416 réponses à ce sujet

[KainrycKarr]

If you agree with me about multiple endings, why can't one of them be a happy ending?

If people have to die, allow the player to influence who and when. That's all I'm askin' at the end of the day.

And in a game based on player choice, why shouldn't I have that?

[KainrycKarr]

Luna Siwora wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

If you agree with me about multiple endings, why can't one of them be a happy ending?

I didn't say there can't be a happy ending. I said that, in my opinion, happy endings are cliché and not likely to happen... because they take the feeling or reality away from me. That is just me, though.

Hence why I feel they should be extremely difficult to achieve.

[CheeseEnchilada]

Undertone wrote...

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

 I can't speak for everyone, but if Garrus dies every time, I'm going to stop caring about him.

So
you are gonna stop liking/caring about a character because he dies at
the end. That actually makes no sense to me either. To me it makes that
character even more important - he allowed you to continue onward.
Without him you would be able to win.

Even regardless how you stop liking a character because he dies... 0.0


As for OP - We seem to agree on the most fundamental part.

I don't want another SM - where it felt incredibly easy to make the right choices and presto - everyone makes it. I want a real challenge and I want a bad ending where the Reapers win to be as likely as there is a good ending. This would make it all the more pleasurable when we actually succeed.

Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. I'd still like Garrus of course, I would just become desensitized to his death. With Virmire we were allowed a choice, as sadistic as it was. I could save Ashley or Kaidan, and get to know them better in various playthroughs. Because I knew I could save them but actively chose the other, their deaths hit me pretty hard. If Garrus died halfway through ME3 no matter what I chose to do, I would be upset the first time but gradually get used to it. If I chose to send Garrus to his death or chose to leave him to his fate, I would feel far worse on subsequent playthroughs.

And like OP said, I think we all agree that no one wants another easy SM. You should have to earn your happy ending.

[Undertone]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...


As long as this is the case, then sure, kill away. I just don't want "forced" deaths. If someone has to die, then I'd like to at least influence who.

That's what I find really funny - you play a game that represents a galactic war. Go tell the indoctrinated sniper to shoot Jack instead of Garrus or Tali cause you like her less then the other too.

Yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm not saying Virmire every NPC but it's completely retarded that Shepard should have full control over who dies or lives.

Shepard is in command of the mission and who does what. So uh.....yeah, pretty much.

Aha and in a mission everything goes according to plan yada yada, there are no variables, no possibilities. /sarcasm

That has nothing to do with it.

If I have to send someone to there deaths, I'm gonna send someone I don't like, if I have the choice.

It has everything to do with it. Missions shouldn't go as Shepard pleases them to be. Realistic or not, this is absurd. There are missions where some parts in it are high risk - those with lower probability where indeed Shepard can choose someone knowing they have less of a chance to return alive from the other task. Or just bluntly leave them to do the job and die (guarding a bomb).

There are missions that go out of control, enemy reinforcements come. Somebody has to stay behind to hold them off, somebody is cut off, somebody dies without Shepard being able to do anything.

As for your mentality "I'm gonna send someone I don't like" - I consider it wrong as well. Of course that's a way of playing so no argument there. I sacrificed Ashley on Virmire not because I liked her less, disliked/hated her or anything but because I deemed Kaidan more useful as a biotic (both as a male and female Shepard).

[KainrycKarr]

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...


As long as this is the case, then sure, kill away. I just don't want "forced" deaths. If someone has to die, then I'd like to at least influence who.

That's what I find really funny - you play a game that represents a galactic war. Go tell the indoctrinated sniper to shoot Jack instead of Garrus or Tali cause you like her less then the other too.

Yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm not saying Virmire every NPC but it's completely retarded that Shepard should have full control over who dies or lives.

Shepard is in command of the mission and who does what. So uh.....yeah, pretty much.

Aha and in a mission everything goes according to plan yada yada, there are no variables, no possibilities. /sarcasm

That has nothing to do with it.

If I have to send someone to there deaths, I'm gonna send someone I don't like, if I have the choice.

