416 réponses à ce sujet

[KainrycKarr]

marshalleck wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

But I'm more curious why people don't want that kind of ending to be available.

Because it's juvenile fantasy wish-fulfillment? Bad things are going down in the galaxy, and nobody's going to come out unscathed. Well, at least not until Paragon paladin hero of virtue Shepard shows up and saves the day with the most implausible perfect outcome without any errors.

Is that not the purpose of fiction? or at least one of them?

And it still doesn't explain my question.

If there are multiple endings, why should *I* be denied my "fantasy wish-fullment", if those who DONT' want it, already have the kind of ending they want?

We KNOW there will be multiple endings. This allows for different people to be satisfied. So why should I be forced to have an ending that's more fitting to you?

Because game developers--specifically writers--need to be held to higher standard than comic book plot.

Again, you still have the dark and not-everyone-survives ending. But you also have the fantasy ending.

You take the dark ending. I take the fantasy one. Me taking the fantasy ending has absolutely no effect on you taking your darker ending.

There is room for both.

[Nozybidaj]

Somewhere along the line emo became a synonym for creative. Now every game feels like it needs to be emo to be considered creative, when really they are just following the crowd, but whatever, that's beside the point.

If there are indeed multiple endings I would imagine the all survive scenario to be one of them.

[KainrycKarr]

noone has given a good reason why both can't be possible.

How does me choosing the fantasy ending affect you choosing the darker grittier ending?

It doesn't.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 21 juin 2011 - 06:22 .

[hwf]

Shouldn't it be "Game of Thrones" syndrome? 

A wide spectrum on how it will end would be nice, yes.

[KainrycKarr]

Kronner wrote...

I think that Shepard should face tough decisions that ultimately lead to sacrifices. "Everyone lives" ending would make Reapers pretty lame. The "Suicide Mission" was a joke..it took more effort to get someone killed than to keep everyone alive. Do. Not. Want.

So take the darker, grittier road to that ending, and I'll take my paladin hero path.

Everyone wins.

[Whatever42]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

I want BOTH sides to be pandered to.

Well, the trick is how to do that.

It can't be random because people will just end up replaying until they get the option they want. Being based on renegade/paragon decisions is tricky because you don't want to punish one roleplay style over another. That leaves something like the mechanic in ME2. That's fine as far as it goes but in that case a dark ending would almost be deliberately chosen.

Use the system like ME2, but make the "right" option less obvious, and don't base it on renegade/paragon. Don't make it a right/wrong choice, make it based on how Bioware feels each squadmate would perform that specific task, and have that be the criteria.

And, yea, people would replay it until they get the option they want.

So what? After the intial playthrough you know what the story is. You know what happens. So what if I wanna go back and re-write it? It has no effect on you and your experience.

I'd be ok with that. Although, it would have to be possible for a thoughtful player to make the right choices. You can't simply say "if you send Garrus left instead of right than he dies." That means a completionist like me, who actually pays attention to the dialogue will get an almost perfect ending.

Now if you really wanted to be cruel, you could do that but make choices have a cost. Sure you could pull out Garrus from a mission early but that means thousands die. On top of that, Garrus might be pissed at you.

But that would probably be too dark for Bioware.

[Crackseed]

Like anyone else, I'm attached to my squaddies but I believe it needs to be difficult for us to achieve the "happy butterfly ending" - ME2's suicide mission was overrated in terms of keeping your squad alive. My first time through I kept everyone alive w/o breaking a sweat and while I still loved the end-game, it did feel a bit TOO easy to come out 100% - this is a universe spanning war. If there's no REAL emotional impact, especially with having to make a choice like say the Virmire call, then they're not really doing it right.

There will be no 100% ending this time. There can't be or else it really cheapens the series build-up and who our opponents are.

[TheCrakFox]

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

But I'm more curious why people don't want that kind of ending to be available.

