649 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

To you, evidently, the first playthrough is the most important. That's your opinion. I don't share it.

You are a vast, vast minority then.

Fin.

Do you play through games more than once?

Serious question.

[Dan Dark]

The Razman wrote...

Dan Dark wrote...

The Razman wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

you know that whole, not caring about the opinion goes both ways, right?  what makes your opinion more valid?

The fact that I've experienced the game the way it was meant to, the way that all narratives from the beginning of history were meant to. Without spoiling the whole thing of any surprises, twists, shocks, or anything else that the narrative wants to do.

If you haven't experienced any of those, you can't participate in a conversation about any of those. If that upsets you, too bad. Shouldn't have ruined it for yourself beforehand.

Okay... I knew absolutely nothing about ME3 before I played it; avoided the wiki, news, didn't even talk to people! I experienced the narrative "the way you're supposed to"... and yet I am of basically the exact same opinion they are regarding the ending. How do you explain that?

... what?

You're not even trying now, are you? But, okay... here. I've fixed it up for you, and reinserted the post I was replying to, the one that makes my post make sense. Funny how that disappeared in your post...

Modifié par Dan Dark, 12 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[The Razman]

jeweledleah wrote...

so far I've yet to see anyone make a case that would convince me that
happyish ending wouldn't fit Mass Effect narrative. not... a single... one.

You might want to try a different thread, where somebody is attempting to make such a case.

Or if you prefer, re-read this one and join the discussion about what its actually about, if you can.

[bomber127]

The Razman wrote...

iakus wrote...

Because all you're saying is "they can't exist together" and I'm saying "yes they can"

*sigh* I just realised I don't have to talk to anyone not paying attention to anything I say.

It's a liberating feeling.

i am paying attention to what you are saying. the title of the thread and all of your points after are based on the false presumtion that the singular diffinitive ending is not a happy one makes it all mute.

and when i say singular and difinitive i mean... Sheppard wins. his goal to stop the reapers from cleansing the the repeadedly is a succes. it is impossable to play this game to any other possible conclusion.

i think you are verry intellegent and don't dislike you. you just started in the wrong place.

[Archonsg]

At the end of the day, regardless of whether you ate pro-current-ending or pro-alt-multiple-endings, you have to ask yourself this, "Is the Mass Effect series, based on player choice, and did you get to make your choice in the finale of the series?"

If you feel that you can answer yes to both, and are satisfied with the ending good for you.

Me, personally, I can only honestly say "yes" to the first part, while right at the end felt all decisions, all control and even participation, taken away from me as a player. That I was forced to watch Shepard not bravely die in a heroic sacrifice but meekly pick a choice of suicide suggested by the very AI controlling the Reapers, Reapers who at this moment STILL killing your troops, still committing atrocities just makes Shepard's acceptance, wrong.

So, I do not see how this ending is "good" in any sense of the word. As I have said, if you liked it, that is your choice. But I would like to have MY choice back, my control as a player in a game built on choices.

As the OP so astutely pointed out, though not in defense of multiple endings, is that, this current ending is so bad, no one would have willingly chosen it. If an ending can't stand as viable on its own merit, perhaps it should not have been included.

Modifié par Archonsg, 12 mai 2012 - 07:36 .

[Homebound]

I got the feel for what Bioware wanted to do with the ending. Sort of having that bittersweet ending where you save the world you'll never see again and to have that unknown final moments the in-universe would always ask themselves about played out with the grandfather before the DLC advertisement. But the way it was implemented did the game such an injustice, it was so rushed, so forced, and inconsistent with the trilogy, to this day, I have not bought it and do not plan to.

No a happy ending wouldnt fit, its doable, but it wouldnt fit. Mass3 was all about last chances and final moments, a happy ending would seem out of place for the most part.

[Dan Dark]

jreezy wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

To you, evidently, the first playthrough is the most important. That's your opinion. I don't share it.

You are a vast, vast minority then.

Fin.

Do you play through games more than once?

Serious question.

He probably doesn't.

...and I don't suppose there's any explanation for why he never registered his copy of ME3?

[The Razman]

iakus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

To you, evidently, the first playthrough is the most important. That's your opinion. I don't share it.

You are a vast, vast minority then.

Fin.

Do you play through games more than once?

Serious question.

*sigh* Yes. Yes I do.

Serious question. What. The. ****. Does that have to do with ANYTHING in this thread?

Recap. I say "Who plays a game to lose?" in a point about how you don't purposefully aim for a tragic ending. The Deinon guy comes in saying "*cough* I think you'll find many people do on multiple playthroughs". I say "Um, that doesn't really matter, nobody does on their first playthrough[/i]". Deinon then screams "YOU'RE SAYING THAT MULTIPLE PLAYTHROUGHS DON'T MATTER!!" even though replayability has nothing to do with the point that was being made, jeweledleah starts screaming "YOU'RE SAYING MY OPINION DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE I SPOIL GAMES BEFORE I PLAY THEM!!" and you start claiming that all opinions are equally valid as each other no matter what the logical reasoning behind each of them is.

