649 réponses à ce sujet

[LvFR3AKSHOW]

because it not a fairy tale. . . life sucks sometimes even in the future

[PrinceLionheart]

True Are is Angsty. Gotcha.

[xbeton0L]

Maybe it can start by having "an ending" first. Then depending on what you do in the game determines "how" the game ends.

Example.

If you end it too quickly, and don't find enough resources to avert the Reapers' attention, then the Crucible gets destroyed. (bad ending)

Or, if you forgot to 'get' something that keeps the Crucible from destroying everything, then everyone on Earth gets vaporized. (bad ending)

Or say you've completed a routine playthrough collecting most needed artifacts for a satisfactory ending, you Kill the Reapers but destroy the Mass Relays (blue/green ending).

Or perhaps further by discovering some old Prothean tech left by an innovative scientist, you can overwhelm the Reapers and not need to use the Crucible, therefore thwarting the Reaper threat and ensuring life continues on as usual. (good ending)

[themikefest]

shep deserves a happy ending for all the the things she has done for the crew,squadmates and the galaxy that its about time everyone gives back to her especially when she ask for nothing in return

[Iakus]

LvFR3AKSHOW wrote...

because it not a fairy tale. . . life sucks sometimes even in the future

Good think this isn't life then, but a game.  Something that's supposed to entertain people.  And this ending failed to deliver for a lot of people.

[Iakus]

themikefest wrote...

shep deserves a happy ending for all the the things she has done for the crew,squadmates and the galaxy that its about time everyone gives back to her especially when she ask for nothing in return

This.

Shepard rescued by Normandy crew or former ME2 squadmates would have been a great end.  Shepard's past deeds coming back to save him/.her at the hour of greatest need.

[Yezdigerd]

LvFR3AKSHOW wrote...

because it not a fairy tale. . . life sucks sometimes even in the future

Mass effect is very much a fairy tale. One of the main themes is Shepard's struggle to overcome insurmountable odds.  If you want realistic ending just don't reload when Shepard is killed by some Cerberus mook. I doubt many play computer games to be reminded of how life sucks.

I must say I was amazed there wasn't a "happy" ending. The medium's strength is the ability to craft your own story. You can cater to different groups this way unlike say a movie or book. I would think the great majority of the consumers would have liked to see Shepard retire starting a family or something and not giving the consumers what they want is like.. stupid.. if you want to sell games.

[Rip504]

Joker deserves a slow and miserable death. Killing EDI is the highlight of ME3...
Joker gets me killed in ME2,then Joker abandons me in ME3? Tali where the %$&^ is your Shotgun?
Plus he gets my loyal crew stranded on a random no name planet...

Joker has been Indoctrinated since ME1. EC exclusive!!!

Modifié par Rip504, 11 mai 2012 - 08:57 .

[spirosz]

Rip504 wrote...

Joker deserves a slow and miserable death. Killing EDI is the highlight of ME3...
Joker gets me killed in ME2,then Joker abandons me in ME3? Tali where the %$&^ is your Shotgun?
Plus he gets my loyal crew stranded on a random no name planet...

Joker has been Indoctrinated since ME1. EC exclusive!!!

What...

[Subject M]

spiros9110 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Joker deserves a slow and miserable death. Killing EDI is the highlight of ME3...
Joker gets me killed in ME2,then Joker abandons me in ME3? Tali where the %$&^ is your Shotgun?
Plus he gets my loyal crew stranded on a random no name planet...

Joker has been Indoctrinated since ME1. EC exclusive!!!

What...

Booze, its a helluva drug.

[The Razman]

Jesus. Hard to dig out the posts which are any worth amid ... yeah. <_<

Sal86 wrote...

I'm not going to tell you that your emotional response (or lack thereof) is invalid. It's not. Your assertion that mine is is quite distasteful.

I'm not telling you your emotional response is invalid anymore than you're telling me that my liking ME3s ending is invalid. I, however, am not claiming I'm not holding a minority opinion. Neither should you. Same for Noman Mendax.