Because it's juvenile fantasy wish-fulfillment? Bad things are going down in the galaxy, and nobody's going to come out unscathed. Well, at least not until Paragon paladin hero of virtue Shepard shows up and saves the day with the most implausible perfect outcome without any errors.

Is that not the purpose of fiction? or at least one of them?

And it still doesn't explain my question.

If there are multiple endings, why should *I* be denied my "fantasy wish-fullment", if those who DONT' want it, already have the kind of ending they want?

We KNOW there will be multiple endings. This allows for different people to be satisfied. So why should I be forced to have an ending that's more fitting to you?

Because game developers--specifically writers--need to be held to higher standard than comic book plot.

Again, you still have the dark and not-everyone-survives ending. But you also have the fantasy ending.

You take the dark ending. I take the fantasy one. Me taking the fantasy ending has absolutely no effect on you taking your darker ending.

There is room for both.

The sunshine and unicorns ending cheapens the darker ending through it's mere existance. Knowing the deaths were avoidable and you deliberately played to get them removes any emotional impact.

[Eurhetemec]

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

I don't see how either A, B, or C are uniquely distinctive of Battlestar Galactica.

It's more of the overall need for loss, character twists, and imo, just generally depressing points in the story.

Remember how 4896463436 of the main characters in BG ended up dead or Cylons? Yeah, I don't want that.

Whilst I agree that multiple endings would be the win (the more the merrier!), I think you're being overdramatic.

I mean, nBSG starts just after their planet and all other colonies have been NUKED INTO THE GROUND. They have a rag-tag fleet and a single carrier with the remnants of the entire race fleeing an overwhelming threat.

That's just for starters. nBSG is infinite more depressing and downbeat than ME has ever been.

I mean, be realistic, do you think the guys who let Shepard survive the suicide mission without losing any a single squad member and hardly any crew members are going to force your Shepard or his LI to die?

Personally I think that if you just play through ME3, without a guide, without knowing what will do what, you should lose people. I bloody hated being able to do the suicide mission and keep everyone alive just by being logical and thorough. It felt so cheap. I didn't have to be brave or skilled. Just to check all boxes and have basic common sense. It was like the easiest multiple choice in history. That's not what a "suicide mission" should be like. I personally think it should be impossible to complete ME2 without losing anyone at all, that at least two people should get killed in the "suicide mission", but that's just me.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 21 juin 2011 - 06:28 .

[KainrycKarr]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

I want BOTH sides to be pandered to.

Well, the trick is how to do that.

It can't be random because people will just end up replaying until they get the option they want. Being based on renegade/paragon decisions is tricky because you don't want to punish one roleplay style over another. That leaves something like the mechanic in ME2. That's fine as far as it goes but in that case a dark ending would almost be deliberately chosen.

Use the system like ME2, but make the "right" option less obvious, and don't base it on renegade/paragon. Don't make it a right/wrong choice, make it based on how Bioware feels each squadmate would perform that specific task, and have that be the criteria.

And, yea, people would replay it until they get the option they want.

So what? After the intial playthrough you know what the story is. You know what happens. So what if I wanna go back and re-write it? It has no effect on you and your experience.

I'd be ok with that. Although, it would have to be possible for a thoughtful player to make the right choices. You can't simply say "if you send Garrus left instead of right than he dies." That means a completionist like me, who actually pays attention to the dialogue will get an almost perfect ending.

Now if you really wanted to be cruel, you could do that but make choices have a cost. Sure you could pull out Garrus from a mission early but that means thousands die. On top of that, Garrus might be pissed at you.

But that would probably be too dark for Bioware.

That isn't what I mean.

More along the lines of....

Escort civilians to an evac point.

You send Garrus, he takes a sniping position, covering the civilians before retreating to the shuttle.

You send Grunt, he goes in balls to wall, holding the enemy back as the civilians retreat, "you shall not pass" style. But being a Krogran, he keeps fighting and eventually is overwhelmed and killed, rather than retreating to the evac point.