Enough.



Here's a ball. Go and chase after it, all three of you. I'm done here.

[Han Shot First]

iakus wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Maybe some of us was want to roleplay a Shepard that is an outstanding combat leader rather than one that is a fool or indecisive. The sort that makes all the right tactical decisions, but it isn't enough to save everyone. Or maybe he loses people (or his own life) because he made the right tactical decisions.

In war people die even when a leader makes the right call, and sometimes because of it. He might even lose his own life because of it. In the US Marine Corps the responsibilities of leadership can summarized by two priorities:

1. Mission Accomplishment

2. Troop Welfare

While the welfare of the people serving under your command is one of your most important priorities, it is always secondary to mission accomplishment. While I'm using the US Marine Corps as example, those two priorities are no different for any Western military organization.  And it is a cold, grim reality that sometimes you have to lose people to achieve objectives.

While Mass Effect may be Sci Fi, I think the end run is one aspect where the story would suffer if it leaned too heavily towards 'Space Opera.' For the ending to have any emotional impact, victory should come with a price.

An ending that combines both a 100% survival rate among the Normandy's crew *and* the least possible destruction to the galaxy (Big Ben surviving?) automatically renders any ending with less than 100% survival rate a less desirable ending, precisely because people would only die when Shepard makes tactical blunders. I prefer Virmire to any of the ME2 death scenes, because it is a scenario where no matter what call Shepard makes he is going to lose someone. In ME2 in order to lose people Shepard has to make bad tactical decisions or fail to make proper strategic preparations.

And in ME3 people do die even when Shepard makes the right call.  In at least one case, because of it.

And while these things can and do occur in real life, I should remind you that this is in fact a game, which is supposed to entertain, not make people depressed at the futility of their actions.

How are the player's actions futile if he or she saves the galaxy?

A 100% survival rate amongst protagonists is not necessary for a happy ending in any work of fiction.

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...

How are the player's actions futile if he or she saves the galaxy?

If you managed to save the galaxy in your game, then I would like to borrow your copy. I didn't get that option in mine. All I got was:

Commit a horrible war crime,
Commit a horrible war crime, and
Commit a horrible war crime.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 12 mai 2012 - 07:48 .

[Han Shot First]

The problem with some of you arguing for an ending where everyone lives, is that you are wrongly viewing an ending where there is some loss or tragedy as something other than a happy ending. That isn't necessarily the case.

Even Star Wars, the penultimate example of Space Opera, has Ben Kenobi sacririce his life to buy Luke time in the end run of the original Star Wars. Did that 'squad mate' death make Star Wars a depressing film?

If you managed to save the galaxy in your game, then I would like to borrow your copy. I didn't get that option in mine.

The point I was making was that deaths in the end run do not necessarily equal a depressing ending, nor do they necessarily render the hero's actions futile.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 07:52 .

[Iakus]

Hellbound555 wrote...

No a happy ending wouldnt fit, its doable, but it wouldnt fit. Mass3 was all about last chances and final moments, a happy ending would seem out of place for the most part.

How odd, because ME3 to me seemed to be about all the connections Shepard had formed over the trilogy. Everything that he/she had that was worth fighting for and coming back to.  

There was a line in his speech on Earth that resonated "But take heart, look around you.  You're not in this fight alone"  Shepard was not in this fight alone anymore, there were people out there who respected and trusted him/her and would be there when needed.  

Even my Shepard's last words to Ash (his LI) was even: "Come on.  Let's get it done and go home"  Honestly right up until the end it looked like death, while a possibility, was certainly not inevitable.  Because Shepard was as prepared as he could be, had friends to support him and a LI to come back to.


Then Shepard dies.  Alone, in pain, and doing terrible things to the galaxy in the name of breaking the cycle. 

[bomber127]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

How are the player's actions futile if he or she saves the galaxy?

If you managed to save the galaxy in your game, then I would like to borrow your copy. I didn't get that option in mine. All I got was:

Commit a horrible war crime,
Commit a horrible war crime, and
Commit a horrible war crime.

the galixy is saved from the enevitable reaper cleansing every 50000 years. every copy

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...


How are the player's actions futile if he or she saves the galaxy?

A 100% survival rate amongst protagonists is not necessary for a happy ending in any work of fiction.

Commiting terrible acts in the name of "saving" the galxy is more the realm of villains in most works of fiction too.

[Han Shot First]

iakus wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


How are the player's actions futile if he or she saves the galaxy?

A 100% survival rate amongst protagonists is not necessary for a happy ending in any work of fiction.

Commiting terrible acts in the name of "saving" the galxy is more the realm of villains in most works of fiction too.

