649 réponses à ce sujet

[iamthedave3]

All right, I'll strip out the off-topic bits. Barring one bit at the end.

The Razman wrote...

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.

ME 1 does this perfectly. The twist in ME 1 is when you find out what the conduit actually is. It's a genuine twist, not one that redefines the narrative, mind, but still an effective, straightforward twist.

A better example would be discovering Sovereign's true nature. That was a genuine twist that in no way messed with anyone.

It's wrong for them to take away choice because they marketed their game as the precise opposite. Nobody ever complained at not having choice in Metal Gear Solid, for example. Hideo Kojima never marketed Metal Gear based on the player having choice, and nobody went in expecting it, nor were they promised it. It's not a 'twist' to take away something you explicitly promised to your audience.

The Razman wrote... 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.

I think I've outlined clearly why the ending fails as a tragic ending, though. If you are happy to accept that it's terribly implemented that's fine. I'm not saying that they are not permitted to put in a downer ending. But there are so many fundamentally bad elements to this ending that I need some hefty arguments to show me why the many errors are not what they appear to be. But you aren't trying to argue that, as you said.

So, on to a pure on-topic response:

This has been done in past games. The correct thing to do is not to give an A B C ending choice, it's to have the choices made by the player in the game eventually lead to one conclusion or another, inescapably. Some people would experience the tragic ending, some would not.

The blatant error here was Bioware trying to force everyone into a cookie cutter ending after promising to do the exact opposite multiple times, and ensuring that everyone has the exact same experience after a certain point. Allow me to use an illustration.

Corpse Party - of all games - does this excellently. Certain choices you make lock you into ending paths, and it was a common way of handling multiple endings back when the concept was new. This newfangled A B C ending style is in many ways a retardation of prior developments.

Corpse Party - being a Japanese horror game - doesn't quite have a happy ending, but it varies from the unbelievably soul-crushingly awful to about as good as you could ask for, with most key characters alive. And it all depends on what you do at certain points, things you pick up and parts of the game you explore.

But in all cases, after a certain point you are locked into an ending. This permits the whole spectrum of endings to exist side by side, because you don't expeience all the events all of the time, get to a certain point and then press a button to decide which ending you get.

If you don't own Corpse Party you are a silly man who should rectify that error, but if you lack inclination and resources, I recommend looking up it's various endings on youtube at least.

For the purpose of your argument, an approach like this would stick to Bioware's promise of offering choice and allow the existence of happy and tragic endings or any path between. The only sacrifice - and it shouldn't be considered a sacrifice - is that not everyone will experience your tragic ending.

It seems to me that your argument is based on the premise that Bioware wants there to be only one ending ergo that is the only ending there can  be, but there are already existant examples in the gaming market where tragic and happy endings co-exist in the same game and are emotionally affecting.

In fact that's one of the prime draws of Corpse Party (though it's certainly not flawless).

The Razman wrote...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 is what happens.

You have described in a nutshell the exact series of events which occur when the crucible is activated. The war ends the second the crucible is turned on. How much more explicit a connection between 'turning it on' and 'winning' do you require?

The Razman wrote...That would be trite and uninteresting.

Yes. Yes it is.

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

Really? You actually liked that scene? I'm glad it didn't make the cut. If they have to die by unavoidable cutscene, squad members should have heroic deaths that aren't presented in a contrived, ham-fisted way.

[The Razman]

XqctaX wrote...

 as ussuall you answer by shifting subject or writing total nonsence.

Nonsense*

Pro-tip: If you're going to accuse somebody of writing nonsense ... spell "nonsense" correctly. Otherwise you're typing nonsence.

[Sgt Stryker]

iamthedave3 wrote...

This has been done in past games. The correct thing to do is not to give an A B C ending choice, it's to have the choices made by the player in the game eventually lead to one conclusion or another, inescapably. Some people would experience the tragic ending, some would not.

I must say, I like this idea quite a bit. You can't exactly have an on/off switch for happy/sad when it takes 100 hours of gameplay to flip that switch, am I right?

