649 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

 It still amazes me that atter everything Commander Shepard has been through in the trilogy, particularly the death and destruction witnessed in the war in ME3, that having the possibility to survive and be reunited with crew/LI is considered "too Hollywood".  The term is bittersweet, for cryin' out loud!

The endings to the first two Mass Effect games must have been downright painful for some folks to watch 

[wright1978]

Think you really have to define what you mean by a happy ending. If it is the ability for Shep to live in at least one ending and re-unite with friends and loved ones. Then i feel that this most strongly should be in the game. There should be a consequence to counterbalance this choice of course.

I don't want a rainbow and bunnies happy ending. I want a variety of endings with different sacrifices(bitter) and different rewards(sweet)

[Newnation]

Considering you can lose a lot of the people that helped you during your journey before the big choice, I would say the ending was already going to be bittersweet. Everything else after the choice was just a kick in the balls. I don't see why surviving and reuniting with your remaining crew a la DA:O as one possible ending to the game would be a bad thing.

[clipped_wolf]

I disagree with OP using the DA:O 'Sacrifice' ending as my counterpoint.
EDIT: The choice was accepted before the last fight, not forced on you.  There was a reason to make it stick....I could go on.
Dying in ME2 could be seen as not being canon and there your point hold true.

Modifié par clipped_wolf, 11 mai 2012 - 10:17 .

[jeweledleah]

because somehow surviving suicide mission with no casualties invalidates all the people who prefer to lose a few squadmates here and there? it doesn't matter if some people think that something is a "perfect" ending. gamers minmax. its what we do. there's no avoiding it. no matter how hard you try to balance out the choice, someone will ALWAYS find the most optimal spec, the most optimal path. so trying to remove a possibility of a "win" just because you don't want people to go for "optimal" conclusion is... not a good idea IMO.

oh and DAO sacrifice?  can be compeltely avoided in an optimal fashion.  harden Alistair, make him marry Anora, make Loghain gray warden, refuse dark ritual, have Loghain take the last blow.  he is redeemed, Warden survives and can even stay with their LI, if its Leliana/Zevran/Alistair convinced to keep her on as a mistress. and its best for Ferelden according to epilogues.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 11 mai 2012 - 01:50 .

[spirosz]

Happy endings = people aren't mature enough for "real endings" as some people tend to argue. The mindset behind that baffles me.

[OlympusMons423]

Truly different outcomes, including a happy ending, or sad ending that might make it better for everyone in general, would have us all revisiting this game to get each, over and over again. BioWare could still have what was official to them amongst them. Once a ME4 came out, we would find out what that was.

Seeing how the whole thing ends with a bit of grand-pa telling his grandson a story.... this is legend vs actual history.... and this kind of thing has several different versions. The debate would be more healthy I think if we were debating which was the real history. It also would make a better game experience because there would just be more to unlock.

Yes something happy could and should make it in. Happy does not mean sell out if you handle it with some reality thrown in.

[DaJe]

If you make all the right decisions throughout the series you deserve a god damn happy ending.
The suicide mission of ME2 was to easy to deserve that name. But ME3 doesn't even have any variation.
Players don't invest hundreds of hours, just to be kicked in the quads. There should be some kind of goal that is worth fighting for. An ending that makes it worth replaying the whole series and do everything right.

Instead you are screwed, screwed and more screwed in any case.

It should be really hard to get anything resembling a good ending in this context but it should be possible!

Otherwise the message of this franchise is "No matter what you do, which choices you make... life sucks. Whatever, **** you."

Yeah brilliant game design, that is going to break sales records...

[MARIACHI isBACK]

The Razman wrote...

there would be no problem with just having a happy ending

The only reason we can't have a happy ending is because BioWare says so.
Their artistic vison is a non-happy ending.
Their message is we don't think you deserve a happy ending.
Prove me otherwise.

[Repearized Miranda]

jeweledleah wrote...

because somehow surviving suicide mission with no casualties invalidates all the people who prefer to lose a few squadmates here and there? it doesn't matter if some people think that something is a "perfect" ending. gamers minmax. its what we do. there's no avoiding it. no matter how hard you try to balance out the choice, someone will ALWAYS find the most optimal spec, the most optimal path. so trying to remove a possibility of a "win" just because you don't want people to go for "optimal" conclusion is... not a good idea IMO.

But look at ME2, How "hard" was it to lose - that is, have everybody die? Same question goes for ME3!

As much om as there is for as optimal win, there is that same amount of room for loss. It's as simple as a coin flip. The probability of getting heads or tails never changes - regardless of the result's frequency.

This is where the Readiness comes in. If at 50%, "Chances of Victory are even." Higher values mean you have a better chance of winning; however, that doesn't negate losing.

The #1 team in the nation has the sa,e chance of losing as the unranked team they're facing has at winning. Sure, the score causes it to fluxuate; however, the chance of either happening remains constant.

