649 réponses à ce sujet

[Subject M]

iakus wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

I still don't understand why tragedy is supposedly the only valid possible fitting end to mass effect franchise. first 2 games were not built as tragedies. they were built as heroic uplifting sci-fi, and tragic moments that happened were there to make the uplifting feel more uplifitng. third game.. has its ups and downs but general seems to lead up to uplifting.

so why is the tragedy the only fitting end? we CAN'T we win? please, could someone explain to me, when did Mass Effect suddenly turn into a Lars von Trier movie?

Agreed

The first two games, even going back to Shepard's preservice history (Akuze, Elysium, Torfan), have been about overcoming seemingly impossible odds.  Over and over again.  Garrus in ME2 even ponts out "The Collectors killed you, and all that did was p*ss you off"

To change that tune, not just inthe final game, but the final minutes of the final game, is an odd chocie to say the least.

"To say the least"
Agreed.

[jeweledleah]

AlanC9 wrote...


@jeweledleah: I'm not sure the argument is that ME had to be a tragedy. Just that it's an acceptable artistic decision for Bio to have made.

whether its acceptable for bioware to chose to go with the tragedy is a separate issue.  it IS their story and in the end, they can do whatever they want with it, including deliberately ruining it and then claiming artistic decision.  authors have been doing this sort of thing for years.

however, from what I'm seeing in this topic and other topics like it, some of the posters DO in fact believe that tragedy could be the ONLY fitting end to Mass Effect and anything else is wrong, unartistic, unfitting, you name it.  and THAT's the part I disagree with.

[Grimwick]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

Puzzling.

Everyone knows how Romeo and Juliet end up (heck the full title of the play is "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet")  Yet people keep reading the play, watching it on stage and screen, even if they don't have to.  They want to.

But the appeal is entirely in the inevitability of these characters' actions. The point is primarily that tragedy loses impact if you're choosing it than if it's forced upon you. That's why I make such a big deal about layering these endings so well that it doesn't feel like it's just push a button for happy/sad.  

I just got through replaying Halo: Reach, for the millionth time, which ends with you and your entire squad dying. But you succeed in your objective. That would not have remotely the same impact if I had chosen to kill my squad-mates, rather than having the narrative do it to me.

Likewise, take something like Red Dead Redemption. The ultimate affect of Marston's fate is kinda lost if I chose to have his brains blown out.

This is very true, but why not have a happy ending which you don't 'choose' per se? Maybe based from EMS?

Or perhaps modifying the choice in the endings as they stand to make them more balanced with this aspect of the game? 

It is a very fair point to say that choosing for a character to die makes it lose it's impact, but that doesn't necessarily mean a potential happy ending shouldn't exist in some way.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

Puzzling.

Everyone knows how Romeo and Juliet end up (heck the full title of the play is "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet")  Yet people keep reading the play, watching it on stage and screen, even if they don't have to.  They want to.

But the appeal is entirely in the inevitability of these characters' actions. The point is primarily that tragedy loses impact if you're choosing it than if it's forced upon you. That's why I make such a big deal about layering these endings so well that it doesn't feel like it's just push a button for happy/sad.  

But people aren't asking for "push a button for happy/sad" They're asking for choices to matter in regards to one event at the end of the game.  Okay,  mor ethan that is being asked for.  But for the purpose of this specific thread, ot's one thing.

In fact, the method of potssibly delivering that choice is already in place via the EMS system.

I just got through replaying Halo: Reach, for the millionth time, which ends with you and your entire squad dying. But you succeed in your objective. That would not have remotely the same impact if I had chosen to kill my squad-mates, rather than having the narrative do it to me.

Likewise, take something like Red Dead Redemption. The ultimate affect of Marston's fate is kinda lost if I chose to have his brains blown out.

And did either of these games give you the impression that your chocies matter?  That you had any degree of control over the story?

Also How Halo Reach should have ended 

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

Which is the point I've been making all along. The closure they most desire isn't going to be a tragic one when you have a happy one as an alternative option, and if it is ... then it's not tragic by the very nature that you've chosen it. That's not how tragedy works. You can't want tragedy to happen.

Um... I'm not sure that's quite true. People go to watch tragedies aware that tragedy will occur. The tragedy isn't designed to upset people though it has that effect, the actual point is cathartic. Or it was in the genre's original inception way back when.