That's what I mean.

The mission still succeeds, and neither choice was right or wrong, just different.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 21 juin 2011 - 06:29 .

[KainrycKarr]

TheCrakFox wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

But I'm more curious why people don't want that kind of ending to be available.

Because it's juvenile fantasy wish-fulfillment? Bad things are going down in the galaxy, and nobody's going to come out unscathed. Well, at least not until Paragon paladin hero of virtue Shepard shows up and saves the day with the most implausible perfect outcome without any errors.

Is that not the purpose of fiction? or at least one of them?

And it still doesn't explain my question.

If there are multiple endings, why should *I* be denied my "fantasy wish-fullment", if those who DONT' want it, already have the kind of ending they want?

We KNOW there will be multiple endings. This allows for different people to be satisfied. So why should I be forced to have an ending that's more fitting to you?

Because game developers--specifically writers--need to be held to higher standard than comic book plot.

Again, you still have the dark and not-everyone-survives ending. But you also have the fantasy ending.

You take the dark ending. I take the fantasy one. Me taking the fantasy ending has absolutely no effect on you taking your darker ending.

There is room for both.

The sunshine and unicorns ending cheapens the darker ending through it's mere existance. Knowing the deaths were avoidable and you deliberately played to get them removes any emotional impact.

So I should be screwed because you want your outcome to be the only outcome?

Sorry, no.

[KainrycKarr]

Eurhetemec wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

I don't see how either A, B, or C are uniquely distinctive of Battlestar Galactica.

It's more of the overall need for loss, character twists, and imo, just generally depressing points in the story.

Remember how 4896463436 of the main characters in BG ended up dead or Cylons? Yeah, I don't want that.

Whilst I agree that multiple endings would be the win (the more the merrier!), I think you're being overdramatic.

I mean, nBSG starts just after their planet and all other colonies have been NUKED INTO THE GROUND. They have a rag-tag fleet and a single carrier with the remnants of the entire race fleeing an overwhelming threat.

That's just for starters. nBSG is infinite more depressing and downbeat than ME has ever been.

I mean, be realistic, do you think the guys who let Shepard survive the suicide mission without losing any a single squad member and hardly any crew members are going to force your Shepard or his LI to die?

Personally I think that if you just play through ME3, without a guide, without knowing what will do what, you should lose people. I bloody hated being able to do the suicide mission and keep everyone alive just by being logical and thorough. It felt so cheap. I didn't have to be brave or skilled. Just to check all boxes and have basic common sense. It was like the easiest multiple choice in history. That's not what a "suicide mission" should be like. I personally think it should be impossible to complete ME2 without losing anyone at all, that at least two people should get killed in the "suicide mission", but that's just me.

So just make it harder to keep everyone alive. ME2 was too easy because the choices that led to who lived and died were blatantly obvious.

[Teknor]

KainrycKarr wrote...

noone has given a good reason why both can't be possible.

How does me choosing the fantasy ending affect you choosing the darker grittier ending?

It doesn't.

You think that an apocalyptic scenario can be dealt unscathed. Others don't. That doesn't make others' reasoning was bad just that you disagree with it. Ultimately it's up to Bioware.

[KainrycKarr]

Teknor wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

noone has given a good reason why both can't be possible.

How does me choosing the fantasy ending affect you choosing the darker grittier ending?

It doesn't.

You think that an apocalyptic scenario can be dealt unscathed. Others don't. That doesn't make others' reasoning was bad just that you disagree with it. Ultimately it's up to Bioware.

That's completely unrelated. They are two different scenarios. This is fantasy.

You don't think it can be dealt with unscathed? Then don't. Hence the different endings. I do. So I will.

Again, the two do not conflict.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Whatever they gotta do to write a good story. If the best story involves Shepard dying (like, for instance, Planescape: Torment) then I say let them write it.

[TheCrakFox]

[quote]KainrycKarr wrote...

[quote]TheCrakFox wrote...


