649 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

Saying that if there is a happy ending people will only choose that is false. I for one play games over and over to get every possible outcome. In DA:O my favorite ending is the self-sacrifice. Do I think it could have been implemented better? Heck yes but I loved the concept.

I would LIKE the option for a happy ending, but I don't NEED a happy ending to be satisfied. I need a meaningful ending that makes sense to be satisfied. If there is going to be a heroic sacrifice, it means NOTHING if I don't choose to do it. It's not a sacrifice if it's not my choice, if I don't feel fear and regret and mourn everything I will lose even as I make the decision to do it. A sad ending should make me cry tears of grief and not tears of frustration and confusion. The sacrifice should also make sense. Why should grabbing two control sticks, jumping into a beam of light, or shooting a tube be my choices? I want to do something that makes sense like Mordin did on Tuchanka. You knew the building was comming down and that it would be a one-way trip for him. You never hear anyone complain about that scene because it was actually tragic and it meant something.

There should be no godchild. Maybe we have to destroy the central part of the citadel to stun the reapers or something and the only way to do it in time is for Shepard to fly a shuttle straight into it causing an explosion. The whole while you could see him struggling to stay conscious while talking to his LI on the com then he crashes the shuttle, the chamber explodes, the scene cuts to LI or whoever you were talking to trying to reach Shepard and getting only static because he's dead. The reapers shields come down, space battle stuff happens, depending on your EMS some of your allies are destroyed, etc...

Joker should NOT flee the battle, your ground team should NOT magically be on it, they should NOT end up stranded on Jurrasic Park. Shepard should get a hero's funeral, an N7 coffin, your LI should mourn, Hackett or someone should give a speech that changes based on your paragon/renegade and decisions you've made. You should then see what happened to the characters you've come to care about. You should see the good as well as the bad. The rebuilding efforts but also the damage and the deaths. Little scenes of hope like Eve telling a story to a group of baby Krogans or Conrad and Jenna helping with refugees,

[Subject M]

jeweledleah wrote...

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.  

I agree that if your Shepard does not embrace a tragic ending or royalty screws up, your Shepard should not have a tragic end, but one that gives him or her an satisfying ending with a good view of all that has been lost, but also of all the important things he/she still have:

The galactic community is on its knees, but united.
Earth is a burning ruin, but it and the ones left alive will live on and rebuild.
Anderson is dead, but your LI and the rest of you team made it, although with some new scars.
And so on.

Modifié par Subject M, 12 mai 2012 - 07:43 .

[Subject M]

Anjeel wrote...

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.

I did not mean to come across as rude or mean.
I was simply trying to say that when you make a story, you need to know who you make it for if you want it to be appreciated. If you have a "large audience" with differing taste, and a game/story with varying ways of playing it, you need more then one type of ending.

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

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.

You haven't made an argument for it not working by design ... you've made an argument that the audience isn't mature enough to handle "the rules changing". Which would simply mean that Bioware did this to the wrong kind of audience, not that there's some kind of literary rule they broke?

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.

Actually I did this in great detail at one point. Module at university on the structure and form of comedy. What you're saying isn't true except for straight-up conventional "sitcom" comedy. Comedies such as Scrubs quite often include scenes with no jokes, and those scenes are often the most touching precisely because they break with the convention of comedy they're meant to follow. Remember the end of Blackadder? Or this sketch in a conventional comedic sketch show?

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.

You see Shepard burning in dream sequences. That was pretty much the most clear signal I got that it was going to end in tragedy. That and the whole motif of Shepard saying goodbye to everyone he's ever known (not literally, but narratively). These are not the kind of foreshadows of a heroic, all guns blazing death. In fact, it's hard to imagine a situation where they could've satisfyingly killed Shepard without it being tragic. You can't send him into a suicide mission situation and have him die heroically, because we've done that before and he's come out without a scratch. It was all being foreshadowed pretty early on in the third game, at least.

Modifié par The Razman, 12 mai 2012 - 07:50 .

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

You haven't made an argument for it not working by design ... you've made an argument that the audience isn't mature enough to handle "the rules changing". Which would simply mean that Bioware did this to the wrong kind of audience, not that there's some kind of literary rule they broke?

Bad play bringing maturity into it. That isn't something which can fairly be debated without an entire side debate dedicated to defining what maturity even means. It's established fact that the gaming audience is older than its ever been, which means that people who are by all reasonable definitions mature number heavily amongst those enraged by this ending.

The same applies in literature, but that argument is weakened by the fact gaming is a new art form. The relationship between designer and gamer is very different to that between writer and reader or director and viewer. Until recently I thought Bioware understood this better than most, but I think ME 3's ending debacle shows Bioware are still as novice as the rest.

The argument of how it failed by design was in my original wall of text.

The Razman wrote...Actually I did this in great detail at one point. Module at university on the structure and form of comedy. What you're saying isn't true except for straight-up conventional "sitcom" comedy. Comedies such as Scrubs quite often include scenes with no jokes, and those scenes are often the most touching precisely because they break with the convention of comedy they're meant to follow. Remember the end of Blackadder? Or this sketch in a conventional comedic sketch show?

I presume you mean Blackadder goes Forth. Or was it written 'Fourth'? Can't quite recall.

I think those are more 'exceptions which prove the rule'. In fact Blackadder demonstrates exactly what I was referring to in all but the ending of two of its series (Blackadder goes Fourth and Blackadder the Third I think). The ending of Blackadder the second was hilarious. I grant you the sitcom point, though, and acknowledge that modern comedies often have serious scenes dedicated just to building character.