It has everything to do with it. Missions shouldn't go as Shepard pleases them to be. Realistic or not, this is absurd. There are missions where some parts in it are high risk - those with lower probability where indeed Shepard can choose someone knowing they have less of a chance to return alive from the other task. Or just bluntly leave them to do the job and die (guarding a bomb).

There are missions that go out of control, enemy reinforcements come. Somebody has to stay behind to hold them off, somebody is cut off, somebody dies without Shepard being able to do anything.

As for your mentality "I'm gonna send someone I don't like" - I consider it wrong as well. Of course that's a way of playing so no argument there. I sacrificed Ashley on Virmire not because I liked her less, disliked/hated her or anything but because I deemed Kaidan more useful as a biotic (both as a male and female Shepard).

And that's where the story becomes linear and player choice becomes meaningless, two things you really don't want in a game where one of your taglines is "The player's story".

[jamesp81]

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.

That's not my problem.  If you want grim and unhappy storytelling, there's plenty of it to be had.  Keep it away from this franchise, though.

[AtreiyaN7]

Lord Coake wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Excuuuuuse me? The modern BSG series was dark, but it was dealing with war, conflict and complex adult characters. It was anything but a chore, and if ME3 has even a hint of what made the show great, they'd probably be better off.

It was also fragging stupid at the end.  If everyone decides to dump their tech and live in caves at the end of ME3, I'm emailing every computer virus I can find to BW's dev team.

See, that's why I said "dubious choices" in relation to the ending of BSG. Let's just say that I didn't agree with everything that happened, but regardless, it had its moments. I don't think all the threads suggesting the depressing endings have been serious (at least one had to be a troll) and take most of them with a grain of salt when I read them. I'm not going to lie, personally, I'd go for the heroic save-the-galaxy thing, but if you want to make things more realistic, then ultimate failure is also a viable ending. I don't think it qualifies as BSG syndrome for the reason that even with all the darkness and death in the series, you do see glimpses oh hope now & then. Even Baltar got his act together (sort of) and manned up (a bit) at the end.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 21 juin 2011 - 08:37 .

[jamesp81]

KainrycKarr wrote...

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.

I'm onboard with this.

[AlanC9]

KainrycKarr wrote...

And that's where the story becomes linear and player choice becomes meaningless, two things you really don't want in a game where one of your taglines is "The player's story".

Meaningful choice implies outcomes of equal value. If one outcome is obviously better than the others then choosing it is a no-brainer. Unless you're doing a metagaming thing where you're picking a bad outcome jsut to see it, but that's got nothing to do with the character's choices.

Edit: of course, a no-brainer for one Shepard can be a tough one for another Shepard.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2011 - 08:43 .

[jamesp81]

Eradyn wrote...

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.

This is a good point, and it's also why I think all endings except the "epic fail" ending will involve Earth saved, Reapers gone, and civilization survives.  What will vary is what happened to you and your crew.

[Eurhetemec]

KainrycKarr wrote...

I just think there's room for both. Apparantly I'm wrong.

You're not wrong, but I think if you expect a purely happy ending, you'll be disappointed. If you expect an ending where you and the LI are alive and safe, you'll probably be fine. I really doubt BioWare will suddenly decide to hate their players and auto-kill Shepard or his LI.

[jamesp81]

I'll add this.

Dark and gritty stories suck when everyone ends up dead.

They're epic when, against all odds and expectations, the good guys pull victory from the jaws of defeat. This is why Lord of the Rings was so damned awesome.

[KainrycKarr]

AlanC9 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

And that's where the story becomes linear and player choice becomes meaningless, two things you really don't want in a game where one of your taglines is "The player's story".

Meaningful choice implies outcomes of equal value. If one outcome is obviously better than the others then choosing it is a no-brainer. Unless you're doing a metagaming thing where you're picking a bad outcome jsut to see it, but that's got nothing to do with the character's choices.

Hence why it would be better if the outcomes were better depending on how look at it.

