650 réponses à ce sujet

[Nicky 192]

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.

It is if it directly goes against publicly stated promises. The endings were directly promised to be impacted by player choice in significant and meanigful ways ." forgive the copy and paste" but thats pretty much my point.

Modifié par Nicky 192, 30 mars 2012 - 11:48 .

[The Razman]

MrAtomica wrote...

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.

Do you have a link for that quote of Mac saying that everyone on the Citadel is probably dead, out of interest? Someone on a group was speculating about that the other day, they'd find that highly interesting.

[kbct]

Rafe34 wrote...

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?

And all the systems the reapers devastated.

[Father_Jerusalem]

BeefoTheBold wrote...


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

Yeah, um, they all die before the ending. They complete their journeys and go out, in pretty much every case, like a paragon of badass.

Not to mention, they each have very little to do with the actual war against the Reapers - they all have missions that are important to them, and to the galaxy as a whole, but very little in actually fighting the Reapers. Using them as examples of "see, peoples died so we can too have happy endings!" is, really, doing a disservice to these characters.

[ile_1979]

The Razman wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

If someone want so target an ending where everybody dies and the galaxy goes to ****, then by all means, let them have that as one of the ending OPTIONS.

But the rest of us would like to have endings, OPTIONAL endings, wherein all of our efforts and all of our time and completion zeal doesn't result in being utterly meaningless.

Tragedy with an off-switch is utterly meaningless. That's what we've been saying.

You can't have your happy ending option without destroying the sad ending option. And Bioware chose to make a sad ending. Live with it.

Preordained tragedy that plays itslef out each and every time by it self is even more meaningless. Can't vouch for anyone else, but seing "you know who" blasted on top of that atmosphere converter left me far more emotionally touched then 15 minutes of "god's" monologue. The former brought sadness, the latter blandness. Can you guess why? Should i tell you?

[MrAtomica]

Here's the tweet from Walters. Not sure if this is the only one, but there it is.

"@Honor16 SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER (stop reading if u don't a SPOILER) : Some escaped before the arms were closed. But for many... Bad times. 5:34 PM Mar 8th via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to Honor16"

Link: http://twitter.com/m...macwalterslives

[ile_1979]

iakus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

If someone want so target an ending where everybody dies and the galaxy goes to ****, then by all means, let them have that as one of the ending OPTIONS.

But the rest of us would like to have endings, OPTIONAL endings, wherein all of our efforts and all of our time and completion zeal doesn't result in being utterly meaningless.

Tragedy with an off-switch is utterly meaningless. That's what we've been saying.

You can't have your happy ending option without destroying the sad ending option. And Bioware chose to make a sad ending. Live with it.

How is an optional ending you have to work for an on/off switch?

This is a role playing game.  You create Shepard's story, decide how he/she proceeds, and deal with the consequences.  Casey Hudson even said the players are teh "cocreators" of Shepard's story, there is no canon.

No one's ending invalidates anyone else's.  So why can't we have more options in how to end it? 

I don't think they, or at least he, wants an RPG. Not in the way we want it that is. He likes a story based shooter with role playing elements i guess. I wonder if playing ME3 in action mode has any viable difference to these people

[BeefoTheBold]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...


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

Yeah, um, they all die before the ending. They complete their journeys and go out, in pretty much every case, like a paragon of badass.

Not to mention, they each have very little to do with the actual war against the Reapers - they all have missions that are important to them, and to the galaxy as a whole, but very little in actually fighting the Reapers. Using them as examples of "see, peoples died so we can too have happy endings!" is, really, doing a disservice to these characters.

See my other post where I suggested scripting in further choices similar to the one you make on ME1.

My point is that in all the cases mentioned so far, players have the exact choice you challenged them to make. Look around...do you see ANYBODY complaining about those things?

Not really, because they get to make the choice. Want Kaiden to live? Then Ashley has to die. There's nothing wrong with this. Nobody complains when deaths have meaning.

The point I think a lot of others who Strawman on about Disney endings miss is that the sacrifices of EVERYONE else is for NOTHING.



I don't mind characters dying. I mind if they ALL die and I get nothing back in return.

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 30 mars 2012 - 11:55 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

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.

As you should in a war. But if you walk in to the heart of Reaper forces, fighting thousands upon thousands of Reapers and cannibals and husks... and nobody dies except for people who died hours ago (in real time), or days or weeks ago (in the timeline of the game) how is that realistic? 