[Han Shot First]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

Really? You actually liked that scene? I'm glad it didn't make the cut. If they have to die by unavoidable cutscene, squad members should have heroic deaths that aren't presented in a contrived, ham-fisted way.

I'd rather player actions and choices had a role in who lives and dies, beyond "the two people you pick for this mission will die." That scene would have worked better if it played out similar to how they originally planned the final battle with Kai Leng: Both of Shepard's squadmates get into trouble, but he can only save one of them.

But I prefer that scene to just having Major Coates say over the radio that everyone in the beam rush was killed. It is bit like having Emily Wong killed off on Twitter. The ending would be better off by showing them die and Shepard's reaction to it, rather than just hearing Coates say, "Oh yeah, they're dead."

[Repearized Miranda]

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

I never said they win in Destroy! Obviously, you don't see that what is happening is not real!

The scene with  Anderson and TIM - especially TIM - could not make this any more clear!

For starters, since when have we ever seen him in the flesh? I don't mean watch a video with him in it in-game! Right there, face-to-face! I don't think this happened in ME2 - after the intro. He's holographic 99% of the time!

He practically walked over Liara on Thessia and she didn't feel a thing - let alone flinch!

And on top of that, his facial appearance? In reality, having met him before, the only thing noticeable are his eyes.. Nothing about his face looking huskified.

You misunderstood! That's the point of the Destroy option! That has been your goal since the beginning. Why change your mind because a Reaper (that's what that child is) sweet-talks you? Saren + TIM sweet-talked you, too. TIM both times. Conscienciously and Subconscienciously. Not one word changed - same can be said for Anderson!

IT is not even a part of this duscussion because as I said all the sweet-talking has happened in reality as well. It's bad now, because Shepard is "thinking about it?" and we see it visually? That was the whole point with the tests with TIM/Anderson/Starkid and Shepard doesn't have to be "Indoctrinated" to be struggling with it!

Remember when s/he whined about Thessia? Why wasn't that a dream sequence given how guilt ridden s/he was over it. (Liara thinking about it goes without saying). Everything that happened on Thessia was real!

Yes, self-sacrifce to save humanity is one thing; however, that because someone coerced you against it to benefit them is another - especially if their motives are clearly different than yours. "So, TIM was right?" Who actually fell for that? Especially after what "Anderson" said earlier to "TIM" because that'll be what happens to Shepard if that route is chosen (and you called BS when talking to him both times. ME2 and "Anderson")

Being that all of this is in his/her head ... all of this could happen without Reaper influence. This is partly why people are against IT because they because this can't possibly happen unless there is Reaper influence and IT is Reaper Influence, but that doesn't makes sense of some people! Whether they are in your face or in your head, they are trying desperately to turn you!!

[Han Shot First]

IT was pronounced dead the moment Bioware announced that the EC would not alter the existing ending, only clarify it.

Unfortunately the endings we got were the actual endings to the game.  Personally I'd love for there to be anything that makes the Star Brat "not real," but it looks like we are stuck with him.

[Sgt Stryker]

Speak for yourself. For me, Mass Effect 3 ended right as the fleet arrived at the Charon Relay. Everything else after that is non-canonical for me.

EDIT: Video removed, just remembered this is non-spoilers!

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 13 mai 2012 - 01:21 .

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

ME 1 does this perfectly. The twist in ME 1 is when you find out what the conduit actually is. It's a genuine twist, not one that redefines the narrative, mind, but still an effective, straightforward twist.

A better example would be discovering Sovereign's true nature. That was a genuine twist that in no way messed with anyone.

It's wrong for them to take away choice because they marketed their game as the precise opposite. Nobody ever complained at not having choice in Metal Gear Solid, for example. Hideo Kojima never marketed Metal Gear based on the player having choice, and nobody went in expecting it, nor were they promised it. It's not a 'twist' to take away something you explicitly promised to your audience.

