649 réponses à ce sujet

[Dan Dark]

Han Shot First wrote...

Having a happy ending does not invalidate having a bittersweet ending, and vice versa.

But believing that is so means that you think people who want happy endings cannot have it because it somehow dimishes your own bittersweet ending.

It does.

If you have an ending where everyone on the Normandy survives and the galaxy has the best possible outcome, why would anyone choose an ending where people die as their personal canon? It is autmatically rendered a lesser ending, as it now becomes one where people only die if Shepard makes tactical or strategic blunders. (see Mass Effect 2)

...really? Forgive me for being blunt, and report me if you must... but I've had it with this argument.

Are you people really so weak-willed that this would happen? Are you not able to think for yourselves? You obviously know what you want; you want the bittersweet ending, where the tragic hero sacrifices himself to save everyone else... so are you honestly trying to tell me, if you were presented the choice between getting exactly what you want, or the sickeningly sappy happy ending you despise the very thought of, you'd choose the "happy" one? Because everyone else thinks it's "better?" You obviously have strong opinions of your own, so what do you care what other people think? Pick the ending you want, and the hell with what anyone else thinks! If "they" think you picked the "wrong" one, so what? If you got the ending YOU wanted, then it's the right ending. It's that simple.

Modifié par Dan Dark, 12 mai 2012 - 04:47 .

[Han Shot First]

No it doesn't. In an rpg the "best" outcome is what the player decides is the best outcome. Some people think Ultimate Sacrifice is the best ending fro DAO. Others think Dark Ritual. Me i prefer Redeemer. And others think Knight Commander works for their Warden.

Apples and Oranges.

The multiple endings to DA:O worked because the player was presented with a tough moral choice. He could save himself, but only at the cost of creating the 'God' baby from the soul of the Archdemon. He has no idea how that is going to turn out, or what it entails. Will the child crow up to be evil incarnate? Did the process of filling the child with the archdemon's soul just 'kill' the soul his child?

An ending where everyone lives in Mass Effect would likewise only work if it came at a cost: in this case greater devastation to the galaxy.

... so are you honestly trying to tell me, if you were presented the choice between getting exactly what you want, or the sickeningly sappy happy ending you despise the very thought of, you'd choose the "happy" one? Because everyone else thinks it's "better?" You obviously have strong opinions of your own, so what do you care what other people think? Pick the ending you want, and the hell with what anyone else thinks! If "they" think you picked the "wrong" one, so what? If you got the ending YOU wanted, then it's the right ending. It's that simple.

No, I'd choose the happy ending because it would automatically render Shepard incompetent in the others, thus making it less compelling and removing any emotional impact it might have otherwise had.

Do you know why Thane and Mordin's deaths had the impact they did? Because they occur even when Shepard does everything right, or maybe because of it.
 
Contrast that with ME2, where characters will only die if Shepard chooses a bad leader to command a squad or sends a midling tech into the vents.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[Squallypo]

Han Shot First wrote...

No it doesn't. In an rpg the "best" outcome is what the player decides is the best outcome. Some people think Ultimate Sacrifice is the best ending fro DAO. Others think Dark Ritual. Me i prefer Redeemer. And others think Knight Commander works for their Warden.

Apples and Oranges.

The multiple endings to DA:O worked because the player was presented with a tough moral choice. He could save himself, but only at the cost of creating the 'God' baby from the soul of the Archdemon. He has no idea how that is going to turn out, or what it entails. Will the child crow up to be evil incarnate? Did the process of filling the child with the archdemon's soul just 'kill' the soul his child?

An ending where everyone lives in Mass Effect would likewise only work if it came at a cost: in this case greater devastation to the galaxy.

or someone dying?

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...


An ending where everyone lives in Mass Effect would likewise only work if it came at a cost: in this case greater devastation to the galaxy.

Umm, the galaxy's already devastated.  Any number of things Shepard has set in motion can unfold in numerous ways.  Not all of them good.  Whole planets have fallen to the Reapers or Cerberus.  Governments are in shambles.  Billions are dead.  Relay travel is gone for the forseeable future.

