650 réponses à ce sujet

[ile_1979]

The Razman wrote...

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.

Precisely what i am trying to say. Your prime interest is the narative regardless of the genre. If MEs were any other genre, regardless of the narative, how many of the people here on these forums would actually play it? The key aspect  of the WRPG was choice. Take away the choice you take away the reasons to play it as such.

[Tirigon]

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. 

Tragic endings are hip. People like to be hip.
Happy endings are too mainstream for these people.

[The Razman]

Heather Cline wrote...

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 gave you an article listing the most emotional/saddest video-game moments, along with analysis which explains how the article supports my point (summary: because all of the moments/endings on the list are ones which can't be avoided, which supports my point that a successful emotional moment can't have an alternative "happy" option), and I also gave you instructions on how to find many more articles exactly like that, with the invitation to check the work for any discrepancies you care to point out. You ignored all of this.

All I am asking for, all I've been asking for repeatedly since this has begun and which you haven't provided, is that you support your viewpoint that games can and have successfully implemented sad, emotional endings in conjunction with a happier alternative, by showing me evidence from articles talking about such endings in context. I provided my evidence. You've done nothing of the sort, and accused me of some bizaare "you're changing your argument" thing, when I've only been repeating the same viewpoint, expanding it each time in response to your accusations. My argument is constant, and has been from the start.

Please. You are approaching trolling levels of straw-manning in your attempts, here. Do you accept the premise that all of the sad, emotional endings/moments in video-games which are held up as examples of such in all the links which have been brought up so far are ones which cannot be bypassed in favour of a happier conclusion? Simple question.

[Heather Cline]

Rafe is right. False advertisement is illegal in almost every country in the world. Why? Because by falsely advertising a product, then selling it to the consumers, if the product fails to work, or breaks, causes death or any other numerous reasons then the customer can sue that company, and have said company shut down.

A restaurant serves you a dinner, it has salmonella in it and you suffer food poisoning. The restaurant promised you a food poison free meal but you got food poisoning anyways. Do you just shrug and let it go? No you tell the Drug and Food administration. You get the news channel's involved, you get that place shut down for shoddy service and nearly killing you.

So the whole defense against 'they promised' you put forward Razman has no leg to stand on.

[The Razman]

iakus wrote...

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.

That's their opinion, which they're perfectly entitled to hold. And I would think that they wouldn't purchase future products in the same vein from the same company, as a result.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Heather Cline wrote...

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.

But the only one Shepard sacrificied was the Virmire Dust Cloud. Mordin sacrificed HIMSELF to cure the genophage. Thane was toast anyway, but sacrificed himself to try and stop Kai Leng. Legion sacrificed himself to bring freedom to the Geth.

None of those is a sacrifice YOU have an option or choice to make. They're scripted events that you have no control over, that's why they don't count.

[DeinonSlayer]

The Razman wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

That's their opinion, which they're perfectly entitled to hold. And I would think that they wouldn't purchase future products in the same vein from the same company, as a result.

That's about the speed of it right now, yeah. The ball is in Bioware's court, we'll see if the action they choose to take will serve to redeem our business with them or not.

[Heather Cline]

Razman no you gave me a link to an article about games with unalterable endings.

Your original argument as I pointed out on the last page is that you stated that having an option for a happy ending makes any sad endings that are another option meaningless in said game.

Your argument is flawed, your reasoning is flawed, you have no proof while I have cited several games made by Bioware in the past that proves that having the happy ending doesn't preclude the sad ending either.

Thus again I have proven your argument wrong but you refuse to give up on the fact that you are jumping to the 'sad endings are the must lauded endings in video games because they cannot be changed'. Again a completely different discussion and argument that you are trying to bring in on your side as a defense which cannot be done because they are two completely different things. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Both maybe fruit but one fruit is an acidic fruit while the other is not.

Again I've proven my logic but you fail to prove yours.

Now you ask for articles proving that video games that have put in the happy and sad endings that one doesn't preclude the other. I've as stated before cited several games that have done this without fail.

You have not provided any video games, any articles, nothing. Therefore I've won this argument already. I'm done talking with you since you cannot back up your claims without using games that have no alterable endings.