You seem to be talking about narrative twists and gameplay mechanic twists as if they're the same thing. They're really not. It's not wrong to play with your player's expectations. In fact, that's precisely what a good game should do. You can argue that they didn't do it right, or that they didn't succeed in their attempt, but the idea that turning expected conventions and player expectations on their head is balderdash. You want a game to be trying to do that.

I think I've outlined clearly why the ending fails as a tragic ending, though. If you are happy to accept that it's terribly implemented that's fine. I'm not saying that they are not permitted to put in a downer ending. But there are so many fundamentally bad elements to this ending that I need some hefty arguments to show me why the many errors are not what they appear to be. But you aren't trying to argue that, as you said.

I really don't think you have outlined anything as such ... certainly not clearly, sorry. As far as I can tell, you're saying it fails as a tragic ending because the trilogy isn't meant to be a tragedy from the start and so making it one in the final game is "wrong", and that the Crucible is a "I WIN" button ... which somehow invalidates the ending as tragedy. That's probably not what you're arguing exactly, but to be honest with all the off-topicness and walls of text ... when you say "I've outlined clearly this" ... it's a bit hard to tell exactly where you have anymore.

The ending is tragic. It fulfills every single essential criteria of the literary word of "tragic". Whether you think it's good tragedy is another issue, but it is tragic.

This has been done in past games. The correct thing to do is not to give an A B C ending choice, it's to have the choices made by the player in the game eventually lead to one conclusion or another, inescapably. Some people would experience the tragic ending, some would not.

The blatant error here was Bioware trying to force everyone into a cookie cutter ending after promising to do the exact opposite multiple times, and ensuring that everyone has the exact same experience after a certain point.

But, if this is meant to be on-topic, that's the only way they could possibly allow for a tragic ending which meant anything. Your system of allowing total freedom over the ending eliminates any auteurism from the game's narrative, turning it into just a plaything to shape exactly how you want. That's fine if you like that kind of thing, but Bioware obviously went down the route of making sure the ending had a specific emotional significance ... and if that signficance was going to be tragic, then they can't allow for happy alternative endings invalidating its existence.

Corpse Party - of all games - does this excellently. Certain choices you make lock you into ending paths, and it was a common way of handling multiple endings back when the concept was new. This newfangled A B C ending style is in many ways a retardation of prior developments.

Corpse Party - being a Japanese horror game - doesn't quite have a happy ending, but it varies from the unbelievably soul-crushingly awful to about as good as you could ask for, with most key characters alive. And it all depends on what you do at certain points, things you pick up and parts of the game you explore.

Silent Hill 2 would've been a more well-known example of what you're referring to.

The trouble with that is that such a system leaves you in the dark about how important the decisions you're making actually are to how the game plays out. The reason ME3's ending decision is a good way to end ME3 is that it offers us a massive choice where we know what the effects of each are and we know the moral dilemma being presented to us. The games you're referring to simply result in a summation of your choices which you were making on an individual basis all adding up and having effects at the end ... which gives you no emotional turmoil or moral dilemma whatsoever, because you're oblivious to the importance of the decision you're making when you're actually making it. The only way it works is upon multiple playthroughs ... at which point the wonderment of not knowing what's going to happen later on in the narrative and what the conequences of the decisions are is gone anyway.

It seems to me that your argument is based on the premise that Bioware wants there to be only one ending ergo that is the only ending there can  be, but there are already existant examples in the gaming market where tragic and happy endings co-exist in the same game and are emotionally affecting.

And yet whenever people talk about the moments in games which are most emotionally affecting ... games where there are choice pretty much never feature on those lists. People have tried to put both in their games ... but they're consistently overshadowed by games which recognise the importance of either not devaluing the tragic with the choice of a happy option, or understand how critical equal balancing of tragedy is (as in Grand Theft Auto IV; no matter what you choose, somebody you're close to dies, it's only a matter of who ... much like Virmire, actually, which is why everyone talks about that moment as being one of the pinnacle of the Mass Effect series).