But if Shepard and the Normandy crew are alive, it's a Disney ending?  Not seeing it.  Uplifting, maybe. Hopeful, sure.  Not seeing any unicorns, though, I think the Reapers huskified them all when they destroyed Vancouver.

[Dan Dark]

Another two cents here... @Han Shot First: It seems like we're actually on the same page, here. Save for my last post, I've been trying to argue that multiple endings could work, if they were balanced. This is war we're talking about, after all, and against the Reapers, no less - it wouldn't make any sense at all to be able to just walk away without a scratch. But if there were reasons to consider every possibility evenly, and if every one had it's own sets of drawbacks and advantages, with no one choice any more right or wrong than another, it could definitely work.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Having a happy ending does not invalidate having a bittersweet ending, and vice versa.

But believing that is so means that you think people who want happy endings cannot have it because it somehow dimishes your own bittersweet ending.

It does.

If you have an ending where everyone on the Normandy survives and the galaxy has the best possible outcome, why would anyone choose an ending where people die as their personal canon? It is autmatically rendered a lesser ending, as it now becomes one where people only die if Shepard makes tactical or strategic blunders. (see Mass Effect 2)

Not if the only way to achieve this "golden" ending is by importing a character all the way from the beginning, as I stated previously. It's a huge time investment, when you think about it.

Regarding ME2's Suicide Mission, which are "tactical blunders"? Is it tactically bad to have someone like Samara lead a combat fireteam? She has hundreds of years of experience in that field, why wouldn't she be a good candidate? Thane is an expert at infiltration, as shown by his recruitment mission. Is it a tactical blunder to select Thane for the vents? The answer to both questions is "no." The only way to know that Samara and Thane would fail at their tasks is if you have a priori knowledge of the outcome - if you meta-game, in other words.

Similarly, is it tactically wrong to ignore your crew's Loyalty missions? I would argue that's not necessarily true, considering that while you're spending time on these things, the Collectors are still out there gobbling up colonies. Again, what seems like a tactical mistake to you only appears to be that way because you've already played ME2.

Justicars work solo, and Thane has no technical expertise. Using those as examples of "logical" choices fails in the "logic" category. The only argument that could make sense would be using Miranda for the barrier - and even then, Jack and Samara are CLEARLY the better choices.

I never used a guide to figure out how to meta-game the ending of ME2. I simply always got the best ending by playing the game normally and not making obviously stupid choices.

[Andromidius]

Yeah because grimdark edgy bittersweet endings are fresh and new, right?

Happy endings are fine. Giving people the option to get them if they work hard enough is fine. Mass Effect 2's happy ending was fine.

So why suddenly declare its not in the spirit of the game for ME3? Oh wait, consistancy. Yeah. That thing.

[Han Shot First]

iakus wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


An ending where everyone lives in Mass Effect would likewise only work if it came at a cost: in this case greater devastation to the galaxy.

Umm, the galaxy's already devastated.  Any number of things Shepard has set in motion can unfold in numerous ways.  Not all of them good.  Whole planets have fallen to the Reapers or Cerberus.  Governments are in shambles.  Billions are dead.  Relay travel is gone for the forseeable future.

But if Shepard and the Normandy crew are alive, it's a Disney ending?  Not seeing it.  Uplifting, maybe. Hopeful, sure.  Not seeing any unicorns, though, I think the Reapers huskified them all when they destroyed Vancouver.

Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.

Everyone on the Normandy surviving is a bit of a sunshine and rainbows ending. And really implausible, considering what they were up against.

tactically bad to have someone like Samara lead a combat fireteam? She has hundreds of years of experience in that field, why wouldn't she be a good candidate? Thane is an expert at infiltration, as shown by his recruitment mission. Is it a tactical blunder to select Thane for the vents? The answer to both questions is "no." The only way to know that Samara and Thane would fail at their tasks is if you have a priori knowledge of the outcome - if you meta-game, in other words.