Good day Razman and I hope in the future you come better armed to an argument than with your flawed logic and links to games that do not fit into the topic of discussion.

[Iakus]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But the only one Shepard sacrificied was the Virmire Dust Cloud. Mordin sacrificed HIMSELF to cure the genophage. Thane was toast anyway, but sacrificed himself to try and stop Kai Leng. Legion sacrificed himself to bring freedom to the Geth.

None of those is a sacrifice YOU have an option or choice to make. They're scripted events that you have no control over, that's why they don't count.

That's funny, a couple pages back I was told scripted, unstoppable events are the best kind of tragedy

[The Razman]

ile_1979 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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.

Precisely what i am trying to say. Your prime interest is the narative regardless of the genre. If MEs were any other genre, regardless of the narative, how many of the people here on these forums would actually play it? The key aspect  of the WRPG was choice. Take away the choice you take away the reasons to play it as such.

I could equally make the argument than the narrative of Mass Effect is by far the most prominent reason that people play the game, and so should take priority over anything else.

[Heather Cline]

Jersalem you want to know who I'd sacrifice? Fine I'd sacrifice Javik. Don't like him, don't care about him so yeah I'd get rid of him. Happy? Shepard got to know him, Shepard got to talk to him. Did my Shepard like him? Nope so I'd happily sacrifice the prothean for my Shepard to survive.

There you got your sacrifice.

[Tirigon]

iakus wrote...
That's funny, a couple pages back I was told scripted, unstoppable events are the best kind of tragedy

They are... in a movie, novel or linear game.

But scripted events shouldnt even exist in a game that claims to give you choices.

[Father_Jerusalem]

iakus wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But the only one Shepard sacrificied was the Virmire Dust Cloud. Mordin sacrificed HIMSELF to cure the genophage. Thane was toast anyway, but sacrificed himself to try and stop Kai Leng. Legion sacrificed himself to bring freedom to the Geth.

None of those is a sacrifice YOU have an option or choice to make. They're scripted events that you have no control over, that's why they don't count.

That's funny, a couple pages back I was told scripted, unstoppable events are the best kind of tragedy

The BEST way to do it is "Okay, you can save X but at the cost of Y" type events. Unfortunately, we don't have any of those and that's a damn shame. 

[PlumPaul93]

Tirigon wrote...Tragic endings are hip. People like to be hip.
Happy endings are too mainstream for these people.

Or maybe because it lessons the experience when everything goes perfectly, nobody dies, and the galaxy is united forever. Considering the Reapers have destroyed organic life over and over for who knows how long, you kindda figured things wouldn't end swimmingly. Take the "suicide mission" for example, you had to try really hard to mess it up to not get a happy ending.

PS: I could just as easily say those who want a happy ending have probably never gotten a sad ending, doesn't mean what I said is right.

[The Razman]

Heather Cline wrote...

Razman no you gave me a link to an article about games with unalterable endings.

Um ... no, I gave you a link to an article titled "10 Most Emotional Moments In Gaming". The fact that they're all games with unalterable endings is the point I am making. You are the one asserting that games with alterable endings can have emotional impact ... show me the lists which include games which do, then? They're not all unalterable anyway, by the way ... Silent Hill 2 has multiple ending options. All of them quite depressing, though ... no happy one.

If you are going to say that my argument and my reasoning are flawed ... then come up with some kind of evidence. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air, and quite frankly have been disproven by my evidence. I've prompted you to provide your own counter-evidence time and time again, but you've gradually just launched more and more ad hominems every time I've asked ... that clearly indicates you have no logical rebuttal to make here.

If you have any logical rebuttal to the above evidence I've provided, please, I'd really like to hear it. Consider this discussion finished until you've reached that point.

Modifié par The Razman, 31 mars 2012 - 12:22 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Heather Cline wrote...

Jersalem you want to know who I'd sacrifice? Fine I'd sacrifice Javik. Don't like him, don't care about him so yeah I'd get rid of him. Happy? Shepard got to know him, Shepard got to talk to him. Did my Shepard like him? Nope so I'd happily sacrifice the prothean for my Shepard to survive.

There you got your sacrifice.

I am, and that's an appropriate sacrifice to make, in fact, given his character. 