The Razman wrote...You see Shepard burning in dream sequences. That was pretty much the most clear signal I got that it was going to end in tragedy. That and the whole motif of Shepard saying goodbye to everyone he's ever known (not literally, but narratively). These are not the kind of foreshadows of a heroic, all guns blazing death. In fact, it's hard to imagine a situation where they could've satisfyingly killed Shepard without it being tragic. You can't send him into a suicide mission situation and have him die heroically, because we've done that before and he's come out without a scratch. It was all being foreshadowed pretty early on in the third game, at least.

That last line is the problem, though. in the third game. A tragedy does not begin in the third act, nor does a trilogy, despite what Casey Hudson may believe (I'm referring to his statements about ME 3 being a good 'jumping on point' there).

Again, Shepherd's death does not mean a tragic death, nor does that death denote a tragedy. In fact, Bioware themselves claimed that wasn't what they were going for. Wasn't their own phrasing something like 'heroic and uplifting'? I know uplifting was involved.

Shepherd can say goodbye... Shepherd can also say that he/she is never going away and will always come back. This is where the choice aspect comes into play. It's also where the established tradition of Shepherd surviving unsurvivable odds gets directly and explicitly in the way of creating a genuine tragic scenario. You must get people to buy into it, otherwise it won't work.

Clearly it worked for you, but it did not work for enough people. I don't have numbers and I don't have statistics and even if I had that would lead to separate talks about them being legitimate, but this outcry is unprecedented and it says without any doubt that what Bioware was attempting to do did not work.

Bioware do set the ground for Shepherd to die. That I am not debating. I refute that Bioware set the groundwork for this to be a tragedy, however, and I also refute that they did a good enough job for people to buy into it.

The nature of Shepherd's death is arbitrary. Shepherd's death does not arise naturally from the events of the story, Shepherd's death is an arbitrary addition caused by the Crucible. There is no logical reason why Shepherd must die in any of the endings. The crucible, in the end, is a gigantic 'I WIN' button. The reasons given for why Shepherd must die in these endings is weak. The synthesis ending - as many people have pointed out - makes no sense on any level. It's not even clearly explained what the control ending involves. And well Shepherd can potentially survive Destroy so that doesn't count.

You can see all over the forum that many players struggle even to figure out what was going on in the ending. This is not implying that they are stupid, immature, or that the game is too complex, it's because the ending was appallingly written and left out a lot of key exposition that would have explained things.

But on a structural level the game arbitrarily forces death on the main character when there is no reason why Shepherd should die. Why can Shepherd not have literally pressed a button, backtracked, and gone back to earth on the crucible beam? The only answer you've got is that Bioware decided you couldn't.

This isn't like in the Suicide Mission where Shepherd's death comes about because nobody is there to save him/her at the final moment. That is a death which emerges from the narrative and makes perfect sense (and in fact is directly the fault of the player and their poor decision making since you need to get everyone killed for it to happen). It's an imposition on the player on the part of the developers.

Can you - if you don't feel it - recognize where the disconnect is occurring for so many people?

It's not as bad as Neverwinter Nights 2's infamous rocks fall everybody dies ending, but the disconnect is of a similar nature.

It's a huge moment where the hand of the author becomes visible, which I'm sure is a metaphor you can understand. The hand of the author should never be visible in any kind of story-based medium. Readers/players/viewers never, ever respond well to it, which is why it's a huge no-no.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 12 mai 2012 - 08:24 .

[Han Shot First]

Nyoka wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

I agree 100% with this.

When creating Mass Effect 3 the writers would have had to choose either a bittersweet ending or a fairy tell ending, but the two could not coexist as different possibilities within the same story. A finale that includes an ending where there is no sense of loss or sacrifice and everyone gets to live happy ever after, automatically renders any ending where people die or there is loss a lesser ending. This automatically undercuts the bittersweet ending and removes the emotional impact it might have otherwise had. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. It is possible to lose squadmates in that game, but only at the price of Shepard not being competent as a combat leader.

The writers had the right idea when they aimed for a bittersweet ending. It just wasn't executed well.

- There have been millions of casualties, entire cities ravaged for everyone, no matter what you do. So stop the "no loss and everyone gets to live happy" strawmanizing. The possibilities we're talking about here are bittersweet against absolutely masochistic gloating disaster.

All of them faceless millions: a statistic.

For the end run to have any emotional impact whatsoever the sacrifices involved have to be much more personal. They have to hit home for the player, and that is only going to happen if Shepard and his team are required to make some sacrifices.

- You're metagaming, not roleplaying. Your character is not aware that in the future that choice that concerns that character that hasn't been even introduced to the story yet will have this or that consequence. That's you, metagaming. You're supposed to stick to the character you create and base your decisions on what she would do.

Where am I 'metagaming?"

Sorry, I roleplay my Shepard. And no where have I advocated players basing their decisions on knowledge that might be available to a player that has completed the game, but not to Shepard.

If you are referring to the Suicide Mission in ME2, the choices are fairly obvious. I made it through the it the first time  without losing anyone and without using a strategy guide, because I don't like having the story spoiled for me. All it requires is that you access all available dialogue and read every codex entry, and get to know the strengths and weaknesses of your squadmates.  It is easy and doesn't require any metagaming. All it requires is that you are a completionist and that you pay attention.

