4309 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I'm going re-iterate it this, and I'm going to type real slow to make it easy to understand.

Most people do not buy games to be subjected to sadistic choices.

It is unreasonable to demand that your ending be in the game AND demand that mine isn't.  That is un-****ing-reasonable.

You really need to stop usually such obviously colored language; it makes any valid point you have almost impossible to see.

Medhia Nox wrote...

@EternalAmbiguity: "trundling" - good word.

I like it.

People will either see things for what they are, or they will not.

It is unreasonable for one group to demand that it's ending be included while simultaneously demanding that the other group's ending be excluded, especially in a game where one of the central themes is multiple endings.

If people get upset at the way I point that out, then I can't help them.

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

People will either see things for what they are, or they will not.

It is unreasonable for one group to demand that it's ending be included while simultaneously demanding that the other group's ending be excluded, especially in a game where one of the central themes is multiple endings.

If people get upset at the way I point that out, then I can't help them.

However, you are aware that it is possible to have multiple, "not perfect" endings, of varying degrees and styles?

[CoffeeHolic93]

BatmanPWNS wrote...



Speak for yourself. I loved it because it showed the danger of getting involved with gangs. That doing something can't always work out for you and that not everything is perfect.

 As soon as I forget to add the opinion disclaimer, someone jumps at the opportunity. Yes, it makes for a good story, but not a story I'd experience more than once. I don't like being in a worse mood after playing a game or reading a book since I do that to escape reality. Why escape reality into a worse reality?

/OPINION DISCLAIMER.

[Il Divo]

Mi-Chan wrote...


 As soon as I forget to add the opinion disclaimer, someone jumps at the opportunity. Yes, it makes for a good story, but not a story I'd experience more than once. I don't like being in a worse mood after playing a game or reading a book since I do that to escape reality. Why escape reality into a worse reality?

/OPINION DISCLAIMER.

It's too late. You must forever live with the consequences of your lack of disclaimer.

[jamesp81]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I'm going re-iterate it this, and I'm going to type real slow to make it easy to understand.

Most people do not buy games to be subjected to sadistic choices.

It is unreasonable to demand that your ending be in the game AND demand that mine isn't.  That is un-****ing-reasonable.

They're not sadistic.
They're expected..normal...logical. But not sadistic.

And you're basicly demanding the smae thing. Sure, you say you aren't because "your ending is technicly there". The fact that it's made worthless and basicly unplayable - so it might as well nto be there in the firt place - escapes you.

You've likely played Dragon Age Origins, judging from your avatar.

Does the "Hero of Ferelden" ending invalidate the "Ultimate Sacrifice" ending in that game?

I'll give you a hint: No, it doesn't.  That much is clear by how many people are fans of that particular ending.  It is good that people that prefer that sort of story have their ending, and it is good that people he prefer the heroic ending also have theirs.

It would be a good move to have ME3's endings include similar possible outcomes.

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

People will either see things for what they are, or they will not.

It is unreasonable for one group to demand that it's ending be included while simultaneously demanding that the other group's ending be excluded, especially in a game where one of the central themes is multiple endings.

If people get upset at the way I point that out, then I can't help them.

However, you are aware that it is possible to have multiple, "not perfect" endings, of varying degrees and styles?

I'm quite certain that of the possible endings in ME3, there will be several with varying degrees of success.  I don't think anyone ever really doubted that based on previous BW games and what has been said in the press so far.

I don't see what that has much to do with the present discussion.  Some people want a grim ending.  That's fine, there should be one in there for those people.  Some of us want a happy ending.  That should also be included for those of us that prefer it.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Athayniel wrote...


But as you can see he continues to either not read, misinterpret or misrepresent the arguments of those he's debating, which is why I don't engage with him anymore. He keeps repeating the same things without acknowledging that the only difference between our positions is that he wants to impose his ending on us.

Eh, some of his points are valid enough. Some choices shouldn't leave the option to walk away spot free (Even Arrival made shepard kill 300,000 batarians whether people liked it or not). What I want is the opportunity to lessen the damage as much as possible, and then I'm good to go.

Like Virmire (I use it as an example all the time, don't I?), You can save Captain Kirrahe and his squad by disrupting the enemy and fighting more geth. Kaidan or Ashley will still die, but you saved someone who would've died if you didn't go out of your way.

[BatmanPWNS]

Mi-Chan wrote...

BatmanPWNS wrote...



Speak for yourself. I loved it because it showed the danger of getting involved with gangs. That doing something can't always work out for you and that not everything is perfect.

 As soon as I forget to add the opinion disclaimer, someone jumps at the opportunity. Yes, it makes for a good story, but not a story I'd experience more than once. I don't like being in a worse mood after playing a game or reading a book since I do that to escape reality. Why escape reality into a worse reality?

/OPINION DISCLAIMER.

Aww man, the opinion disclaimer.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...


It's too late. You must forever live with the consequences of your lack of disclaimer.