The Razman wrote...Your argument is purely that Mass Effect is a game (I'm not subscribing to your completely bogus interpretation of what the RPG genre is "meant to be") which is heavily choice based, so you should be able to simply choose whatever ending you want. Sure. I can accept that argument as having merit. That's not what this is about though; this is purely about the effect you have on any tragic ending by doing what you propose; you rob it of all its power. Something which I've yet to see you address.

I'd propose that you're not making the argument you think you're making.

The argument you're making is this: Bioware can't write tragedies in the scope of their games.

Bioware promotes their games enormously on the back of giving the players choice. There's no questioning that, it's slathered over everything they write to promote their creations.

But that doesn't work inside the structure of a tragedy. Inside a tragedy, every action made by the hero or anti-hero leads inevitably to the singular climax, which is their own tragic fall, and it is rendered tragic because their own flaws, usually a singular, fatal flaw in an otherwise exemplary person, make that ending inevitable. You can't create a tragedy wherein people can choose not to have those fatal flaws which are necessary for a tragedy to work.

Read any classic tragedy if you haven't already (I get the impression you have to have begun this thread) and you'll see my point. From the opening page you can see the gears grinding that drag the protagonist towards their inevitable doom.

So the problem then is that Bioware decided to write a tragic ending in a series that is not tragic and which has not set the groundwork or the necessary plot steps to create a tragedy. It is a game in which tragic events occur, but it is not actually a tragedy on the level of plotting or execution.

This actually nulls your own argument. Bioware rob the tragic ending of its power because their own game prevents them from creating a true tragic ending... they gave the player choice.

Red Dead Redemption is probably the best example of a genuine gaming tragedy of this generation. You can see the hallmarks from the beginning and they run through the plot at every level. You can hope that Marston will get out alive... but you know that he can't. Not that he won't, he can't. The world in which he lives, and his own flaws, guarantee his fate long before the ending rolls round.

None of that is present in the Mass Effect universe. In fact it's exactly the opposite. Shepherd is either a near-flawless mega hero superhuman or the ultimate bad ass, capable of bullying her way through any problem before her. She's not a tragic hero doomed by human flaws, she's a superhero who literally comes back from the dead to save the universe from its greatest foe.

Tragedy is based on human error and human flaws and human weaknesses that 'The Shepherd' does not possess.

For example: We all know that most of those fellas on the citadel we waste our time helping end up dead thanks to twitter. In a tragic plot structure, this would be Shepherd's fault. Through some means, some terrible mischance or some fatal indecision or decision that we as observers can tell is flawed, Shepherd would directly cause all of those people to die. Perhaps it would be the ambition of Macbeth, or from the crippling indecision and depression which ruins Hamlet, but somehow Shepherd would be responsible. THAT is where the tragedy stems from; terrible things happening because of human flaws, not because an evil race of galactic space cleaners come along and kill everyone.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 12 mai 2012 - 06:56 .

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Now, , if I understood it correctly, to The Razman, the presence of a realizable "happy" alternative in a story/game effectively ruins the effect of the "tragic" ending as he believes that people who do not like or prefer that ending will choose another ending.

Close. It's not what people will directly choose, it's merely to do with the emotional impact of what you do. I think I've got a concise way of explaining this.

Tragedy is not tragedy if you want it to happen, correct? So if the tragedy's only happening because you picked the option over the happy one ... then where's the emotional impact of it? The essense of tragedy is something which happens in the narrative against your desires (we want the star-crossed lovers to end up together, which is why it hurts when they die ... we want Aerith to have a happy ending with the rest of us, which is why it hurts when she's killed, etc). If you make the tragic narreme optional, it holds no power over you. You have a ready-made escape from the pain in the alternate ending.

The rest of your post demonstrates you understand this anyway, but I thought I'd clarify it for everyone else.

As for it not making sense to do this in a branched storyline, I can accept that as a complaint. Mass Effect is a story based on choice, and people are going to be annoyed if you don't have choice. But I don't think that changes the diminishing effect on the tragic ending that putting that choice in would have.

Good that we can agree on something at least. But as I have already made clear, I see no reason to not give the players a satisfying conclusion based on choice, logical costs and accomplishment in a series like this.
Misplaced tragedy is just another word for huge and often hurtful disappointment.

[The Razman]

jeweledleah wrote...