I WISH they gave us more to get X you must sacrifice Y choices, a happy ending along THOSE lines, I'd be okay with. But... a happy ending, where the only people who die are people who die in EVERY ending... that's just weak. There's no drama, there's no emotional impact, if everything happens the same - except that I purposefuly have to choose crappy options to get a "bittersweet" ending as opposed to the default happy ending.

[ile_1979]

The Razman wrote...

ile_1979 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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.

Precisely what i am trying to say. Your prime interest is the narative regardless of the genre. If MEs were any other genre, regardless of the narative, how many of the people here on these forums would actually play it? The key aspect  of the WRPG was choice. Take away the choice you take away the reasons to play it as such.

I could equally make the argument than the narrative of Mass Effect is by far the most prominent reason that people play the game, and so should take priority over anything else.

Really? How come then, people that played ME to begin with, were fans of KOTOR, BG and NWN? Because of the ME's story? Feel free to ask what other games they play. Oh i am sure there are people out there that play only for the benefit of the narative, but the fans here? REally?

[Rafe34]

iakus wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But the only one Shepard sacrificied was the Virmire Dust Cloud. Mordin sacrificed HIMSELF to cure the genophage. Thane was toast anyway, but sacrificed himself to try and stop Kai Leng. Legion sacrificed himself to bring freedom to the Geth.

None of those is a sacrifice YOU have an option or choice to make. They're scripted events that you have no control over, that's why they don't count.

That's funny, a couple pages back I was told scripted, unstoppable events are the best kind of tragedy

Yeah I realized that, too, lol.

Just let it go, guys. These two are entitled to their opinion. They are in a very small minority, but they are entitled to it. Let them have it. You can't beat both of them because they're saying they need two entirely different things.

FJ is putting arbitrary assertions forward, based solely on how he feels about something. The squadmate's deaths that you have had already is not "enough" for him. He needs Shepard to be a control freak and choose who lives and who dies every time in order for a death to have meaning. His entire argument is destroyed by ME2's suicide mission. You can lose nearly everyone there.

Raz is saying that if things aren't scripted and unavoidable they have no weight, no meaning- and this is the kicker- because someone hasn't written that they would still have meaning on the internet. This argument is so bogus its not even worth responding to, because if he honestly thinks its a good one, nothing you say is going to change his mind.

[Tirigon]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...


Or maybe because it lessons the experience when everything goes perfectly, nobody dies, and the galaxy is united forever.

It doesnt. If you want to see things going bad try making a difference in Real Life. I dont want that kind of crap in games as well.

[MrAtomica]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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.

One problem, the bodies are all human. Furthermore, they are all random people, and poorly textured ones at that. If one of the bodies was Aethyta, or Bailey, I might be inclined to feel the impact of their deaths. Instead, we get a TWEET telling us that "yep, they're mostly dead".

As for solving the problem, that is debatable. However, I feel that there is less victory here than most do. None of these endings solves the problem of synthetic-organic conflict. There is still the capacity for a singularity to occur. Furthermore, the relays leave the galaxy in a very poor position to recover from the devestation of the invasion. IF most of the fleets manage to make it home, they will be severely crippled and in poor shape to begin helping.

The RGC makes some assertions about the endings that I take issue with:

Destroy - "Your children will create synthetics. The cycle will repeat itself."

Clear admission that the way you go about destroying the Reapers is futile. Destroying all technology is not a terribly effective method of coexisting with said technology. It will return, and the situation will repeat.

Control - "You will control the Reapers."

Really? Are you sure? Because the Citadel is intact, thus implying that the Catalyst is intact. And if any trace of him is left, then why can't he simply regain control later on? Is there any guarantee that Shepard won't be corrupted by the merging?

Again, nothing is solved. Synthetics still exist, and the Reapers are simply put into standby mode for when the new Catalyst (Shepard) feels they need to be used. Since Shepard doesn't simply use his power to destroy them, I can only assume that they WILL be used again.

Synthesis - "We need each other to survive."

Yes, we do. But is forcefully combining all life simultaneously into Reaper form the way to go about it? Does doing so really move us any closer to lasting peace? Even if it does, what's to stop us from making more "pure" synthetics?

Here's another point to mull over -- is forcefully combining two groups any more preferable than leaving them in conflict? None of their differences are rectified or worked past, they are simply told to "play nice". Again, this really doesn't solve a thing.