- Scripted deaths of squadmates have as much emotional impact as Kai Leng's scripted victories. It makes me roll my eyes, they take me out of the game. Oh look, it's angst time. Fiiiiiine. Since I'm not involved because I have nothing to do with that scene, there's no emotional impact. Now, if someone dies because of a choice I made, that's what gets me, because now I'm personally involved. Again, this supposes that you are going to be role playing your character, not calculating with that suicide mission flowchart that someone posted on the BSN what will happen in the future.

I didn't advocate scripted deaths.

The player's decisions and actions should have an impact on who lives or dies in every Mass Effect game.  (like Virmire) I'm just against a scenario where 'everyone lives' being on the table, unless the endings where people die result in a happier ending for the galaxy.

However, precisely because Shepard is competent as a combat leader, the choice to win the mission with no casualties should be there.

I disagree.

The Reapers represent the most dangerous enemy humanity has ever faced, and the final battle is the largest and bloodiest battle any of the Council species have fought in their collective histories. The possibility to make it through completely unscathed should not be on the table, unless there is a price attached. The scale of what Shepard is up against is too large. Anything less only serves to undercut the antagonists.

Finally, it is simply not possible or realistic for a combat leader to always get his people out unscathed. You are crossing over into the realm of pure fantasy. Even the most brilliant of military minds lose people.

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...
The Reapers represent the most dangerous enemy humanity has ever faced, and the final battle is the largest and bloodiest battle any of the Council species have fought in their collective histories. The possibility to make it through completely unscathed should not be on the table, unless there is a price attached. The scale of what Shepard is up against is too large. Anything less only serves to undercut the antagonists.

Finally, it is simply not possible or realistic for a combat leader to always get his people out unscathed. You are crossing over into the realm of pure fantasy. Even the most brilliant of military minds lose people.

I'm willing to agree with the bolded bit. Of course, the next logical question is, how big should the price tag associated with an unscathed Normandy crew + Shepard be? By unscathed, I mean alive and physically functional. The characters can still come out with psychological scarring.

[Andromidius]

Why are people still throwing the 'unscathed victory' concept around? Who the hell has even suggested that? No-one!

Happy ending =/= No-one dies! A HUGE number of people have already died! Not grim enough?

Yeah, very mature.

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Bad play bringing maturity into it. That isn't something which can fairly be debated without an entire side debate dedicated to defining what maturity even means. It's established fact that the gaming audience is older than its ever been, which means that people who are by all reasonable definitions mature number heavily amongst those enraged by this ending.

The same applies in literature, but that argument is weakened by the fact gaming is a new art form. The relationship between designer and gamer is very different to that between writer and reader or director and viewer. Until recently I thought Bioware understood this better than most, but I think ME 3's ending debacle shows Bioware are still as novice as the rest.

The argument of how it failed by design was in my original wall of text.

I think you'd agree surely that age =/= maturity, so I don't think that point's particularly valid. I accept that maturity is a difficult concept to define and a potential dumpstorm bringing it into this ... but it's accurate to describe an audience not accepting a twist purely on the grounds that it goes against what's come before. That's the whole point of a twist.

That last line is the problem, though. in the third game. A tragedy does not begin in the third act, nor does a trilogy, despite what Casey Hudson may believe (I'm referring to his statements about ME 3 being a good 'jumping on point' there).

There's very few instances of a narrative carrying over uninterrupted over the course of a trilogy, each game/film/book is a self-contained narrative within itself. I thoroughly reject the concept that somehow Mass Effect would had to have decided on the tone of the ending on the trilogy from the very first game if it was going to end it as such. That's an arbitrary rule which ignores the fact that each game is a self-contained narrative within itself.

Again, Shepherd's death does not mean a tragic death, nor does that death denote a tragedy. In fact, Bioware themselves claimed that wasn't what they were going for. Wasn't their own phrasing something like 'heroic and uplifting'? I know uplifting was involved.

Shepherd can say goodbye... Shepherd can also say that he/she is never going away and will always come back. This is where the choice aspect comes into play. It's also where the established tradition of Shepherd surviving unsurvivable odds gets directly and explicitly in the way of creating a genuine tragic scenario. You must get people to buy into it, otherwise it won't work.

Clearly it worked for you, but it did not work for enough people. I don't have numbers and I don't have statistics and even if I had that would lead to separate talks about them being legitimate, but this outcry is unprecedented and it says without any doubt that what Bioware was attempting to do did not work.

Bioware do set the ground for Shepherd to die. That I am not debating. I refute that Bioware set the groundwork for this to be a tragedy, however, and I also refute that they did a good enough job for people to buy into it.

It being "heroic and uplifting" doesn't make it any less of a tragedy. Shepard's death is tragic, I don't thnk anyone can argue with that. You can have a heroic and uplifting death while still being a tragic one, they aren't mutually exclusive narremes.

I accept that the fact that it didn't work for most people, but I reject the notion that because it didn't work for the audience, that Bioware were wrong in trying what they did. The fault is with what they did not fitting in with what the audience has expected to get from the series. It's a mismatch of audience to product, not an inherent fault with the product itself.

But on a structural level the game arbitrarily forces death on the main character when there is no reason why Shepherd should die. Why can Shepherd not have literally pressed a button, backtracked, and gone back to earth on the crucible beam? The only answer you've got is that Bioware decided you couldn't.

Quite rightly, surely? Wouldn't that be a horrible anticlimax?

