649 réponses à ce sujet

[napushenko]

Getorex wrote...

Shepard death = mature/adult? What crap. The game is foursquare targeted at the teenager crowd, particularly Jr High and Highschool, hence the massive boobification of all female characters tied to the seemingly contradictory "maturity" of no nudity, even seen from behind:women get into showers to have sex FULLY CLOTHED. Women wake up in bed in the morning after a night of sex WEARING THEIR BRAS - panties can be forgiven.

Yeah, that just SCREAMS "maturity" so, sure, Shepard should die to fit into that "mature" theme. Bullcrap. Plain and simple. Oh, and "logic" like "I had to create synthetics to kill organics before their own synthetics had a chance to kill them". Yeah, that is Tea Party "adult" logic right there ("Don't let the govmn't touch my Medicare!"). An educated adult, a mature adult, doesn't buy that sort of ridiculous "logic". The end could have literally (I'm not kidding) actually included butterflies and a unicorn and it would have fit right in with the "logic" and "maturity" of the game.

The game is mature. Boobs and sex dont have anything to do with it. It deals with mature themes throughout of it very convincingly otherwise it wouldnt have much fans. 
The boobs are the boobs. Just like almost every male in the game is muscular and attractive. So what ? 

And were not reading Dostojevski here, from ME 1 you knew what you deal with. Big bad baddies want to destroy earth and youre there to stop it. Only you can do it just because. In context of the story, the game deals with mature subjects and survival of anybody is not given, cause we saw that those close of us die. When i think about it, we saw it in Star Wars too. But i dont know,  mass effect feels more realistic then star wars i guess. Its not that kind of space magic. 

Dragon Age is not mature in that way too, but it sure feels like it. Same way with Mass Effect.  

[Getorex]

Lobinic wrote...

The end sucks more than a skunk is disgusting and repulsive.
So I think nothing will make me change my mind.

I take strong exception to your comment.  Skunks may stink SOMETIMES (not 100% of the time) but they are always cute.  I like skunks (so long as they aren't spraying me).

Be nice to skunks and they will be nice to you.

[Grimwick]

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
]In ME1 the reaper story was dotted with side-stories or side-choices which you could affect. Did you help or kill Parasini? Did you save/kill the Feros colony? etc

This is added upon by the council choice at the end as well as choices within the numerous side-quests

For any of those to prove your point you have to name something, anything, which affects the major plot points of the narrative. Does it matter to the battle with Sovereign if you kill Parasini? Or save the Feros colony? Or, rather ironically considering it's something I was going to bring up myself but you did for me ... what does killing or saving the Council change in the game's major storyline?

Nothing. Nothing changes. Everything happens pretty much exactly as it did before. Any change within the narrative is entirely in the imagination.

And yet the narrative doesn't entirely compose of JUST the main reaper story does it? The narrative changes with EVERY decision in the game because no matter what, something in the story of Shepard has changed.

The word narrative encompases more than just the straight forward sequence of events.

[Getorex]

napushenko wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Shepard death = mature/adult? What crap. The game is foursquare targeted at the teenager crowd, particularly Jr High and Highschool, hence the massive boobification of all female characters tied to the seemingly contradictory "maturity" of no nudity, even seen from behind:women get into showers to have sex FULLY CLOTHED. Women wake up in bed in the morning after a night of sex WEARING THEIR BRAS - panties can be forgiven.

Yeah, that just SCREAMS "maturity" so, sure, Shepard should die to fit into that "mature" theme. Bullcrap. Plain and simple. Oh, and "logic" like "I had to create synthetics to kill organics before their own synthetics had a chance to kill them". Yeah, that is Tea Party "adult" logic right there ("Don't let the govmn't touch my Medicare!"). An educated adult, a mature adult, doesn't buy that sort of ridiculous "logic". The end could have literally (I'm not kidding) actually included butterflies and a unicorn and it would have fit right in with the "logic" and "maturity" of the game.

The game is mature. Boobs and sex dont have anything to do with it. It deals with mature themes throughout of it very convincingly otherwise it wouldnt have much fans. 
The boobs are the boobs. Just like almost every male in the game is muscular and attractive. So what ? 