It's not they want there to be only one ending. It's that they want a tragic ending. And there's no other way of giving a tragic ending except this one.

That is what happens.

You have described in a nutshell the exact series of events which occur when the crucible is activated. The war ends the second the crucible is turned on. How much more explicit a connection between 'turning it on' and 'winning' do you require?

Um ... no it doesn't. You turn the Crucible on, and then the Starchild appears and you are presented with a moral dilemma. The Crucible doesn't matter, it's a MacGuffin. The Final Decision is what matters, is what the game has been leading to. If reducing things to "in a nutshell" is all that matters, I could take your method and devalue pretty much any story I want to.

Star Wars: Luke attacks the Death Star, shoots a rocket into a hole marked "I WIN", Death Star blows up. End.
Independence Day: Aliens attack, Will Smith flies up, hits an "I WIN" button and blows the aliens up. End.
Half Life 2: You go into the Citadel, shoot a big spinning target with "I WIN" on it, Breen blows up. End.
Mass Effect 2: You go to the Collector Base, fire a gun at a Terminator with "I WIN" stitched into its forehead, it blows up. End.

At least in ME3, the "I WIN" button is complex enough to give you a moral dilemma to tackle.

But again ... I don't see how this is on-topic. The topic is happy endings and sad/tragic endings not being compatible in the same non-linear narrative.

Modifié par The Razman, 13 mai 2012 - 01:31 .

[Repearized Miranda]

Han Shot First wrote...

IT was pronounced dead the moment Bioware announced that the EC would not alter the existing ending, only clarify it.

Unfortunately the endings we got were the actual endings to the game.  Personally I'd love for there to be anything that makes the Star Brat "not real," but it looks like we are stuck with him.

This is an egregious misstep by many who think this because the IT camp clears this up perfectly!

Speaking of Starbrat, is Shepard now Haley Joel Osment? Forget all the babble regarding the theory. If Shepard is able to see/talk to him, what about the other "dead" characters? Humans do not conscienciously see those of the deceased - not even in fantasy - well, fantasy you're trying to make seem realistic - but that's impossible to pull off. (Yes, there are such shows; however, that isn't the point)

This is why that comparison is made because the twist was brilliantly done! Nobody knew it! And if Shepard uttered those famous words, I can't think of a worse phrase than Udina's right now!

However, to use another TV show, people don't want another Dallas. They fail to understand that - the last 10 minutes doesn't ruin the 40+ hours you spent playing! The whole game wasn't a dream - only that last part. Yet, given the Sixth Sense comparison, folks didn't want Willis' character to be dead and expected as much until. Despite that changing the aura of the film, that is a one-of-a-kind twist. Yet, that would not fit Mass Effect in the literal sense; therefore, they go the psychological route - using technology (Reaper "juice")

I watched the PAX interview and IT while not confirmed wasn't denied. So, they could go either way. What I found odd was when one of the producers regarding the DLC said something about it's placement. (This was another video)

To me, it sounds like after the Cerberus Base (which you go back to) you get a few cutscenes, "Take Back Earth," but apparently have an explanation before you push "The Panic Button." Seems odd. Again, I don't know what will happen or what that meant, but something doesn't add up for me. *shrugs*

I don't the IT was asking to change the ending! I believe IT will be what "clarifies" it. At least that's what it's doing for the folks who are supporting it. We know it doesn't change what happened.

[Repearized Miranda]

^ The entire series has had a dark aura to it.

[Sgt Stryker]

magnetite wrote...

Happy endings are too cliche. It's nice to see that the ending to Mass Effect 3 didn't follow this path. It was more of a dark and mysterious ending (eg. IT discussion).

And grimdark endings aren't cliche? I have to disagree; a bright, cheerful ending isn't an intrinsically bad thing, neither is a dark ending intrinsically good and artistic.

[Erosuntzu]

The problem is not the end the problem is that they said. You need to fight hard for a good ending. No matter what you do you end up exploding, the entire galaxy in a rainbow of three colors.