The largest problem here is that we have such a pitifully small amount of information to work with. The writers claim this is to foster "Speculation for everyone!", yet this comes off as totally inappropriate for such a previously explanative universe. The first two games were fairly concrete in the aftermaths of their plotlines. Granted, these two were not the final installment, but this is the point where exposition should have reached a peak, not hit rock bottom.

[Heather Cline]

As I stated Razman your game list was games with unalterable endings. Those games have no standing in a discussion about a game that was based on choice, on games that have the ability to have a happy, sad, and grey area set of endings.

You have proved nothing and I have proved with the cited games of DA:O, ME1, ME2, Jade Empire, Star Wars KotOR as several games that have put in the alterable endings.

You want games that have no choices, no alterable endings go play those games the argument for those as I sated are another discussion. I'm done arguing the point with you because I know I won and you can't seem to concede defeat. I leave you to wallow in your thoughts on this matter while I go and have dinner and know that I beat you.

Oh and one last thing. I've rebuttaled your evidence because your evidence is not evidence at all. As I stated before comparing apples to oranges. Mass Effect is the apple, the games with unalterable endings is the oranges. Because of this the two separate set of game styles cannot be compared because they are nothing alike.

Good day.

[Xellith]

Id rather effort = good stuff happen. Bad and lazy stuff = bad stuff happen.

What the game teaches is "no matter what you do - eventually everything you love is going to go to s**t so there is no point in even trying".

Some epic RL lesson there. Dumbest thing ever.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Rafe34 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But the only one Shepard sacrificied was the Virmire Dust Cloud. Mordin sacrificed HIMSELF to cure the genophage. Thane was toast anyway, but sacrificed himself to try and stop Kai Leng. Legion sacrificed himself to bring freedom to the Geth.

None of those is a sacrifice YOU have an option or choice to make. They're scripted events that you have no control over, that's why they don't count.

That's funny, a couple pages back I was told scripted, unstoppable events are the best kind of tragedy

Yeah I realized that, too, lol.

Just let it go, guys. These two are entitled to their opinion. They are in a very small minority, but they are entitled to it. Let them have it. You can't beat both of them because they're saying they need two entirely different things.

FJ is putting arbitrary assertions forward, based solely on how he feels about something. The squadmate's deaths that you have had already is not "enough" for him. He needs Shepard to be a control freak and choose who lives and who dies every time in order for a death to have meaning. His entire argument is destroyed by ME2's suicide mission. You can lose nearly everyone there.

Raz is saying that if things aren't scripted and unavoidable they have no weight, no meaning- and this is the kicker- because someone hasn't written that they would still have meaning on the internet. This argument is so bogus its not even worth responding to, because if he honestly thinks its a good one, nothing you say is going to change his mind.

In fact, my argument is strengthened by the "suicide" mission because you have to specifically TRY to lose people there. Simply by not actively trying to get someone killed, or not playing like an idiot, you get the default "yay everybody lives!" happy ending, and in a war of THIS magnitude, that's a ridiculous option to get. If there is to be a "happy" ending, there needs to be appropriate offsets - otherwise anyone who wants "bittersweet" or "dark" has to actively gimp their playthrough and playing style. 

Not that I expect you to understand, or even acknoweldge, my position because I've explained this, probably, 6-7 times in this thread alone and you clearly haven't paid attention to it in order to try and slag me as a "control freak".

[The Razman]

Rafe34 wrote...

Raz is saying that if things aren't scripted and unavoidable they have no weight, no meaning- and this is the kicker- because someone hasn't written that they would still have meaning on the internet. This argument is so bogus its not even worth responding to, because if he honestly thinks its a good one, nothing you say is going to change his mind.

... I've read the part you bolded three times, and it still doesn't make any sense? Could you explain what you were trying to say, please?

[Iakus]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
The BEST way to do it is "Okay, you can save X but at the cost of Y" type events. Unfortunately, we don't have any of those and that's a damn shame. 

On that, we agree.

When people ask for happy endings, they aren't asking for purely happy, rainbow and unicorns endings.  They're asking for choices that will allow them to craft an ending that makes them happier.

That's a major difference.