I need to add it to my signature or something. "Everything I say is my opinion and only applies to me! :wizard:" Or something along those lines.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

That doesn't make it any better. The writer isn't necessarily sadistic, he's attempting to explore some aspect of the human mind. Should I start calling the Perfect ending lobbyists the "Disney movie crowd"? I don't think the implication is anything even remotely acceptable.

Sadistic implies that the writer sat there and intends to take savage pleasure in the difficulty if someone's struggle or conflict.

I have helpfully highlighted the part of your post where you make my point for me.

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

I don't see what that has much to do with the present discussion.  Some people want a grim ending.  That's fine, there should be one in there for those people.  Some of us want a happy ending.  That should also be included for those of us that prefer it.

The relevance is that you pointed out the multiple endings as an illustration that our scenario is impossible. Our scenario, even without the perfect ending, remains a possibility. You can have different endings with certain positives/negatives. I support a happy ending (Lord of the Rings-eque, perhaps). I do not support a perfect ending, for the reasons I have given.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

I have helpfully highlighted the part of your post where you make my point for me.

Then I assume you consider most serious fiction, films, and epic poems sadistic then. It's good to know that every time some character died in a story or some thought experiment was put forth that the author was only doing it out of sadism. In other words, this is where your points stop having value.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:45 .

[Athayniel]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

/OPINION DISCLAIMER.

Aww man, the opinion disclaimer.

Mi-ChanPWNS!

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

Then I assume you consider most serious fiction, films, and epic poems sadistic then. It's good to know that every time some character died in a story or some thought experiment was put forth that the author was only doing it out of sadism. In other words, this is where your points stop having value.

Just because their purpose is to educate doesn't mean there isn't a little sadism involved in the conception of the sadistic choice. They are attempting to ellicit a response and when they succeed they will feel at least a little professional enjoyment in the act. A writer never says 'I'm really sorry I made you cry when I killed your favourite character.'

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I don't see what that has much to do with the present discussion.  Some people want a grim ending.  That's fine, there should be one in there for those people.  Some of us want a happy ending.  That should also be included for those of us that prefer it.

The relevance is that you pointed out the multiple endings as an illustration that our scenario is impossible. Our scenario, even without the perfect ending, remains a possibility. You can have different endings with certain positives/negatives. I support a happy ending (Lord of the Rings-eque, perhaps). I do not support a perfect ending, for the reasons I have given.

We may not disagree as much as I previously thought, then.  I don't know if you saw my post upthread, but I defined my idea of an ideal happy ending as:

1.  Prevent Earth from being completely destroyed
2.  Prevent the total extinction of any major factions (near extinction is likely to happen, though)
3.  Defeat the Reapers with finality
4.  Complete the campaign without losing any squad members, or at least long time ones from previous games.

Even in this "ideal" scenario, the death toll will be numbered in the billions.  Most of Earth's major cities will be smoking craters.  Most of the military personnel among every race will be dead.  Law and order in certain areas will break down and be gone for years after the war is over.  With major industries destroyed, people will literally be starving to death until things can be stabilized.

It's definitely an ideal ending, and it has great meaning because of what was faced to make it happen.

I don't think anybody was ever saying that the Reaper invasion should end up being this abortive operation on their part where they didn't actually accomplish much (ie, they win the first battle attacking Earth, but then Shepard kicks the holy **** out of them at every turn for the rest of the game, no other planets lost, etc.  I don't think anyone is asking for that)

Lord of the Rings is actually a pretty good measure for this kind of thing, as it gave about the same results as those I listed above.  Humanity prevented its own destruction and that of others living around them, the main antagonist was defeated, and all the important, central figures of the story ultimately survived the war, if a bit worse for wear in a couple of cases.

Modifié par jamesp81, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:53 .

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

Just because their purpose is to educate doesn't mean there isn't a little sadism involved in the conception of the sadistic choice. They are attempting to ellicit a response and when they succeed they will feel at least a little professional enjoyment in the act. A writer never says 'I'm really sorry I made you cry when I killed your favourite character.'

But should we construct an opposite scenario involving happy endings? Do we call them the "naive endings"? I mean, just because their purpose is to make the audience feel all warm and happy doesn't meant that there wasn't a little naievety involved.

Professional enjoyment comes in knowing your work has affected the audience in some manner. If you write a comedy scene and people laugh, that's a good sign. If you write a death and they cry, that's also a good sign. The goal of any work is to affect those who experience it. Unless you are going to argue that the primary motive of these decisions was sadism, then labeling it a "sadistic choice" is inherently misleading.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:57 .

[CptBomBom00]

Good post man and I really would like to see this kind of cut-scene at the ending of the game.

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

We may not disagree as much as I previously thought, then.  I don't know if you saw my post upthread, but I defined my idea of an ideal happy ending as:

1.  Prevent Earth from being completely destroyed
2.  Prevent the total extinction of any major factions (near extinction is likely to happen, though)
3.  Defeat the Reapers with finality
4.  Complete the campaign without losing any squad members, or at least long time ones from previous games.