Justicars work solo, as already pointed out. Samara may be a skilled warrior, but she has no command experience.

Thane may be an assassin with infiltration skills, but he doesn't have a tech background. And it is made clear that the person you need for the vents should be a skilled technician.

In both cases they are both fairly obviously the wrong choices, even without a guide. The SM was ridiculously easy to get through unscathed. I did it on my first playthrough, as did countless others.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 05:00 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...
Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.

This is too amusing. I called it 2 pages ago.

Sgt Stryker wrote...

OMG but teh fanz have no emoshunall connectionz with lolfaceless billions of casualties!!!1 

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 12 mai 2012 - 05:00 .

[Andromidius]

Also, billions of dead, entire species wiped out, ravaged biospheres, mass devastation to infrastructure and the horrors of the public finding out exactly what happened to all those people who went missing = not a big enough sacrifice for a 'good' ending where peaceful coexistance in the galaxy becomes possible for the first time in millions of years?

Yeah. Not edgy enough.

[Han Shot First]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.

This is too amusing. I called it 2 pages ago.

Sgt Stryker wrote...

OMG but teh fanz have no emoshunall connectionz with lolfaceless billions of casualties!!!1 

It is also true.

If your best friend is killed in a car accident tommorow, and on the same day you read that 100,000 people were killed in a tsunami on the other side of the globe, which is going to affect you more?

The same applies in fiction.

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.

This is too amusing. I called it 2 pages ago.

Sgt Stryker wrote...

OMG but teh fanz have no emoshunall connectionz with lolfaceless billions of casualties!!!1 

It is also true.

If your best friend is killed in a car accident tommorow, and on the same day you read that 100,000 people were killed in a tsunami on the other side of the globe, which is going to affect you more?

The same applies in fiction.

I think the fact that certain characters' (who happen to be LIs) homeworlds have been devastated is enough emotional impact as is. They don't need to be killed off to make a good story out of it.

[daveyeisley]

I have to say the premise of the OP is complete and utter rubbish. The game itself already disproves it.

You have the on/off switch between happy and sad outcomes already in the game. It works beautifully. The narrative is not cheapened at all. Some folks do choose sad outcomes because they are interested and enaged by the way it plays out, fits with their vision of the story, and how they think it should make them feel. Some folks play through both ways to experience both.

Neither invalidates the other. The majority may go one way over another, but that doesnt invalidate either path. Having both allows the story to meet and satisfy player a broader audience with vastly differing expectations, and is excellent business practice on top of it. Nobody wants to waste money on a product that doesn't entertain them.

Having options means more of the audience will be entertained. That is the success of ME, and the ending failed for a great portion of the audience.

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...
Justicars work solo, as already pointed out. Samara may be a skilled warrior, but she has no command experience.

Thane may be an assassin with infiltration skills, but he doesn't have a tech background. And it is made clear that the person you need for the vents should be a skilled technician.

In both cases they are both fairly obviously the wrong choices, even without a guide. The SM was ridiculously easy to get through unscathed. I did it on my first playthrough, as did countless others.

Okaaay then, let's try a different approach. Suppose you do the Derelict Reaper mission early on, and the crew gets kidnapped while part of your roster still has outstanding loyalty missions. Is it a "tactical blunder" to immediately go through with the assault on the Collector base, despite not having a completely loyal crew? Again, since I assume no meta-gaming, I would say no. On the other hand, I would say that delaying the assault is also a valid option, although it will get part of the Normandy crew killed.

[Dan Dark]

Han Shot First wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.

This is too amusing. I called it 2 pages ago.

Sgt Stryker wrote...

OMG but teh fanz have no emoshunall connectionz with lolfaceless billions of casualties!!!1 

It is also true.

If your best friend is killed in a car accident tommorow, and on the same day you read that 100,000 people were killed in a tsunami on the other side of the globe, which is going to affect you more?

The same applies in fiction.

