114 réponses à ce sujet

[Elite Midget]

Eterna5 wrote...

I agree. Did anyone really expect this to end in sunshine and happiness?

I notice that when those that support these horrid endings that they have no good comebacks so try and belittle the other players.

[FlyingWalrus]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Wildecker wrote...

Just wondering: after Frodo Baggins got the Ring job done, he didn't live happily ever after. So hands up: who threw his copy of "The Lord of the Rings" out the window?

What? yes he did. He went to live with the elves! 

Not necessarily a cheery end. He left his lifelong friends back on Middle-earth to journey to Valinor, because the wounds he suffered were too grave. He lived half in the wraith-realm.

Also, tragedy =/= bad.

[Broder O]

Elite Midget wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I agree. Did anyone really expect this to end in sunshine and happiness?

I notice that when those that support these horrid endings that they have no good comebacks so try and belittle the other players.

Exactly...
I mean there must be amiddle ground between Sunshine and puppies and ice cream and the death of everyone we care for, the total isolation of every civilization and the complete destruction af galactic community..

Or am I crazy?

[FlyingWalrus]

If that is really the ending that has had everyone in a tizzy, this 'tragedy,' I must say I am not impressed.

[RogueWriter3201]

While the endings might be great for some (and I completely respect that) it's not for others. To the OP: There are plenty of reminders in every day life that, sometimes, you can't win. However, the beauty of the worlds created in games is that there, at least, we are supposed to at least have the *option* to Win. None of these endings, at least in my eyes, denotes a win, even with the defeat of the larger enemy.

[Grand Wazoo]

In a story driven game, no matter how good the journey is, if the destination is full of crap, I won't enjoy the game. What just pisses me off the most is the fact that we were literally promised multiple endings and all we got is one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

People jump on board expecting to already know what the destination is.

Stop beign such drama queens just because your Shep doesn't live happily ever after. An ending you don't like doesn't aumaticly make a game/story bad...it jsut makes it not to your tastes.

Of course, ME3 sotry and ending ARE bad, but because they are written badly, not because Shep dies and hte crew gets stranded.

[Radahldo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

People jump on board expecting to already know what the destination is.

Stop beign such drama queens just because your Shep doesn't live happily ever after. An ending you don't like doesn't aumaticly make a game/story bad...it jsut makes it not to your tastes.

Of course, ME3 sotry and ending ARE bad, but because they are written badly, not because Shep dies and hte crew gets stranded.

what are you even saying here?

[Lucy Glitter]

Quartof wrote...

Not when the destination invalidates the story. Sorry, but I hate that quote. It's always used by writers that know they wrote a crappy ending and every time I see a writer use it, it sends up a red flag.

I have to agree with Quartof.

That and the amount of plotholes in the ending amounts of a wheel of swiss cheese! *Insert Alistair joke here*

[iNixiRir]

Youknow wrote...

The journey is not more important than the destination. 

If I'm going on a journey to my friend's house, and I end up in hell, I'm going to be pissed. If I'm going on a journey to hell, and I end up in hell. I'm going to say "as expected." If I survive hell, great. If not, then fine. The problem here, is that you've essentially averted "hell" twice in this series. Had Mass Effect 3 been the first one, I guarantee no one would have been too upset if these were the endings.

In most stories, I don't get what I want. But even if I don't, there's still a satisfaction with the story being completed... Here...? It feels a bit empty honestly. Let me make this clear for you: 

ME2, you can die at the end. However, dying in ME2 doesn't feel bad. You feel accomplished, you've set out to do what you've done. Like Miranda said, it was likely to be a one way trip, and it was. Still, the death wasn't hollow. It had meaning (in the context of Mass Effect 2). 

Versus ME3...?

Isn't it? Take reality for example (best example there is); our own life ends with death, which is basically the worst ending ever, agreed? Based on the logic here on BSN, this means that life(our journey) is worstless and sucks. Well, if someone truly thinks like this, that's pretty much it for them isn't?