DA:O doesn't have an ending which anybody's been talking about as being wonderfully heartbreaking and emotional. Check any lists you want of "saddest" or "most emotional" moments in gaming. DA:O isn't mentioned in any of them. It wasn't being talked about as such when the game was released. I was there. Hell, you can even go back on these very forums and look at the threads yourself if you want. You'll find people talking about what options they chose with great enthusiasm, but nobody waxing over the emotionality of it.

Now compare that to all the games where you have no choice to avoid the pain. Final Fantasy 7. Shadow of the Colossus. Half Life 2. Red Dead Redemption. Fallout 3. The Darkness. Hell, even Grand Theft Auto IV is commonly quoted. I'm only going to say it one more time. You cannot have an off-switch, or the pain has no hold over you, and you're not going to remember it. You can say all you want about me being distasteful for not considering your personal emotional reaction to something ... but this is based on everything we see around us in gaming, so you're pretty much a minority if you do hold that view.

I made this point a month ago and I really shouldn't have to be making it again. People coming in and saying "Well actually I felt that DA:O had a very emot-" Good for you. Very much good for you. Please don't act like that isn't a minority opinion though. Actions > words, every single time.

Same goes for UndergoingMitosis. Your post is actually a wonderful case study example of how we can't be hurt by fantasies we create ourselves in games. Nobody ever cried or was emotionally touched by anything that happened in The Sims. You need auteurs to make you feel pain in games. You're not going to inflict those emotions on yourself. I mean seriously, look ...

jeweledleah wrote...

because somehow surviving suicide mission with no casualties invalidates
all the people who prefer to lose a few squadmates here and there?

Prefer? Seriously ... prefer to lose squadmates? Nobody goes into the Suicide Mission wanting squadmates to die (if Bioware's done their character writing correctly). But it's a suicide mission. If you go into a suicide mission and come out with everyone alive pretty simply (and it is ridiculously simple in gameplay terms to keep everyone alive; pretty much "don't put a square peg in a round hole" stuff) then you have a massive dramatic anti-climax.

In your view, people can just choose to have people die if they "want". Nobody wants pain inflicted on them. You can't leave whether or not your story is painful up to the player; then it's never going to be painful or bittersweet at all.

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.

See, bravo, that's getting so much closer to the heart of the issue. Balancing a player's narrative desires to create heartbreak is fine. Case in point: Fallout 3, everyone was torn up about that ending even though you have the choice between you dying or Sarah dying.

I think your solution wouldn't work, because we don't really care about generic "people on Earth dying" things. We don't have the same emotional connection to them as to the characters we've built relationships with. When it's directly comparative sacrifices like on Virmire, it works ... it's like balancing on scales. When you take two completely different things and weigh them up, it becomes like trying to attach weights to a balloon to make it hover; impossible to balance correctly for everyone.

Grimwick wrote...

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?

No, bittersweet doesn't equal good ... I don't think I ever said it did. The point isn't that happy endings are bad or painful endings are good, or visa versa. It's that whatever the writer has chosen to do is what the writer has chosen to do. If the writer wants to end the story on a sad note, you can't have a switch to make it a happy one if you don't like it ... otherwise there's no point in having the sad ending.

I did say that if you're going to do a painful ending (and they did), then you can't have an off-switch for the pain. The idea of being "forced" into it assumes that we have any choice in the matter (or that we even could ... how do you make a bittersweet story for yourself? It doesn't make any sense). Your choice is illusion. This is still someone else's narrative. It's their job to make you feel stuff, not yours.

Your assertion that we should have ultimate choice in everything that goes on in the story flies in the face of auteur theory, and there's no way that's beneficial for player emotion. Non-auteur titles are games like Minecraft and The Sims, where our enjoyment in the story is totally emergent. Mass Effect isn't one of those games ... its a traditional written narrative, and leaving all the emotions we feel up to us is reducing the games down to the level of a toy rather than an art piece.

PrinceLionheart wrote...

True Are is Angsty. Gotcha.

You've mistaken this thread for one saying that sad endings are "correct". It's a thread saying that happy endings and sad endings are equally valid but unable to integrate into the same narrative without the happy invalidating the sad.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and ask you to try again.