If you're saying it doesn't make sense for Shepard to die ... narratively, it absolutely does. They've set up the Reapers as an almost unbeatable force, and you can't have an antagonist with that much power be defeated without something of equal power within the narrative being sacrificed. All the "billions would die on Earth, so it's balanced" arguments ignore this ... anonymous people on Earth hold no power with the narrative of the story, only established characters, races and forces do.

It's like this in every antagonist/protagonist narrative. Take Buffy in the series where they put her up against a god in human form. If you're going to introduce something so ridiculously overpowered, you're going to devalue the entire narrative if you follow the traditional EDR formula (equilibrium > disruption > return to equilibrium). Something serious on the side of the protagonist has to give to make it make sense. In that instance as well, the only way for it to realistically happen was for someone to die, and in that case that was Buffy herself. Not that killing characters is the only way of balancing things, but it's a common way.

It's not the only way they could've ended the series, but if you're saying it makes no sense ... it really did. There had to be something balancing the Reapers in the narrative's conclusion.

[Sgt Stryker]

Andromidius wrote...

Why are people still throwing the 'unscathed victory' concept around? Who the hell has even suggested that? No-one!

Happy ending =/= No-one dies! A HUGE number of people have already died! Not grim enough?

Yeah, very mature.

It's a false dichotomy. Pro-enders seem to think that the people who want something better than the current ending all want a ridiculous scenario where the Reapers are completely eliminated, everyone who ever served on the Normandy survives, and the destruction of entire planets' worth of people is reversed overnight. That's not the case at all. We just want something that isn't so miserable, grimdark, and contrived. The current ending isn't bittersweet - it's bitter all around.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 12 mai 2012 - 09:54 .

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

I think you'd agree surely that age =/= maturity, so I don't think that point's particularly valid. I accept that maturity is a difficult concept to define and a potential dumpstorm bringing it into this ... but it's accurate to describe an audience not accepting a twist purely on the grounds that it goes against what's come before. That's the whole point of a twist.

Completely disagree. That is a BAD twist.

A good twist makes perfect sense. A good twist is when the ending is not what you expect, but when you look back after seeing the twist revealed it adds up. Sixth Sense is an example of a good twist ending, as is the classic example of the Usual Suspects.

Twist endings are famous for being abused by people who don't understand how to make them work, and being over-used by people who want their stories to be 'surprising' only to find that in trying to be clever they completely ruin what would have otherwise been a decent, good or sometimes even superb story. High Tension was an example of the latter, a horror movie that made perfect sense until the director added a stupid twist that unravelled the entire narrative when you rewatch it.

The Razman wrote...There's very few instances of a narrative carrying over uninterrupted over the course of a trilogy, each game/film/book is a self-contained narrative within itself. I thoroughly reject the concept that somehow Mass Effect would had to have decided on the tone of the ending on the trilogy from the very first game if it was going to end it as such. That's an arbitrary rule which ignores the fact that each game is a self-contained narrative within itself.

A self-contained narrative which is explicitly designed from the get-go to run through all three games and that each game is meant to have direct consequences on the next?

There's nothing self-contained about ME 3. Nothing. In fact multiple emotional scenes hinge entirely on prior knowledge of and experience with the characters involved. A self-contained narrative does not rely on other sources for its emotional weight, and ME 3 is almost completely reliant on them. The Krogan Genophage problem means almost nothing to people who haven't played the first two games and heard Wrex's anger or seen Tuchanka in ME 2 and heard how the Krogan respond to it. The Quarian/Geth conflict loses most of its dimensions without having spoken to Legion in ME 2.

And yes, that's exactly what it should have done. That's how trilogies work. That's why you link stories into a single narrative. The idea is that the story is too big to tell in one tale. From the very first page of the very first story, or very first cell, or very first digital blip, the tale is building to the end of the third game/movie/book.

The Razman wrote...I accept that the fact that it didn't work for most people, but I reject the notion that because it didn't work for the audience, that Bioware were wrong in trying what they did. The fault is with what they did not fitting in with what the audience has expected to get from the series. It's a mismatch of audience to product, not an inherent fault with the product itself.

Not wrong for trying. If they had written it better it might even have worked. You can't hand wave and claim the creator is free of all blame because people hate what they made. There are dozens of straightforward critical reasons why ME 3's ending fails, and I've no need to rehash them. You may not be convinced, but the critical logic is nonetheless sound. Professional authors have waded in who hated it for those exact reasons, even a few editors and other people who deal with these things on a daily basis and have build a professional career on them.

The story is at fault. That's why nobody (or almost nobody) is up in arms about the gameplay and are pissed at the story.

The Razman wrote...Quite rightly, surely? Wouldn't that be a horrible anticlimax?

It was an anticlimax anyway. And again, not if they did it right.

The Razman wrote...If you're saying it doesn't make sense for Shepard to die ... narratively, it absolutely does. They've set up the Reapers as an almost unbeatable force, and you can't have an antagonist with that much power be defeated without something of equal power within the narrative being sacrificed. All the "billions would die on Earth, so it's balanced" arguments ignore this ... anonymous people on Earth hold no power with the narrative of the story, only established characters, races and forces do.

They set up the reapers as an unbeatable force and then created an 'I WIN'  button which kills all of them instantly. They can wrap it up in whatever language they like, but that's what the crucible is. Everybody knows that's what it is. People are not stupid, and they can see a blatant plot device when it's firing space lasers right in front of them.

