650 réponses à ce sujet

[MrAtomica]

The funny thing is that the endings are not bittersweet for the right reasons. I won't go into too much detail on what I mean, to preserve the spoiler free rule, but the reasons why people consider the current endings too grim are actually arbitrary plot points. By refining them to actually make sense and mean something, they could be acceptable.

Case in point; I don't mind the deaths of certain characters in this game. Though their being removed has angered some people, the reasons felt largely appropriate. This is not the case when discussing the endings. The "deaths" there (since many of the deaths are arguable, to a point) do NOT have the same level of meaning.

[Zjarcal]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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

Priorities, you has them.

[kbct]

MrAtomica wrote...

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).

Need MOAR tragedy. Kill em all!

Heh.

[The Razman]

Nicky 192 wrote...

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.

That isn't wrong. In fact, done well, taking away choice at the right moment wherein you've had choice up to that point is an extremely effective narrative tool.

Whether Bioware succeeded in this with Mass Effect 3 is highly debatable. But I take issue with the statement that merely taking choice away at any point in a game which is built around choice is "wrong" in any way.

[Heather Cline]

I googled "Does having the choice between a happy ending and a sad ending in a video game make the sad ending any less meaningful" and I got nothing.

That is what you were arguing about and frankly your link only points out the games that had an unalterable sad ending. Did not have anything in that link proving that if there was a choice between sad and happy that the sad ending was meaningless.

Therefore your link is useless, again you fail to prove your point.

[JBONE27]

kbct wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

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).

Need MOAR tragedy. Kill em all!

Heh.

You're begining to sound like Razz.

[alienatedflea]

Kajan451 wrote...

MaestroX101 wrote...

It's not about a happy ending. It's about the ending we deserve...

...is what a Retaker would say.

Not we. The game or rather the story does deserve a better ending. One that does the rest of the game justice.


I don't deserve a better ending... i already paid for a different ending. I bought this game based on what they said tis game would be. As such i demand the endings they said it would have... all of them.

That is a matter of opinion sir...

[Father_Jerusalem]

MrAtomica wrote...

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.

"One death is a tragedy. A million, a statistic." - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin


Face facts, those "billions" of deaths don't matter one whit. They're not people we know, they're not people we've come to care about, they're just random red shirts who bit it. Saying "but billions of people died!" as an excuse for why it's not REALLY a "unicorns and rainbow farts" happy ending is ridiculous. 

In order to make an actual emotional impact on the player, someone they know, someone they've come to be invested in, has to die. That's the only way to make it a "bittersweet" ending, but no. All these "happy enders" want Shepard to fly off in the Normandy, whole crew intact, to make blue/envirosuited/turian babies with. 

So, you say you don't want a "disney" ending... who are you willing to sacrifice to get it?

[BeefoTheBold]

The Razman wrote...

Nicky 192 wrote...

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.

That isn't wrong. In fact, done well, taking away choice at the right moment wherein you've had choice up to that point is an extremely effective narrative tool.

Whether Bioware succeeded in this with Mass Effect 3 is highly debatable. But I take issue with the statement that merely taking choice away at any point in a game which is built around choice is "wrong" in any way.

It is if it directly goes against publicly stated promises. The endings were directly promised to be impacted by player choice in significant and meaningful ways.

This isn't a difficult concept.

[JBONE27]

MrAtomica wrote...

The funny thing is that the endings are not bittersweet for the right reasons. I won't go into too much detail on what I mean, to preserve the spoiler free rule, but the reasons why people consider the current endings too grim are actually arbitrary plot points. By refining them to actually make sense and mean something, they could be acceptable.

Case in point; I don't mind the deaths of certain characters in this game. Though their being removed has angered some people, the reasons felt largely appropriate. This is not the case when discussing the endings. The "deaths" there (since many of the deaths are arguable, to a point) do NOT have the same level of meaning.

I honestly didn't find the endings bittersweet, I found them counfsing and in need of an epilogue.  That's not tragedy, that's theater or the absurd.

[Rafe34]

MaestroX101 wrote...