I still don't understand why tragedy is supposedly the only valid possible fitting end to mass effect franchise. first 2 games were not built as tragedies. they were built as heroic uplifting sci-fi, and tragic moments that happened were there to make the uplifting feel more uplifitng. third game.. has its ups and downs but general seems to lead up to uplifting.

so why is the tragedy the only fitting end? we CAN'T we win? please, could someone explain to me, when did Mass Effect suddenly turn into a Lars von Trier movie?

It wasn't the only possible end. But it was the one the writers chose. And therefore it now can't be anything else.

[Subject M]

jeweledleah wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


@jeweledleah: I'm not sure the argument is that ME had to be a tragedy. Just that it's an acceptable artistic decision for Bio to have made.

whether its acceptable for bioware to chose to go with the tragedy is a separate issue.  it IS their story and in the end, they can do whatever they want with it, including deliberately ruining it and then claiming artistic decision.  authors have been doing this sort of thing for years.

however, from what I'm seeing in this topic and other topics like it, some of the posters DO in fact believe that tragedy could be the ONLY fitting end to Mass Effect and anything else is wrong, unartistic, unfitting, you name it.  and THAT's the part I disagree with.

My guess would be that it often is because of how they have played and focused on the story. Their stories have been ones that seems to have moved towards an expected tragic ending, and that is why such and ending also fits their story.

If your Shepard repeatedly would say stuff like  "I don't think I am coming back" "This is the end. I´l see you on the other side" etc, to your LI or whatever, then it is clear that Shepard probably will perish in the final, as would be fitting.

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

I still don't understand why tragedy is supposedly the only valid possible fitting end to mass effect franchise. first 2 games were not built as tragedies. they were built as heroic uplifting sci-fi, and tragic moments that happened were there to make the uplifting feel more uplifitng. third game.. has its ups and downs but general seems to lead up to uplifting.

so why is the tragedy the only fitting end? we CAN'T we win? please, could someone explain to me, when did Mass Effect suddenly turn into a Lars von Trier movie?

It wasn't the only possible end. But it was the one the writers chose. And therefore it now can't be anything else.

Not true. Video games are not books, and their endings can in fact be rewritten or rebuilt as the creators decide, and in fact the latter is happening to ME 3.

Too many people try to shove videogames into familiar boxes instead of recognizing them as the unique medium they actually are.

[Anjeel]

The Razman wrote...

I've seen people say that there would be no problem with just having a happy ending as one possible ending. This is incorrect.

The nature of a game, or at least how we play games at present, is that we will always try to "win". Even in a story-based game like Mass Effect, we will take what we perceive to be the "best possible ending" and take that as the "winning" one. If you have a happy ending ... people will take that as the best possible one, completely negating the point of having an unhappy ending at all. There's no real bittersweet feeling if you can simply choose to turn it off and have a happy situation instead. We've already seen this in ME3. The "secret ending" has been seized upon by many people as being the "perfect" one. If you give gamers a sniff of an ending that works out better for the player's goals than the others ... they'll take it as a loosely defined canonical one.

If you want to have an emotional, bittersweet ending ... you can't have a button which says "press here to have a happy ending instead".

EDIT: Sidenote - This is only a response to people who say "why can't we have a happy ending?" Not to sound harsh, but I really don't care about anyone who's going to come in and say "But it wasn't that it wasn't a happy ending, I didn't like it because ...". This thread wasn't for that.

Honestly, I would have been happy with an ending saying that everything you did is for naught and the cycle continues.  That would have made a lot more sense than what we got.

[Subject M]

Anjeel wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I've seen people say that there would be no problem with just having a happy ending as one possible ending. This is incorrect.

The nature of a game, or at least how we play games at present, is that we will always try to "win". Even in a story-based game like Mass Effect, we will take what we perceive to be the "best possible ending" and take that as the "winning" one. If you have a happy ending ... people will take that as the best possible one, completely negating the point of having an unhappy ending at all. There's no real bittersweet feeling if you can simply choose to turn it off and have a happy situation instead. We've already seen this in ME3. The "secret ending" has been seized upon by many people as being the "perfect" one. If you give gamers a sniff of an ending that works out better for the player's goals than the others ... they'll take it as a loosely defined canonical one.

If you want to have an emotional, bittersweet ending ... you can't have a button which says "press here to have a happy ending instead".

