650 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

MrAtomica wrote...

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.

And I chalk up the mass of poorly-textured human bodies to being a limitation of the processor or the GPU, it simply would take much more to properly render 3D models of various species and recognizable faces.

Would it have been nice to see Baily or Aria or whoever? Absolutely. (Well, maybe not "nice", but I think you know what I mean) But at least it's a visual impact of just how HORRIFIC the Reapers truly are, and how desperate the race is to stop them from doing this to everyone.

[The Razman]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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".

I think I ran into this same problem with possibly the same people when I made a similar point to yours a while back, FJ. I agree with you entirely when it comes to Mass Effect 2's suicide mission, but some people don't quite get it.

[ile_1979]

iakus wrote...

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.

Indeed, me too. If you have the patience look back several pages and you'll find me and another dude proposing just this. Timers, counters, and trade offs....you name it

[Rafe34]

Derp. Double post ftw.

Modifié par Rafe34, 31 mars 2012 - 12:35 .

[The Razman]

Rafe34 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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?

Sure.

The Razman wrote...
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?

 

Ah. So you take issue with me citing cultural evidence that people who believe that Dragon Age: Origin's ending had a big, sad emotional impact are in a minority?

How is that different from people posting polls on here about how people who like the endings are in a minority, exactly?

[Rafe34]

The Razman wrote...

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?

Sure.

The Razman wrote...
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?

 

So because someone on the internet made a list that only includes those games where sad moments are unavoidable as being the powerful ones, and these are the only articles you could find on the issue, ones with games that had unalterable, sad, moments, therefore games which have sad moments, but are avoidable aren't emotionally powerful because no one has written an article saying so.

That's bull****. Alistair sacrificing himself to save the Warden is one of the more powerful moments in any video game I've played. 

Carth coming to Female Revan to try to persuade her one last time to change her mind- ditto.

Yet both of these are completely avoidable. But since no article on the 'net was written saying so, then they aren't emotionally powerful. That seems to be your argument.

Modifié par Rafe34, 31 mars 2012 - 12:36 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

The Razman wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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".

I think I ran into this same problem with possibly the same people when I made a similar point to yours a while back, FJ. I agree with you entirely when it comes to Mass Effect 2's suicide mission, but some people don't quite get it.

ME2 is still my second favorite video game I've ever played (FF3/6, whatever, is my first) and I fully expect ME3 to supplant it once more DLC is released and I've played it more, but the "Suicide Mission" is a singular tremendous flaw in an otherwise, to me, game. The only way to make it a "suicide" mission is to actively try and make it one - by gimping and purposfuly changing - the way you play the game.

And THAT is why I'm against a happy ending in ME3, because unless they put them in with actual HARD choices you have to make to GET that ending... what's the drawback? What's the offset? Why would any sane person CHOOSE to get any ending other than the happy ending? 

And, forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, I believe that's the same position you have as well.

[The Razman]

Rafe34 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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?

Sure.

The Razman wrote...
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?

 

So because someone on the internet made a list that only includes those games where sad moments are unavoidable as being the powerful ones, and these are the only articles you could find on the issue, ones with games that had unalterable, sad, moments, therefore games which have sad moments, but are unavoidable aren't emotionally powerful because no one was written an article saying so.

That's bull****. Alistair sacrificing himself to save the Warden is one of the more powerful moments in any video game I've played. 

Carth coming to Female Revan to try to persuade her one last time to change her mind- ditto.

Yet both of these are completely avoidable. But since no article on the 'net was written saying so, then they aren't emotionally powerful. That seems to be your argument.

Yes.

Knowing when to accept that your opinion is in the minority is important. Just because it worked on you, doesn't mean it worked on most other people ... just like the Mass Effect 3 ending worked for me, but didn't for most people here. Whether you want to accept it or not, the fact is that Dragon Age: Origin's ending isn't considering one of those big emotional moments in video-game history.

The ones which are cited all fall into the category of moments which cannot be avoided in favour of a happier ending, such as Aerith in FF7, Eli Vance in HL2:EP2, or your girlfriend's death in The Darkness. Are you saying that this pattern doesn't exist, or that its just coincidence?