Kajan451 wrote...

MaestroX101 wrote...

It's not about a happy ending. It's about the ending we deserve...

...is what a Retaker would say.

Not we. The game or rather the story does deserve a better ending. One that does the rest of the game justice.


I don't deserve a better ending... i already paid for a different ending. I bought this game based on what they said tis game would be. As such i demand the endings they said it would have... all of them.

Wait, so Bioware told you exactly what the ending would be? Wouldn't that be like...spoiling the game?

They told us they wouldn't pull a LOST on the fanbase and leave us with more questions than answers. Wrong.
They told us there would be many and varied endings based on our choices throughout the series. Wrong.
They told us it would not at all be lik a traditional ending where you just choose A, B, or C. Very wrong.

If you care to do your research, you'd understand Bioware promised the fans a lot of things regarding the ending that they completely failed to do. These three are just for starters. Theres like 15 or so specific things they said regarding the ending that are just laughable at this stage.

[BeefoTheBold]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

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.

"One death is a tragedy. A million, a statistic." - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin


Face facts, those "billions" of deaths don't matter one whit. They're not people we know, they're not people we've come to care about, they're just random red shirts who bit it. Saying "but billions of people died!" as an excuse for why it's not REALLY a "unicorns and rainbow farts" happy ending is ridiculous. 

In order to make an actual emotional impact on the player, someone they know, someone they've come to be invested in, has to die. That's the only way to make it a "bittersweet" ending, but no. All these "happy enders" want Shepard to fly off in the Normandy, whole crew intact, to make blue/envirosuited/turian babies with. 

So, you say you don't want a "disney" ending... who are you willing to sacrifice to get it?

Mordin, Legion, Kaiden, Thane...need I go on?

[MrAtomica]

kbct wrote...


Need MOAR tragedy. Kill em all!

Heh.

Honestly.

In fact, you are unfortunately correct.

If the blasts at the end are comparable to the AR explosion, then we have wiped out far more lives than we might think. In fact, we may well have killed off most of the known galaxy. Not feelin too good about myself right about now, considering the implications.

Genocide, anyone?

Again, this could be wrong. But hey, "Speculation for everyone!", right?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Heather Cline wrote...

I googled "Does having the choice between a happy ending and a sad ending in a video game make the sad ending any less meaningful" and I got nothing.

That is what you were arguing about and frankly your link only points out the games that had an unalterable sad ending. Did not have anything in that link proving that if there was a choice between sad and happy that the sad ending was meaningless.

Therefore your link is useless, again you fail to prove your point.

If all I have to do to get the disney ending is do this one choice and these two sidequests, then by definition, doing anything other than that one choice and those two sidequests is purposfuly gimping myself. 

If, through normal completionist gameplay, the default ending would be the disney ending, you would have to purposfuly try - indeed, change the very way you play the game - in order to not get that ending. It was my biggest issue with ME2. Through normal, for me, gameplay the suicide mission HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER be an actual suicide mission. It will simply be "long mission that ends the game but that really has no sense of danger whatsoever because I'm not stupid enough to actually TRY and kill off my crew."

[The Razman]

Heather Cline wrote...

I googled "Does having the choice between a happy ending and a sad ending in a video game make the sad ending any less meaningful" and I got nothing.

That is what you were arguing about and frankly your link only points out the games that had an unalterable sad ending. Did not have anything in that link proving that if there was a choice between sad and happy that the sad ending was meaningless.

Therefore your link is useless, again you fail to prove your point.

The link proves exactly what I said: that the games on those lists of well-known and celebrated sad and emotional endings are ones which do not offer alternative "happy" options. Do you disagree with this?

My point was that those lists contain those endings and moments for a reason. Can you tell me why there are no games like Dragon Age: Origin on any of those lists, which have alternative happy endings? Or is that just coincidence?

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

I'll sacrifice a whole Galaxy to live happily ever after with my LI and friends.
Priority.

[kbct]

JBONE27 wrote...

kbct wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

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).

Need MOAR tragedy. Kill em all!

Heh.

