67 réponses à ce sujet

[Zreon]

If sad or happy endings are better is debateable. It's as much about the taste of the player/audience as it is about anything else.

Personally I prefer the happier ones. I liked almost everything about RDR BUT the ending. It left me with an overall negative image of the game, despite gameplay being really good. I've been hesitant to buy Rockstar games ever since. It's almost a subconscious thing. I know the games are good, but I dont feel any compulsion to play them and rather take my money elsewhere.

I think the best way would be to allow for both, at least one "gritty and dark" ending and one "happy ever after" one.
Some games do that with certain conditions anyway, like you only get the happy epilogue if you played on the hardest difficulty or through the new game+. Alternatively some games only give you the true and happier end if you cleared certain conditions, like recruiting all 100 characters in the Suikoden RPGs.
It should be possible to find a compromise somehow and not alienate one group or the other.

[TheBlackBaron]

Zreon wrote...

If sad or happy endings are better is debateable. It's as much about the taste of the player/audience as it is about anything else.

Personally I prefer the happier ones. I liked almost everything about RDR BUT the ending. It left me with an overall negative image of the game, despite gameplay being really good. I've been hesitant to buy Rockstar games ever since. It's almost a subconscious thing. I know the games are good, but I dont feel any compulsion to play them and rather take my money elsewhere.

I think the best way would be to allow for both, at least one "gritty and dark" ending and one "happy ever after" one.
Some games do that with certain conditions anyway, like you only get the happy epilogue if you played on the hardest difficulty or through the new game+. Alternatively some games only give you the true and happier end if you cleared certain conditions, like recruiting all 100 characters in the Suikoden RPGs.
It should be possible to find a compromise somehow and not alienate one group or the other.

There is supposedly a different ending for NG+ that's thus far totally unreported on. 

So we'll see if that makes any difference. 

[Tietj]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Zreon wrote...

If sad or happy endings are better is debateable. It's as much about the taste of the player/audience as it is about anything else.

Personally I prefer the happier ones. I liked almost everything about RDR BUT the ending. It left me with an overall negative image of the game, despite gameplay being really good. I've been hesitant to buy Rockstar games ever since. It's almost a subconscious thing. I know the games are good, but I dont feel any compulsion to play them and rather take my money elsewhere.

I think the best way would be to allow for both, at least one "gritty and dark" ending and one "happy ever after" one.
Some games do that with certain conditions anyway, like you only get the happy epilogue if you played on the hardest difficulty or through the new game+. Alternatively some games only give you the true and happier end if you cleared certain conditions, like recruiting all 100 characters in the Suikoden RPGs.
It should be possible to find a compromise somehow and not alienate one group or the other.

There is supposedly a different ending for NG+ that's thus far totally unreported on. 

So we'll see if that makes any difference. 

I don't think this is true.  All the endings are accounted for.  The one who was saying the NG+ thing was the guy who had the guide, and he said that the NG+ ending is the seventh ending.  According to the leak, there are four "destroy" endings, two "control" endings, and one "merge" ending. That's all of them accounted for.  I think the NG+ ending he was talking about may have been the merge ending?  Everything is still up in the air.

[sorentoft]

It is a victory that is not really worth the cost, making the game not really worth the time spent on it, and by extension making ME1 and ME2 pointless in addition to any replay of ME3.

[incinerator950]

Zreon wrote...

If sad or happy endings are better is debateable. It's as much about the taste of the player/audience as it is about anything else.

Personally I prefer the happier ones. I liked almost everything about RDR BUT the ending. It left me with an overall negative image of the game, despite gameplay being really good. I've been hesitant to buy Rockstar games ever since. It's almost a subconscious thing. I know the games are good, but I dont feel any compulsion to play them and rather take my money elsewhere.

I think the best way would be to allow for both, at least one "gritty and dark" ending and one "happy ever after" one.
Some games do that with certain conditions anyway, like you only get the happy epilogue if you played on the hardest difficulty or through the new game+. Alternatively some games only give you the true and happier end if you cleared certain conditions, like recruiting all 100 characters in the Suikoden RPGs.
It should be possible to find a compromise somehow and not alienate one group or the other.

The last two sequels have been alienating groups, I'm very pleased that they just came up with their own idea, instead of making it a fanservice reward for LI's or roses and sunflower fields with kids. 

I wouldn't care any more if they made a happy ending.  I'm just saying, their IP, their material, let them do with it.  If the execution of the ending is spectacular to warrant a sacrifice to save the future generations of the galaxy, then dying a hero is the least of my concerns.

Honestly, this is just ****** in a bottle, I just found out about a rumor that Armored Core V's online servers are now regionalized.  I'm close to being livid, if I wasn't tired and in my apathetic DGAS mood. 