And were not reading Dostojevski here, from ME 1 you knew what you deal with. Big bad baddies want to destroy earth and youre there to stop it. Only you can do it just because. In context of the story, the game deals with mature subjects and survival of anybody is not given, cause we saw that those close of us die. When i think about it, we saw it in Star Wars too. But i dont know,  mass effect feels more realistic then star wars i guess. Its not that kind of space magic. 

Dragon Age is not mature in that way too, but it sure feels like it. Same way with Mass Effect.  

I'm thinking and thinking trying to remember who all the people who die are.  How many characters I care about croak.  Let's see.  There's Kaiden (or Ash if you CHOSE WRONG ) in ME1.  In ME2...hmmm...I didn't lose a soul.  In ME3...I lost no one I cared about that I had any close connection to (no squadies) or had any control over.  The only deaths were throwaways like the ending death of Shepard was throwaway.  You get an email saying so-and-so croaked or some such.  Didn't lose a single other member I "cared" about.  So, I don't see where the mature theme of "survival is not a given" comes in.  Yeah, many CAN die in ME2 if you really make bad decsion after bad decsion, but you REALLY have to be doing that on purpose just to be a dick.  If you try NOT to be an absolute dick you lose no one.  Legion's "death" doesn't really count to me as that was as gratuitous as that of Shepard's death at the end of ME3.  He didn't sacrifice himself to defeat the Reapers either, he did it to improve the Geth.  Nice and all but he wasn't even really a squadmate by that point, just a walk-on role (same as ALL the characters from ME2 save Liara and Garrus).  So...nope, didn't lose a single core person/character in the actual fighting against the Reapers.  Then at the end, as an afterthought, they force Shepard's demise for no reason whatsoever.  Ties up the end the way some 12 year old kid might to end a story..."and then he died.  The end."

Just because.

[lillitheris]

So, if I may summarize, we can’t have a happy ending because the OP has lofty ideals about himself but zero self-control.

[thehomeworld]

The way ME is there can't be a happy ending but shep also doesn't need to die 3 times over to prove that. If he lived there still isn't a happy ending because you lost Thessia, loads of colonies, and some of your past crew members. If shep and his LI live you've still got the same issue.

They could've still had the relays blow up but if they did even if shep and LI live its still not a good world so you can't have a happy ending no matter what all you get is a bitter sweet one the copy/paste ending we got that only differed in 2 -3 extra or exempt scenes depending on your color choice was not necessarily has shep die and destroy the relays in one ending in another have him live but the relays blow up then a third the reapers win and guess what the relays blow up and shep is captured and forced to be their pawn via hacking. BW could've made them all really different they chose not to.

Epilogues would've also helped alot I wanted to know outright what happened to 3 games worth of npcs, worlds/colonies I saved, my LIs, and galactic stability or lack there of I don't like the whole subliminal or hidden message on what happened to my crew like the crash Normandy = whomever shows on it is dead just outright tell us BW sure you killed off a half the npcs and crewmen we use to know is it going to be a Lost in no matter what you pick everyone dies anyway if so don't do that it'll suck.

[Getorex]

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
]In ME1 the reaper story was dotted with side-stories or side-choices which you could affect. Did you help or kill Parasini? Did you save/kill the Feros colony? etc

This is added upon by the council choice at the end as well as choices within the numerous side-quests

For any of those to prove your point you have to name something, anything, which affects the major plot points of the narrative. Does it matter to the battle with Sovereign if you kill Parasini? Or save the Feros colony? Or, rather ironically considering it's something I was going to bring up myself but you did for me ... what does killing or saving the Council change in the game's major storyline?

Nothing. Nothing changes. Everything happens pretty much exactly as it did before. Any change within the narrative is entirely in the imagination.

And yet the narrative doesn't entirely compose of JUST the main reaper story does it? The narrative changes with EVERY decision in the game because no matter what, something in the story of Shepard has changed.

The word narrative encompases more than just the straight forward sequence of events.

Totally irrelevant to the real story.  Side stories are nice but they ALL end up having no real, lasting effect whatsoever.  Case in point, I saved the Rachni queen in ME1.  At the time I was thinking, "Hmmm, it would be cool to have a resurrected rachni on my side against the reapers!" (plus I was opposed to bringing any living thing to exinction on principle).  Turns out, so what?  Save the queen, don't save the queen, it makes NO difference whatsoever.  Hell, if you kill her you run into yet ANOTHER rachni queen in ME3 to no real benefit if you save her.  Doesn't alter the outcome whatsoever.  If you save the queen in ME1 then the queen you meet in ME3 is the same queen ONCE AGAIN under the sway of the reapers.  Sheesh.  You save her, she leaves all grateful, and then IMMEDIATELY gets caught up by the reapers again.  

