706 réponses à ce sujet

[Arttis]

txgoldrush wrote...

Face it.....a happy ending WOULD break the intergrity of the game.

The MAIN THEME of Mass Effect 3 is VICTORY THROUGH SACRIFICE.. This requires an ending that is bittersweet at best. Yes trilogies as a whole can overlying themes throughout, such as overcoming all odds (which WAS fuffilled in ME3, Shepard DID break the cycle), but single entries in a series or trilogy has their own themes.

Bioware should, and looks like they are, provide far more clarity and closure, however, not change the tone of the ending or provide a happy ending. To do so is selling out and breaking the relevance of the ending....

Hell, ME1 was not a fully happy ending, in fact had elements of victory through sacrifice, as either the a part of the alliance navy or the council is sacrificed, and ME2 is a hollow victory at best. This isn't Star Wars either, where Alderaan and Taris can be annihilated but be no longer relevant 5 minutes later....and end on a ceremony. And ME3 is so dark, a happy ending would not be appropriate.

In fact, ending the current universe and creating a new beginning IS A GOOD THING and a smart move. That needs to stay.

They broke DA2 with dead character being alive for no reason.
If your talking about Bioware breaking artistic integrity.
It has been broken before.
This is nothing new.

[nicksmi56]

Nobody can have a happier ending because you're happy with your bittersweet ending? Yipee for you -__-

[Zhen-Lin]

With out happy endings, the story would lost its artistic intergrity. Because that is what Mass Effect all about ---- choices and consequeces.
Like Mass Effect 1 and 2, Mass Effect 3 need happy endings as possible outcome.

Have a look those links, especially the first one, you will get the idea:

[Iconoclaste]

Shepard is not on the "narrated" part of the action, he IS the action. Characters that die during the game are secondary, even the meaningful ones. There is quite a difference between the two, and any other kind of ending could have been designed to satisfy the PLAYER, aka SHEPARD. He is the window by which we see all this universe unraveling through 3 episodes, then at the very end we're taken by the hand to a cheap cutscene-driven death.

If we had been shown Shepard slowly crushed under a big metallic Reaper foot, yelling and gargling but at the same time giving distraction so his teammates could pull the KillAll switch, would it have been an equivalent "bittersweet" and acceptable ending?

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 27 mars 2012 - 04:42 .

[Psychlonus]

Pornographers have artistic integrity. They would never let you force them to change then ending.

[RamilVenoard]

Psychlonus wrote...

Pornographers have artistic integrity. They would never let you force them to change then ending.

*ehem* Because the ending is presumably, always the same, but enough of that.

Yes, I cant remember who, but somebody voiced my exact concern with a happy ending. A happy ending makes a bittersweet or blaze of glory ending into a gameplay failure which makes it seem like a less worthy ending since it means you did something wrong and should go back and fix it.

And that's a problem.

[Reth Shepherd]

If I want a downer ending I can visit a news website. If I want a world where if I fight my hardest and put everything I have into it, I can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, I had games like Mass Effect. I want nothing to do with a sadistic Lady-and-the-Tiger choice that has three differently-colored tigers behind each door. No matter which one I choose, I destroy everything and everyone I fought for. This is why I choose to hold Indoctrination Theory close. It's not (just) because it makes more sense than the actual ending. It's because it provides the wiggle room for me to turn around and create my own ending, one that lets me actually SAVE the blasted galaxy. It's bittersweet, there's been far too much death and destruction (including to my own Shepard) for it to be a happy ending. However, it's an ending that provides hope for the future.

[Dan Dark]

RamilVenoard wrote...

Psychlonus wrote...

Pornographers have artistic integrity. They would never let you force them to change then ending.

*ehem* Because the ending is presumably, always the same, but enough of that.

Yes, I cant remember who, but somebody voiced my exact concern with a happy ending. A happy ending makes a bittersweet or blaze of glory ending into a gameplay failure which makes it seem like a less worthy ending since it means you did something wrong and should go back and fix it.

And that's a problem.

Dan Dark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that happy endings make less than happy ones GAMEPLAY FAILURES and not true endings. To make a sadder, more bittersweet ending meaningful, there can be no ending happier than it.

...why? What, we can't have a happy ending, because it's addition will suddenly invalidate your bittersweet ending that you had previously been perfectly content with? Written correctly, sad and bittersweet could easily be just as powerful and meaningful as happy; heck, it'd probably be easier for the bittersweet one to be more powerful, really.