Is it a shame that they die, yes. Does it leave an impact, yes. But they each go out having fulfilled their mission, in a blaze of glory. There's no sense of danger in that anyone else is even in a modicum amount of danger because, well, they still have things to do.

That's not the way it works. War is a mother****er. Sometimes people die. Sometimes people you know. To say "Nope, nobody dies!" IS the disney ending.

[Random citizen]

I did multiple playthroughs of DA:O and found the sacrifice endings of DA:O extremely sad, especially so if romance was involved.The only cure to that depression was another playthrough. I would say that the varied endings did not invalidate anything. The contrast made the experience strong if you ask me.

[Heather Cline]

Father Jerusalem I will address your concern first. First off none of us are asking for a disney ending. Disney endings have dancing, singing, bright happy everyone survives, no one dies, endings and that is the truth except the bad guys.

The endings many of us want are that Shepard survives and ends up with LI. There is the possibility of ending up with the crew of the Normandy as well but that doesn't have to happen. Does that mean that it's disney? No it means that Shepard survived and got to be with her/his LI again. That's it. Not disney, not super happy rainbows and sunshine like disney has. Therefore your use of the 'disney ending' is invalid.

-----------------------

Razman you stated earlier that you didn't want anyone to have the option of a happy ending because it made the sad endings meaningless. Made everything else meaningless. You have NOT brought up one shred of evidence to support this argument. In fact you've changed your argument time and time again every time I attack what you use to defend yourself.

First I use DA:O as an example of having several different endings and that none of those endings made any of the others meaningless. You then come back and tell me to find an article that supports my claim that having a choice of endings makes the sad ending as one of the choices meaningless. I could not, but you could not find one to support your side either.

I then challenged you to find an article to prove your side and you failed miserably. You could not find an article proving that having the option between a sad and happy ending makes the sad ending meaningless. Again you are now changing tactics trying to derail me and back up your claim which has failed from the start.

Now you are arguing that the best games out there have sad unalterable endings. You've jumped ship once again.

You have failed to stay on the topic you originally started. "Having a choice between sad and happy endings makes the sad endings meaningless". That is the topic you started, that is the topic I've been arguing but you can't stay on topic. You cannot find a shred of evidence to support your side of it. Not an article, not a video game NOTHING. I've pointed out endings from DA:O, from ME1, and ME2 to back up my argument.

I can also point out the endings to Jade Empire or Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic for other sad/bad endings with the option of the good ending and how they don't make the sad ending any less meaningful or poignant or anything else.

Fact is you lost this argument when you started jumping ship, demanding articles and then posting links to games with unalterable endings when the original argument was not about games with unalterable endings but about games with the option of happy and sad endings and the fact that as you claim one happy ending precludes the other sad ending. Which you have failed to prove to the point that having both happy and sad endings do not preclude one or the other. Having a happy does not make the sad any less meaningful. Having a sad option does not make the happy one any less meaningful.

Again I point out that you have failed to bring into this argument video games with ending choices between happy and sad where the happy ending makes the sad ending less meaningful or completely unnecessary. By this logic you're own argument has been turned against you.

I will not deign to delve further into the "Oh the games with the unalterable sad endings are the most lauded" because that's a completely different discussion and has no bearing on the topic that I have been arguing with you for the past hour and a half.

Therefore you have lost this argument because you cannot stay on topic and jump from topic to topic trying to send me on a wild goose chase to make it seem you have the better logic when you don't.

Modifié par Heather Cline, 31 mars 2012 - 12:02 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...


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

Yeah, um, they all die before the ending. They complete their journeys and go out, in pretty much every case, like a paragon of badass.

Not to mention, they each have very little to do with the actual war against the Reapers - they all have missions that are important to them, and to the galaxy as a whole, but very little in actually fighting the Reapers. Using them as examples of "see, peoples died so we can too have happy endings!" is, really, doing a disservice to these characters.

See my other post where I suggested scripting in further choices similar to the one you make on ME1.

My point is that in all the cases mentioned so far, players have the exact choice you challenged them to make. Look around...do you see ANYBODY complaining about those things?

Not really, because they get to make the choice. Want Kaiden to live? Then Ashley has to die. There's nothing wrong with this. Nobody complains when deaths have meaning.