Last I checked, humans are an established race in the universe. The entire thrust of the story of ME 3 is 'save earth' 'retake earth' 'save the humans' 'get fleets to save the humans' 'get back in time to save humanity'.

For people who hold no 'power with the narrative' those faceless humans seem to be pretty darn important, actually.

The Razman wrote...It's like this in every antagonist/protagonist narrative. Take Buffy in the series where they put her up against a god in human form. If you're going to introduce something so ridiculously overpowered, you're going to devalue the entire narrative if you follow the traditional EDR formula (equilibrium > disruption > return to equilibrium). Something serious on the side of the protagonist has to give to make it make sense. In that instance as well, the only way for it to realistically happen was for someone to die, and in that case that was Buffy herself. Not that killing characters is the only way of balancing things, but it's a common way.

It's not the only way they could've ended the series, but if you're saying it makes no sense ... it really did. There had to be something balancing the Reapers in the narrative's conclusion.

In a well written ending, yes. But Bioware lazily put in an 'I WIN' button. The rules on such a plot device are utterly arbitrary, and hanging artificial 'well someone has to die to balance it out' clauses on the device in no way changes it or hides it.

And that's why Shepherd's death feels forced and arbitrary. Because IT IS forced and arbitrary, a book-balancing action when the death of a main character should be their finest hour in the genre of story they were telling.

People keep making these stupid 'rainbows and unicorns' posts despite the fact most anti-enders are fine with Shepherd dying, but as I just pointed out... WHY NOT? The rules are arbitrary. There's nothing preventing it. It's not a natural outgrowth of the narrative in any way, shape or form. It's device that solves all of the problems in and of itself, irrespective of anybody else's actions.

Shepherd didn't need to press that button. Donald Anderson could have done it. Joker could have done it. Anyone could have.

That's why it's terrible writing. It robs the hero of their heroism, and makes their sacrifice an arbitrary and meaningless action that is then compounded by terrible decision after terrible decision leading to an ending that anyone should have been able to tell nobody wanted.

And that's not even going into the attempt to go philosophical in the last five minutes without the necessary exposition to explain your choices or make them relevant to the preceeding events.

Basically, Razman, all we are doing right now - and you're doing it just the same as me - is lampshading how contrived the ending is. You've admitted it even if you don't realize that you have, in the line I bolded.

As for Buffy, I think you missed the part where Buffy conclusively defeats Glory in single combat. She does not 'die' she sacrifices herself to save her sister, after defeating the opponent with the assistance of numerous devices introduced in previous episodes. Buffy does not go out on a whimper, she absolutely, irrevocably goes out in her finest hour. Furthermore, her self-sacrifice is not even her own fault; it comes about because of Spike's failure to stop the lizard demon.

Buffy wins. There's no artificial requirement for her to die to 'make the books right'. Under the hood, yes, that's what is at work. But the narrative wraps that motivation by using a logical, dramatic series of events to create a scenario where Buffy is in the position to make the choice to sacrifice herself. And up to the last moment it remains a choice.

Shepherd had no choice. It was sacrifice yourself or the reapers win.

Buffy could have sacrificed Dawn and walked away.

The scenarios are different in every conceivable way, not least because Buffy's friends play a critical role in the final events of that story and shape how it plays out.

Of course it would have been nice if they did that in Mass Effect, but in the end it was all Shepherd's show. Only wait no it wasn't Shepherd's show it was the Catalyst's. Or was it? I don't know, really. Who was it about in the end? The crucible is only there because a bunch of other people built it and really anyone could have operated it, so is it about the scientists who built it? But then it's the Star Child who explains how it all works and gives Shepherd the knowledge to make the choice...

So was it about the Star Child in the end? I mean, he's the one who set the cycle up in the first place and he's the one who explains the choices, and Shepherd does just go along with what he says. Voice of God indeed.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 12 mai 2012 - 10:47 .

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Completely disagree. That is a BAD twist.

A good twist makes perfect sense. A good twist is when the ending is not what you expect, but when you look back after seeing the twist revealed it adds up. Sixth Sense is an example of a good twist ending, as is the classic example of the Usual Suspects.

Twist endings are famous for being abused by people who don't understand how to make them work, and being over-used by people who want their stories to be 'surprising' only to find that in trying to be clever they completely ruin what would have otherwise been a decent, good or sometimes even superb story. High Tension was an example of the latter, a horror movie that made perfect sense until the director added a stupid twist that unravelled the entire narrative when you rewatch it.

But that's not what we're discussing. You were asserting that it's wrong to do a twist just because it circumvents the audience's expectations of what should happen in a conventional narrative of that genre. Hence, it's wrong for Mass Effect to take away player choice because the player expects to have choice. I reject that; under those rules, you can't write surprises or twists into the game at all really.

A self-contained narrative which is explicitly designed from the get-go to run through all three games and that each game is meant to have direct consequences on the next?

There's nothing self-contained about ME 3. Nothing. In fact multiple emotional scenes hinge entirely on prior knowledge of and experience with the characters involved. A self-contained narrative does not rely on other sources for its emotional weight, and ME 3 is almost completely reliant on them. The Krogan Genophage problem means almost nothing to people who haven't played the first two games and heard Wrex's anger or seen Tuchanka in ME 2 and heard how the Krogan respond to it. The Quarian/Geth conflict loses most of its dimensions without having spoken to Legion in ME 2.