I can understand why people won't play the game because they aren't going to enjoy the ending(**** needs to be entertaining and happy right? What's more fun that marrying your LI at the end and then stop playing the game), but saying that Mass Effects end is it's most important feature is just wrong.

The end doesn't define our life - the journey does. 

Besides, people say that the ending is unexpected, which I disagree with. No one ever realised how much problems we had with ONE reaper? In ME3 there're thousands of reapers - also with an unprepared galaxy - and suddenly it will be a brease without any big(Shep's crew) casualties? Seems to me that most people just didn't want to accept we were doomed the moment Sovereign made his big entrance.

Modifié par iNixiRir, 02 mars 2012 - 12:18 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Radahldo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

People jump on board expecting to already know what the destination is.

Stop beign such drama queens just because your Shep doesn't live happily ever after. An ending you don't like doesn't aumaticly make a game/story bad...it jsut makes it not to your tastes.

Of course, ME3 sotry and ending ARE bad, but because they are written badly, not because Shep dies and hte crew gets stranded.

what are you even saying here?

That Sheapard and crew dying is not a bad story.

The execution and what leads to that moment are important in determining weather it's good or bad writing. But a charcters death in itself is not good or bad.

[Youknow]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Radahldo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

People jump on board expecting to already know what the destination is.

Stop beign such drama queens just because your Shep doesn't live happily ever after. An ending you don't like doesn't aumaticly make a game/story bad...it jsut makes it not to your tastes.

Of course, ME3 sotry and ending ARE bad, but because they are written badly, not because Shep dies and hte crew gets stranded.

what are you even saying here?

That Sheapard and crew dying is not a bad story.

The execution and what leads to that moment are important in determining weather it's good or bad writing. But a charcters death in itself is not good or bad.

Right. Dying isn't a bad thing. Dying from random arbitrary bullcrap that I'm not even sure how or why it happened on the other hand... Is bad writing. We can all agree on  that. 

It's like Sheperd at the start of Mass Effect 2. Sheperd dying at the beginning of the game isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, Sheperd dying, and then turning around and being revived in less than 10 minutes (and I mean for the perspective of the player) just so you can lose everything you had is bad writing. 

[Hyrist]

 

Elite Midget wrote...

I notice that when those that support these horrid endings that they have no good comebacks so try and belittle the other players.

 

Pot, I would like to introduce you to kettle...

Quartof wrote...

Not when the destination invalidates the story. Sorry, but I hate that quote. It's always used by writers that know they wrote a crappy ending and every time I see a writer use it, it sends up a red flag.

Opinions.

Not everyone loves happy endings and when you call it 'crappy' you're trying to assert an opinion as fact, which bothers me deeply.

That's no different than someone claiming their religion's god or idol is 'the only real one'. 

The story isn't invalidated by the ending, it's affirmed by the ending. The only thing you do by the ending that could invalidate what you did is the Geth/Quarian debate depending on how you choose to end it - because the Geth/Quarian issue forshadows and is heavily linked to the game's dominant theme.

Modifié par Hyrist, 02 mars 2012 - 03:18 .

[Hyrist]

Youknow wrote...
Right. Dying isn't a bad thing. Dying from random arbitrary bullcrap that I'm not even sure how or why it happened on the other hand... Is bad writing. We can all agree on  that. 

It's like Sheperd at the start of Mass Effect 2. Sheperd dying at the beginning of the game isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, Sheperd dying, and then turning around and being revived in less than 10 minutes (and I mean for the perspective of the player) just so you can lose everything you had is bad writing. 

There's a bit more going on with the Shepard death/revival thing than you give credit for, which gets detailed in ME3.

Also 'dieing arbitrarily' is not what happens here - please understand that Shepard is using a doomsday weapon designed to destory or drasticly alter the very technology he's sitting on while he uses it.

Only thing that's odd is the Normandy - but we don't have the context of that yet.

[Techlology]

You wouldn't want anything to do with the journey if you knew it's going to end in a head-on collision.