Modifié par The Razman, 31 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[mauro2222]

Ok...

Billions are dead, old friends sacrificed, whole civilizations lost... so dramatic. But wait! Shepard lives.... what the hell? this is a Disney ending bua bua buah...

[ile_1979]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...



 but the "Suicide Mission" is a singular tremendous flaw in an otherwise, to me, game. The only way to make it a "suicide" mission is to actively try and make it one - by gimping and purposfuly changing - the way you play the game.

And THAT is why I'm against a happy ending in ME3, because unless they put them in with actual HARD choices you have to make to GET that ending... what's the drawback? What's the offset? Why would any sane person CHOOSE to get any ending other than the happy ending? 

And, forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, I believe that's the same position you have as well.

And i agree with the first part. Do note is still think the ME2 ending/s were the best crafted in an RPG i had since ES2 Dagerfall and Torment. The only thing wrong with the ME2 ending is the warding. It isn;t really a suicide mission as the suicide is the most difficult outcome obtainable. It should be the other way around. It should always have been the other way around. But the basic idea is still valid. Every choice counts. Even player skill counts.

Now for the second part. Why would any sain player chose a less then perfect ending? Role playing. The reason why most of us are here. Also i am willing to bet, most would play through multiple ending just to see them unfolding. For the real roleplayers the fall of all those homeworlds actually does matter.

Modifié par ile_1979, 31 mars 2012 - 12:45 .

[The Razman]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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".

I think I ran into this same problem with possibly the same people when I made a similar point to yours a while back, FJ. I agree with you entirely when it comes to Mass Effect 2's suicide mission, but some people don't quite get it.

ME2 is still my second favorite video game I've ever played (FF3/6, whatever, is my first) and I fully expect ME3 to supplant it once more DLC is released and I've played it more, but the "Suicide Mission" is a singular tremendous flaw in an otherwise, to me, game. The only way to make it a "suicide" mission is to actively try and make it one - by gimping and purposfuly changing - the way you play the game.

And THAT is why I'm against a happy ending in ME3, because unless they put them in with actual HARD choices you have to make to GET that ending... what's the drawback? What's the offset? Why would any sane person CHOOSE to get any ending other than the happy ending? 

And, forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, I believe that's the same position you have as well.

Not at all, that's exactly the feeling I had as well.

[AlienWolf728]

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.

If you knew what real war is like, you wouldn't want it incorporated in your entertainment. My father and some of his brothers fought in Vietnam. You don't come out of war without mental scars, and it is appearant in my father's actions and who he is. The idea that video games should depict the real effects of war is simply childish and ignorant. War is something no one should have to experience, to say that it would be "cool" or "more fun and realistic" for it to be depicted in video games is simply, as I said, childish and ignorant. I have never experienced war, nor do I plan to after seeing how it affected my father. that is all.

[mauro2222]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

 but the "Suicide Mission" is a singular tremendous flaw in an otherwise, to me, game. The only way to make it a "suicide" mission is to actively try and make it one - by gimping and purposfuly changing - the way you play the game.

And THAT is why I'm against a happy ending in ME3, because unless they put them in with actual HARD choices you have to make to GET that ending... what's the drawback? What's the offset? Why would any sane person CHOOSE to get any ending other than the happy ending? 

And, forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, I believe that's the same position you have as well.

To roleplay? Don't know, I see lots of Renegade Sheps. Hell, people even agree with TIM

Some are pro-human. Others kill their squadmates because they don't like them.

[kbct]

So, we're in agreement then. A majority in this thread want the option for a "happy" ending.

[Rafe34]

The Razman wrote...

Yes.

Knowing when to accept that your opinion is in the minority is important. Just because it worked on you, doesn't mean it worked on most other people ... just like the Mass Effect 3 ending worked for me, but didn't for most people here. Whether you want to accept it or not, the fact is that Dragon Age: Origin's ending isn't considering one of those big emotional moments in video-game history.

The ones which are cited all fall into the category of moments which cannot be avoided in favour of a happier ending, such as Aerith in FF7, Eli Vance in HL2:EP2, or your girlfriend's death in The Darkness. Are you saying that this pattern doesn't exist, or that its just coincidence?