Kill Wrex, don't kill Wrex, the end turns out the same for the Krogan and the end of the game turns out the same.  Get the Krogan on board or don't, so what?  Cure the genophage or don't, no difference.  Save the geth at the expense of the GUILTY quarians or save the quarians at the expense of the geth or save them both.  Outcome?  THE SAME.  The only difference is a short phrase of dialog her or there.  That's it.  Don't move your "Galactic Readiness" one bit from game start to end and it makes no difference.  The ending is the same lame stupid.  In short, ME1 and ME2 were merely time-wasters until the last 10 minutes of ME3 could be burned to DVD.  They were all just the elevator music keeping you "entertained" until the starturd could be plopped into your lap, all steamy and pungent. 

[BD Manchild]

Getorex wrote...

Closure does not equal Shepard (and LI) dead.  Closure has absolutely NOTHING to do with mortality whatsoever.  

Where the hell do I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Grimwick]

Getorex wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
]In ME1 the reaper story was dotted with side-stories or side-choices which you could affect. Did you help or kill Parasini? Did you save/kill the Feros colony? etc

This is added upon by the council choice at the end as well as choices within the numerous side-quests

For any of those to prove your point you have to name something, anything, which affects the major plot points of the narrative. Does it matter to the battle with Sovereign if you kill Parasini? Or save the Feros colony? Or, rather ironically considering it's something I was going to bring up myself but you did for me ... what does killing or saving the Council change in the game's major storyline?

Nothing. Nothing changes. Everything happens pretty much exactly as it did before. Any change within the narrative is entirely in the imagination.

And yet the narrative doesn't entirely compose of JUST the main reaper story does it? The narrative changes with EVERY decision in the game because no matter what, something in the story of Shepard has changed.

The word narrative encompases more than just the straight forward sequence of events.

Totally irrelevant to the real story.  Side stories are nice but they ALL end up having no real, lasting effect whatsoever.  

Kill Wrex, don't kill Wrex, the end turns out the same for the Krogan and the end of the game turns out the same.  Get the Krogan on board or don't, so what?  Cure the genophage or don't, no difference.  Save the geth at the expense of the GUILTY quarians or save the quarians at the expense of the geth or save them both.  Outcome?  THE SAME.  The only difference is a short phrase of dialog her or there.  That's it.  Don't move your "Galactic Readiness" one bit from game start to end and it makes no difference.  The ending is the same lame stupid.  In short, ME1 and ME2 were merely time-wasters until the last 10 minutes of ME3 could be burned to DVD.  They were all just the elevator music keeping you "entertained" until the starturd could be plopped into your lap, all steamy and pungent. 

I lol'd at the pure rage at the ending and I'm with you.

My point wasn't that the overall story changed dramatically (it changed a bit in one or two parts) my point was that there is a narrative difference, a very real difference, between one Shepard killing Wrex and curing the genophage with Wreav and a Shepard curing the genophage with Wrex.

Whether or not it actually changes what events take place is a different matter, I'm saying that the story is still changed.

[napushenko]

thehomeworld wrote...


Epilogues would've also helped alot I wanted to know outright what happened to 3 games worth of npcs, worlds/colonies I saved, my LIs, and galactic stability or lack there of I don't like the whole subliminal or hidden message on what happened to my crew like the crash Normandy = whomever shows on it is dead just outright tell us BW sure you killed off a half the npcs and crewmen we use to know is it going to be a Lost in no matter what you pick everyone dies anyway if so don't do that it'll suck.

Youl get that in an expansion  
And im not being ironic. 

[Sgt Stryker]

Getorex wrote...

Kill Wrex, don't kill Wrex, the end turns out the same for the Krogan and the end of the game turns out the same.  Get the Krogan on board or don't, so what?  Cure the genophage or don't, no difference.  Save the geth at the expense of the GUILTY quarians or save the quarians at the expense of the geth or save them both.  Outcome?  THE SAME.  The only difference is a short phrase of dialog her or there.  That's it.  Don't move your "Galactic Readiness" one bit from game start to end and it makes no difference.  The ending is the same lame stupid.  In short, ME1 and ME2 were merely time-wasters until the last 10 minutes of ME3 could be burned to DVD.  They were all just the elevator music keeping you "entertained" until the starturd could be plopped into your lap, all steamy and pungent. 

