650 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

The Razman wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins tried it, and failed to create an ending with any significant emotional impact. When I have time I'll go find some links to show you if you want how basically all of the saddest moments in video-game history depend on you not having an alternative option to prevent them, from Aerith's death in Final Fantasy VII to the end of Red Dead Redemption, to Eli Vance's death in HL2:EP2. But for now ... you need to understand that your argument is centred around Dragon Age: Origins, and when I ask for you to provide an article, I'm trying to show you that your lack of ability to provide one is evidence that Dragon Age: Origins is an example of it failing, not that it's evidence to the contrary.

DAO did quite well at it, imo.

And if sad moments depend on not being able to alterthem, then why the frak does choice matter in Mass Effect to begin with?

[edwardhazelden]

I would be thrilled if Bioware implemented a happy ending all the way to the disaster ending, it gives us the chance to define how the story ends in what ever way we wish. Plus having a happy ending doesn't really ruin the tone it's like the light at the end of a tunnel you know what I mean?

[Ecto-Plasmic Effect]

A happy ending is just another way for people to cuddle up with their virtual partner.

[The Razman]

Nicky 192 wrote...

This ^^^ And its wrong to try and take away a persons right to choose in a game that is built around choice.

Actually, no it isn't.

You don't have some entitled right to have choice in every situation in the game's narrative. That would make Sheperd (and you, by extension) a God. The very fact that you have no choice as to the final fate of Sheperd is fitting for a game where Sheperd is facing the ultimate enemy ... sometimes you have no choice if you want to stop the Big Bad. That's why Buffy had to kill Angel in whatever season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer she did that in. That's why Kirk sacrificed himself in Star Trek: Generations. And that's why Sheperd sacrificed himself in Mass Effect. The noble death is a long held sci-fi tradition, and us being in a video-game doesn't change its validity.

Bioware chose it. That's their right.

[BeefoTheBold]

A lot of people are comparing to the DAO endings, and I agree that it's been the best since the EA acquisition. (Probably because it had a longer development time and was done before EA got their tentacles into Bioware.)

But I don't ultimately see anything wrong with doing what ME2 did at a minimum either. After all, it definitely allows for player choice to be a factor.

Skip loyalty missions? More chance you have squadmates die. Pick people for the wrong tasks that they are unsuited for? More chance you have squadmates die.

How difficult would it be to have implemented something similar to ME3? People who thought that the game deserved to end in tragedy and futility could intentionally manipulate their story to reach that desired end outcome, just like it was easily possible to get certain folks you didn't like killed off in ME2 if you so chose.

But for others who wanted something different? Well, then have things like EMS, player choices from previous games, etc. have a real impact.

I mean seriously...how badly was the ball on the Rachni thing dropped as an example?

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 30 mars 2012 - 11:20 .

[BlacJAC74]

I saved Wrex and as such i want my Shep to survive for the next 50,000 years, so he and his LI can defeat the reapers twice over. He's that good!

My choices, like saving wrex and defeating Saren should make me immune to bullets and death itself.

[The Razman]

iakus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins tried it, and failed to create an ending with any significant emotional impact. When I have time I'll go find some links to show you if you want how basically all of the saddest moments in video-game history depend on you not having an alternative option to prevent them, from Aerith's death in Final Fantasy VII to the end of Red Dead Redemption, to Eli Vance's death in HL2:EP2. But for now ... you need to understand that your argument is centred around Dragon Age: Origins, and when I ask for you to provide an article, I'm trying to show you that your lack of ability to provide one is evidence that Dragon Age: Origins is an example of it failing, not that it's evidence to the contrary.

DAO did quite well at it, imo.

And if sad moments depend on not being able to alterthem, then why the frak does choice matter in Mass Effect to begin with?

I'm not here to answer philosopical questions on the nature of Mass Effect's chosen artistic medium, I'm afraid. Rather outside the scope of this conversation.

I'm just informing people of why sad moments have to have the lack of options that they do. It's a well-set precedent which you can see by looking through any amount of literature on the internet about sad and emotional gaming moments.

[JBONE27]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

I don't like the ending, and I agree with Razman. Lesser of two evils is fine. Having outright "happy" "bittersweet" and "sad" endings cheapens all of them. Its cheesy. Its lazy.

Being a completionist doesn't make you exempt from facing tough decisions. It makes Shepard's character stagnant. Every choice comes with consequences. Sidestepping that makes the story not worth telling.

This is mass effect.

Actually, that was false advertising.  You had to go to Noveria, and regardless of when you went it was the same thing.  No one is saying that you don't have to make choices, but making the right ones should lend itself to the endings you want.

[Heather Cline]

You haven't provided an argument supporting your side of it either Razman. In fact I have googled for articles to support your side and found nothing. NOTHING. I have also googled for articles to support my side and also found nothing. So therefore your argument is just as invalid as mine apparently.

So by putting aside your stupid need for an article lets put forth the facts.