You need to fight hard for a good ending. You need to fight hard for a good ending. You need to fight hard for a good ending. You need to fight hard for a good ending. You need to fight hard for a good ending. You need to fight hard for a good ending. You need to fight hard for a good ending.

All are equal and what you did in ME 1 and ME 2 was a waste of time.

[Sal86]

I'm going to try and make an argument here that is going to pretty hard to make in the non-spoiler section. I'm going to take Mordin as an example.

You made some decisions in ME1 and 2 that had a massive effect on the outcome of his arc in 3. At the time of those decisions, did you know what affect those decisions were going to have? There are 3 ways it can go, I assume you know what those are. Did that stop the finale of his personal story (things that happened to him personally) have less of an impact for you?

[The Razman]

Sal86 wrote...

I'm going to try and make an argument here that is going to pretty hard to make in the non-spoiler section. I'm going to take Mordin as an example.

You made some decisions in ME1 and 2 that had a massive effect on the outcome of his arc in 3. At the time of those decisions, did you know what affect those decisions were going to have? There are 3 ways it can go, I assume you know what those are. Did that stop the finale of his personal story (things that happened to him personally) have less of an impact for you?

I'm not sure who you're addressing, or what you're saying, sorry.

[MerchantGOL]

because a happy ending goes against the theme of the game, it was never gonna end like it dose in the fanfics

[iamthedave3]

The Razman wrote...

You seem to be talking about narrative twists and gameplay mechanic twists as if they're the same thing. They're really not. It's not wrong to play with your player's expectations. In fact, that's precisely what a good game should do. You can argue that they didn't do it right, or that they didn't succeed in their attempt, but the idea that turning expected conventions and player expectations on their head is balderdash. You want a game to be trying to do that.

Wait... there are gameplay mechanic twists? In ME 3? Where? Maybe in the Rannoch 'boss fight'? Other than that I'm stumped.

The Razman wrote...I really don't think you have outlined anything as such ... certainly not clearly, sorry. As far as I can tell, you're saying it fails as a tragic ending because the trilogy isn't meant to be a tragedy from the start and so making it one in the final game is "wrong"

It fails as a tragic ending because vast numbers of people don't buy it, feel it's forced and contrived, and hate everything about it. This is a pretty strong indication that your tragic ending is a colossal failure.

The Razman wrote...The ending is tragic. It fulfills every single essential criteria of the literary word of "tragic". Whether you think it's good tragedy is another issue, but it is tragic.

The primary literary definition of tragic goes along the lines of this: ". Relating to or characteristic of dramatic tragedy or tragedies:"

The primary definition of tragedy goes along the lines of this: " a. A drama or literary work in
which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow,
especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or
inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.b. The genre made up of such works.c. The art or theory of writing or producing these works."

So... yeah, you're kinda wrong on this one. in fact nothing about the ending of ME 3 has a tragic ring to it. It's completely in the vein of a heroic sacrifice, which is partly why it fails so abjectly (because of a prior mentioned issue where the structure of the ending robs the sacrifice of all heroism).

The Razman wrote...But, if this is meant to be on-topic, that's the only way they could possibly allow for a tragic ending which meant anything. Your system of allowing total freedom over the ending eliminates any auteurism from the game's narrative, turning it into just a plaything to shape exactly how you want. That's fine if you like that kind of thing, but Bioware obviously went down the route of making sure the ending had a specific emotional significance ... and if that signficance was going to be tragic, then they can't allow for happy alternative endings invalidating its existence.

My system of what? You're just making stuff up now, Raz. I've never once hinted, implied or stated anything even remotely in this direction. Quote me or it didn't happen.

The Razman wrote...Um ... no it doesn't. You turn the Crucible on, and then the Starchild appears and you are presented with a moral dilemma. The Crucible doesn't matter, it's a MacGuffin. The Final Decision is what matters, is what the game has been leading to. If reducing things to "in a nutshell" is all that matters, I could take your method and devalue pretty much any story I want to.

Oh this is going to be good.