But what if you only learned of your friend's passing by reading about it, in a text message, perhaps? While at the same time, you were watching a live feed from a TV helicopter hovering over the tsunami, watching it hit, live, seeing the devastation as it happened, then seeing reporters on the ground, covering it even further? Yes, your friend's death would still have more of a direct impact on you, sure, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't feel anything for the hundred thousand that you just watched lose their lives.

So, my point? What if they went beyond simply telling us hundreds of planets have been ruined, and billions of lives lost, but instead, showed us?

Modifié par Dan Dark, 12 mai 2012 - 05:14 .

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...


Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.

You mean like the team mates that the players have come to know and love dying over the course of the game?

They don't count because they don't have a bunk on the Normandy this game? 

Edit:  For that matter, the only squadmates guaranteed to be alive by the end of ME3 are Liara, EDI, and James.   All the others can die.

Modifié par iakus, 12 mai 2012 - 05:17 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
Justicars work solo, as already pointed out. Samara may be a skilled warrior, but she has no command experience.

Thane may be an assassin with infiltration skills, but he doesn't have a tech background. And it is made clear that the person you need for the vents should be a skilled technician.

In both cases they are both fairly obviously the wrong choices, even without a guide. The SM was ridiculously easy to get through unscathed. I did it on my first playthrough, as did countless others.

Okaaay then, let's try a different approach. Suppose you do the Derelict Reaper mission early on, and the crew gets kidnapped while part of your roster still has outstanding loyalty missions. Is it a "tactical blunder" to immediately go through with the assault on the Collector base, despite not having a completely loyal crew? Again, since I assume no meta-gaming, I would say no. On the other hand, I would say that delaying the assault is also a valid option, although it will get part of the Normandy crew killed.

Why would you do a priority mission before finishing that round of sidequests?

[Sgt Stryker]

Dan Dark wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.

This is too amusing. I called it 2 pages ago.

Sgt Stryker wrote...

OMG but teh fanz have no emoshunall connectionz with lolfaceless billions of casualties!!!1 

It is also true.

If your best friend is killed in a car accident tommorow, and on the same day you read that 100,000 people were killed in a tsunami on the other side of the globe, which is going to affect you more?

The same applies in fiction.

But what if you only learned of your friend's passing by reading about it, in a text message, perhaps? While at the same time, you were watching a live feed from a TV helicopter hovering over the tsunami, watching it hit, live, seeing the devastation as it happened, then seeing reporters on the ground, covering it even further? Yes, your friend's death would still have more of a direct impact on you, sure, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't feel anything for the hundred thousand that you just watched lose their lives.

So, my point? What if they went beyond simply telling us hundreds of planets have been ruined, and billions of lives lost, but instead, showed us?

Better yet, what if that tsunami struck your other best friends' hometown, and suddenly everything he knew and loved was destroyed?

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Why would you do a priority mission before finishing that round of sidequests? 

Remember that meta-gaming thing I mentioned? For some players, it might make more sense to secure the Priority objective before going after a secondary objective. And no, the game does not "clearly tell you" to do the other quests before going after the IFF. Not to my knowledge, at least.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 12 mai 2012 - 05:19 .

[3DandBeyond]

Andromidius wrote...

Yeah because grimdark edgy bittersweet endings are fresh and new, right?

Happy endings are fine. Giving people the option to get them if they work hard enough is fine. Mass Effect 2's happy ending was fine.

So why suddenly declare its not in the spirit of the game for ME3? Oh wait, consistancy. Yeah. That thing.

Exactly.

Tell me just what is so wrong with a happy ending?  Almost every blockbuster movie has one.  That's what makes them blockbusters.  People get enough crap in real life, and there are books, movies, art, and so on with  that gritty reality.  Now, our video games are only supposed to end on a dark and dreary note?  Give me a break.

ME is a standout game, but it is in keeping with a certain genre.  It is closer to Star Wars or Star Trek than Blade Runner.  And if you even look at some of the grittiest darkest movies of the SF genre, take Predator, Terminator, Alien, they all have quasi-happy endings at least.