ME1 since you want to focus on the Mass Effect universe, had the possibility of a sad ending with the sacrifice of the Council. Yes Shepard survived but the Council got wiped out. Many died in the final battle against Sovereign and the Geth.

There is your sad ending number 1.

ME2 you had the possibility of dying if you didn't have enough loyal squad members. The sad ending was poignant especially when Joker had to report to TIM about Shepard's death. Though the sad ending wasn't considered cannon due to the need for Shepard in ME3, you still had a sad ending and people went and got that ending on purpose because they wanted it.

ME3, there is no choice in the way the game ends like every other ME that came before it.

The Mass Effect franchise has been built around player choice. It has been built around you affecting the ending you got.

Mass Effect is not Half-Life which is a pseudo RPG. Go back and play table top RPG's. If a DM from say D&D gives you setting and you meet up with a band of orcs. YOU get to decide what to do against that band of orcs. YOUR choices lead to if you live or die. the DM doesn't decide that, YOU do.

Mass Effect is an RPG in the sense that YOU get to choose what ending happens to YOUR character.

Fact is you miss the point entirely.

[BeefoTheBold]

The Razman wrote...

Bioware chose it. That's their right.

Then they shouldn't have claimed otherwise. If they wanted complete narrative control over every aspect of the storyline, they shouldn't have outright promised that they were sharing control, that players would determine their own outcome, that they would have results that were impacted by their choices.

I agree that it is Bioware's right to make a game with a completely linear storyline that players have no control over. Hell, Japanese RPG developers have been doing that for decades and there's something to be said for doing a game that way.

But that isn't what they told us was being done.

And that's where your argument fails to hold up.

[leki_se]

JBONE27 wrote...

I've seen a lot of people on this board who either say, "Don't change the ending to something happy," or "I hope the ending DLC doesn't have a happy ending."  I say, if you have to work for it, why not have a happy ending.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has grown to love these characters, and I do want to see them happy.  Do I think the happy ending should be easy to achieve... HELL NO!  I believe that what ever is worth having, it's worth working hard for, and a happy ending with everyone you care about surviving, is worth having. 

Well, me personally would like ( very much  ) to have a possibility for such an ending. In the end that's why I saved citadel in ME 1, fought collectors in second ( and recruited the most awsome characters in hole gaming world )) and finally spend a lot of time trying to raise as much war assets as possible.  

[MrAtomica]

The Razman wrote...

What? What does it matter what "some of the writers" allegedly wanted? What the writing team created in the end is all that matters. Every writer has different visions for a project, that's why when you have a writing team you have a lead writer vetoing the bad ones and choosing an overall direction and making the executive writing decisions. That's how scriptwriting works.

It doesn't matter what anybody wanted Mass Effect to be, except for the people who wrote it. That's all there is to it.

Here's the problem:

I don't believe that the majority of the writing team was involved in the endings. I simply cannot believe that the same team that brought us Mass Effect 1 and 2, and their respective endings, could have agreed upon the load of tripe that we got with this installment.

Honestly, they blew enough holes in their own story with the inclusion of the *ultimate enemy* that I find it hard to believe someone wouldn't have mentioned the issue.

"Hey guys, doesn't this kinda......I don't know, make most of the series kinda pointless? Why did we bother writing Sovereign and Saren? Were the Human Reaper and the Collectors really meaningful enemies in this context?"

To me, the entire sequence starting from the (You know whose) Base was rushed to get the game out in time. This is the point in the story where things should have been more drawn out, not the other way around. Yet, the conflict moves at light speed and concludes before a great many interesting plot points have been resolved or expounded upon.

Edit: Keep trying to remind myself that this forum is supposed to be spoiler free. Sorry!

Modifié par MrAtomica, 30 mars 2012 - 11:27 .

[kbct]

The Razman wrote...

Bioware chose it. That's their right.

And then a major sh!tstorm ensued that could damage their reputation and bottom line.

It's business. Make the customers happy.

[Iakus]

The Razman wrote...
Actually, no it isn't.

You don't have some entitled right to have choice in every situation in the game's narrative. That would make Sheperd (and you, by extension) a God. The very fact that you have no choice as to the final fate of Sheperd is fitting for a game where Sheperd is facing the ultimate enemy ... sometimes you have no choice if you want to stop the Big Bad. That's why Buffy had to kill Angel in whatever season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer she did that in. That's why Kirk sacrificed himself in Star Trek: Generations. And that's why Sheperd sacrificed himself in Mass Effect. The noble death is a long held sci-fi tradition, and us being in a video-game doesn't change its validity.

Bioware chose it. That's their right.

And plenty of tragedies and sadness occur throughout the game that Shepard cannot prevent.  Cannot go into specifics as this is the no spoilers area.  Shepard surviving would not automatically turn the inding into "sunshine and rainbows"  It would undo all that has already happened.  Even if Shepard and LI reunite afterwards, the ending would still be bittersweet.

Bioware may have chosen it.  But it flies in the face of their stance on player choice thus far. 
Fortunately, we can also choose to take our money elsewhere.

Modifié par iakus, 30 mars 2012 - 11:27 .