[Hyrist]

Techlology wrote...

You wouldn't want anything to do with the journey if you knew it's going to end in a head-on collision.

A terrible analogy.

If you had the oppertunity to save the Galaxy, but knew that without a doubt, you and your friends would die as a result, and the galaxy would never be the same again - would you still do it?

The answer for Shepard is yes. If you answer no, then I guess s/he would be the better person.

Modifié par Hyrist, 02 mars 2012 - 03:24 .

[Youknow]

Hyrist wrote...

Youknow wrote...
Right. Dying isn't a bad thing. Dying from random arbitrary bullcrap that I'm not even sure how or why it happened on the other hand... Is bad writing. We can all agree on  that. 

It's like Sheperd at the start of Mass Effect 2. Sheperd dying at the beginning of the game isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, Sheperd dying, and then turning around and being revived in less than 10 minutes (and I mean for the perspective of the player) just so you can lose everything you had is bad writing. 

There's a bit more going on with the Shepard death/revival thing than you give credit for, which gets detailed in ME3.

Also 'dieing arbitrarily' is not what happens here - please understand that Shepard is using a doomsday weapon designed to destory or drasticly alter the very technology he's sitting on while he uses it.

Only thing that's odd is the Normandy - but we don't have the context of that yet.

Yeah, the death should have been detailed in ME2 though, where it happened and immediately following up. There's literally no point to keeping people in the dark about it, and it's absolutely idiotic that Sheperd, him/herself isn't more concerned about this. As, if I suddenly woke up in a station and was being attacked, I'd be more concerned about this. It should have at least been a side quest to research what exactly happened. But it wasn't, which leads me to believe that they weren't going to do anything about it initially. 

Yes, I understand that. I'm more so talking about the kind of randomness of the events leading up to its usage. Which in turn leads to some arbitrary death. I'm not even just talking about Sheperd here. 

Yeah, the Normandy is odd. 

[Hyrist]

Youknow wrote...

Yeah, the death should have been detailed in ME2 though, where it happened and immediately following up. There's literally no point to keeping people in the dark about it, and it's absolutely idiotic that Sheperd, him/herself isn't more concerned about this. As, if I suddenly woke up in a station and was being attacked, I'd be more concerned about this. It should have at least been a side quest to research what exactly happened. But it wasn't, which leads me to believe that they weren't going to do anything about it initially. 

Yes, I understand that. I'm more so talking about the kind of randomness of the events leading up to its usage. Which in turn leads to some arbitrary death. I'm not even just talking about Sheperd here. 

Yeah, the Normandy is odd. 

I would agree on the first point - except there were two major distracting issues that made this impossible to do in the second game.

First - Shepard is immediately thrust in the the Collector issue, the scandal of being with Cerberus, the frustration that the Council STILL does nothing about the reapers, the search for friend, a new squad and all the drama surrounded there. There's no time for existentialism there.

Second - Questions leading to Shepards revival are buried deep within Cerberus's dark secrets, something Shepard cannot explore while under Cerberus's heel.

There are valid plot reasons for why it wasn't explored more in depth at that moment, lets not try to make presumptions of the writers here. 

Going into the reasons why Shepard was killed in the first place - there are plenty of 'out of character' reasons for killing Shepard and then bringing him back. It intros the Collectors as a powerful  Villian, it seperates the crew to give reasons for the New Normandy, the fresh start in the crew, the inter-crew conflicts, evertyhing.

The in character reasons for killing him is simple - Collectors initiated a counter attack on the threat that killed Soverign. TIM detailed his reasons for bringing Shepard back, though more of that might be revealed in ME3.

It's not arbitrary, though it was rather sudden. Perhaps the death scene might have been better suited as a cliffhanger DLC ending for ME1 Alla 'The Arrival', but it is what it is.

[Techlology]

Hyrist wrote...

A terrible analogy.

If you had the oppertunity to save the Galaxy, but knew that without a doubt, you and your friends would die as a result, and the galaxy would never be the same again - would you still do it?