This isn't about "right" or "wrong," it's about telling a story. Most of us just want the story to end in a way we can feel satisfied with; for many, bittersweet isn't enough. But if that's perfect for you and your character, why can't both options exist, other than your need to feel like you got the "best" ending? Best is a subjective term, after all...

Modifié par Dan Dark, 27 mars 2012 - 04:59 .

[ShdwFox7]

"Adding a happy ending IS breaking artistic integrity." ummm... yeah? Your point?

Modifié par ShdwFox7, 27 mars 2012 - 05:03 .

[txgoldrush]

Zhen-Lin wrote...

With out happy endings, the story would lost its artistic intergrity. Because that is what Mass Effect all about ---- choices and consequeces.
Like Mass Effect 1 and 2, Mass Effect 3 need happy endings as possible outcome.

Have a look those links, especially the first one, you will get the idea:

The Witcher has no happy outcomes, however it crushes ME1 and ME2 in regards to choice and consquence.

[txgoldrush]

Dan Dark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that happy endings make less than happy ones GAMEPLAY FAILURES and not true endings. To make a sadder, more bittersweet ending meaningful, there can be no ending happier than it.

...why? What, we can't have a happy ending, because it's addition will suddenly invalidate your bittersweet ending that you had been perfectly content with? Written correctly, sad and bittersweet could easily be just as powerful and meaningful as happy; heck, it'd probably be easier for the bittersweet one to be more powerful, really.

Wrong...look at Ogre Battle, I wonder why happy endings are canon.....because anything less are degrees of gameplay failure.

[nevar00]

Holy ****, this awful argument just needs to die.

There's art, and then there's a game with photoshopped images, DLC ads, reporters playing their own characters, and a plot hole-ridden, dues ex machina-using, cliched, convoluted, overused, nihilistic psuedo-philosophical hipster bull**** ending. Mass Effect 3 falls into the category of the latter.

Once again, nobody uses the "hurr durr but it's art!" argument for Mass Effect: Deception. Why? Because that book is an abomination that needs to be killed with fire. Same with the ending. It is a horrific ending and spits on all that is... heh... "art".

[Dan Dark]

txgoldrush wrote...

Dan Dark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that happy endings make less than happy ones GAMEPLAY FAILURES and not true endings. To make a sadder, more bittersweet ending meaningful, there can be no ending happier than it.

...why? What, we can't have a happy ending, because it's addition will suddenly invalidate your bittersweet ending that you had been perfectly content with? Written correctly, sad and bittersweet could easily be just as powerful and meaningful as happy; heck, it'd probably be easier for the bittersweet one to be more powerful, really.

Wrong...look at Ogre Battle, I wonder why happy endings are canon.....because anything less are degrees of gameplay failure.

Well, I have no idea what you mean about "Ogre Battle," but, whatever. I'll bite. What if the heroic self-sacrifice ending was actually the hardest one to get, while the rainbows and butterflies happy ending was simpler?

[txgoldrush]

delete...wrong topic

Modifié par txgoldrush, 27 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[RamilVenoard]

Dan Dark wrote...

This isn't about "right" or "wrong," it's about telling a story. Most of us just want the story to end in a way we can feel satisfied with; for many, bittersweet isn't enough. But if that's perfect for you and your character, why can't both options exist, other than your need to feel like you got the "best" ending? Best is a subjective term, after all...

Well the problem is not that it's a less worthy "ending," I mispoke before. Its that the storyline become less worthy if we have to play it imperfectly to have shepard go out in a blaze of glory.  Its like a progression: ME1, shepard cannot die, ME2 shepard can die, ME3 shepard must die. Just seems like the most natural and smoothest way of honoring the shepard legacy. You could also put in a badass ending of the entire earth looking up at the crucible (which should be removed from the game anyway but w/e) and chanting "Shepard" as he goes out in a massive blaze of glory as the music swells to the classic mass effect theme that just screams epic. How are blue babies preferable to that? I just cant see it.

For clarifications sake, I don't like the relays blowing up. It nulifies the sacrafice at the end anyway considering the galaxy is pretty much destroyed regardless. Relays should survive if War Assets are high enough (also a failed idea on BioWare's part, but we make do with what we have I suppose, because regardless of what BioWare does with the ending, that will not change.)

@nevar. I disagree nevar, about the argument needing to die. Not all argument is negative and thus far, this has been intelligent discussion of concerns, not flaring insults and accusations. For the most part.