I said earlier, that for all the times Shepard got back up after being knocked down, does not mean - that not getting back up is out of the question!

I don't think they removed the possibility of an optimal win like they didn't remove the likewise loss from ME2. The thing with ME3 is they made it seems like you can get the optimal win in one-run (and well, they did - MP, apps, etc)

However, the minmax thing you speak of is due to "FRS" - First Run Syndrome! And this is where they messed up kinda! Now, they say it takes two runs if you ignore the tools the gave you! Due to FRS, this is why people are peeved.

The first two games saw MM, but also FRS; however, they got played and beaten again and again - experiencing the optimal win and loss. Yet, even if you get the optimal win in ME3, if not for MP, character experimentation, who would toch ME3 again because most agree that SP took a dive compared to the previous games.

This isn't a Happy vs. Mature ending thread - nor is it to say that some got it, some didn't/ What this is saying is this is what happens when you take things too seriously!

Heck, Shepard even says: "Seems like Reapers are all the rage!" when talking to Garrus on Earth or Kasumi's comment how everybody craps themselves when you merely say - "Reaper!" (Shepard's reaction is priceless, too)

Interestingly enough Shepard's always said this and nobody flinched - til now! (The Turian Councilor is the first guy this is done to ironically and rightfully so! "We have dismissed this claim?" (Yeah!)

With ME2 is was: "I can win, but can't lose!" In ME3, it's "I can lose, but can't win!" From a FRS perspective, this is totally understandable! (especially, if you don't care for MP or apps) And gamers don't play to lose!

[Subject M]

Look...

I think we all deep down understand that everything has consequences and that no ending should be without its own pros and cons in a game like this. But we also know that people have different preferences when it comes to endings. Some people like "happy" ending and other people loves to watch their hero go down in a blaze of glory and so on and so forth.

So what does all this mean?

It means that if Shepard survives and have blue babies, a house on Rannoch or adopts a krogan baby with Garrus, there have to be costs associated to these endings. I would have suggested a logical approach here:
You need to be highly prepared to survive, but preparation takes time, all that gathering allies, resources and so on would be one part of the scale and on the other, Earth itself. The longer you wait, the more people dies. In short, bringing the full might of the galaxy upon the reapers and ending up surviving with your LI and babies and so on, would mean that Humans would more or less become an "endangered species" Reduced to a couple a couple of hundred thousands survivors or something.

It also means that people will always look for the ending that resonates strongest with them.

[CELL55]

And if you don't have a happy ending, then the next best ending will be the ending that players will take as the 'best possible ending' that 'wins' the game. And if you don't have the 2nd best ending, players will take the 3rd best ending. And so on. This series was supposed to be all about player choice, so there is no reason not to have a happy ending if that's what players choose. Otherwise you'll end up removing all of the top 'happy' or 'best' endings and leave players with a bunch of near-identical depressing endings that come up out of nowhere and get everyone really, really angry.

[Nomen Mendax]

The Razman wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Dan Dark wrote...

... .

Opinions obviously vary, but I thought the endings for DAO were exceptionally well done.  I played it through three times and chose a different ending each time and felt all of them were the right choices for the characters I was playing.  But I think DAO is a far superior game.

I don't feel the need to get into this, considering it's a discussion which has already taken place in this thread a month ago ... but regardless of whether you felt they were right for your character, all of the Dragon Age: Origins endings were utterly unemotional when it came to any kind of pain or heartache.

And that's fine. Endings don't need pain or heartbreak or bittersweetness. But if they're going to do it, they need to do it right. And this is a simple fact ... you can't have an off-switch for unhappy emotions in your game. It doesn't work, it never has, and there isn't a single example of it working in video-game history that I've seen so far.

When I replied to Dan I didn't notice your OP was a month ago!  But I still think it's worth pointing out that the bit I've bolded is just your experience of the endings, not a fact.  When I (and obviously other people who praise it) played DAO I did find the endings happy or sad and they did work for me.  So your assertion in your OP is wrong if you are trying to claim it as some kind of universal truth.  The problem is that you are talking about how you perceive endings and about how you play games and you are assuming that everyone experiences them and plays them the same way you do.  They don't.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 11 mai 2012 - 05:04 .

[Tenshi]

MARIACHI isBACK wrote...

The Razman wrote...

there would be no problem with just having a happy ending

The only reason we can't have a happy ending is because BioWare says so.
Their artistic vison is a non-happy ending.
Their message is we don't think you deserve a happy ending.
Prove me otherwise.

artistic vision? unfinished and unexplained piece of rushed cr@p is art? 

[Bocks]

Dragon Age: Origins had a relatively happy ending and I still chose to sacrifice my Warden.

Your point is so invalid and useless.