The answer for Shepard is yes. If you answer no, then I guess s/he would be the better person.

And in the process, destroy the entire foundation of galactic civilization as they know it?

You cheated death by giant space cuttlefish with your deus ex machina only to have the very galaxy you possibly died to protect tear itself apart in the ensuing anarchy.

I don't know about you but pointless grimderp does not a satisfying conclusion make.

Modifié par Techlology, 02 mars 2012 - 03:35 .

[Youknow]

Hyrist wrote...

Techlology wrote...

You wouldn't want anything to do with the journey if you knew it's going to end in a head-on collision.

A terrible analogy.

If you had the oppertunity to save the Galaxy, but knew that without a doubt, you and your friends would die as a result, and the galaxy would never be the same again - would you still do it?

The answer for Shepard is yes. If you answer no, then I guess s/he would be the better person.

It's more like: If the journey is hell, dying at the end is fine. Obviously you went to hell, survival odds are low, if not impossible. The issue here, is that Mass Effect placed Sheperd in hell numerous times, and while the stakes got higher each time, his chance of survival wasn't necessarily as awful. Sheperd's odds of surviving the reapers in ME3 can and should be better than surviving the Suicide Mission from ME2. In Mass Effect 3, we aren't having the  moment where Sheperd is blindly walking into the area he/she needs to go. Sheperd can see the enemies in front of him/her. The plan is always going to be "beat the reaper." They might not know the exact way, but the plan is still clearer than "explore someplace that everyone else has died." 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is this; the issue here, is that many, many times in Mass Effect, you weren't supposed to do things, and you did do things, and you managed to escape from death despite all odds. Like I said before, had ME3 been the only one in the series, I guarantee no one would be upset about this ending. As we've never seen our character overcome impossible odds. We wouldn't have had these paintings that Sheperd wasn't just a good human, he/she was the best of human traits and a great leader that could pull people together to survive against all odds. It's not necessarily the whole "I love the characters blah, blah, blah." It's just that we've been with Sheperd, and we've seen him/her overcome impossible odds multiple times. 

Better context would be nice, but it still seems to go against what Sheperd has done and the general "strength of bonds" thing Mass Effect had going for it. The other issue here is that we were told there were multiple endings, and most of them are multiple endings in the sense that they have slightly different dialogue-- which most people would simply call variants of the same ending.  

[Hyrist]

Techlology wrote...


And in the process, destroy the entire foundation of galactic civilization as they know it?

The entire foundation of galactic civilization was a trap, meant to organize organic life in a neat little filing system built for destruction/havesting - notedly by a galactic force several times greater than the enierty of the 'natives' ordanance combined? Yes .

You cheated death by giant space cuttlefish with your deus ex machina only to have the very galaxy you possibly died to protect tear itself apart in the ensuing anarchy.

 

So you generalize every plotline in the most insulting manner possible? Suspension of disbeleif is the core requirement to enjoying any fiction - something that is the responsibility of the player as much as it is the writer.

Also, you're misusing the term dues ex machina.

I don't know about you but pointless grimderp does not a satisfying conclusion make.

If you think the ending was pointless, then you missed the rather obvious point.

The only way to beat the Reapers was to use the technology they had against them - technology the races barely understood, if at all, in a vary dangerous manner. It was an aswer to the question "How can you defeat an enemy that is written in as such an unstoppable force." The answer being "Sacrafice everything to survive."

If you're not satasfied with the ending, that's  fine, I can't make you be. But just because you arbitrarily devalue the points that give the ending weight, dosen't mean the points, or the weight is there.

[dheer]

hydn631 wrote...
 "The journey is more important than the destination"- unknown

This is always said when the destination is awful. Which, if true, in this case it is. You don't take a vacation to Hawaii for the long ass uncomfortable flight.

Also, you can stop throwing around the word entitlement. It's used far too often around the BSN with little to no understanding of it's meaning. It's not a get out of argument free card.