Yezdigerd wrote...

I must say I was amazed there wasn't a "happy" ending. The medium's
strength is the ability to craft your own story. You can cater to
different groups this way unlike say a movie or book. I would think the
great majority of the consumers would have liked to see Shepard retire
starting a family or something and not giving the consumers what they
want is like.. stupid.. if you want to sell games.

Haven't we moved past thinking of the gaming medium as something which has to do one thing or another? Just because games can offer choice doesn't mean they should. They offer massive potential for alternative narratives. Let's not tie them down to having to give people choice just because "it's what the medium does".

Finally, Rip504 and slyguy ... that's some amateur trolling, dudes. Seriously. Lookin' desperate.

[wrighty232]

Personally, one of my favourite things about ME2 was how it rewarded effort or rather punished laziness. I loved the feeling of success after finishing ME2 with no casualties. Bioware took that away to make the game bittersweet?! Even though we have already seen what the Reapers have done and we do lose friends to them? That makes no sense

[JBONE27]

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.

Basically what you're saying is, "We can't have a happy ending because people want to get a happy ending and will feel like failures if they don't get it."  

[The Smoking Man]

The Razman wrote...You can't have a bittersweet ending be a choice. The whole point of an emotional ending to something is that it involves something you don't want to happen. Nobody wants what happened at the end of ME3 to occur. If they have the option to simply not have it occur, and have a happy ending instead ... they will do it. And then the sad ending loses all its emotional power.

This is like saying that the option to backstab a certain somebody on Tuchanka has no emotional power because you can choose not to.

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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

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

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

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

Basically what you're saying is, "We can't have a happy ending because people want to get a happy ending and will feel like failures if they don't get it."  

Basically what you're saying is ... "I don't really understand what you just said, so I'm just going to say 'Basically  what you said is this', say something you didn't say, and then criticise the result."

Take it away, Tali.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

bleetman wrote...

Can't say I agree. Partly because sad endings lose their emotional impact pretty much the minute you've done them the first time, and partly because I don't pick my ingame decisions (which as far as I'm concerned should dictate which ending you get far more than they currently do), including the final three choices, based on which one is the percieved "better" choice. I go with what my character would do. It's the same reason I've had characters snuff it during the suicide mission in ME2, long after I'm aware of the mechanics of how to survive them. It's why I've had Wardens sacrifice themselves, long after I've worked out the means to have everyone walk away breathing and happy.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned I don't particularly want a "happy" ending for myself, but I do think it needs to be there. The current situation - ignoring the pathetic five second teaser clip dependant on whether or not you played God damn multiplayer or not - is one where Shepard dies. In every scenario. That's not sacrificial. That's not 'emotionally powerful'. That's just railroading the player down one path and expecting them to be upset by it. Self sacrifice is meaningless when it's forced. When it's not - when characters, including your own, die as a consequence of your decisions along the way under circumstances that could've been different if things hadn't been quite the same along the way - that's when you get emotionally powerful scenes.

You want sad endings that make the most of the tragedy? Have a 'happy' ending be possible as well.

As far as why people apparently latch onto that quick teaser of Shepard maybe surviving as the "best" ending, I'd assume it's because, out of the three, it's effectively the only one that has even the slimmest ray of hope. The others are just overwhelmingly grim. That's not a bittersweet ending, that's just pointlessly melodramatic.

This!

[string3r]

Because Casey and Mac clearly thought it would be too "safe" and not "original enough".

[Subject M]

>The Razman

I guess the point was that some people would prefer or think it is "better"  or more "in line with character" with Shepard dying and the humanity ending up more numerous while others would similarly think Shepard living with blue babies and what not is the best ending, but with humanity decimated. You can throw in variables such as Anderson dies, if Shepard lives and vice versa, but I must make clear that I fully reject the idea that tragedy and not satisfaction is or should be what the developers wants to instil in players.

Modifié par Subject M, 12 mai 2012 - 12:05 .