EDIT: Sidenote - This is only a response to people who say "why can't we have a happy ending?" Not to sound harsh, but I really don't care about anyone who's going to come in and say "But it wasn't that it wasn't a happy ending, I didn't like it because ...". This thread wasn't for that.

Honestly, I would have been happy with an ending saying that everything you did is for naught and the cycle continues.  That would have made a lot more sense than what we got.

You are probably pretty lonely in that camp.

Modifié par Subject M, 12 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Um... I'm not sure that's quite true. People go to watch tragedies aware that tragedy will occur. The tragedy isn't designed to upset people though it has that effect, the actual point is cathartic. Or it was in the genre's original inception way back when.

Yes, but they don't choose for the tragedy to happen. There's no alternative option to make the characters do something else. As Il Divo quite eloquently put it, the appeal of tragedy is the inevitability of the character's actions. When you go to watch Titanic, you know the ship's going to sink ... that didn't mean you chose for that to happen just by walking into the cinema.

We're dealing with an issue unique to non-linear narrative form here.

The argument you're making is this: Bioware can't write tragedies in the scope of their games.

Bioware promotes their games enormously on the back of giving the players choice. There's no questioning that, it's slathered over everything they write to promote their creations.

But that doesn't work inside the structure of a tragedy. Inside a tragedy, every action made by the hero or anti-hero leads inevitably to the singular climax, which is their own tragic fall, and it is rendered tragic because their own flaws, usually a singular, fatal flaw in an otherwise exemplary person, make that ending inevitable. You can't create a tragedy wherein people can choose not to have those fatal flaws which are necessary for a tragedy to work.

That assumes that turning the expected convention of giving the player choice on its head for tragic effect is somehow "wrong". You've decided that it is ... I don't see why. In a game with a player choice mechanic, you have to always give the player a choice in what happens? That's like saying that if you're writing a comedy, you have to make every scene include a joke.

So the problem then is that Bioware decided to write a tragic ending in a series that is not tragic and which has not set the groundwork or the necessary plot steps to create a tragedy. It is a game in which tragic events occur, but it is not actually a tragedy on the level of plotting or execution.

I'm sorry, but I would argue that the entirety of Mass Effect 3, and in some respects Mass Effect 2, build up and foreshadow a tragic ending quite obviously. Can you honestly say you never saw Shepard's death coming?

[jeweledleah]

Subject M wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


@jeweledleah: I'm not sure the argument is that ME had to be a tragedy. Just that it's an acceptable artistic decision for Bio to have made.

whether its acceptable for bioware to chose to go with the tragedy is a separate issue.  it IS their story and in the end, they can do whatever they want with it, including deliberately ruining it and then claiming artistic decision.  authors have been doing this sort of thing for years.

however, from what I'm seeing in this topic and other topics like it, some of the posters DO in fact believe that tragedy could be the ONLY fitting end to Mass Effect and anything else is wrong, unartistic, unfitting, you name it.  and THAT's the part I disagree with.

My guess would be that it often is because of how they have played and focused on the story. Their stories have been ones that seems to have moved towards an expected tragic ending, and that is why such and ending also fits their story.

If your Shepard repeatedly would say stuff like  "I don't think I am coming back" "This is the end. I´l see you on the other side" etc, to your LI or whatever, then it is clear that Shepard probably will perish in the final, as would be fitting.

right.. except it wasn't the only way to play the game.  my Shepard repeatedly chose to say that we'll win this thing. that we can do this and that failure is not an option.  we aren't out of the fight yet.  tragedy would be the only fitting end?  if this sort of path was impossible.  it wasn't.

moreover (and this is a reply to a different post, I just don't feel like writing 2 separate posts) - about the whole not changing of the endings thing?  it is debatable.  endings have been changed before.  in books.  in movies.  post release.  in director's cuts.  etc. they were changed before concept of chose your own adventure games even existed.

whether bioware choses to do so?  is up to them.  claiming that they can no longer do so just becasue the game was already shipped?  is... I'll just go ahead and say it - narrow minded.
neverwinter nights 2.
Fallout 3
Witcher 2.

and those are just a few video game precedents off the top of my head.

classic litterature had their endings (and sometimes more then endings) changed... becasue of the fan demand.  its not impossible.  its not just "NOT done"  it can be done if the creaters want to have it done.  its UP. TO. THEM.  