Even in this "ideal" scenario, the death toll will be numbered in the billions.  Most of Earth's major cities will be smoking craters.  Most of the military personnel among every race will be dead.  Law and order in certain areas will break down and be gone for years after the war is over.  With major industries destroyed, people will literally be starving to death until things can be stabilized.

It's definitely an ideal ending, and it has great meaning because of what was faced to make it happen.

I don't think anybody was ever saying that the Reaper invasion should end up being this abortive operation on their part where they didn't actually accomplish much.

Lord of the Rings is actually a pretty good measure for this kind of thing, as it gave about the same results as those I listed above.  Humanity prevented its own destruction and that of others living around them, the main antagonist was defeated, and all the important, central figures of the story ultimately survived the war, if a bit worse for wear in a couple of cases.

With a few additional "requirements", I would agree.The reason I consider LotR happy but not "perfect' is as follows:

1) Boromir's death.
2) Frodo's inability to remain in Middle Earth.
3) The breaking of the Fellowship.

The "ending" was indisputably happy, but there was a certain sadness to the whole affair, which came in the knowledge of the struggle as a whole; everyone came out a little more diminished than they began. The struggle involving billions of deaths is acceptable, assuming we're made to "feel it", as opposed to simply knowing that it's happening in the background. The distinction between "showing and telling", if you will.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:57 .

[CptBomBom00]

So we talking about Lord of the Rings now and not about Mass Effect?

[CoffeeHolic93]

Athayniel wrote...


Mi-ChanPWNS!

I just want everyone to get along, and if my opinion causes any sort of conflict I have to remind everyone that it's just that - my opinion. I never asked him to agree, nor did I say it was a fact. I just want a civil discussion...

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

We may not disagree as much as I previously thought, then.  I don't know if you saw my post upthread, but I defined my idea of an ideal happy ending as:

1.  Prevent Earth from being completely destroyed
2.  Prevent the total extinction of any major factions (near extinction is likely to happen, though)
3.  Defeat the Reapers with finality
4.  Complete the campaign without losing any squad members, or at least long time ones from previous games.

Even in this "ideal" scenario, the death toll will be numbered in the billions.  Most of Earth's major cities will be smoking craters.  Most of the military personnel among every race will be dead.  Law and order in certain areas will break down and be gone for years after the war is over.  With major industries destroyed, people will literally be starving to death until things can be stabilized.

It's definitely an ideal ending, and it has great meaning because of what was faced to make it happen.

I don't think anybody was ever saying that the Reaper invasion should end up being this abortive operation on their part where they didn't actually accomplish much.

Lord of the Rings is actually a pretty good measure for this kind of thing, as it gave about the same results as those I listed above.  Humanity prevented its own destruction and that of others living around them, the main antagonist was defeated, and all the important, central figures of the story ultimately survived the war, if a bit worse for wear in a couple of cases.

With a few additional "requirements", I would agree.The reason I consider LotR happy but not "perfect' is as follows:

1) Boromir's death.
2) Frodo's inability to remain in Middle Earth.
3) The breaking of the Fellowship.

The "ending" was indisputably happy, but there was a certain sadness to the whole affair, which came in the knowledge of the struggle as a whole; everyone came out a little more diminished than they began. The struggle involving billions of deaths is acceptable, assuming we're made to "feel it", as opposed to simply knowing that it's happening in the background. The distinction between "showing and telling", if you will.

Boromir wasn't a central character.  Neither was Theoden, for that matter.

Frodo and Sam did not remain in Middle Earth.  I might've preferred it if they had.  On the other hand, they did remain for a while, especially Sam.

#3 never really had the impact on me that it apparently did on some.  Frodo has his mission, Aragorn had his.  They were still working towards the same goal, even if they had to split up to make it happen.

Come to think of it, the disappearing act that Frodo did after the war kind of resembles the disappearing act that BW protagonists have tended to do.

Edit:

In any case, it's not up for debate AFAIC.  If the grim people get a grim ending, it's perfectly reasonable for those of us that prefer a happier ending to get one.  That's not a negotiating position, that's a condition of me purchasing the game.

Modifié par jamesp81, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:34 .

[CptBomBom00]

I forgot to ask what is this Galaxy at war thing in ME3, also Hobbit is coming out soon so prepare your self's for an adventure.

[CoffeeHolic93]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

So we talking about Lord of the Rings now and not about Mass Effect?

We're talking about fiction, and how the ending of Mass Effect can be satisfying without being cheesy. A perfect "No one dies, and Shepard is a big goddamn hero" is boring, and won't leave an impact. But if some civillians hate Shepard for what he had to do, or some of your squadmates died it's no longer perfect and the story feels more real.

The important part is that it doesn't have to be a squadmate, at least not in my opinion.

Modifié par Mi-Chan, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:10 .