Must everything in life be demoralizing and depressing to be accepted as genuine?  I'm sure most people would answer no.  In real life do you seek to be disturbed, destroyed, and empty? No, right?  In real life, would you choose never to see your love interest again or have him or her die horribly? No, right?  Well, genuine equates with real.  Games are actually not real life, of course-they are supposed to be entertainment.  And entertainment is supposed to be fun.  I can think of many places in real life where I could go to get depressed.  I don't need a game to take me there.

From a business standpoint alone, a happy ending makes the most sense.  I personally don't watch many movies more than once if the ending is all doom and gloom.  But, I could watch a movie with a soul-stirring happy ending a hundred times over and still want to see it again.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 12 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[DeinonSlayer]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Yeah because grimdark edgy bittersweet endings are fresh and new, right?

Happy endings are fine. Giving people the option to get them if they work hard enough is fine. Mass Effect 2's happy ending was fine.

So why suddenly declare its not in the spirit of the game for ME3? Oh wait, consistancy. Yeah. That thing.

Exactly.

Tell me just what is so wrong with a happy ending?  Almost every blockbuster movie has one.  That's what makes them blockbusters.  People get enough crap in real life, and there are books, movies, art, and so on with  that gritty reality.  Now, our video games are only supposed to end on a dark and dreary note?  Give me a break.

ME is a standout game, but it is in keeping with a certain genre.  It is closer to Star Wars or Star Trek than Blade Runner.  And if you even look at some of the grittiest darkest movies of the SF genre, take Predator, Terminator, Alien, they all have quasi-happy endings at least.

Must everything in life be demoralizing and depressing to be accepted as genuine?  I'm sure most people would answer no.  In real life do you seek to be disturbed, destroyed, and empty? No, right?  In real life, would you choose never to see your love interest again or have him or her die horribly? No, right?  Well, genuine equates with real.  Games are actually not real life, of course-they are supposed to be entertainment.  And entertainment is supposed to be fun.  I can think of many places in real life where I could go to get depressed.  I don't need a game to take me there.

From a business standpoint alone, a happy ending makes the most sense.  I personally don't watch many movies more than once if the ending is all doom and gloom.  But, I could watch a movie with a soul-stirring happy ending a hundred times over and still want to see it again.

Pretty much this.

Personally, I think the lack of any possible path to a "happy" ending (even with sacrifices) is what makes the game so painful. BW gets you to love the characters, build relationships, become invested, make promises, set up futures... then takes it all away right when we would expect conclusions. It's such a nasty thing to do. And then expect players to replay it all over again? Saying the same things to the same characters with the same (lack of) ending? No, I can't. That's not enjoyable at all. It turns an already badly-done ending into an emotionally manipulative travesty.

At the end of a completionist playthrough of all three titles, I will have sunk over two hundred hours into the story of one Shepard. Where is the payoff for a job well done? At the end of everything, I'm less than intrigued by the Big Abstracts of the Inevitable Synthetic-Organic Conflict (and I won't even go into how that dropped out of the sky). I don't care about becoming Space Jesus (I'm Buzz Aldrin! You Are Now A Legend! Buy More DLC!). I just want to win the damned war and go home.

<_<

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 mai 2012 - 05:33 .

[jeweledleah]

could someone please explain to me why do they feel.. what's the word I'm looking for "forced" to ONLY go for the most optimal setup every single time? the whole beauty of meta gaming for me is that it allows me to set up different outcomes. there are quite a few time where you can get an optimal result in DAO. that didn't stop me from having different Wardens who picked different things... like the Dalish who didn't even think twice about wiping out werewolves even though it was possible to keep both werewolves and elves. or when I played ME2 and set up multiple outcomes with multiple variations of who died and who lived, and how their loyalty missions went (or even if I did them at all)... for all the good that it did me :/

the whole pint in having variety of outcomes... is to have variety of outcomes.

P.S.  to me deaths that I cannot prevent - lose all impact.  I know that they will happen anyway no matter what i do.  so I stop caring.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 12 mai 2012 - 05:32 .