Modifié par dheer, 02 mars 2012 - 03:48 .

[Youknow]

Hyrist wrote...

Youknow wrote...

Yeah, the death should have been detailed in ME2 though, where it happened and immediately following up. There's literally no point to keeping people in the dark about it, and it's absolutely idiotic that Sheperd, him/herself isn't more concerned about this. As, if I suddenly woke up in a station and was being attacked, I'd be more concerned about this. It should have at least been a side quest to research what exactly happened. But it wasn't, which leads me to believe that they weren't going to do anything about it initially. 

Yes, I understand that. I'm more so talking about the kind of randomness of the events leading up to its usage. Which in turn leads to some arbitrary death. I'm not even just talking about Sheperd here. 

Yeah, the Normandy is odd. 

I would agree on the first point - except there were two major distracting issues that made this impossible to do in the second game.

First - Shepard is immediately thrust in the the Collector issue, the scandal of being with Cerberus, the frustration that the Council STILL does nothing about the reapers, the search for friend, a new squad and all the drama surrounded there. There's no time for existentialism there.

Second - Questions leading to Shepards revival are buried deep within Cerberus's dark secrets, something Shepard cannot explore while under Cerberus's heel.

There are valid plot reasons for why it wasn't explored more in depth at that moment, lets not try to make presumptions of the writers here. 

Going into the reasons why Shepard was killed in the first place - there are plenty of 'out of character' reasons for killing Shepard and then bringing him back. It intros the Collectors as a powerful  Villian, it seperates the crew to give reasons for the New Normandy, the fresh start in the crew, the inter-crew conflicts, evertyhing.

The in character reasons for killing him is simple - Collectors initiated a counter attack on the threat that killed Soverign. TIM detailed his reasons for bringing Shepard back, though more of that might be revealed in ME3.

It's not arbitrary, though it was rather sudden. Perhaps the death scene might have been better suited as a cliffhanger DLC ending for ME1 Alla 'The Arrival', but it is what it is.

First Response: Yes, there is. Sheperd could have easily said "no. I'm not working with you Cerberus." As even despite the revival, no one actually lays out proof on the table that Sheperd actually legitimately died. They say "we saw that you got spaced." Jacob states that you were just meat and husks. Still, if I heard someone tell me that I died, I'd think they were lying. How do I know that didn't just put me in stasis and muck me up? That sounds far more legitimate than bringing someone back from the dead with all of their memories in tact and the like. Sure, you woke up sitting over a bed, and at one point saw Miranda working over you... But that doesn't mean you died necessarily. Sheperd simply rolls with it because if Sheperd acted like he/she had even average intelligence at moments the plot falls to shambles. 

2nd Response: but it's never even questioned. That's my problem with it. That's pretty disturbing. What happened with Sheperd was more akin to being put into a coma for two years and then suddenly waking up. If everyone said you died, you'd probably be more confused than anything else. 

I'm not trying to be presumptuous, but we know that they don't always think of little plot points like this until later. Look at say... Wilson, where they completely gloss over what he did. There isn't any form of resolution to what he did until LoTSB, and it's never even actually acknowledged in game. You can't ask Miranda about it, you can't ask Jacob. Nothing. I understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to complain or whine, but these were things that stuck out and bothered me over the course of the game. And I mean like on my first playthrough. 


No, it doesn't really introduce the Collectors as a powerful villain. They launched a surprise attack, and got the jump on the ship. It's not surprise that the Normandy could be taken out considering that even though it's a pretty powerful ship, it's not necessarily a high class fighter ship. Seperating Sheperd from the crew? It would actually matter if they didn't just give it back to you a couple of seconds later. A New Normandy doesn't mean much, I could believe that the Normandy legitimately got upgraded. I could actually believe this more than the New Normandy being rebuilt the same but better, finding the original pilot of the normandy and getting him to work for Cerberus (a group he KNOWS is a group of terrorist), and your original medical doctor and getting her to work for them too. As for you getting seperated from your Squad? That isn't hard either. Tali could have been done with her pilgrimage and needed to report things and stayed with her people. Wrex wasn't on the Normandy based on the dialogue between him and Sheperd. Liara could have went back to her prothean research-- after all, she did feel they were connected to the reapers, VS could have been given a different assignment than you though. That's not entirely impossible. Especially easy to justify if you did choose them as your LI because of alliance regulations. Could have even been foreshadowing that VS is bisexual. Garrus is the only one you'd have a hard time getting rid of, and hilariously enough, he's a squadmate in ME2. 