The point I think a lot of others who Strawman on about Disney endings miss is that the sacrifices of EVERYONE else is for NOTHING.



I don't mind characters dying. I mind if they ALL die and I get nothing back in return.

And if they scripted in tough choices, that would be fantastic. I completely agree with that. What I DON'T want is another "Suicide - but not really because you're not an idiot and actually played the game instead of just zerging through, oh and you're not actively trying to kill anyone so don't worry, everyone's going to be just fine and dandy - Mission".

If you want everyone on the Normandy to live and for Shepard to be with his/her LI.... what are you willing to sacrifice to get it? That's my question.

[PlumPaul93]

I wouldn't particularly mind a happy ending, though I think there would need to be a limit on how happy it would be. I wouldn't want a happy ending, where you beat the Reapers and everyone lived at the end and there wasn't really any loss. Though other than an epilogue and reasons for why some of the things that happened at the end happened, I don't mind the endings.

[MrAtomica]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

As you should in a war. But if you walk in to the heart of Reaper forces, fighting thousands upon thousands of Reapers and cannibals and husks... and nobody dies except for people who died hours ago (in real time), or days or weeks ago (in the timeline of the game) how is that realistic? 

Is it a shame that they die, yes. Does it leave an impact, yes. But they each go out having fulfilled their mission, in a blaze of glory. There's no sense of danger in that anyone else is even in a modicum amount of danger because, well, they still have things to do.

That's not the way it works. War is a mother****er. Sometimes people die. Sometimes people you know. To say "Nope, nobody dies!" IS the disney ending.

Except that everyone who dies at the end dies off-screen. There is no impact, except anger at them being arbitrarily offed.

Did the Normandy crash make sense? If so, what was its purpose?

Should most of the Citadel have been purged? If so, why bother giving us side missions to better prepare its denizens?

Should the relays have been destroyed no matter what? Is there a reason for their destruction, beyond setting up canon for the next trilogy?

Do the two squadmates who are with you on Earth teleport back, or are they picked up? If so, why? What is the purpose of stranding them on Gilligan's Planet with the rest?

Sorry, but the "bittersweet" here is lost on me. There is no purpose to most of these deaths.

So we get rid of the Reapers. Great. So what? The technological singularity is not averted, and Earth is now a crowded slum of every galactic species. Regardless of choices made, we have solved nothing.

[Iakus]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And if they scripted in tough choices, that would be fantastic. I completely agree with that. What I DON'T want is another "Suicide - but not really because you're not an idiot and actually played the game instead of just zerging through, oh and you're not actively trying to kill anyone so don't worry, everyone's going to be just fine and dandy - Mission".

If you want everyone on the Normandy to live and for Shepard to be with his/her LI.... what are you willing to sacrifice to get it? That's my question.

That should be the question the game asks us.

Too bad it doesn't

[The Razman]

ile_1979 wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

If someone want so target an ending where everybody dies and the galaxy goes to ****, then by all means, let them have that as one of the ending OPTIONS.

But the rest of us would like to have endings, OPTIONAL endings, wherein all of our efforts and all of our time and completion zeal doesn't result in being utterly meaningless.

Tragedy with an off-switch is utterly meaningless. That's what we've been saying.

You can't have your happy ending option without destroying the sad ending option. And Bioware chose to make a sad ending. Live with it.

How is an optional ending you have to work for an on/off switch?

This is a role playing game.  You create Shepard's story, decide how he/she proceeds, and deal with the consequences.  Casey Hudson even said the players are teh "cocreators" of Shepard's story, there is no canon.

No one's ending invalidates anyone else's.  So why can't we have more options in how to end it? 

I don't think they, or at least he, wants an RPG. Not in the way we want it that is. He likes a story based shooter with role playing elements i guess. I wonder if playing ME3 in action mode has any viable difference to these people

My argument is based on the merits of writing for tragedy in a non-linear narrative environment. Game genre has nothing to do with it.

And just because a game is an RPG doesn't mean you automatically have to be given the option to "win" the game in the stereotypical narrative sense, or it somehow isn't an RPG anymore. That's rubbish, quite frankly.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Heather Cline wrote...

Father Jerusalem I will address your concern first. First off none of us are asking for a disney ending. Disney endings have dancing, singing, bright happy everyone survives, no one dies, endings and that is the truth except the bad guys.