And yes, that's exactly what it should have done. That's how trilogies work. That's why you link stories into a single narrative. The idea is that the story is too big to tell in one tale. From the very first page of the very first story, or very first cell, or very first digital blip, the tale is building to the end of the third game/movie/book.

Just because a trilogy contains intertextual references to the preceding parts doesn't automatically make it "one big story". Each game in Mass Effect is a self-contained three-act narrative; you'll lose a lot of background story not playing the other parts, but its story can be understood by itself ... same with Back to the Future. A trilogy which behaves like you're thinking is something like Lord of the Rings, where each movie effectively serves as an act in the three-act story (it's more complicated than that in the reality of the scriptwriting, but in basic terms this is what happens).

Don't confuse intertextual references with being part of the same narrative. Mass Effect 3 has a start, a beginning, and end. That you don't understand what's going on without having knowledge of other media and narratives doesn't make it "not self-contained". If the game stopped, made you go to a website and read a novel before you could go on with it ... then it wouldn't be self-contained. But the entire three-acts of the story takes place within each individual game. That's the definition of a self-contained narrative.

Not wrong for trying. If they had written it better it might even have worked. You can't hand wave and claim the creator is free of all blame because people hate what they made. There are dozens of straightforward critical reasons why ME 3's ending fails, and I've no need to rehash them. You may not be convinced, but the critical logic is nonetheless sound. Professional authors have waded in who hated it for those exact reasons, even a few editors and other people who deal with these things on a daily basis and have build a professional career on them.

I really don't care about any of that. This thread is about why you can't have a happy ending in conjunction with an unhappy one, not about critical reasons why the ending was or wasn't bad. I'm not placing or absolving anyone of blame, I'm just pointing out why you can't have a happy ending if there's to be any hope of an emotionally effective tragic one. And a tragic ending is what the creators wanted to achieve, and I reject any notion that they're "wrong" for wanting that for their story or attempting to implement it.

It was an anticlimax anyway. And again, not if they did it right.

No. Not in narrative terms. There's a popular usage of the term "anticlimax" in regard to our emotional reaction, and there's a technical term in critical literature. In no technical terms was the an anticlimax, whereas what you were describing most certainly would be.

They set up the reapers as an unbeatable force and then created an 'I WIN'  button which kills all of them instantly. They can wrap it up in whatever language they like, but that's what the crucible is. Everybody knows that's what it is. People are not stupid, and they can see a blatant plot device when it's firing space lasers right in front of them.

Last I checked, humans are an established race in the universe. The entire thrust of the story of ME 3 is 'save earth' 'retake earth' 'save the humans' 'get fleets to save the humans' 'get back in time to save humanity'.

For people who hold no 'power with the narrative' those faceless humans seem to be pretty darn important, actually.

It's a MacGuffin, certainly. But that's all it is, a plot device ... nobody goes in thinking that the Crucible is an "I WIN" button ... everyone knows that you go in there not knowing what's going to happen when you activate it, and that's it not going to be as simple as "activate the Crucible and win". That would be trite and uninteresting. The fact that the Crucible does something unusual to solve the Reaper problem that's probably going to require some kind of sacrifice on our part is foreshadowed throughout the entire game.

And sorry, but faceless humans have no narrative draw. You could be told 10 billion humans died and it wouldn't have as much emotional impact for people as if your love interest died. Hell, people are more torn up that Emily Wong was killed off than they were about any faceless humans dying. That's the nature of narrative; we only care about what the narrative characterises for us.

Not that this isn't an interesting conversation, but it's gone way, way off-topic. It'd be best if it continued in PM if you wish to continue.

[XqctaX]

oh look it's razman missrepresenting other peoples actions before they have even happened, again.

kinda funny that you while arguing for not wanting a happy ending also argue with the argument that you and everyone else regardless of who they are would prefer a happy ending.

You should stop trying to force your opinion onto others as absolute truth.

[Han Shot First]

Nyoka wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

All of them faceless millions: a statistic.

For the end run to have any emotional impact whatsoever the sacrifices involved have to be much more personal. They have to hit home for the player, and that is only going to happen if Shepard and his team are required to make some sacrifices.

I'm sorry you're unable to feel any empathy for your fellow human beings.

Get help.

Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice and stop throwing around strawman arguments. Because I think an ending where everyone on the Normandy lives without consequences for the galaxy is a bad ending, I'm a heartless sociopath?!

That accusation is actually rather humorous, considering I work in a career path that requires a fair amount of empathy for other people. Baseless accusations made against strangers on the net can sometimes be funny, when someone falls so ridiculously far from the mark.

I think you also need to take a deep breath and relax, and stop getting so emotional about a video game. Some fresh air and a little persective on what is really important might do you some good.

Also it is a simple fact that people are more emotionally affected when misfortune strikes those that are close to them. The same applies to fiction. That isn't to say that reading about millions dying doesn't affect Shepard, or the player, but that people close to him dying has a much greater emotional impact.

You are metagaming, without quotation marks, when you plan ahead what's going to happen in the future using information that the game has not given you yet. "Um, I better not do this because if I do I won't get the good ending". That's metagaming.

You misunderstood.

ME2's suicide mission is good example. In order to lose people, you practically have to metagame. You have to intentionally make Shepard a bumbling incompetent, in order to lose people under his command. It is so painfully obvious not only for the player, but also for Shepard who the right choices are for each task, that chosing wrongly requires metagaming. It also isn't worth it, because as noted, who wants to roleplay a hero that is a poor choice for the task assigned to him?