I'll go back to my evac point scenario.

Garrus sets up, snipes as cover, then retreats with the civilians to make it back to the ship. Some of the civvies that lag behind get picked off.

You send Grunt, Grunt "holds the line", all the civvies make it, but Grunt being Grunt decides to keep fighting, and eventually is killed.

In that scenario, the player influences who in his squad dies, but the outcome isn't necessarily better or worse, just different.

[KainrycKarr]

Eurhetemec wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

I just think there's room for both. Apparantly I'm wrong.

You're not wrong, but I think if you expect a purely happy ending, you'll be disappointed. If you expect an ending where you and the LI are alive and safe, you'll probably be fine. I really doubt BioWare will suddenly decide to hate their players and auto-kill Shepard or his LI.

You never know. But again...I'm not too worried about it either.

[KainrycKarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

I'll add this.

Dark and gritty stories suck when everyone ends up dead.

They're epic when, against all odds and expectations, the good guys pull victory from the jaws of defeat. This is why Lord of the Rings was so damned awesome.

Definately. Anyone can get themselves killed completing a mission. A real hero can accomplish the mission and live on to keep fighting the good fight.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Because some people have different definitions of entertainment and they believe their definition is superior.

[KainrycKarr]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Because some people have different definitions of entertainment and they believe their definition is superior.

Hence why options that appease both sides is best.

[Bnol]

Lord Coake wrote...
You do realise that methodical attention to detail and common sense (combined with a mean streak) are the core of tactics that work, right?  A good officer not only wrrecks the enemy, he get the mojority, and oftentimes even all of his people out alive.  The only difference no is the scale of the Reapers, and even then, with the right information, planning and outright balls someone as skillied as Shepard (and a large nmber of his team) is written to be can and will accomplish things everyone else thought impossible.

A good officer also knows that there will be losses and will weigh the probability/severity of those losses against the whole of the mission.  You can't go into battle without a chance of someone dying, no matter how prepared and knowledgable you are.  Unless of course the enemy is so inferior, in which case there is no meaningful battle and story to be told.

[nhsk]

jamesp81 wrote...

I'll add this.

Dark and gritty stories suck when everyone ends up dead.

They're epic when, against all odds and expectations, the good guys pull victory from the jaws of defeat. This is why Lord of the Rings was so damned awesome.

There was still deaths in LotR... I name Boromir, and Frodo had to go to the elven lands or he would die and suffer and all different things, even the lands of the hobbits came under attack, where fuzzy hobbits died, by Saruman after he lost his tower (albeit not in the movie).

[jamesp81]

nhsk wrote...

And the "everyone lives" is a fairy tale fantasy, which is... Cliche

And so is the heroic sacrifice.

So is the grim ending.

There are no endings that are NOT cliche.

[Siansonea]

I hear so much jibber-jabber around here about "immersion" and "realism", that I just have to say, PLEASE no "no one left behind" ending. I mean, come ON. The galaxy is invaded by giant AI starships, and nobody you know gets whacked? Puh-leeze.

I mean even Star Wars had the sense to have Dramatic Protagonist Deaths. Qui-Gon Jinn, Amidala, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader each had an awesome death scene (well, okay, so Amidala's was kind of failtastic), but honestly "Return of the Jedi" would have been a much better movie to me if Han Solo had died, even though I LOVED Han Solo. For me a "feel good" ending just comes off as cheap and a meta-game player reward for jumping through the proper series of hoops. I hope that at the very least, they kill off some name NPCs like Captain Anderson, Admiral Hackett, Aria T'Loak, The Illusive Man, etc.

[jamesp81]

Undertone wrote...

Why don't you go play sims 3 instead? Seriously I actually have reverse opinion - What's with all the "I want-spoiled-super-happy-ending-have-babies-with-Liara" endings.

It's an action game with some semblance of war story. It's unrealistic to have drama and casualties. And if you don't want realism play a fantasy game or something.

Some people, some ideals.

If I wanted realistic, I'd join the army.