I think the reasons you bring up in this paragraph are just some of the issues that people hope are solved by the Extended Cut. Whether or not that will actually happen, I don't know. Guess we'll find out in a few months.

[napushenko]

Getorex, if you wanted to be cynical you could pull apart any game for design choices you personaly dont prefer. You saying that you didnt lose anyone doesnt mean that everybody survived in other people games. And suicide mission is deadly serious, you really need to do everybodys personal mission (your prefference) and need to pick your teammates very carefuly. Legion actually died in ME 2 savegame when i picked him in one spot i obviosly shouldnt and that meant i couldnt make peace with geth / quarians. Wrex died in my game and i didnt trust Wreav enough about his post-war intentions so i sabotaged cure that could cure millions of infertility. Thats not a mature subject ?
All philosophy on artificial intelligence and very grey choices you had to make are for kiddys ?

The only difference is not a bit of dialogue here and there but almost overall game experience & your decisions in it change because of the choices made. Did you actually played the game with "substitute" characters because you just said your whole party survived ?

[napushenko]

And do you actually need some wall of text after credits roll to verify your "choices" ?
Picture maybe. A nice smiling photograph of quarian and geth making love. What would it take for your precious choices to matter ?
Maybe a litlle bit of imagination ?
When i destroyed genophage cure i felt disgusted a bit, especially at funeral of a woman who died just to bring her children chance of better future. But i had to do it for a calculus. And i needed to look them into eyes when they were celebrating something i destroyed. A allies.
I destroyed entire race of sentient beings who were innocent at the beginning but it had to be done. I chose those i sympatize more with. They knewed it too. My teammate knew it too.
Those are childrens choices ?

If you think choices dont matter because some picture didnt rolled at the credits maybe this isnt the game for you.

[Getorex]

The only Bioware games I've owned are ME2 and ME3. I own ME1 but don't really count it as Bioware as it is owned by Microsoft (right?) and isn't listed here on their own website. I am not going to ever own any DA title. After ME3 I don't see any way that I will ever own any future Bioware titles either. Over and done. Thanks to the end of ME3.

Here's another way to illustrate the issue. My wife doesn't get computer games. I have played them since the TI-99, my family played them as a family back then, taking turns. I grew up on games so I "get" computer games. Anyway, she comments on how I spend time playing silly games so then I explain to her (at the time I was playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution pretty heavily) that it isn't simply a "silly game". It is a STORY that you take an active part in telling. It isn't about just shooting people, PEW! PEW! PEW!, it actually has a very good and interesting story behind it and that you reveal as you play. Deus Ex: Human Revolution is about transhumanism at its core. It is about a near future situation whereby you can modify yourself with tech of various types that can make you smarter, faster, stronger than a normal person. It is about the question of, "At what point do you modify yourself so much that you are no longer human?". It asks, "At what point do you lose your humanity?". It asks, "How should this technology be controlled? Should it be available to everyone equally? Should only the rich be able to benefit, which would cause an even bigger rift in society where the rich have all this tech modification that makes them superior in many ways to normal people...is this OK? Of course not but how do you deal with it?" Pretty big questions, pretty interesting questions.

Then I get to Mass Effect. What's it about...oh boy. Well honey, it turns out that it is about a magical kid, some 9-year-old godlike creature who made a bunch of super-powerful AI robots that kill all advanced civilizations in the galaxy every 50,000 years in order to prevent these civilizations from being killed by their own AIs. Err...look over there! A pretty butterfly! Honey! A BUTTERFLY!
OK honey, you win. On this one I WAS simply playing a stupid computer game afterall but, c'mon! I didn't KNOW that was what it was about until I got the very VERY end of it! Before then I thought it was some big, grand mystery. Turns out it was just f*cking retarded. Wanna a beer?

Modifié par Getorex, 14 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[MonkeyLungs]

Getorex wrote...

