, besides being EPIC. The ending of Mass Effect 3 will be a happy one regardless of whether or not squadmates (or Shepard) dies, because it will end with the destruction of the Reapers and the galaxy being saved. That is hardly a downer..

Something like ME1's ending would be my ideal happy ending.

The Reapers are defeated and civilization can continue to live. Shepeard and most of his team are still there but not all made it though alive.

"EDIT"

In short. A happy ending where there is loss. On both a galactic scale and on a personal level (aka loss of friends and loved ones).

Modifié par Lizardviking, 22 juin 2011 - 06:54 .

[ZLurps]

Undertone wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

You are arguing the same side of the coin. The situation you describe fits perfectly. We don't want squad mates to die left and right for no reason. We want it to be emotionally engaging and not tied to Shepard's performance unless such a performance has to be spectacular even for a seasoned shooter veteran.

I don't want to play like an idiot or pick choices I know are stupid to get some drama. That defeats the whole purpose.

I think you didn't really get what I was saying.

Sacrifice and loss can be portrayed to player many ways. There is no need to go "Ok, let's kill Garrus or Wrex for dramatic effect". No matter how well such scenario would be delivered, even with player choise, it would be Virmire again.

Instead of that we could have a choise between squad mate or some other character player has established connection, like in my example. There are going to be temporary squad mates and didn't BioWare told us that (almost?) every important character from previous ME games is going to make some sort of appearance. These are as viable characters to sacriface as squad mates to show chaos and terror of war. There are many possibilities really.

Modifié par ZLurps, 22 juin 2011 - 08:23 .

[catgirl789]

At the risk of sounding repetitive and being asked to go watch a Disney movie, I DO want an "Everybody Lives" ending to be possible. Yes it would have to be hard as hell to get. Yes it should not be obvious on the first playthrough. Yes it shouldn't be solely dependent on you Paragon/Renegadeness. But it should still be there.

Maybe it could be something like you have an option of sending Legion on an incredibly risky stealth mission onto a Reaper base that will most likely end in their destruction, but would gain you an incredible advantage. If you do, you think they die but find out later that because of a decision you made earlier to say, upgrade him in some way, they manage to get a signal out uploading the programs making up their consciousness into another Geth platform.

If you don't give them the upgrade, they die. If you don't send them on the mission they survive for the moment, but have the chance to die in a surprise attack by the Reapers/Cerberus launched specifically to take down the liason between the Geth and other species later when they would have never even been on the Normandy if they were on the mission.

This way, there is a very high possibility of Legion dying or being the cause of death for others in a very unobvious way, but there's still the slim chance of everyone getting out ok.

Maybe the civilizations shouldn't come out so unscathed, but squaddies, past, present, and future alike should be given a chance to make it through.

tl;dr Make it incredibly Ninja Gaiden levels of difficult for everyone to survive, but make it possible.

[ZLurps]

catgirl789 wrote...

At the risk of sounding repetitive and being asked to go watch a Disney movie, I DO want an "Everybody Lives" ending to be possible. Yes it would have to be hard as hell to get. Yes it should not be obvious on the first playthrough. Yes it shouldn't be solely dependent on you Paragon/Renegadeness. But it should still be there.

Maybe it could be something like you have an option of sending Legion on an incredibly risky stealth mission onto a Reaper base that will most likely end in their destruction, but would gain you an incredible advantage. If you do, you think they die but find out later that because of a decision you made earlier to say, upgrade him in some way, they manage to get a signal out uploading the programs making up their consciousness into another Geth platform.

If you don't give them the upgrade, they die. If you don't send them on the mission they survive for the moment, but have the chance to die in a surprise attack by the Reapers/Cerberus launched specifically to take down the liason between the Geth and other species later when they would have never even been on the Normandy if they were on the mission.

This way, there is a very high possibility of Legion dying or being the cause of death for others in a very unobvious way, but there's still the slim chance of everyone getting out ok.

Maybe the civilizations shouldn't come out so unscathed, but squaddies, past, present, and future alike should be given a chance to make it through.

tl;dr Make it incredibly Ninja Gaiden levels of difficult for everyone to survive, but make it possible.

Yep, I would like this too.

I think however that the worst would be losing permanet squad mate(s). Liara, Vega, Garrus (if he survived ME2) and perhaps Tali. Not that many to begin with.
If there is going to be Virmire like event and Vega is scripted in that scenario... think it wouldn't be fun to be in Vega's shoes.

Modifié par ZLurps, 22 juin 2011 - 08:38 .