[Sgt Stryker]

iakus wrote...

But people aren't asking for "push a button for happy/sad" They're asking for choices to matter in regards to one event at the end of the game.  Okay,  mor ethan that is being asked for.  But for the purpose of this specific thread, ot's one thing.

In fact, the method of potssibly delivering that choice is already in place via the EMS system.

I'm glad you brought this up. If I had to use two words to sum up the EMS and war assets system, I would use "wasted potential." It could have represented so much more for the final battle. Ideally, here is how a revised Priority: Earth mission would roughly play out: Throughout the mission, there are several checkpoints where Shepard must make Suicide Mission-esque decisions. At each of these checkpoints, Shepard must choose from a pool of available war assets or individual squadmates (both current and former). If an asset ideal for that job is unavailable, then a squadmate must be selected. That squadmate will die no matter what (epic heroic cutscene time!), but achieve the objective. If an inferior asset is instead chosen, then that asset will be destroyed AND fail that objective, which leads to other people dying somewhere down the line. Certain assets which I deem "ideal" can only be acquired if you imported from ME1 and/or ME2, and they will only succeed if you have a high EMS score, so that ensures that the chance of at least a few casualties is high.

Anjeel wrote...

Honestly, I would have been happy with an ending saying that everything you did is for naught and the cycle continues.  That would have made a lot more sense than what we got. 

That should have been the easter egg fail ending, like in ME2.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 12 mai 2012 - 07:15 .

[The Razman]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

iakus wrote...

But people aren't asking for "push a button for happy/sad" They're asking for choices to matter in regards to one event at the end of the game.  Okay,  mor ethan that is being asked for.  But for the purpose of this specific thread, ot's one thing.

In fact, the method of potssibly delivering that choice is already in place via the EMS system.

I'm glad you brought this up. If I had to use two words to sum up the EMS and war assets system, I would use "wasted potential." It could have represented so much more for the final battle. Ideally, here is how a revised Priority: Earth mission would roughly play out: Throughout the mission, there are several checkpoints where Shepard must make Suicide Mission-esque decisions. At each of these checkpoints, Shepard must choose from a pool of available war assets or individual squadmates (both current and former). If an asset ideal for that job is unavailable, then a squadmate must be selected. That squadmate will die no matter what (epic heroic cutscene time!), but achieve the objective. If an inferior asset is instead chosen, then that asset will be destroyed AND fail that objective, which leads to other people dying somewhere down the line. Certain assets which I deem "ideal" can only be acquired if you imported from ME1 and/or ME2, and have a high EMS score, so that ensures that the chance of at least a few casualties is high.

I think ME2 proved that the EMS system wouldn't work. It's a near-identical system to the planet-scanning/ship upgrade mechanic from the second game, which led to a situation where merely playing the game without skipping stuff led to a "win" situation of everyone surviving.

To be honest, the whole EMS system was poorly conceived in the first place, IMO. But that's a different issue altogether.

[Anjeel]

Subject M wrote...

Anjeel wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I've seen people say that there would be no problem with just having a happy ending as one possible ending. This is incorrect.

The nature of a game, or at least how we play games at present, is that we will always try to "win". Even in a story-based game like Mass Effect, we will take what we perceive to be the "best possible ending" and take that as the "winning" one. If you have a happy ending ... people will take that as the best possible one, completely negating the point of having an unhappy ending at all. There's no real bittersweet feeling if you can simply choose to turn it off and have a happy situation instead. We've already seen this in ME3. The "secret ending" has been seized upon by many people as being the "perfect" one. If you give gamers a sniff of an ending that works out better for the player's goals than the others ... they'll take it as a loosely defined canonical one.

If you want to have an emotional, bittersweet ending ... you can't have a button which says "press here to have a happy ending instead".

EDIT: Sidenote - This is only a response to people who say "why can't we have a happy ending?" Not to sound harsh, but I really don't care about anyone who's going to come in and say "But it wasn't that it wasn't a happy ending, I didn't like it because ...". This thread wasn't for that.

Honestly, I would have been happy with an ending saying that everything you did is for naught and the cycle continues.  That would have made a lot more sense than what we got.

You are probably pretty lonely in that camp.