The only Bioware games I've owned are ME2 and ME3. I own ME1 but don't really count it as Bioware as it is owned by Microsoft (right?) and isn't listed here on their own website. I am not going to ever own any DA title. After ME3 I don't see any way that I will ever own any future Bioware titles either. Over and done. Thanks to the end of ME3.

ME1 is more Bioware than ME2 or 3. It was merely published by Microsoft back when Bioware was still owned by Bioware. From ME2 and on Bioware was a division of EA. EA is not he publisher, they OWN Bioware, Bioware is a division of EA, a brand, a label. Prior to EA buyout they were an actual company.

[TheRealJayDee]

lillitheris wrote...

So, if I may summarize, we can’t have a happy ending because the OP has lofty ideals about himself but zero self-control.

Pretty much. Sadly DA2 taught me that Bioware shares his point of view about the urgent need of players to "win" RPGs, which is countered by removing choices and positive outcomes. Because obviously only forced negative outcomes create emotions nowadays...

[Getorex]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

So, if I may summarize, we can’t have a happy ending because the OP has lofty ideals about himself but zero self-control.

Pretty much. Sadly DA2 taught me that Bioware shares his point of view about the urgent need of players to "win" RPGs, which is countered by removing choices and positive outcomes. Because obviously only forced negative outcomes create emotions nowadays...

Sure.  Emotions.  Like anger, disgust, incredulity, puzzlement.  All the emotions that one should seek to evoke at the end of a game to make it a "success". 

[The Razman]

Getorex wrote...

Pishposh.  Real life has happy endings up the yingyang.  Wars have happy endings as well.

Happy ending is a viable and realistic optional ending because...real life has them all the time, thus it is NOT "impossible".

... Mass Effect isn't real life. Mass Effect is a narrative. And narratives have rules.

Literary and narrative conventions don't follow a rule of "if it happens in real life, it can happen in a narrative!" Most stuff that happens in real life makes awful narratives (which is why we have to apply narrative conventions to real life stories whenever we're reporting them on the news, or even just orally).

tl;dr: This is a thread about narrative and literary rules. Not real life.

slyguy200 wrote...

What?
You don't want tragedy, yet having it is the whole point of your anti-happiness ideas, then you say this?
From what you have said thus-far, you have wanted it to be a tragedy, that seems quite clear.

If you'd been reading the thread instead of just trolling it, you might have been able to keep up with why what you just said is ridiculous.

I don't want the story to have anything except what the writers wanted for it. And if the writers want the end to be tragic, then that's perogative. If you want a tragic ending, then the ending is not going to be tragic by design, since nobody can want tragedy to happen or else it isn't tragic for them (see: any number of posts before where I've explained how nobody wants star-crossed lovers to kill themselves, nobody wants Rose to let go, and if they do ... then they're not feeling the emotions which a tragic ending should be bringing).

I don't know why I wrote that much for a post from a known troll, but there you go. Let it never be said I ain't charitable.

From what i see about this so far, people are against a happy ending
because it is something about people being emo, and wanting to actually
feel something.
I played through ME2 perfectly every time and got my
squad out perfectly, this is what i wanted. The game rewarded me for
playing through it without messing anything up.
That, however, is not how everyone sees it.
Some
people wanted to play through perfectly and have some of the squad die
dramatically on the mission, even after doing it all perfectly. So, with
the game rewarding them with their squads survival, it actually angered
them that they all survived, and they never got an "EMOtional pay-off"
from all there hard work.
Ridiculous. right?

Really? You were satisfied with the whole game saying "This mission, this is a suicide mission, it's impossible to do, nobody has EVER COME BACK ALIVE, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE, EVERYONE YOU LOVE IS GOING TO DIE, SAY GOODBYE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW BECAUSE THERE IS NO RETU oh wait you did it quite easily. Nevermind, LOL!!!" You know what that's called?

Your c hildish "emo" comments aside, they chose a tragic ending. And there are rules to doing a tragic ending which prevent a happy ending being in conjunction with it. Read the thread you've been trolling for more details, and then kindly deal with it.

iakus wrote...

It may be difficult, but Bioware had repeatedly told us that our
decisions mattered, that going in prepared will give us "better" endings
(they also told us there'd be multiple ways to stop the Reapers based
on our decisions, but...yeah...)