[Zreon]

Sure, they can do whatever they want with their story. Just saying I don't necessarily have to like it and I don't necessarily think it's a good idea to do it like this.
For a game that makes player choice it's selling point, forcing the final of the story into sad or bittersweet endings might not be the best way to end it.
It does somewhat take the power away from the player, since those aiming for a happy ending will feel their struggles and choices up to that point be somewaht meaningless.

[Ianamus]

Becuase no matter what choices you make or how much galactic readiness you get you get one of three very similar and depressing endings, theres no incentive to play again or to try to get more war assests, becuase everything goes to **** at the end no matter what. 

[casedawgz]

EJ107 wrote...

Becuase no matter what choices you make or how much galactic readiness you get you get one of three very similar and depressing endings, theres no incentive to play again or to try to get more war assests, becuase everything goes to **** at the end no matter what. 

Well, there will still be all sorts of conversations I'll want to see. I'm enthusiastic enough about the journey and seeing the smaller ramifications of choices and relationships that I'll still be moving all seven of my Shepards towards those crappy endings. Especially because the combat looks exquisite. 

[nowhereeffect]

In life we do not escape what is going to happen we can only postpone it for a while but not forever it's going to happen.In Mass Effect Shepard just postponed what the Reapers where going to do sooner or later.Now in Mass Effect 2 Shepard learns there's a way to postpone the Reapers some more.In Mass Effect 3 Shepard learn's that he can stop the Reapers so he try's and gives his life (or not) in doing so.But the fallout that follows is not good,the Mass Relays are gone,his crew are ship wrecked on a unknow planet,and the galaxy is cut off from one another.Some good comes out of this though the Reapers are going (maybe) and humanity is saved so is the rest of the galaxy and they all have one man to thank.But in the end the Reapers win they get what they want the galaxy to half to start over no more finding the Mass Relays to help out or the Citadel a clean start for who's left.
It my not be the ending everyone wants but its the ending that Shepard and the whole galaxy need.

Modifié par nowhereeffect, 29 février 2012 - 08:38 .

[Tietj]

nowhereeffect wrote...

It my not be the ending everyone wants but its the ending that Shepard and the whole galaxy need.

What a load of condescending tripe.

[casedawgz]

Tietj wrote...

nowhereeffect wrote...

It my not be the ending everyone wants but its the ending that Shepard and the whole galaxy need.

What a load of condescending tripe.

I feel like it was a Dark Knight reference. Replace Shepard and the whole galaxy with Gotham and ending with Batman.

[nowhereeffect]

casedawgz wrote...

Tietj wrote...

nowhereeffect wrote...

It my not be the ending everyone wants but its the ending that Shepard and the whole galaxy need.

What a load of condescending tripe.

I feel like it was a Dark Knight reference. Replace Shepard and the whole galaxy with Gotham and ending with Batman.

Thats what i was going for.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Last Guardian wrote...

I mean, I get why some are upset. To not include various endings where everyone survies and everything is rainbow, sunshine, and lolipops is a bit upsetting.

Not to me.

I have 0 isses with shaprd always dying and not living happily ever after with his waifu and lots of kiddies.
A noble sacrifice is a fitting end to Shepard - as it is BioWares character first and foremost.

but they way it is done and explanations...SUCK

The ending isn't sad....it's "WTF????".
I've seen anime while on acid trips that were more coherent.

[incinerator950]

I wish more people played R-type. ;-;

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

a depressinbg ending is bad because i don't want to play a 50 hour game (150 if you count all 3) only to get angry in the end

[Roflmonger]

Depressing endings work if they're written well, which RDR's was.

However, they don't work well when you introduce a lame character like the Guardian and a deus ex machina called the Crucible. People will feel cheated because everything they've enjoyed about the games hinges on the bull**** given by some stupid entity no one knew about until now.

[Gabriel S.]

It really ticks me off when the PC dies. I'm seriously not interested in the BioShock series any more because the PC dies one way or another.

I just don't like this idea of the player dying canonically. I play games because I get to do stuff I WILL NEVER do in reality. Having to deal with mortality is de-pressing.

I know I'm gonna die. It's the one thing absolutely certain in life. But I'm 22, I don't wanna think about old age and dying, if indeed I get to live that long. I just don't wanna play a game, invest my time, my concentration, my feelings and then *puff* - yer dead!

I like realism in games because it makes it more believable and immersive and, indeed, a death or dying is probably the most realistic thing you can add to a game. However, it directly contradicts the reasons why I find a game fun or entertaining.

Of course, I'm talking about a game like Mass Effect - a game with a story, characters and the like. I'm sure I didn't have to mention that a multiplayer game is another thing altogether.

[Stanley Woo]

The endings are being discussed in this thread. Please take your discussion there. Thank you.

End of line.