Perhaps I should have worded that differently, as people are obviously misinterpreting that to be a defense of the endings. To be clear: I do not like Mass Effect 3's endings.

I just disagree with those who argue that Shepard and every one of his crew members surviving would be a necessary feature of a happy ending.

They're wrong.

The heroes suriviving is not a requirement for a happy ending in any work of fiction.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 07:56 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Epilogue slides which in my opinion maintain balance. You can't rescue the whole crew. Either Joker dies without EDI's support in the Destroy ending, or Shepard dies in Control or Synthesis.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 mai 2012 - 08:03 .

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...

The problem with some of you arguing for an ending where everyone lives, is that you are wrongly viewing an ending where there is some loss or tragedy as something other than a happy ending. That isn't necessarily the case.

Even Star Wars, the penultimate example of Space Opera, has Ben Kenobi sacririce his life to buy Luke time in the end run of the original Star Wars. Did that 'squad mate' death make Star Wars a depressing film?

The point made here was that the bill for tragedy has already been paid.  Yes Ben Kenobi dies, but so does Ashley/Kaidan at Virmire.  More deaths and more tragedy followed in the next two games.  By the time we get to the ending, the entire galaxy is soaked in blood.

I should point out that in Return of the Jedi, the idea was floated for killing of Han Solo.  It was dismissed to make the movie end on a happier note.

[Sgt Stryker]

iakus wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The problem with some of you arguing for an ending where everyone lives, is that you are wrongly viewing an ending where there is some loss or tragedy as something other than a happy ending. That isn't necessarily the case.

Even Star Wars, the penultimate example of Space Opera, has Ben Kenobi sacririce his life to buy Luke time in the end run of the original Star Wars. Did that 'squad mate' death make Star Wars a depressing film?

The point made here was that the bill for tragedy has already been paid.  Yes Ben Kenobi dies, but so does Ashley/Kaidan at Virmire.  More deaths and more tragedy followed in the next two games.  By the time we get to the ending, the entire galaxy is soaked in blood.

I should point out that in Return of the Jedi, the idea was floated for killing of Han Solo.  It was dismissed to make the movie end on a happier note.

Agreed. The galaxy has seen enough death and destruction as is. It doesn't need more. It certainly doesn't need those horrible, unspeakable things happening that I can't discuss further because this thread was mistakenly placed in the non-spoiler section of the forums.

[Iakus]

I liked those endings too. Yes it's sad what happens to Joker, but it makes sense in the context of the event. It's not an artificial tragedy for no reason than to keep the player from a "perfect ending"

[Dan Dark]

Han Shot First wrote...

iakus wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


How are the player's actions futile if he or she saves the galaxy?

A 100% survival rate amongst protagonists is not necessary for a happy ending in any work of fiction.

Commiting terrible acts in the name of "saving" the galxy is more the realm of villains in most works of fiction too.

Perhaps I should have worded that differently, as people are obviously misinterpreting that to be a defense of the endings. To be clear: I do not like Mass Effect 3's endings.

I just disagree with those who argue that Shepard and every one of his crew members surviving would be a necessary feature of a happy ending.

They're wrong.

The heroes suriviving is not a requirement for a happy ending in any work of fiction.

Requirement, no... but it'd be nice! They'd just need some way to balance it out, make sure we still get the big picture and understand how much was lost. It's easy in the sacrifice-type endings - we care strongly for our player character and their friends and allies; losing any of them will affect us just as strongly. If they're allowed to survive, though, something else needs to be done to emphasize the losses - perhaps if they were just to show how much devastation there was, maybe have a memorial service, even, with the characters there, mourning those who didn't make it? Even the "best" "happy" ending should still have a hint of loss to it (this is war, after all), so long as there is also hope.

[Han Shot First]

iakus wrote...

I should point out that in Return of the Jedi, the idea was floated for killing of Han Solo.  It was dismissed to make the movie end on a happier note.

Harrison Ford was right. The film would have been better if Han went out like a boss.

The only good thing to come out of Lucas decision to appeal to little kiddies (and thus he had to have an ending where everyone lived) was that Han survived to be a major character in the EU. While a lot of the expanded universe books are crap, a few of them are quite good.

At any rate, everyone surviving is not a requirement for a happy ending. You can find plenty of examples in film or in books of happy endings where the hero dies, just as you find plenty of examples of happy endings where everyone lives. Whether or not the ending is a happy one often depends on circumstances in the story beyond just the lives of the protagonists.

I also disagree that enough people had died in the story. Virmire for example was five years and three games ago. It has no emotional impact on the conclusion of Mass Effect 3. Neither does Thane or Mordin's scenes for that matter, because they occur in the middle of the game.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 08:12 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Han should have died. I never liked him.

*prepares flame shield*

That being said, a narrative is not facile or childish simply because no one died. Heroic sacrifices are just as clichéd.