Maybe. It's not arbitary. Perhaps that's a bad word choice. I'll agree that it's sudden though. Pretty contrieved too IMO. 

[IndustrializedTaco]

squee365 wrote...

...

I like the endings.


*sips some coffee*

Hmmmmm I also enjoy the endings....
*Steals your coffee.*

[Hyrist]

Youknow wrote...


It's more like: If the journey is hell, dying at the end is fine. Obviously you went to hell, survival odds are low, if not impossible. The issue here, is that Mass Effect placed Sheperd in hell numerous times, and while the stakes got higher each time, his chance of survival wasn't necessarily as awful. Sheperd's odds of surviving the reapers in ME3 can and should be better than surviving the Suicide Mission from ME2. In Mass Effect 3, we aren't having the  moment where Sheperd is blindly walking into the area he/she needs to go. Sheperd can see the enemies in front of him/her. The plan is always going to be "beat the reaper." They might not know the exact way, but the plan is still clearer than "explore someplace that everyone else has died."  


I suppose what I'm trying to say is this; the issue here, is that many, many times in Mass Effect, you weren't supposed to do things, and you did do things, and you managed to escape from death despite all odds. Like I said before, had ME3 been the only one in the series, I guarantee no one would be upset about this ending. As we've never seen our character overcome impossible odds. We wouldn't have had these paintings that Sheperd wasn't just a good human, he/she was the best of human traits and a great leader that could pull people together to survive against all odds. It's not necessarily the whole "I love the characters blah, blah, blah." It's just that we've been with Sheperd, and we've seen him/her overcome impossible odds multiple times.  

But how does this, in any way, change the stakes? The reapers are still a relative unknown - where did they come from, why are they doing what they do? We get the fact that they are harvesting races for reproduction, but that dosen't explain the underlieing pourpose - nor does it regard the fact, that in any way, do the other races have the feintest chance of winning without some sort of galactic doomsday weapon. The risks have never been higher - even if the enemy is more known.

The fact that the entire galaxy is resorting to a doomsday weapon empasises the despriation here. It's not that just Shepard is willing to risk death, the entire galaxy is willing to pit their bets on a untested weapon that could potentially detonate in their face.

Better context would be nice, but it still seems to go against what Sheperd has done and the general "strength of bonds" thing Mass Effect had going for it. The other issue here is that we were told there were multiple endings, and most of them are multiple endings in the sense that they have slightly different dialogue-- which most people would simply call variants of the same ending.  

Probably the only argument I see valid here, but you are confronted with the same question that's been plaguing the forums since ME1 then - How do you defeat odds that are far and beyond simply 'a suicide mission'. We're talking a galactic scale here. It dosen't stop at 'billions of lives', we're pretty much talking about the fate of all sentient life.

Thinking of the lore of this series - the way it was written, the Galaxy is at a gigantic disadvantage, not just in military strenght and technological development, but in the fact that the Galaxy was pre-rendered to suit the Reaper's needs - in spite of what we'd like to think, they have the home field advantage, on top of every other advantage.

Bioware pretty much wrote themselves into a corner in this situation, and honestly, there wasn't ever going to be an ending that either seemed lile a Deus Ex Machina (this wasn't as it was done within the restrictions of the story's lore.) or HEAVILY belittle the threat they spent two games hyping up.

I mean, they already wrote out the ability to pull the Archdemon card. ("We are each, a nation, independant, free of all weakness.")