For similar reasons an ending where everyone lives cannot exist in ME3 on equal terms with one where people do not, as by default the writers would then have to make Shepard make mistakes in order for people to die. There would not be a single situation where Shepard loses people despite making the right tactical decision or strategic prepartions. Choosing wrongly would once again require the player to roleplay a Shepard who isn't fit to lead a Girl Scout troop, let alone a squad in combat.

For those reasons when crafting an action RPG, the writers are better off either deciding on a bittersweet or a sunshine and rainbows ending, but not having both, or having the ending where everyone survives have some consequences attached to it. In the case of Mass Effect, perhaps the consequences are greater galactic destruction than in the ending where sacrifices were made.

In other words, it requires that you make a real effort; to make everything you can to assure success.

And then... you're mad because you succeeded?

I'm not angry about anything actually, though this topic seems to be getting you a little emotionally charged. I suggest calming down.

I love Mass Effect 2, but the suicide mission could have been executed a little better. As fun as the suicide mission is, it is a bit of a misnomer in that it isn't really a suicide mission at all. It is ridiculously easy to get your entire team through unscathed and casualties require metagaming. It would have been more compelling if Shepard wasn't able to get everyone out alive and had to make some tough choices. Call me crazy, but I like it when the series lives up to the first marketing tagline used for it way back in Mass Effect 1: Many decisions lie ahead, none of them easy.

Virmire is retarded. There is no point recruiting people for a mission if you're the one who must do everything. Where the hell were Wrex, Tali, Garrus and Liara when I was busy with something else?

Wrex, Tali, Garrus and Liara are four people. The person who dies on Virmire shouts that they're being overrun. Presumably, they've got hordes of Geth swarming them and not just the couple you see in a cutscene. Virmire was great because it presents the player with a tough choice, and it has a dash of realism. It is a simple fact that in combat a leader does not always have the option of getting everyone out alive. And neither should Shepard.

You're strawmanizing again. It's not "completely unscathed". I realize using that kind of rethoric makes your target easier to attack, but get a grip on it.

It is completely unscathed. If everyone on the Normandy survives, how else would you define it? The galaxy isn't getting off unscathed, but the most important characters (those on the Normandy) are.

What I'm against is the masochistic idea that in order to enjoy a story your squadmates or your love interest must die no matter what you do, how hard you work to avoid it. That's all. Surely you can find other people to kill? Like the entire freakin quarian species? Or they don't matter either because you never saw their faces?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Killing off random Alliance soldier 134218 isn't going to have the same emotional impact as say, Vega or the Virmire survivor dying. Likewise random Quarians you never met dying isn't going to be the same gut punch as Tali buying the farm.

That isn't to say that hearing about 10,000 people dying here, 100,000 dying there doesn't have any impact on the player. Just that it isn't likely to trigger the waterworks, like it did for many people with Thane, Mordin, or Anderson.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 11:33 .

[The Razman]

XqctaX wrote...

oh look it's razman missrepresenting other peoples actions before they have even happened, again.

kinda funny that you while arguing for not wanting a happy ending also argue with the argument that you and everyone else regardless of who they are would prefer a happy ending.

The Razman wrote...

EDIT: Sidenote - This is only a response to people who say "why can't we have a happy ending?"

People who can't read make baby Jesus cry.

[Repearized Miranda]

^ No, it was:

"The Reapers win if you sacrifice yourself.

Notice how Harbinger kept saying in ME2: "Preserve Shepard's body if possible!" and then the kid says: "You'll lose all of your being?" Even Tali who argued against the code upload, basically said this: "You'll become a Reaper puppet (and Saren, TIM, Benezia were Reaper puppets.)

The Reapers couldn't careless if they died as long as there is a lackey present that represents them to do the bidding! This is why Cerberus/KL and TIM didn't. What really would have tropized this is if he said the obvious when Leng and Cerberus failed.

That's why we fought the Geth and Saren (and others like him) in ME
That is why we fought he Collectors in ME2
That is why we fought the Reaper factions in ME3 along with KL/Cerberus (TIM)

If Shepard gave into their demands, they win!! Why? Because Shepard would be their lackey which is why they used anything and everything against him/her. Synthesis and Control makes this happen! If not, why did you talk down Saren + TIM then?

Likewise, with the "real" scenario with Shepard, Anderson and TIM! Give into TIM, you lose! On a visual/gameplay standpoint, why is there a CMF notice when he shoots you?

Why was he struggling with himself - ultimately sealing the deal (if you talked him down)? This happened with Saren as well whom we fought, but initially we were suppose to have a "fight" with TIM as well.

And lastly, the boy manifest. Talking you down to break you and his reaction after you chose! Newflash: that's the last trick the Reapers use to get you! If not, he wouldn't have been the focal point in the beginning. He's not just "a representation of all Shepard lost." He is, but that is nothing more than the Reapers playing on Shepard's guilt. And guilt is a very powerful tool to play on to break somebody - no matter how tough one appears to be.

[Han Shot First]

The Reapers win if you sacrifice yourself.

Maybe they do in the Control or Synthesis endings, since the Reapers survive in that one, and in both cases it isn't exactly clear that the Reapers won't someday return to reaping. I'm not saying that they will, just that people could argue that point.

But they most certainly do not win in the Destroy ending, if Shepard sacrifices himself. In that ending every single Reaper in the galaxy has been destroyed. That is a win by any definition of the term.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 11:50 .

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...