The Razman wrote...Star Wars: Luke attacks the Death Star, shoots a rocket into a hole marked "I WIN", Death Star blows up. End.

Uh-huh. Off to a bad one here.

The Razman wrote...Independence Day: Aliens attack, Will Smith flies up, hits an "I WIN" button and blows the aliens up. End.

The ending of Independence Day has always been considered utter bunk. That isn't news.

The Razman wrote...Half Life 2: You go into the Citadel, shoot a big spinning target with "I WIN" on it, Breen blows up. End.

Oh dear.

The Razman wrote...Mass Effect 2: You go to the Collector Base, fire a gun at a Terminator with "I WIN" stitched into its forehead, it blows up. End.

Oh dear oh dear. Honestly I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain how wrong you are since I'm pretty sure it'll be obvious to anyone who reads your post and you've already shown you won't read it if I try to explain.

You clearly, dramatically don't have a clue what you're talking about on this issue. With the exception of Independence Day, can you point me to the macguffin that solves all of the problems on behalf of the unfortunate main character? You know, the one that would make your examples even faintly relevant?

Seriously, if you aren't going to try, I'm not either.

[Sal86]

The Razman wrote...

Sal86 wrote...

I'm going to try and make an argument here that is going to pretty hard to make in the non-spoiler section. I'm going to take Mordin as an example.

You made some decisions in ME1 and 2 that had a massive effect on the outcome of his arc in 3. At the time of those decisions, did you know what affect those decisions were going to have? There are 3 ways it can go, I assume you know what those are. Did that stop the finale of his personal story (things that happened to him personally) have less of an impact for you?

I'm not sure who you're addressing, or what you're saying, sorry.

Fair enough, I did say it was going to be hard to explain with absolutely no spoilers.

 I brought it up because Mordin's story in ME3 is one that is quoted as being one of the most emotional moments in video games, in spite of there being multiple possible outcomes, one of which subverts the key sacrifice of that particular story arc.

Edit: Or read the spoilery post that is up a bit.

Modifié par Sal86, 13 mai 2012 - 04:02 .

[Iakus]

MerchantGOL wrote...

because a happy ending goes against the theme of the game, it was never gonna end like it dose in the fanfics

Service History:
Akuze:  Shepard is the Sole Survivor of a unit of forty marinescaught  in a thresher maw attack
Elysium:  Shepard leads the defense of a colony in a pirate attack, holds out until Aliance reinforcements arrive
Torfan:  Shepard successfully leads a unit in brutal tunnel fighting operation while raiding a pirate base

Mass Effect 1:  Shepard triumphs of seemingly impossible odds, Beats Saren and Sovereign.  And when it looks like he perished in the fight, climbs out of a pile of rubble limping towards his squadmates and Anderson.

Mass Effect 2:  Shepard succesfully leads a strike against the mysterious Collectors in their own base beyond the Omega-4 Relay, a place no ship has returned from.  When all hope seemed lost, Joker, the Normandy, and Shepard's own crew pulled him out of the fire, and they escaped.

Yeah SHepard triumphing over long odds is totally not in character for the Mass Effect series 

[The Razman]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Wait... there are gameplay mechanic twists? In ME 3? Where? Maybe in the Rannoch 'boss fight'? Other than that I'm stumped.

You were the one who brought it up. The fact that player choice is taken away at the end of the game. That's a gameplay mechanic change.

It fails as a tragic ending because vast numbers of people don't buy it, feel it's forced and contrived, and hate everything about it. This is a pretty strong indication that your tragic ending is a colossal failure.

That's not an argument ... that's just argumentum ad populum.

The primary literary definition of tragic goes along the lines of this: ". Relating to or characteristic of dramatic tragedy or tragedies:"

The primary definition of tragedy goes along the lines of this: " a. A drama or literary work in
which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow,
especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or
inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.b. The genre made up of such works.c. The art or theory of writing or producing these works."