[/quote]The sunshine and unicorns ending cheapens the darker ending through it's mere existance. Knowing the deaths were avoidable and you deliberately played to get them removes any emotional impact.
[/quote]

So I should be screwed because you want your outcome to be the only outcome?

Sorry, no.

[/quote]I didn't say that.

BioWare's writers are the ones who will decide the ending(s) and they'll do it however they want. Fan service is all well and good, but if it starts to affect the story then it's going too far.

[KainrycKarr]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Whatever they gotta do to write a good story. If the best story involves Shepard dying (like, for instance, Planescape: Torment) then I say let them write it.

That's kind why I don't want a hero sacrifice ending. Or at least not a forced one. It's incredibly cliche, and overdone is so many other stories.

I want to feel good at the end.

[KainrycKarr]

[quote]TheCrakFox wrote...

[quote]KainrycKarr wrote...

[quote]TheCrakFox wrote...


[/quote]The sunshine and unicorns ending cheapens the darker ending through it's mere existance. Knowing the deaths were avoidable and you deliberately played to get them removes any emotional impact.
[/quote]

So I should be screwed because you want your outcome to be the only outcome?

Sorry, no.

[/quote]I didn't say that.

BioWare's writers are the ones who will decide the ending(s) and they'll do it however they want. Fan service is all well and good, but if it starts to affect the story then it's going too far.

[/quote]

So if the two endings are separate and both exist, how does that affect the story?

It's just a matter of preference, they are OPTIONS.

[CaptainZaysh]

Kainryc, from a writing perspective, don't you think it would be weird if you wrote a war story but none of the main characters died?

[CaptainZaysh]

This is like asking for a love story but without any heartbreak.

[Eradyn]

BW already told us there will be multiple endings. Discern for yourselves what that means. This should hopefully mean both emo wankers and rainbow ****ters will be happy, as well as everyone else in-between. Asking for BW to canonically slaughter their own IP's universe is unrealistic; they actually want to be able to keep using the ME-verse.

[vader da slayer]

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.

the ending of the Star Wars movies wasn't the end of Star Wars, it was just the end of the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader story arc (movie wise). if you read any of the books Star Wars was anything but a happy ending (especially the New Jedi Order series)

[KainrycKarr]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Kainryc, from a writing perspective, don't you think it would be weird if you wrote a war story but none of the main characters died?

If it was as completely linear story? Absolutely.

But in a story where it's based on player input and options, I don't think anything should be unavoidable.

I want a happy ending. But I want it to be symbiotic with darker endings.

I don't think one should exist in this kind of game without the other.

I do, however, think the "happy ending" should nigh-near impossible to get. But it should be there.

If this were a movie, characters dying would not bother me, because it's someone else's story, not mine.

But bioware has said from the beginning that this is the player's story, through Shepard, and the more forced, unavoiable ANYTHING, the less that story is mine.

I do think it should be dark, and gritty. But I think, for those like me, it should be possible to strive for a happy ending.

[KainrycKarr]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

This is like asking for a love story but without any heartbreak.

No, this like asking for an interactive love story, with heartbreak, and without heartbreak.

I WANT there to be death, but I want the challenge of striving to avoid that death.

[Bnol]

marshalleck wrote...

I don't see how either A, B, or C are uniquely distinctive of Battlestar Galactica.

KainrycKarr wrote...
I just want the possibility of Shepard and his squad making it out alive. Is that really so offensive, just allowing theoption?

Oh FFS, get over yourself. This is Bioware we're talking about. There will probably be an option for Shepard to **** rainbows and butterflies; they're the Walt Disney of video game developers.

This, especially considering how easy it was to keep everyone alive in the supposed "suicide mission" game, where you had to actively try to get Shepard killed.  There likely will be an ending with the entire galaxy (maybe not Batarians, but who cared about them anyways) singing Kubaya because Shepard was such a nice guy and got everyone together in perfect harmony.