You're strawmanizing again. It's not "completely unscathed". I realize using that kind of rethoric makes your target easier to attack, but get a grip on it.

It is completely unscathed. If everyone on the Normandy survives, how else would you define it? The galaxy isn't getting off unscathed, but the most important characters (those on the Normandy) are.

You hear Joker talking about Tiptree colony?  Connect that with the PTSD asari on the Citadel

How about Liara's reaction to the events on Thessia?

Ash and Kaidan's family tragedies?

The crew is not getting off unscathed just because they survive.  Surviving doeesn't mean "completely happy ending" in this context.  Surviving means "having a chance to be happy"

That isn't to say that hearing about 10,000 people dying here, 100,000 dying there doesn't have any impact on the player. Just that it isn't likely to trigger the waterworks, like it did for many people with Thane, Mordin, or Anderson.

And what we're saying is enough "named" characters die to get the point across.  Dumping more into the meat grinder is just overkill, in more than one sense of the word.

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...

For those reasons when crafting an action RPG, the writers are better off either deciding on a bittersweet or a sunshine and rainbows ending, but not having both, or having the ending where everyone survives have some consequences attached to it. In the case of Mass Effect, perhaps the consequences are greater galactic destruction than in the ending where sacrifices were made.

Do you really have to use that accursed phrase? That's not what the majority of people here want with the endings, not by a long shot. They want something that's at least palatable. I think a victorious ending (one where the Reapers are destroyed, the majority of the Normandy crew lives, and the galaxy has a chance to rebuild) can still be presented as bittersweet.

It is completely unscathed. If everyone on the Normandy survives, how else would you define it? The galaxy isn't getting off unscathed, but the most important characters (those on the Normandy) are.

Just because they are alive at the end doesn't necessarily mean they are completely unscathed. I can see the survivors having to put up with a lot of crap in a post-war galaxy.

[Han Shot First]

iakus wrote...


And what we're saying is enough "named" characters die to get the point across.  Dumping more into the meat grinder is just overkill, in more than one sense of the word.

Mordin and Thane both have emotional scenes, but neither of those happens in the end game. If the existing ending was altered by Bioware so that Shepard and every one of his squad mates survives, the ending would not have any emotional impact.

In fact one of the major problems I have with the end game is that the deaths of the two squadmates in the beam rush is only suggested, and not shown. I'd be happy if this scene made it back into the game in the EC.

Do you really have to use that accursed phrase? That's not what the majority of people here want with the endings, not by a long shot. They want something that's at least palatable. I think a victorious ending (one where the Reapers are destroyed, the majority of the Normandy crew lives, and the galaxy has a chance to rebuild) can still be presented as bittersweet.

In that case we are actually on the same page.

I'm all for an ending where Shepard triumphs and the majority of the crew makes it through, just not everyone.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 13 mai 2012 - 12:04 .

[XqctaX]

The Razman wrote...

XqctaX wrote...

oh look it's razman missrepresenting other peoples actions before they have even happened, again.

kinda funny that you while arguing for not wanting a happy ending also argue with the argument that you and everyone else regardless of who they are would prefer a happy ending.

The Razman wrote...

EDIT: Sidenote - This is only a response to people who say "why can't we have a happy ending?"

People who can't read make baby Jesus cry.

as ussuall you answer by shifting subject or writing total nonsence.
i said that your opinion is your opinion and nothing more but that, but with other words
since you claim to know how other people would do in a hypothetical situation.

and i DID read what you wrote, i just STRONGLY dissagree.
mabey you should read what I wrote since you clearly didnt understand it.

I dont like the ending becouse of other reasons, yes. but i did not bring that up.
i simply stated that your assumptions of other people are wrong.

do i need to type it again or will you get it in your head now?
baby jesus.. come on raz even you can do better than to stoup that low

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...

Mordin and Thane both have emotional scenes, but neither of those happens in the end game. If the existing ending was altered by Bioware so that Shepard and every one of his squad mates survives, the ending would not have any emotional impact.

In fact one of the major problems I have with the end game is that the deaths of the two squadmates in the beam rush is only suggested, and not shown. I'd be happy if this scene made it back into the game in the EC.

Excuse me while I go vomit for having witnessed that scene 

You're also forgetting one very important person who dies moments before RGB.  Someone very close to Shepard and had been for the entire trilogy.  And has an emotional, if not quite so dramatic sendoff.

I have enven posted on other threads that an ideal "Shepard lives" ending would have Commander Shepard giving a eulogy at this person's funeral.

[DeinonSlayer]

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm all for an ending where Shepard triumphs and the majority of the crew makes it through, just not everyone.

I can't remember if you ever actually saw or reacted to this, but this epilogue generator, I thought, struck a nice balance along those lines. Shepard can survive and reunite with his/her crew/LI in the high-EMS Destroy ending, but Joker doesn't make it through the first year stranded without EDI. If Shepard chooses the Control or Synthesis ending, Joker survives.

[Iakus]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm all for an ending where Shepard triumphs and the majority of the crew makes it through, just not everyone.

I can't remember if you ever actually saw or reacted to this, but this epilogue generator, I thought, struck a nice balance along those lines. Shepard can survive and reunite with his/her crew/LI in the high-EMS Destroy ending, but Joker doesn't make it through the first year stranded without EDI. If Shepard chooses the Control or Synthesis ending, Joker survives.

Agreed, that handles the epilogues quite well, given the material available to work with.

Modifié par iakus, 13 mai 2012 - 12:14 .