4309 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

You people need to get the metagame = bad stick out of your asses.  THE GAME WILL BE METAGAMED.  IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.  DEAL WITH IT.

The game should include an optimal ending as I detailed well back in the thread, even if it makes the grimdark people moan and whine in great discontent.  It is extraordinarily self centered for them to want their ending to be in there, but deny having my ending in there.

Yes, that means metagaming is implicit.  It always was and always will be.  Get over it.

For my ending to have meaning, you can't have your ending. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. The metagame is the exact reason why the notion of "hard decisions" is impossible if I can have a Disney-style happy ending. In any film or novel, you don't get to choose whether your favorite characters live or die; that's why it's tragic. Tragedy demands a sacrifice, otherwise it's hollow, akin to being able to save both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire.

This is the sense of entitlement I was referring to.

Your position is entirely unreasonable.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...


And this right here is entitlement writ large.

I'm paying for my copy of ME3. I really don't care about whether you enjoy ME3, because I'm not paying so you can enjoy the game. Happy endings mean I enjoy my game less.

Any given ending has the meaning you choose to put into it.

 
I don't put value in Disney film endings.

The fact you cannot divest yourself of the meta-knowledge that other endings exist is your cross to bear and not one which you should foist on the rest of the playerbase.

Decisions with consequences always mean more than decisions without consequences. The Mage Circle in Dragon Age comes up again. Apparently I can go to the circle and save Connor, which means that everything turned out okay. The decision was diverted of all consequences, when in reality leaving for any significant amount of time can result in tragedy. The game is essentially telling me that I'm wrong because the end result was in defiance of the in game world's logic.

[jamesp81]

Athayniel wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

For my ending to have meaning, you can't have your ending.

And this right here is entitlement writ large. Any given ending has the meaning you choose to put into it. The fact you cannot divest yourself of the meta-knowledge that other endings exist is your cross to bear and not one which you should foist on the rest of the playerbase.

This should be shouted from the rooftops on a daily basis.

[CptBomBom00]

Guys, BioWare has made many different endings but we add stuff to them and ,  by that we change them  and you never know what was the original ending was supposed to be.

Modifié par CptBomBom00, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

You people need to get the metagame = bad stick out of your asses.  THE GAME WILL BE METAGAMED.  IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.  DEAL WITH IT.

The game should include an optimal ending as I detailed well back in the thread, even if it makes the grimdark people moan and whine in great discontent.  It is extraordinarily self centered for them to want their ending to be in there, but deny having my ending in there.

Yes, that means metagaming is implicit.  It always was and always will be.  Get over it.

For my ending to have meaning, you can't have your ending. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. The metagame is the exact reason why the notion of "hard decisions" is impossible if I can have a Disney-style happy ending. In any film or novel, you don't get to choose whether your favorite characters live or die; that's why it's tragic. Tragedy demands a sacrifice, otherwise it's hollow, akin to being able to save both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire.

This is the sense of entitlement I was referring to.

Your position is entirely unreasonable.

Entitlement would meant that I believe I deserve to be happy more than you deserve to be happy. That is not the case. I do not believe I am entitled to anything from Bioware; I have no right to anything. However, I will enjoy my decisions less if a happy ending exists, and so I will argue against the happy ending.

[jamesp81]

I'm paying for my copy of ME3. I really don't care about whether you
enjoy ME3, because I'm not paying so you can enjoy the game. Happy
endings mean I enjoy my game less.

Play a different game then with a linear storyline that includes plenty of tragedy.  They're out there.  ME3 also isn't the only game that's ever been made, so you've got plenty of choices.

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...


Play a different game then with a linear storyline that includes plenty of tragedy.  They're out there.  ME3 also isn't the only game that's ever been made, so you've got plenty of choices.

Why can't you? I want to play a game where I can make decisions with actual consequences, which (unfortunately) is not the same as playing a game where I have not impart on the story. I don't get the Ashley/Kaidan decision in linear story-telling.

[Athayniel]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

Guys, BioWare has made many different endings but we add stuff to them and ,  by that we change them  and you never know what was the original ending was supposed to be.

There will not be an "original" or "canon" ending to ME3. All endings will be equally valid. This is just something the proponents of forced squadmate deaths cannot accept.

[thedistortedchild]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

You people need to get the metagame = bad stick out of your asses.  THE GAME WILL BE METAGAMED.  IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.  DEAL WITH IT.

The game should include an optimal ending as I detailed well back in the thread, even if it makes the grimdark people moan and whine in great discontent.  It is extraordinarily self centered for them to want their ending to be in there, but deny having my ending in there.