Aww... did it make you feel better about yourself to say that?  I love a good tragedy.  Sadly they have been very lacking lately.  Not a big deal that not a lot of people feel that way.  It's just something I enjoy.

[Sgt Stryker]

The Razman wrote...
I think ME2 proved that the EMS system wouldn't work. It's a near-identical system to the planet-scanning/ship upgrade mechanic from the second game, which led to a situation where merely playing the game without skipping stuff led to a "win" situation of everyone surviving.

To be honest, the whole EMS system was poorly conceived in the first place, IMO. But that's a different issue altogether.

That's good. People who take the time to actually play the game in its entirety should be able to win. However, that doesn't necessarily have to guarantee (ugh, that phrase again...) "rainbows and unicorns" at the end. People who rush through content to get to the end should... also be able to win, just to a lesser extent.

EMS is a good concept on paper, but could have been executed better. I'll just leave it at that.

[ShinsFortress]

Just because I can't have a happy ending, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to. Real life is depressing enough, I don't need it in my games thank-you!

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

That assumes that turning the expected convention of giving the player choice on its head for tragic effect is somehow "wrong". You've decided that it is ... I don't see why. In a game with a player choice mechanic, you have to always give the player a choice in what happens? That's like saying that if you're writing a comedy, you have to make every scene include a joke.

The evidence that it's wrong is shown in the fact we're having this discussion instead of talking about the wonderful tragedy Bioware created and teasing out all the clever lines of dialogue and foreshadowing which led us to that point.

The point of such an ending is to create a certain effect, but by doing this they prevent that effect because the players are not involved in the action the way they were, instead they are mentally rebelling against having 'their' game (not even my word, Casey Hudson himself has said that it's the players' story as much as the BW team's) ripped away from them.

People are not emotionally invested into the tragedy, they're enraged that Bioware changed the rules of the game on them.

Your comedy example is informative actually. If a scene in a comedy - a good comedy that is - does not in itself include a joke, it is setting up for a joke later on. Pick your favourite and examine it structurally if you've never done so and I guarantee you'll find that this is so. Or if your favourite doesn't suffice, find whatever is considered 'the best' comedy in whatever culture you come from and examine that, and again, you'll find that any scene which doesn't contain a joke is in some way building to one.

As a rejoinder to that: having not watched every comedy in the world I could certainly be proven wrong, but in my studies and analysis on the subject, this has always been uniformly true, as have all relevant books I've read on the subject and all critical analyses of successful comedies I've read or heard.

The Razman wrote...I'm sorry, but I would argue that the entirety of Mass Effect 3, and in some respects Mass Effect 2, build up and foreshadow a tragic ending quite obviously. Can you honestly say you never saw Shepard's death coming?

Death is not in and of itself tragic, nor does the presence of death create a tragedy. Surely you can tell the difference between the two?

What would you say foreshadow a genuine tragic ending (as in the narrative structure of a tragedy) as opposed to 'an ending where the main character dies' which is a completely different thing.

I am not averse to Shepherd's death. The hero dying to overcome impossible odds is an entirely common ending inside heroic fiction or inside videogames' version thereof. However you were positing that this is a tragedy, and I'm saying that it not only is not a tragedy, that the actual structure of the game Bioware created cannot create a tragedy by the very nature of tragedies themselves.

As mentioned earlier, tragedies cannot have any measure of choice involved, because every action taken by the protagonist is designed from the get go to lead them into their eventual tragic end.

So the posit I am putting forth is, more precisely, that Bioware give us too much choice for Mass Effect to be a tragedy.
For example, the main character of Gladiator dies, but his death is not a tragic one, nor is the movie Gladiator a tragedy.

@Anjeel: Yeah I'd have been fine with the reapers winning, too. In fact I was befuddled that there was in fact no option for the reapers to win. And if the Catalyst is right - ie that the tech singularity is true - then killing the reapers actually damns organic life to eventual extinction since none of the endings prevent the singularity occurring. Even Synthesis doesn't, technically unless the resultant life never goes on to create further technology.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 12 mai 2012 - 07:34 .

[Iakus]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

The Razman wrote...
I think ME2 proved that the EMS system wouldn't work. It's a near-identical system to the planet-scanning/ship upgrade mechanic from the second game, which led to a situation where merely playing the game without skipping stuff led to a "win" situation of everyone surviving.