You're begining to sound like Razz.

It definitely would be tragic if that happened. For me at least.

Personally, I just want ending without the god-child and the colors. I'm all for a heroic sacrifice too, but I can tell that quite a few people want a happy ending so I think we should give it to them.

[Rafe34]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

"One death is a tragedy. A million, a statistic." - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

Face facts, those "billions" of deaths don't matter one whit. They're not people we know, they're not people we've come to care about, they're just random red shirts who bit it. Saying "but billions of people died!" as an excuse for why it's not REALLY a "unicorns and rainbow farts" happy ending is ridiculous. 

In order to make an actual emotional impact on the player, someone they know, someone they've come to be invested in, has to die. That's the only way to make it a "bittersweet" ending, but no. All these "happy enders" want Shepard to fly off in the Normandy, whole crew intact, to make blue/envirosuited/turian babies with. 

So, you say you don't want a "disney" ending... who are you willing to sacrifice to get it?

Oh I don't know. Maybe Mordin, Legion, Kaidan, and Thane?

Modifié par Rafe34, 30 mars 2012 - 11:44 .

[The Razman]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Nicky 192 wrote...

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.

That isn't wrong. In fact, done well, taking away choice at the right moment wherein you've had choice up to that point is an extremely effective narrative tool.

Whether Bioware succeeded in this with Mass Effect 3 is highly debatable. But I take issue with the statement that merely taking choice away at any point in a game which is built around choice is "wrong" in any way.

It is if it directly goes against publicly stated promises. The endings were directly promised to be impacted by player choice in significant and meaningful ways.

This isn't a difficult concept.

Oh god. The "they promised" line again.

I'm sorry, this is going to sound harsh ... but did you people call up companies accusing of them of lying because you actually could believe it wasn't butter?

[BeefoTheBold]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

I googled "Does having the choice between a happy ending and a sad ending in a video game make the sad ending any less meaningful" and I got nothing.

That is what you were arguing about and frankly your link only points out the games that had an unalterable sad ending. Did not have anything in that link proving that if there was a choice between sad and happy that the sad ending was meaningless.

Therefore your link is useless, again you fail to prove your point.

If all I have to do to get the disney ending is do this one choice and these two sidequests, then by definition, doing anything other than that one choice and those two sidequests is purposfuly gimping myself. 

If, through normal completionist gameplay, the default ending would be the disney ending, you would have to purposfuly try - indeed, change the very way you play the game - in order to not get that ending. It was my biggest issue with ME2. Through normal, for me, gameplay the suicide mission HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER be an actual suicide mission. It will simply be "long mission that ends the game but that really has no sense of danger whatsoever because I'm not stupid enough to actually TRY and kill off my crew."

Then script in choices similar to ME1 where you have to choose who to sacrifice. Even that would be something. ME1's ending is largely credited with being the best in the series. Nobody complained about needing to sacrifice one of your precious few squadmates to get it.

Primarily because nobody really wants the Strawman that a few folks are presenting.

We've had sacrifices. People understand the concept. Tuchanka for example, had a major one. So did Rannoch. Nobody is complaining about those things. They understand that they got to choose and they decided that it was worth the choice for what was gained.

The current endings don't allow for that. They just basically screw over everyone and everything.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

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.

"One death is a tragedy. A million, a statistic." - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin


Face facts, those "billions" of deaths don't matter one whit. They're not people we know, they're not people we've come to care about, they're just random red shirts who bit it. Saying "but billions of people died!" as an excuse for why it's not REALLY a "unicorns and rainbow farts" happy ending is ridiculous. 

In order to make an actual emotional impact on the player, someone they know, someone they've come to be invested in, has to die. That's the only way to make it a "bittersweet" ending, but no. All these "happy enders" want Shepard to fly off in the Normandy, whole crew intact, to make blue/envirosuited/turian babies with. 

So, you say you don't want a "disney" ending... who are you willing to sacrifice to get it?