Yes, that means metagaming is implicit.  It always was and always will be.  Get over it.

For my ending to have meaning, you can't have your ending. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. The metagame is the exact reason why the notion of "hard decisions" is impossible if I can have a Disney-style happy ending. In any film or novel, you don't get to choose whether your favorite characters live or die; that's why it's tragic. Tragedy demands a sacrifice, otherwise it's hollow, akin to being able to save both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire.

This is the sense of entitlement I was referring to.

Your position is entirely unreasonable.

Entitlement would meant that I believe I deserve to be happy more than you deserve to be happy. That is not the case. I do not believe I am entitled to anything from Bioware; I have no right to anything. However, I will enjoy my decisions less if a happy ending exists, and so I will argue against the happy ending.

You are saying that you will enjoy your game less, so to prevent that anyone who wants a happy ending must enjoy their game less? What kind of logic is that?

[Il Divo]

thedistortedchild wrote...

You are saying that you will enjoy your game less, so to prevent that anyone who wants a happy ending must enjoy their game less? What kind of logic is that?

I recommend you go back and read my posts over the last few pages.

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


Play a different game then with a linear storyline that includes plenty of tragedy.  They're out there.  ME3 also isn't the only game that's ever been made, so you've got plenty of choices.

Why can't you? I want to play a game where I can make decisions with actual consequences, which (unfortunately) is not the same as playing a game where I have not impart on the story. I don't get the Ashley/Kaidan decision in linear story-telling.

Bioware has stated they want multiple endings.  Some you are probably not going to like.  Your knowledge of the metagame means that you KNOW that those other endings exist.  You have already stated at length that that's a problem for you.  Ergo, the only solution I can see is for you to play something else, where good endings that you don't like can't occur, as is often the case in linearly written RPGs.

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

thedistortedchild wrote...

You are saying that you will enjoy your game less, so to prevent that anyone who wants a happy ending must enjoy their game less? What kind of logic is that?

I recommend you go back and read my posts over the last few pages.

I think most of us have read your posts at length.  I know exactly what you want as you've spelled it out eloquently and in great detail.

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...


Bioware has stated they want multiple endings.  Some you are probably not going to like.  Your knowledge of the metagame means that you KNOW that those other endings exist.  You have already stated at length that that's a problem for you. 

No, I stated that happy endings are problematic. Or, more precisely, perfect endings are problematic. Multiple endings where different sacrifices occur are acceptable. Ex: Kaidan/Ashley.

 Ergo, the only solution I can see is for you to play something else, where good endings that you don't like can't occur, as is often the case in linearly written RPGs.

Mass Effect 1 had no problem with non-perfect endings in allowing/forcing me to kill Kaidan/Ashley. Imagine that Bioware had given you the ability to save both. That would dramatically shift the emotional weight of that scenario.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:33 .

[CptBomBom00]

WTF? Guys as far as I know we decide what the ending gonna be so I think there is no point of saying the good ending should be that and that and so on, we decide what happens and what happens to characters and those Damn choices camon , BioWare if my Paragon choices backfire then I just gonna shot my self.

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

I think most of us have read your posts at length.  I know exactly what you want as you've spelled it out eloquently and in great detail.

Fair enough. It can be difficult for me to tell sometimes. Things always sound better in our heads than on paper.

[CaptainZaysh]

I do think that ME1 was a better story for Virmire. Somebody - I think it was Dean - once suggested a neat method to ensure that at least one character died on the Suicide Mission (you can choose to send somebody on a sniping mission. If you do, he dies. If you don't, somebody holding the line dies.)

I think that might have been a good theme for BioWare to adopt for the series: it's a war, somebody is definitely going to die. You can influence casualties, but you can't eliminate them.

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


Bioware has stated they want multiple endings.  Some you are probably not going to like.  Your knowledge of the metagame means that you KNOW that those other endings exist.  You have already stated at length that that's a problem for you. 

No, I stated that happy endings are problematic. Or, more precisely, perfect endings are problematic. Multiple endings where different sacrifices occur are acceptable. Ex: Kaidan/Ashley.

 Ergo, the only solution I can see is for you to play something else, where good endings that you don't like can't occur, as is often the case in linearly written RPGs.

Mass Effect 1 had no problem with non-perfect endings in allowing/forcing me to kill Kaidan/Ashley.

Even if none of the endings are happy per se, some are going to be "better" than others.  That alone presents a problem, since better endings will likely exist than what you or someone else may prefer.  You knowledge of the meta-game will then bring you back to your original problem.