Off-topic, but all of that is true? Going in prepared with EMS does give you better endings, and you do have multiple ways of stopping the Reapers based on your decisions. That those aren't what you were expecting isn't 100% Bioware's fault, although they could've explained it better beforehand so people's expectations weren't as high as they were.

Although if I'm honest, Sgt Stryker's argument has turned me round to the belief that most people's expectations were based primarily on their own sense of expectation rather than anything Bioware said, so I'm not even sure how much validity that argument has anymore.

BD Manchild wrote...

Once again it seems like someone's missed the point of why people are so
hard on the ending. Nobody is upset at the tone of the ending (at least
I'm not); people are upset because it comes out of nowhere, doesn't
make any sense, doesn't provide any real closure and is all over in just
a couple of minutes.

The Razman wrote...

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.

No offence ... but that's in the very first post in this thread. You can't not have read it?

Getorex wrote...

Totally irrelevant to the real story.  Side stories are nice but they
ALL end up having no real, lasting effect whatsoever.  Case in point, I
saved the Rachni queen in ME1.  At the time I was thinking, "Hmmm, it
would be cool to have a resurrected rachni on my side against the
reapers!" (plus I was opposed to bringing any living thing to exinction
on principle).  Turns out, so what?  Save the queen, don't save the
queen, it makes NO difference whatsoever.  Hell, if you kill her you run
into yet ANOTHER rachni queen in ME3 to no real benefit if you save
her.  Doesn't alter the outcome whatsoever.  If you save the queen in
ME1 then the queen you meet in ME3 is the same queen ONCE AGAIN under
the sway of the reapers.  Sheesh.  You save her, she leaves all
grateful, and then IMMEDIATELY gets caught up by the reapers again.  

Kill
Wrex, don't kill Wrex, the end turns out the same for the Krogan and
the end of the game turns out the same.  Get the Krogan on board or
don't, so what?  Cure the genophage or don't, no difference.  Save the
geth at the expense of the GUILTY quarians or save the quarians at the
expense of the geth or save them both.  Outcome?  THE SAME.  The only
difference is a short phrase of dialog her or there.  That's it.  Don't
move your "Galactic Readiness" one bit from game start to end and it
makes no difference.  The ending is the same lame stupid.  In short, ME1
and ME2 were merely time-wasters until the last 10 minutes of ME3 could
be burned to DVD.  They were all just the elevator music keeping you
"entertained" until the starturd could be plopped into your lap, all
steamy and pungent. 

I'm amazed to see Getorex agreeing with me, and visa versa.

Apart from the "ME1 and ME2 are timewasters" part, they were self-contained narratives in themselves. But the rest is a pretty good wording of what parallel narratives are like, yes.

Grimwick wrote...

My point
wasn't that the overall story changed dramatically (it changed a bit in
one or two parts) my point was that there is a narrative difference, a
very real difference, between one Shepard killing Wrex and curing the
genophage with Wreav and a Shepard curing the genophage with Wrex.

Whether or not it actually changes what events take place is a different matter, I'm saying that the story is still changed.

In a purely superficial manner. If performing that action doesn't lead to any alternative narrative paths through the game whatsoever, then it's not affected the narrative at all. You may as well just put a different dress on a Barbie and claim it's a new toy.

Basically, @Getorex ... I agree entirely with you on what the story is like ... but all Mass Effect games have been that way. They all follow this path of linear, parallel branching. Why were you expecting a drastic change in formula in ME3?

[Sgt Stryker]

The Razman wrote...
Basically, @Getorex ... I agree entirely with you on what the story is like ... but all Mass Effect games have been that way. They all follow this path of linear, parallel branching. Why were you expecting a drastic change in formula in ME3?

Because the developers implied exactly that would happen, at least with the ending.

"There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? "
- Mike Gamble

"You had a part in it. Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens. "
- Mike Gamble

This next one is probably the biggest whopper of them all...

Interviewer:  "With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?"
Casey Hudson: "Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.It’s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them."

And who could forget...

Interviewer: "Are there alternative endings depending on what you do in the game?"
Casey Hudson: "There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it. "

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 15 mai 2012 - 12:51 .

[The Razman]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

The Razman wrote...
Basically, @Getorex ... I agree entirely with you on what the story is like ... but all Mass Effect games have been that way. They all follow this path of linear, parallel branching. Why were you expecting a drastic change in formula in ME3?