[AlanC9]

simfamSP wrote...
It depends in how you see a happy ending. A happy ending for me would just need my companions (squad members and ex-squad members) alive. Earth can be nearly destroyed and the united forces of the Galaxy nearly destroyed. But aslong as those characters are alive I couldn't give a ****.

So the existing endings are happy endings?

[TheLoneStorm]

Bocks wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins had a relatively happy ending and I still chose to sacrifice my Warden.

Your point is so invalid and useless.

This

[Grimwick]

1) A bittersweet ending doesn't make it a good one. Badly done bitter(sweet) endings are far far worse than badly done happy(ish) endings. A good happy ending will trump bittersweet on satisfaction any day. And that's what a lot of people play for - satisfaction at the end of a story.

2) Why should we be forced into bittersweet? Bittersweet should have been the result of failure at some point in the story. What if curing the genophage was the wrong choice? What if sparing the rachni eventually led to betrayal? What if saving the collector base actually made a difference to how smooth everything went?

Bittersweetness in a game about choice should come as a result of our choices - not as a forced concept that we have to take for granted (would argue more here but it's in non-spoilers).

3) Choices. Similar to the previous point the game should have focused on choices, choices, and more choices. we shouldn't have a button for a happy ending because there shouldn't be a button at the end at all. And if we are forced into some button-based ending then there should be more buttons with more endings other than... you know. Sad and bitter endings shouldn't have been forced onto us anymore than happy ones - but they were.

4) Define happy...? If you find billions dead, the galaxy nearly all destroyed and *can't say due to spoilers* "bittersweet" then... well you would find anything happy. Frankly, a Shepard reuniting with his/her crew at the end would not be happy. It would be a sombre, mixed reunion of guilt, happiness, sadness and hope (especially if your EMS/choices led to different people/fleets dying)- the perfect 'bittersweet' ending.

5) Narrative focus. For a story to successfully pass off a sad ending, they need to keep the game focused on something we love in order to maintain our emotional connection to the story and universe. ME completely forgets to do this. It decides to shift away from what we love in the game - the characters and people of ME, our LIs and squadmates - and instead decides that it only wants to show us a bunch of mass relays and explosions. In amongst all this chaos (gah can't spoil) we lose our key emotional attatchment to the game and we never get it back.
Well done bitter(sweet) endings refocus effectively and seamlessly, take the often quoted Titanic for example.

A happy ending doesn't make it a bad or cliched ending. It's a sad (no pun intended) fact of life that many people these days take it as one. I for one have had enough of poorly executed tragedies and nihilistic and twisted plotlines. These days, twists are so cliched. 

[Repearized Miranda]

^ Agreed with the last part and hat's even more unfortunately is that there's thrown in there just because (which is what folks are saying regarding IT - despite being a key element to the franchise)

But yes, throwing in a twist just to have it is bad as is having characters act out of character to advance a plot; it's really bad when you look deeper and see that was it.

Sure, we say: If this didn't happen, we'd have no movie/show/game; however, there's a difference between writing a twist that is actually a twist instead of one tacked on and there are a good amount of those.

The Starchild everybody's complaining about as a new character, but IT supporters are telling you is [n]not[/b] and why. And if you're paying attention, you'd see how they are right!

You are being tricked!!

The boy is dead! You have an out-of-body experience! It uses the same circular fallacies - not to mention using some vocabulary you've heard before that no child has no clue about let alone business using!

Yeah, he's new given that we've never seen him in the flesh before (ME, ME2).

That is no twist whatsoever nor did they intend it to be.

I believe wherethe cliche part comes from is due to it's overuse. In fact, there's a synonymous word for it: Trope!

While these two words are different they are practically interchangeable.

Cliched: hero rides off into the sunset with the one s/he saved. Trope it stems from: Guy saves victim as the last minute/second!

We see both scenarios too damn often!

[Random citizen]

Subject M wrote...

Look...

I think we all deep down understand that everything has consequences and that no ending should be without its own pros and cons in a game like this. But we also know that people have different preferences when it comes to endings. Some people like "happy" ending and other people loves to watch their hero go down in a blaze of glory and so on and so forth.

So what does all this mean?

It means that if Shepard survives and have blue babies, a house on Rannoch or adopts a krogan baby with Garrus, there have to be costs associated to these endings. I would have suggested a logical approach here:
You need to be highly prepared to survive, but preparation takes time, all that gathering allies, resources and so on would be one part of the scale and on the other, Earth itself. The longer you wait, the more people dies. In short, bringing the full might of the galaxy upon the reapers and ending up surviving with your LI and babies and so on, would mean that Humans would more or less become an "endangered species" Reduced to a couple a couple of hundred thousands survivors or something.

It also means that people will always look for the ending that resonates strongest with them.

+1 Kris!

[Rip504]

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.

:lol:
Define Alternate. Hence You are incorrect.