What you are truly asking for cannot be done unless everyone gets the same ending or close to it.  Virmire is an example of the ending being essentially the same no matter what choice you make.  Virmire also sucked as a story telling element, an element which I hope the writers are wise enough to avoid in ME3 as they did in ME2.

Edit:

Of course, a Virmire decision wouldn't be so bad as long as I have this one squadmate that I can't stand and want to get rid of.  Oh, how I wish I could've left Fenris next to a nuke somewhere in DA2:devil:

Modifié par jamesp81, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:38 .

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I think most of us have read your posts at length.  I know exactly what you want as you've spelled it out eloquently and in great detail.

Fair enough. It can be difficult for me to tell sometimes. Things always sound better in our heads than on paper.

Too true.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Athayniel wrote...
He shifted the goal posts of the argument and you fell for it.

What? Dean simply explains it better for why only having avoidable deaths does not work.

We are using a different definition of "bad thing" which needs to be overcome. Dean specifically equates the "bad thing" with character death, when we've all been using "bad thing" and "impossible odds" to mean the reapers and the galactic war. Our entire premise is not having character deaths which need to be overcome.

Dean called losing  a character a bad thing (and bad thing as in "Oh no!" not "This story sucks"), which it is true. He then explains why the flawless ending compromises all the other endings.

[CaptainZaysh]

jamesp81 wrote...

What you are truly asking for cannot be done unless everyone gets the same ending or close to it.  Virmire is an example of the ending being essentially the same no matter what choice you make.  Virmire also sucked as a story telling element, an element which I hope the writers are wise enough to avoid in ME3 as they did in ME2.

You're crazy!  Virmire was an awesome piece of story telling.  It showed the sacrifices Shepard was willing to make to stop Saren.  Leaving that planet without Wrex and Ash was like a punch in the soul to me.  I thought, okay, this is the lowest point in the hero's journey.  Thank god the Council has finally taken notice.  It's going to feel pretty amazing leading their fleet to Ilos.

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

Dean called losing  a character a bad thing (and bad thing as in "Oh no!" not "This story sucks"), which it is true. He then explains why the flawless ending compromises all the other endings.

One side of the argument is "We'd like to be able to avoid squadmate deaths as we'll have enough bad things to overcome."
Dean then argues "a squadmate dying is a bad thing that you have to overcome."

He's shifted the goalposts. It is not a difficult concept to understand. The entire premise of the first position is that even without a squaddie dying the galaxy will be in flames all around us, forced squadmate deaths are not necessary to create a compelling and immersive story in that situation.

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

You're crazy!  Virmire was an awesome piece of story telling.  It showed the sacrifices Shepard was willing to make to stop Saren.  Leaving that planet without Wrex and Ash was like a punch in the soul to me.  I thought, okay, this is the lowest point in the hero's journey.  Thank god the Council has finally taken notice.  It's going to feel pretty amazing leading their fleet to Ilos.

It really wasn't. And in any event is the exact sort of thing we want to avoid in ME3.

[CaptainZaysh]

Athayniel wrote...

One side of the argument is "We'd like to be able to avoid squadmate deaths as we'll have enough bad things to overcome."
Dean then argues "a squadmate dying is a bad thing that you have to overcome."

He's shifted the goalposts. It is not a difficult concept to understand. The entire premise of the first position is that even without a squaddie dying the galaxy will be in flames all around us, forced squadmate deaths are not necessary to create a compelling and immersive story in that situation.

Well, the fact you're arguing against squadmate deaths and not against a higher civilian body count on Thessia demonstrates that you care much more about your squadmates than about the damage being done in the background.  Therefore "squadmates dying" = more bad than "random NPCs dying".

Dean's position (I think) is that if, in the final and most epic part of the ME trilogy the writers don't make things as bad on Shepard as they possibly can then they're not really doing their job.  I kind of agree.  A war story in which nobody dies is sort of missing the point, no?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Athayniel wrote...
One side of the argument is "We'd like to be able to avoid squadmate deaths as we'll have enough bad things to overcome."
Dean then argues "a squadmate dying is a bad thing that you have to overcome."

He's shifted the goalposts. It is not a difficult concept to understand. The entire premise of the first position is that even without a squaddie dying the galaxy will be in flames all around us, forced squadmate deaths are not necessary to create a compelling and immersive story in that situation.

And we are arguing why not having to face any personal loses is bad for the story, and facing the no-win scenario and suffering personal loses is better storytelling than only losing squadmates through mistake.

[nitefyre410]

Il Divo wrote...

For my ending to have meaning, you can't have your ending.

..... /Facepalm 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 14 octobre 2011 - 03:00 .