Because the developers implied exactly that would happen, at least with the ending.

Again? Unless you can show me people actually paying attention to and talking about those quotes in that manner pre-release ... then no, the vast majority of people weren't basing their expectations on whatever quotes you're bringing up. You've actually returned to the "why do you think people are so angry" line that you were just the other page denying you'd ever said.

I've already asked you to simply show me some kind of evidence of what you're saying about five times. Slightly baffled why you're so persistent that people were doing that, and you seem to have the time to hunt down the quotes themselves and write a long post with hyperlinks to them and all ... but you won't just show me people building their expectations on them pre-release.

You're just practicing revisionist history here. The majority didn't pay attention before, then suddenly after release, people's expectations were all being driven by these quotes? No. Show me, or stop wasting your time beating a dead horse which has been proven wrong.

[Sgt Stryker]

Actually finding a thread on this forum within that specific time frame (between January 2012 and March 6, 2012) is more difficult than you think, especially since it does not indicate the actual post date (just a vague x months ago). Finding an article in a gaming news site is much, much easier. Also bear in mind that this forum was down for maintenance immediately before the March 6 release date. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few old threads were deleted, especially if people were discussing details from the leaked beta.

In fact, since we've gone way off course here, let's start back from the very top, with my quote in response to your parallel/branched narrative pictures:

In that case Casey Hudson made a big boo-boo, by advertising the game as the latter, when in reality we got the former. 

Here I assert that the developers claimed their product had multiple endings that are very different from one another, that the player crafts a unique story, that since this is the end of the trilogy, they have a lot more leeway in making more divergent endings, etc. etc. etc. None of that happened with the actual game, and therefore, we can conclude that at least in the marketing department, Bioware made a big mistake. Now, I don't know about other people, but I also made a mistake of believing there would be many divergent endings that depended on your past choices in the games. One mistake that I will not repeat in the future.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 15 mai 2012 - 02:34 .

[Shermos]

Well said Razman. This forum needs more people like you.

[Andromidius]

The Razman, your head is clearly buried in the sand. You're given quotes showing something, and you just brush them off as if they don't matter. Clearly you don't care about actual discussion, and just want to make everyone feel as miserable and despressed as you are.

Sorry, but no thanks.

[JBONE27]

The Razman wrote...

Krunjar wrote...

Sorry but you CAN have a happy ending not saying anyone will do it. But yeah you can't just have a button saying "happy ending" you gotta make people work for it. But if they do that then it's fine if you want bittersweet you just don't go to the extra trouble. If you lack the willpower to go bittersweet just because a happy ending "exists" then you just lack willpower.

What you're effectively saying is that people have to work for it to get an unhappy ending, in that scenario. Which assumes that people want an unhappy ending. If you want an unhappy ending and work towards it ... then it's not going to be unhappy for you (just like if you want to kill off characters you don't like and you work towards it, it's not going to hurt you).

It's been said many times in this thread, but its length is probably making it so people aren't bothering to get to the important bits anymore, so I'll just say it again ... you can't want tragedy to happen, the whole point of tragedy is that it's something we don't want to happen. Otherwise it has no emotional hold on you.

3 points.
1. You obviously did not read the post.  If you play through the main story, make certain choices wrongly, etc. you don't get the happy ending.  That's the polar opposite of working for it.

2.  Saying you can't want a tragedy to happen is like saying you can't want to have pain inflicted upon you or you can't like brussle sprouts.  There are absolutely people who want to be sad.  If nobody wanted tragedy to happen in fiction there would be no tragedy in fiction.  Think about it, what are Shakespeare's most famous plays, "Hamlet," "Romeo and Julliette," The Scottish play, "Richard the Third,"  all of them tragedies.  Name 5 anciant Greek plays, I can garentee you if you ask 1000 people to do that most of them will only come up with, at most 1 comedy, and the rest will be tragedies.

3.  If your second point was correct, then it was a stupid move.  If a customer wants a prodcut (counting a happy ending as one), and they don't get said prodcut, they no longer buy futher products from the company.  Your whole argument is dependant on Bioware being in the right by not giving people what they want, but in the end it's a stupid move for the company even if it is the right move artistically.  It's like selling lemonaide sans sugar.  People want sugar in their lemonaide.  It might nutritionally be the right choice, but financially, it's incredibly stupid.