So... yeah, you're kinda wrong on this one. in fact nothing about the ending of ME 3 has a tragic ring to it. It's completely in the vein of a heroic sacrifice, which is partly why it fails so abjectly (because of a prior mentioned issue where the structure of the ending robs the sacrifice of all heroism).

... Shepard being forced to sacrifice himself while he experiences flashbacks of all the people he loved (which he's been saying goodbye to before the battle) doesn't qualify as "the main character suffering extreme sorrow as a consequence of an inability to cope with unfavourable circumstances"?

Yeah ... sorry, but drop that one, please. It's tragic. The whole thing is a tragic narreme. I can draw a proper definition from an actual literary academic source (rather than a dictionary, which is never a good thing to be using in any debate) and compare them against other examples from various media, but I'd really rather not have to waste the time on something which is fairly obvious.

Oh this is going to be good.

The Razman wrote...Star Wars: Luke attacks the Death Star, shoots a rocket into a hole marked "I WIN", Death Star blows up. End.

Uh-huh. Off to a bad one here.

The Razman wrote...Independence Day: Aliens attack, Will Smith flies up, hits an "I WIN" button and blows the aliens up. End.

The ending of Independence Day has always been considered utter bunk. That isn't news.

The Razman wrote...Half Life 2: You go into the Citadel, shoot a big spinning target with "I WIN" on it, Breen blows up. End.

Oh dear.

The Razman wrote...Mass Effect 2: You go to the Collector Base, fire a gun at a Terminator with "I WIN" stitched into its forehead, it blows up. End.

Oh dear oh dear. Honestly I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain how wrong you are since I'm pretty sure it'll be obvious to anyone who reads your post and you've already shown you won't read it if I try to explain.

Um ... I know you think that was some kind of rebuttal ... but without offering anything in favour of spending an inordinate amount of your time interjecting purile comments instead of, y'know, answering them, it's just kinda making it look like I've said something you can't respond to. I'm only applying the exact same ridiculous standard you were. If you've abandoned the conversation in favour of ... whatever that mental breakdown of a response was, this line of conversation is probably done with.

Not that this line of conversation is actually anywhere near on-topic to begin with.

Modifié par The Razman, 13 mai 2012 - 04:29 .

[The Razman]

Sal86 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Sal86 wrote...

I'm going to try and make an argument here that is going to pretty hard to make in the non-spoiler section. I'm going to take Mordin as an example.

You made some decisions in ME1 and 2 that had a massive effect on the outcome of his arc in 3. At the time of those decisions, did you know what affect those decisions were going to have? There are 3 ways it can go, I assume you know what those are. Did that stop the finale of his personal story (things that happened to him personally) have less of an impact for you?

I'm not sure who you're addressing, or what you're saying, sorry.

Fair enough, I did say it was going to be hard to explain with absolutely no spoilers.

 I brought it up because Mordin's story in ME3 is one that is quoted as being one of the most emotional moments in video games, in spite of there being multiple possible outcomes, one of which subverts the key sacrifice of that particular story arc.

Edit: Or read the spoilery post that is up a bit.

Um ... you don't have a choice in whether or not you can save Mordin? It's predetermined at the start of Mass Effect 3 by a variable which has no clear narrative connection that I can see to the event (Wrex's death in ME1). That's not a choice ... no matter what you do in Mass Effect 3, you're never going to have the option of whether Mordin lives or dies (well, you get the option to shoot him, but that's not tragedy).

[Eaglesfan64836]

This is simple. There can't be a perfect ending because then there would be no difficult descisions in a game that is supposed to be all about difficult choices. Granted Mass Effect's story is fairly coockie cutter with a good choice bad choice, black and white view of the world. I guess you could say that there can't be a perfect ending for the same reason that Harry Potter should have died. There is sacrafice in war.

[feliciano2040]

Haasth wrote...

I don't care for a happy ending.
I just want one that makes sense and doesn't involve Space Magic.

How exactly does "Javik's touch" work within the confines of empirical science ?

Or biotics for that matter, or indoctrination.

Seriously people, get real !