[Rache123]

Heather Cline wrote...

I've posted this elsewhere but I'll state it here. I want a happy ending. It isn't all sunshine and rainbows and all those who think that is what those of us who want a happy ending want you are dead wrong.

The kind of happy ending we want is our Shepard ending up with her/his LI in the end and possibly with the crew of the Normandy as well alive.

It doesn't mean that it's all sunshine and rainbows and everyone is singing and dancing. The earth has been ravaged, people have died. There will be a long rebuilding period but there is hope and Shepard gets to be with her/his LI and look to the future whatever that may be.

That is what I want and I don't think that this kind of happy ending is so bad.

yep

[Zjarcal]

I don't mind a happy ending so long as it's not a Disney ending. It's a war story, sh!t has to happen, otherwise the whole thing feels hollow. So yes to happiness but at a significant cost.

That being said, I also don't mind tragic endings really, so long as my character's fate is in my hands (which was the case with ME3).

Modifié par Zjarcal, 30 mars 2012 - 11:28 .

[kbct]

MrAtomica wrote...

I don't believe that the majority of the writing team was involved in the endings.

I don't think the ending was vetted either. At least a tweet suggested that. They said it was Walters and Hudson.

[JBONE27]

Zjarcal wrote...

I don't mind a happy ending so long as it's not a Disney ending. It's a war story, sh!t has to happen, otherwise the whole thing feels hollow. So yes to happiness but at a significant cost.

It obviously wouldn't be a Disney ending since throughout the entire game you've seen friends, comrads, and entire planets fall.

[MrAtomica]

kbct wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

I don't believe that the majority of the writing team was involved in the endings.

I don't think the ending was vetted either. At least a tweet suggested that. They said it was Walters and Hudson.

It may or may not be true, but I believe it. The whole premise just seems too narrowly defined to be the product of extensive editing and brainstorming.

[Nicky 192]

The Razman wrote...

Nicky 192 wrote...

This ^^^ And its wrong to try and take away a persons right to choose in a game that is built around choice.

Actually, no it isn't.

You don't have some entitled right to have choice in every situation in the game's narrative. That would make Sheperd (and you, by extension) a God. The very fact that you have no choice as to the final fate of Sheperd is fitting for a game where Sheperd is facing the ultimate enemy ... sometimes you have no choice if you want to stop the Big Bad. That's why Buffy had to kill Angel in whatever season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer she did that in. That's why Kirk sacrificed himself in Star Trek: Generations. And that's why Sheperd sacrificed himself in Mass Effect. The noble death is a long held sci-fi tradition, and us being in a video-game doesn't change its validity.

Bioware chose it. That's their right.

Your missing my point, i have NEVER said that bioware does not have a right to decide how there game end's.I believe i am "entittled to an opinon" if they listen to my opion that is there choice. i believe its wrong however to build an illusion of choice and then remove it. I could go on as to why i feel that the ending was badly written but that is out of context within this discussion.

Modifié par Nicky 192, 30 mars 2012 - 11:29 .

[MrAtomica]

JBONE27 wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

I don't mind a happy ending so long as it's not a Disney ending. It's a war story, sh!t has to happen, otherwise the whole thing feels hollow. So yes to happiness but at a significant cost.

It obviously wouldn't be a Disney ending since throughout the entire game you've seen friends, comrads, and entire planets fall.

QFT x 1000000000

People often forget the billions (or possibly trillions) of lives that are lost as we **** around trying to "help" people "prepare for the war" (incidentally, this doesn't help much).

We're well beyond the realm of Disney here, folks.

[kbct]

Heather Cline wrote...
Fact is you miss the point entirely.

Razman will never concede this point. He loves the ending and wants to keep it a tragedy at the expense of everything else.

[Heather Cline]

Zjar my want for the ending is Shepard survives, ends up with LI and if possible crew from the Normandy. There has been loss, the fleet you gathered to fight the reapers as you saw in the final battle above earth was horrific and lots of ships and people were lost.

In the end there will be a long period of rebuilding, gathering resources and trying to survive as well as making sure the galaxy is safe. Which would be not a perfectly happy ending but an ending where there is hope and Shepard gets to retire and live out her/his life.

[The Razman]

Heather Cline wrote...

You haven't provided an argument supporting your side of it either Razman. In fact I have googled for articles to support your side and found nothing. NOTHING.

... and you googled for what, exactly?

Here, I'll kick you off, just so you can see what I'm talking about. Take any number of lists of top emotional gaming moments (just google "most emotional/saddest/heart-breaking video-game moments/endings/etc" ... you'll find any number, from established websites and user-made alike). Read through them, and note how many of them can be avoided in favour of a happier option. I'd be very impressed if you can find any, and I'll say outright that all of the famous ones which are held up as emotional/sad moments in video-games don't fall into that category.

So if you want to prove otherwise ... you're going to need something, sorry. Show me evidence to the support your counter-theory.

[Maria Caliban]

I don't care if the galaxy burns, just give me my little blue children.