[txgoldrush]

Dan Dark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dan Dark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that happy endings make less than happy ones GAMEPLAY FAILURES and not true endings. To make a sadder, more bittersweet ending meaningful, there can be no ending happier than it.

...why? What, we can't have a happy ending, because it's addition will suddenly invalidate your bittersweet ending that you had been perfectly content with? Written correctly, sad and bittersweet could easily be just as powerful and meaningful as happy; heck, it'd probably be easier for the bittersweet one to be more powerful, really.

Wrong...look at Ogre Battle, I wonder why happy endings are canon.....because anything less are degrees of gameplay failure.

Well, I have no idea what you mean about "Ogre Battle," but, whatever. I'll bite. What if the heroic self-sacrifice ending was actually the hardest one to get, while the rainbows and butterflies happy ending was simpler?

Ogre Battle, a classic JRPG strategy series where choices are much more meaningful than most Bioware games....

...and what developer would set that scenario up? None.

[Dan Dark]

@Ramil: See my previous post, though - what if you didn't have to play the game "imperfectly" to get the sacrifice ending? What if you even had to do more to get it?

I have no problem with there being bittersweet endings, but I don't see why they can't coexist with happy endings, or outright bad endings, too, for that matter. The main argument I'm seeing against "happy" is just that it somehow cheapens bittersweet because some people may be completionists, and want to get the "best" ending. Which confuses me a bit... if you are completely satisfied with the ending you choose... how is it not the "best" ending, from your point of view?

[RamilVenoard]

I must have missed your post about that, or misread it. Perhaps just one different decision that is equally valid at some point in the game (aka doesn't force you to sacrifice someone or break your moral code meaning paragon or renegade). I could see them coexisting quite nicely actually. We are in accord.

[Zu Long]

RamilVenoard wrote...

Psychlonus wrote...

Pornographers have artistic integrity. They would never let you force them to change then ending.

*ehem* Because the ending is presumably, always the same, but enough of that.

Yes, I cant remember who, but somebody voiced my exact concern with a happy ending. A happy ending makes a bittersweet or blaze of glory ending into a gameplay failure which makes it seem like a less worthy ending since it means you did something wrong and should go back and fix it.

And that's a problem.

Much like the endings to ME1 and ME2, the existance of a happy ending doesn't preclude the ability to get a different ending. Plenty of people intentionally let this person or that person die in ME2 just because they felt the story carried more weight if not everyone survived. The ability to craft a unique story is what sets the ME series apart from other games. The denial of an ending which conforms to the story told, but rather enfoces a set ending is the largest part, IMO, of what has upset people about the current ending.

[robdunnhill]

ME is a game of choice, perhaps our endings should be down to choice so we should be able to have atleast a bit of an effect on the out comes because "our choices shape the game". As stated before, a vision that no one understands is a bad vision imo. im sure whatever they had/have planned will be great though.

[Zu Long]

RamilVenoard wrote...

Dan Dark wrote...

This isn't about "right" or "wrong," it's about telling a story. Most of us just want the story to end in a way we can feel satisfied with; for many, bittersweet isn't enough. But if that's perfect for you and your character, why can't both options exist, other than your need to feel like you got the "best" ending? Best is a subjective term, after all...

Well the problem is not that it's a less worthy "ending," I mispoke before. Its that the storyline become less worthy if we have to play it imperfectly to have shepard go out in a blaze of glory.  Its like a progression: ME1, shepard cannot die, ME2 shepard can die, ME3 shepard must die. Just seems like the most natural and smoothest way of honoring the shepard legacy. You could also put in a badass ending of the entire earth looking up at the crucible (which should be removed from the game anyway but w/e) and chanting "Shepard" as he goes out in a massive blaze of glory as the music swells to the classic mass effect theme that just screams epic. How are blue babies preferable to that? I just cant see it.

For clarifications sake, I don't like the relays blowing up. It nulifies the sacrafice at the end anyway considering the galaxy is pretty much destroyed regardless. Relays should survive if War Assets are high enough (also a failed idea on BioWare's part, but we make do with what we have I suppose, because regardless of what BioWare does with the ending, that will not change.)

@nevar. I disagree nevar, about the argument needing to die. Not all argument is negative and thus far, this has been intelligent discussion of concerns, not flaring insults and accusations. For the most part.

Because for some of us, blue babies is the reason we wanted to see the ending in the first place. Talking about realism and "some heroes die" is great and all, but you know what? Some heroes don't. Some heroes survive, take off the armor and have a family. I don't see how wanting that possibility to end our story should preclude you from choosing a blaze of glory if you want.