To be honest, the whole EMS system was poorly conceived in the first place, IMO. But that's a different issue altogether.

That's good. People who take the time to actually play the game in its entirety should be able to win. However, that doesn't necessarily have to guarantee (ugh, that phrase again...) "rainbows and unicorns" at the end. People who rush through content to get to the end should... also be able to win, just to a lesser extent.

EMS is a good concept on paper, but could have been executed better. I'll just leave it at that.

Yup

Making preparations and good choices often leads to better outcomes.  Both in games and in RL.

[Repearized Miranda]

^ The only thing I can think of is because they built up obviously Shepard, but his or her team as well. The only thing NPCs had going for them were there tragic stories (That Mental Asari Patient contemplates suicide is written very well, but how many actually care since you can't ease her troubles)

But who's thinking about those three billion or so people! That's like paying attention to the extras in a movie who by in large aren't tied to the plot with any real significance; however, if they're miniscule part outshines those of the actual cast - even if they're just cannon fodder - which often they are depending on the story.

Not saying that the squadmates stories were bad since they dealt with family or friends who felt like family:

Samara and her daughters
Henry and his daughters
Ashley and Sarah
Steve and Robert
Liara and her parents
Garrus and his father/sister
Brothers in Arms - (Bro)Shep + Garrus; Wrex, Wreav (Grunt)
Patient/Physican: Mordin/Eve

Stories that go back to the previous entries

Jacob's father which he makes a vow in ME3
Tali and her father (the drunk scene sees a comparison to Miranda)

I think what it comes down to "Does the hero/ine" make it out - not someone in his or her CoF. Yeah, if something bad happens, you care; however, you make the event about the main character.

Garrus dies! While this hurts all who knew him family/friends, more often then not this affects Shepard (you) more because Garrus has been there from the start. If you die, but Garrus lives, don't you think he'd feel the same way?

That's the point, this story is about Shepard! The friends s/he gains or loses doesn't change this!

Some I don't get either - when choosing your background (SS from Akuze for me), it's not referenced as much. Besides, the technical standpoint, why do other NPCs mention about your background, but you (Shepard) do not?

Shepard: "Admiral Hackett? Fire at will!"

Hackett: This isn't Akuze! I want everybody out alive!

Unless you paid attention to the entry or the NPCs, you'd have no clue what was being referenced. You would think since Shepard experienced this ... then again Shepard did die, so it is possible s/he forgot. Still Shepard makes no mention of those events - even if to say: "I don't recall!"

Note, the responses you get when you make a callious remark:

Liara's homeworld is being destroyed and you tell her to "block it out!" To her chigrin, she responds: "I don't know how you can be that callous!" or what happens when you don't take one option (paragon) in another instance, but another (renegade) after you complete that level.

All about Shepard! Is s/he passionately forgiving or ruthlessly apathetic?

It's not that we don't care about the other characters or that we should've because they never would've been written in such a fashion so that we do; however, would you rather - even if Shepard's a ruthless bastard be a character written as someone you didn't care about? They didn't think so either.

Apathy is worse than hate because to hate something means you care. (The ending ****storm for example)

If Shepard were the only other character up against Harbinger and kills them, are we supposed to be uber not happy because we killed him? What about his friends - especially since they tried to kill him/her?

While that can be seen as apathetic and selfish, these two are adversaries. I find it hard to believe they'll have tea and crumpets. Maybe they will though - provided both haven't killed each other!

Shepard was build up beyond our comprehension while not that hard to comprehend; therefore, why wouldn't Shepard making it oot - not be a happy ending to some? It's bittersweet - yes; however, it's the hero/ine's fate that draws out the most emotion and that's how it should be - everything else around it is just "supporting details" if you will.

[MonkeyLungs]

The Razman wrote...

I think ME2 proved that the EMS system wouldn't work. It's a near-identical system to the planet-scanning/ship upgrade mechanic from the second game, which led to a situation where merely playing the game without skipping stuff led to a "win" situation of everyone surviving.

To be honest, the whole EMS system was poorly conceived in the first place, IMO. But that's a different issue altogether.

Quite the opposite. ME2 proves that having a range of choices (leading to a range of outcomes from victory to defeat) be applied to the ending scenario is more satisfying for players.

Your entire premise is built off the assumption that ME3's ending is somehow fitting for the series. I deny and oppose your entire base premise.