[BlueJeans]

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

I disagree with this statement. First time I played DAO I chose to sacrifice my warden because it would have been out of character to do otherwise. And yes it was very bittersweet. Just because there is an option to have a happy ending doesn't mean that everyone will choose it. It depends on the kind of character you're playing and the choices you've made. That's why there are ME2 guides for the worst possible ending. People want to experience several different endings, ranging from complete victory to total failure. It's one thing that makes replaying the game fun.

Modifié par BlueJeans, 12 mai 2012 - 12:14 .

[The Razman]

Subject M wrote...

>The Razman

I guess the point was that some people would prefer or think it is "better"  or more "in line with character" with Shepard dying and the humanity ending up more numerous while others would similarly think Shepard living with blue babies and what not is the best ending, but with humanity decimated. You can throw in variables such as Anderson dies, if Shepard lives and vice versa, but I must make clear that I fully reject the idea that tragedy and not satisfaction is or should be what the developers wants to instil in players.

And I don't believe we should be dictating what emotions the developers get to instil in their players. They went for tragic, and that has to be respected. Demanding they undermine the tragic ending by sticking an alternative one in so people can have control over their feelings of loss negates the whole point of doing a tragic ending in the first place.

That's the whole point of the thread, really.

[Benchpress610]

So OP, you not only want to be miserable, but drag everybody else with you. I guess you want company. If we've had the option of an uplifting and happy ending, I’m sure you’d be very lonely in your misery. If you want a sad and depressing ending, good for you, but don’t try to impose your views on everybody else.

This is a GAME, not a novel or a movie. We play it to…well…play, to have fun, to win.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

I'm not looking for a "happy ending" I just want a decent ending that actually puts all our past choices in consideration. Multiple endings to choose from would be nice too, I'm shocked they didnt add it to begin with.

But theres nothing wrong at all with having a "happy" ending as an OPTION. Like Benchpress above me said, its a game. If you like sad endings then thats perfectly fine by me, but why deprive from those who are looking for a more postive outcome to their Shepard's story?  

Modifié par NOD-INFORMER37, 12 mai 2012 - 12:25 .

[Kesak12]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

I'm not looking for a "happy ending" I just want a decent ending.

But theres nothing wrong at all with having a happy ending as an OPTION.

Modifié par Kesak12, 12 mai 2012 - 12:17 .

[Iakus]

BlueJeans wrote...

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

I disagree with this statement. First time I played DAO I chose to sacrifice my warden because it would have been out of character to do otherwise. And yes it was very bittersweet. Just because there is an option to have a happy ending doesn't mean that everyone will choose it. It depends on the kind of character you're playing and the choices you've made. That's why there are ME2 guides for the worst possible ending. People want to experience several different endings, ranging from complete victory to total failure. It's one thing that makes replaying the game fun.

Agreed.

This isn't Assassin's Creed or Alan Wake, where the player is just along for the ride and has no input in how the story progresses.   this is Mass Effect, a (supposed) rpg where the player has some agency in shaping the story.  There is zero reason why a happy (or to be more accurate a "happier") ending shouldn't be possible based on player choice. 

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

>The Razman

I guess the point was that some people would prefer or think it is "better"  or more "in line with character" with Shepard dying and the humanity ending up more numerous while others would similarly think Shepard living with blue babies and what not is the best ending, but with humanity decimated. You can throw in variables such as Anderson dies, if Shepard lives and vice versa, but I must make clear that I fully reject the idea that tragedy and not satisfaction is or should be what the developers wants to instil in players.

And I don't believe we should be dictating what emotions the developers get to instil in their players. They went for tragic, and that has to be respected. Demanding they undermine the tragic ending by sticking an alternative one in so people can have control over their feelings of loss negates the whole point of doing a tragic ending in the first place.

That's the whole point of the thread, really.

I think most of us expected them to honor the tradition and thematic style of the series at the end.
I would personally never have invested so much time and effort in a series like this if I suspected the ending not lining up with the rest of the story.

Do you honestly think they where going for the reaction so many of us are having? I do not and if I am right, then something went horribly wrong with that ending.

Modifié par Subject M, 12 mai 2012 - 02:59 .