But you do end up seeing people you care about die over the course of the game.  *Spoiler Alert* Thane (if alive), Mordin (if alive), Legion all die regardless of what you do in this game.  Kelly and Samara die if you don't find a way to save them (I read online that saving Kelly was possible, but the action was something my Shepard wouldn't do).

So, it's not just that billions die, you see your friends and possible lovers die as well.

[The Razman]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

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.

"One death is a tragedy. A million, a statistic." - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin


Face facts, those "billions" of deaths don't matter one whit. They're not people we know, they're not people we've come to care about, they're just random red shirts who bit it. Saying "but billions of people died!" as an excuse for why it's not REALLY a "unicorns and rainbow farts" happy ending is ridiculous. 

In order to make an actual emotional impact on the player, someone they know, someone they've come to be invested in, has to die. That's the only way to make it a "bittersweet" ending, but no. All these "happy enders" want Shepard to fly off in the Normandy, whole crew intact, to make blue/envirosuited/turian babies with. 

So, you say you don't want a "disney" ending... who are you willing to sacrifice to get it?

You, sir, win the most appropriate usage of a famous historical quote in an internet argument award, 2012. You are also absolutely correct.

Modifié par The Razman, 30 mars 2012 - 11:46 .

[Iakus]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

"One death is a tragedy. A million, a statistic." - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin


Face facts, those "billions" of deaths don't matter one whit. They're not people we know, they're not people we've come to care about, they're just random red shirts who bit it. Saying "but billions of people died!" as an excuse for why it's not REALLY a "unicorns and rainbow farts" happy ending is ridiculous. 

In order to make an actual emotional impact on the player, someone they know, someone they've come to be invested in, has to die. That's the only way to make it a "bittersweet" ending, but no. All these "happy enders" want Shepard to fly off in the Normandy, whole crew intact, to make blue/envirosuited/turian babies with. 

So, you say you don't want a "disney" ending... who are you willing to sacrifice to get it?

Umm, some of them are people you know.  Former squadmates and friends.  Others are minor characters we've met across the trilogy.   There's a frakking memorial wall on the Normandy, and spaces get filled up as the game progresses.

The ending will not be unicorns and rainbows, no matter what you do.

and fyi, I do not want blue/envirosuited/turian babies.

I want great grandkids for General Williams

Modifié par iakus, 30 mars 2012 - 11:47 .

[MrAtomica]

Here we go:

Mordin
Thane
Legion
Grunt
Wrex
Ashley/Kaidan
Tali
Miranda
Jack
Kelly
Dr. Michel/Dr. Chakwas
Samara
The Council
Aethyta
Cortez
EDI
The Geth
Every sidequest giver on the Citadel
Bailey
Aria
The Blue Rose of Illium
Jondam Bau
Sarah Williams
Jacob
Barla Von
Michael and Rebekah
General Oraka
Anderson

Not all of them are guaranteed to die, but all of them can. Everyone on the Citadel, according to Mac, is "probably dead". If you were to believe that the relays explosions caused AR style destruction, then you have likely killed off everyone else. This is debatable, but the fact that it isn't explained further is disheartening.

[BeefoTheBold]

The Razman wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Nicky 192 wrote...

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.

That isn't wrong. In fact, done well, taking away choice at the right moment wherein you've had choice up to that point is an extremely effective narrative tool.

Whether Bioware succeeded in this with Mass Effect 3 is highly debatable. But I take issue with the statement that merely taking choice away at any point in a game which is built around choice is "wrong" in any way.

It is if it directly goes against publicly stated promises. The endings were directly promised to be impacted by player choice in significant and meaningful ways.

This isn't a difficult concept.

Oh god. The "they promised" line again.

I'm sorry, this is going to sound harsh ... but did you people call up companies accusing of them of lying because you actually could believe it wasn't butter?

If I spent well over $250 on that butter and had devoted hundreds of hours of my life and a great deal of emotion towards building the butter exactly how I would wanted it to, then yes, I would probably call and complain if I didn't get what I was promised.

People complain when a company doesn't deliver on their promises all the time. It's called sticking up for your rights as a consumer.

It's why we have laws against false advertising and the like, because it's universally recognized as wrong.