[Dan Dark]

RamilVenoard wrote...

I must have missed your post about that, or misread it. Perhaps just one different decision that is equally valid at some point in the game (aka doesn't force you to sacrifice someone or break your moral code meaning paragon or renegade). I could see them coexisting quite nicely actually. We are in accord.

Glad to hear it! Like I said, I don't see any reason for it not to be possible for there to be a variety of endings; good, bad, happy, sad, bittersweet, whatever. It looks like the main concern is just implementation, then, which, admittedly, could be tricky... ...kinda hate to say it, but I'm drawing a blank Maybe I came up with something. I figure there should be pros and cons for both; I'm just having trouble trying to figure out how to balance them - if you choose to save yourself, something else should be lost...

...Hmm... If they're going to stick with the whole Crucible thing, maybe it takes longer to activate if you want Shepard to live, since it takes longer to calibrate and focus, so it only kills the Reapers - in that time, though, the Reapers are still tearing the fleets apart, whereas if you activate it immediately, the Reapers will be stopped right then and there, but since the energy isn't as focused, it will kill Shepard in the process? I'm not thrilled with this idea, but then again, that might be a reason it would work - if you're half-dead already anyway, why risk letting so many more potentially die, just to try to save your own skin? It would certainly play up the sacrifice route as a good choice, I'd think.

Modifié par Dan Dark, 27 mars 2012 - 06:22 .

[Zu Long]

Dan Dark wrote...

RamilVenoard wrote...

I must have missed your post about that, or misread it. Perhaps just one different decision that is equally valid at some point in the game (aka doesn't force you to sacrifice someone or break your moral code meaning paragon or renegade). I could see them coexisting quite nicely actually. We are in accord.

Glad to hear it! Like I said, I don't see any reason for it not to be possible for there to be a variety of endings; good, bad, happy, sad, bittersweet, whatever. It looks like the main concern is just implementation, then, which, admittedly, could be tricky... ...kinda hate to say it, but I'm drawing a blank. I figure there should be pros and cons for both; I'm just having trouble trying to figure out how to balance them - if you choose to save yourself, something else should be lost...

...Hmm... If they're going to stick with the whole Crucible thing, maybe it takes longer to activate if you want Shepard to live, since it takes longer to calibrate and focus, so it only kills the Reapers - in that time, though, the Reapers are still tearing the fleets apart, whereas if you activate it immediately, the Reapers will be stopped right then and there, but since the energy isn't as focused, it will kill Shepard in the process? I'm not thrilled with this idea, but then again, that might be a reason it would work - if you're half-dead already anyway, why risk letting so many more potentially die, just to try to save your own skin? It would certainly play up the sacrifice route as a good choice, I'd think.

I think it would be even easier than that. If you want a simple way to determine whether shep lives or dies, have her discuss her plans after the war with one of the characters just prior to the final battle. If your shepard responds with something definite and life-affirming, your Shepard survives the ending into whatever sort of universe you built. If your shepard says something vague and fatalistic, you die in dramatic fashion. Simple and easy, and once again, your choice determines the outcome.

[Nightdragon8]

is anyone else getting tired of this "artistic intergrity" stuff I sure am. The fact that you complaining about it tells me that you dont know anything about what has happened in the real world. if "artistic intergrity" was aheard to Michelangelo would have NEVER painted the Sixten Chapel. Because he was a sculptor not a painter. That and the current image is a "Do over" in that most of the people in the "Original" was nude.

So no as a paying customer would should have some say in what goes on. Look what happened to "Sword of the stars 2" The game was released way too soon, and was more like a eraly beta than a full game. The company said "My bad" offered refunds to those who wanted them.

Also look, they can do whatever they want with the game they "own the property" that we are "renting" from them.

And if they want to add in a "Happy ending" they have the "artistic right" to do so. Wither or not,

But I dont think "artistic intergrity" should be used as a shield for bad writing. Basicly I can make game/book/movie be great at first and then at the very end pull up a plot twist/hole that an oiltanker can fit in.

But unlike a movie a game can be modified later on for not even a % of what it would take for a movie to be able to do it.

I just want the Plotholes filled I'm fine with the Galxay being in such a mess that really stopping the reapers may be the "Wrong" choice. (I find it funny you get a mission critical failure if you take too long making your "choice" maybe letting it all happen IS my "choice") like with what happened if you let the timer run out on Arival, they could have at least done something like that.

[RockSW]

if you haven't figured out that we don't just want a happy ending, thats pretty retarded.