The endings many of us want are that Shepard survives and ends up with LI. There is the possibility of ending up with the crew of the Normandy as well but that doesn't have to happen. Does that mean that it's disney? No it means that Shepard survived and got to be with her/his LI again. That's it. Not disney, not super happy rainbows and sunshine like disney has. Therefore your use of the 'disney ending' is invalid.

But "billions of people dying" who I've never met, never interacted with, have no emotional investment with as the ONLY repercussion... why should I care? I'm sorry, there's nothing there to make me feel anything other than "damn, that sucks. Come on Liara, if this Normandy's a-rockin, don't come a-knockin!" and that IS the disney ending. 

Now, someone you do know (no, sorry, Thane/Mordin/Legion/VSacrifical Lamb don't count) dying.. THAT resonates. "Yes I saved the galaxy, but it cost me...." Garrus dying means something, Tali dying, Liara dying, Vega dy... okay, that one's a bad example, I couldn't possibly care about Vega any less than I already do... those mean something. 

Again, if you want the Shepard lives with his LI and makes blue (or whatever) babies and the whole Normandy crew survives... what are you willing to sacrifice?

[MrAtomica]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And if they scripted in tough choices, that would be fantastic. I completely agree with that. What I DON'T want is another "Suicide - but not really because you're not an idiot and actually played the game instead of just zerging through, oh and you're not actively trying to kill anyone so don't worry, everyone's going to be just fine and dandy - Mission".

If you want everyone on the Normandy to live and for Shepard to be with his/her LI.... what are you willing to sacrifice to get it? That's my question.

You have no option of sacrificing anything to save your crew. They are stranded by the writers for what, at least in the context we are given, appears to be no reason whatsoever. They are not lased by Harbinger because we didn't collect enough assets, nor are they destroyed trying to buy you time to set off the Crucible. They are "killed" by a contrived plot device that suddenly appears within the last few minutes.

This same unfortunate truth applies to all the other off-screen deaths at the end. You have no options or affect on whether they live or do, or which of them lives or dies. Anderson's death, while tragic, was poignant because it fit in with what was happening. We had an option to save him long enough to allow him and Shepard to share a moment of peace. That was truly bittersweet.

The rest is not.

[bleetman]

The Razman wrote...

Tragedy with an off-switch is utterly meaningless. That's what we've been saying.

You can't have your happy ending option without destroying the sad ending option. And Bioware chose to make a sad ending. Live with it.

To which I would say, 'forced tragedy in a series - and genre - built around choice and consequence is equally meaningless'. The knowledge that the consequences each player experiences, 'sad' endings especially, are a determination of their choices are what make said consequences emotionally powerful. A 'happy' ending (in as far as you can manage in an overall story packed to bursting with death) wouldn't undermine the existence of the 'sad' ending. It makes it more potent, as it's fundamentally the result of player action, rather than being arm-twisted into that path by the writers, which I personally respond to with as much indifference as anything else. The most moving sequences, in both Mass Effect and other games, are the ones when I'm met with tragedy because of something I did or did not do. The times when it's just a linear plot event I can't do squat about aren't remotely as emotional.

Of course, I didn't find Mass Effect 3's endings remotely 'tragic' or 'bittersweet' anyway. I wasn't upset by Shepard's apparent death in the slightest. Angry at the botched manner in which it was handled, perhaps, but that's a seperate issue.

[Iakus]

The Razman wrote...
My argument is based on the merits of writing for tragedy in a non-linear narrative environment. Game genre has nothing to do with it.

And just because a game is an RPG doesn't mean you automatically have to be given the option to "win" the game in the stereotypical narrative sense, or it somehow isn't an RPG anymore. That's rubbish, quite frankly.

I don't think you "win"  an RPG.  You finish the story.  Hopefully, with an ending that satisfies you.

A bunch of ME fans don't think ME3 qualifies.

[BeefoTheBold]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And if they scripted in tough choices, that would be fantastic. I completely agree with that. What I DON'T want is another "Suicide - but not really because you're not an idiot and actually played the game instead of just zerging through, oh and you're not actively trying to kill anyone so don't worry, everyone's going to be just fine and dandy - Mission".

If you want everyone on the Normandy to live and for Shepard to be with his/her LI.... what are you willing to sacrifice to get it? That's my question.

And it's a fine question. I have no problem with it if that's a choice that get's inflicted upon us. To me, it sounds like a great Paragon/Renegade choice.

Sacrifice one or more crew members in order to swing the battle raging over Earth? = Paragon
Selfishly Insist on keeping your friends alive despite the damage that might cause in the battle? = Renegade

These are the sorts of choices the ME trilogy was ultimately built upon. There are several of them within ME3 itself, such as on Tuchanka and Rannoch as I mentioned.

And, I'd point out, PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH IT.

That means that saying that people want a "Disney" ending is a Strawman argument for the most part.

I'm sure there are some who want an ending where everyone lives and all planets are saved and the Reapers are driven back as a reward for completionist runs through all games or playing through New Game+ or something. And you know what? Why not let them have that option if you're going to have the polar opposite option where everyone and everyone dies and the Reapers win?

But ultimately, even if you HAD to sacrifice folks to win, people would be okay with it provided the sacrifice was worth something. Provided it meant things like the end of the genophage or peace between two warring civilizations. THOSE sacrifices are HEROIC ones. They are uplifting and meaningful.

Sacrifices like the end of the game are pointless because they're all for nothing for the most part.

[Heather Cline]

Father Jerusalem just because you don't think Thane, Mordin, Legion, Virmire death means nothing to you doesn't mean it's meaningless to everyone else.

That's just being selfish stating we have to sacrifice another crew member or former crew member just to satisfy your own ego and your own desire that we have to kill off even more people just so you can have your fatalistic sacrifice so that Shepard survives.

I think that Shepard sacrificed enough.

[Rafe34]

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?

Wow, what bull**** reasoning. Why don't go look up the actual promises they made to their fanbase. This is pretty much the worst defense I've ever heard. Companies aren't allowed to use false advertising.

[Father_Jerusalem]

MrAtomica wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

As you should in a war. But if you walk in to the heart of Reaper forces, fighting thousands upon thousands of Reapers and cannibals and husks... and nobody dies except for people who died hours ago (in real time), or days or weeks ago (in the timeline of the game) how is that realistic? 

Is it a shame that they die, yes. Does it leave an impact, yes. But they each go out having fulfilled their mission, in a blaze of glory. There's no sense of danger in that anyone else is even in a modicum amount of danger because, well, they still have things to do.

That's not the way it works. War is a mother****er. Sometimes people die. Sometimes people you know. To say "Nope, nobody dies!" IS the disney ending.

Except that everyone who dies at the end dies off-screen. There is no impact, except anger at them being arbitrarily offed.

Did the Normandy crash make sense? If so, what was its purpose?

Should most of the Citadel have been purged? If so, why bother giving us side missions to better prepare its denizens?

Should the relays have been destroyed no matter what? Is there a reason for their destruction, beyond setting up canon for the next trilogy?

Do the two squadmates who are with you on Earth teleport back, or are they picked up? If so, why? What is the purpose of stranding them on Gilligan's Planet with the rest?

Sorry, but the "bittersweet" here is lost on me. There is no purpose to most of these deaths.

So we get rid of the Reapers. Great. So what? The technological singularity is not averted, and Earth is now a crowded slum of every galactic species. Regardless of choices made, we have solved nothing.

The Normandy crash and the teleporting squadmates are stupid. I cannot and will not defend that.

But the purposelessness (I think I just made that up) of the denizens of the Citadel dying... IS the purpose. War is hell, and finally getting a sense of that in a visceral way by seeing the bodies of the people when you're crawling along the path in the Citadel... finally makes that sink in. 

And that you didn't "solve" anything by stopping the Reapers... well, that's a personal feeling. I feel the exact opposite.

[Rafe34]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...


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

Yeah, um, they all die before the ending. They complete their journeys and go out, in pretty much every case, like a paragon of badass.

Not to mention, they each have very little to do with the actual war against the Reapers - they all have missions that are important to them, and to the galaxy as a whole, but very little in actually fighting the Reapers. Using them as examples of "see, peoples died so we can too have happy endings!" is, really, doing a disservice to these characters.

Wow. Did you even play the series?

The first part of ME2 Shepard says, about the squadmate who died on Virmire: "S/he died a hero. Without him/her, I couldn't have stopped Saren." Shepard directly contradicts your assertion.

You don't need to have some more people die at the ending to get a relatively happy ending.  That's just dumb, and simply drama for the sake of drama.

Modifié par Rafe34, 31 mars 2012 - 12:12 .