It's not in the minority, necessarily. Yours is an arbitrary assertion. There are far too many variables.

First off, we're talking about people who play Mass Effect, not people who play all types of video games. Would it work for people who play ME? We don't know. Start a poll here and find out.

Second, there are a ton more games with scripted events that have to happen than there are with games that have alternate endings and alternate ways through. That's a relatively difficult thing to pull off, and not many developers try it. So obviously there will be more moments from games without alternative paths, than from games that have such paths.

Third, I googled for all of five minutes and found a list that has an avoidable choice as a powerful one. http://www.gamesrada...moments/?page=2  GTA IV, apparently. Having never played GTA, I wouldn't know.
http://www.gamesrada...-us-sad/?page=3 Here's one from ME1- Ash's death. Completely avoidable, albeit by substituting another person.
I have also seen Silent Hill 2's ending, In the Water, mentioned several times while looking through this. Silent Hill 2, as you may be aware, has six endings, in some of which the protagonist does not die. That apparently did not take away from his death in the ending where he did.
I have seen The Warden's Sacrifice ending to Dragon Age Origins mentioned as one of the greatest emotional endings of all time. Granted, it's just us poor people that don't write articles opinions, but it is out there quite a bit, mostly in responses to articles.
Dragon Age 2 your sibling's death in the deep roads is listed as one of the more emotional moments. Again- completely avoidable. Though it's not easy to avoid if you decide to take them along. She died in my playthrough, and finding out I could have avoided it didn't cheapen the scene in any way. Ditto if you let Merideth kill Bethany at the end of DA2.

Fourth, you have zero evidence whatsoever that the *reason* why people like them, or rather, are emotionally moved by them, is *because* they are unavoidable. It wouldn't cheapen a death in any way to make it not necessarily the way things have to work out. The reason we're moved by a character's death is because we got to know them.

It's why your second sibling die is far more powerfully emotionally in DA2 than your first sibling dying- because we as players, really haven't had much time to get to know the first one yet. Just because it was scripted and unavoidable added nothing to it, and just because the second death is avoidable takes nothing away from it.

Edit: Got rid of ME3 spoilers.

Modifié par Rafe34, 31 mars 2012 - 01:33 .

[Rafe34]

AlienWolf728 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.

If you knew what real war is like, you wouldn't want it incorporated in your entertainment. My father and some of his brothers fought in Vietnam. You don't come out of war without mental scars, and it is appearant in my father's actions and who he is. The idea that video games should depict the real effects of war is simply childish and ignorant. War is something no one should have to experience, to say that it would be "cool" or "more fun and realistic" for it to be depicted in video games is simply, as I said, childish and ignorant. I have never experienced war, nor do I plan to after seeing how it affected my father. that is all.

Well said. Two of my friends are the same way. It is very difficult to watch them going through the hell they are going through and be unable to relate. 

[The Razman]

Rafe34 wrote...

I have also seen Silent Hill 2's ending, In the Water, mentioned several times while looking through this. Silent Hill 2, as you may be aware, has six endings, in some of which the protagonist does not die. That apparently did not take away from his death in the ending where he did.
I have seen The Warden's Sacrifice ending to Dragon Age Origins mentioned as one of the greatest emotional endings of all time. Granted, it's just us poor people that don't write articles opinions, but it is out there quite a bit, mostly in responses to articles.

Fourth, you have zero evidence whatsoever that the *reason* why people like them, or rather, are emotionally moved by them, is *because* they are unavoidable. It wouldn't cheapen a death in any way to make it not necessarily the way things have to work out.

I'm not so sure what your first two points are saying ... but in the case of GTA4 and ME1, there's no happier alternative. GTA4 is pretty much exactly like ME1's Virmire; either your cousin dies or your girlfriend dies. There's no happy choice. Where both choices are as tragic as each other, that can work fine; in fact, ME1 proved just how effective that is in video-game's non-linear narrative form. It's where its a direct choice between happy and tragic that it breaks down.

Silent Hill 2 ... really, really, really doesn't have any endings which you can categorise as happier than any of the rest. They're all pretty much depressing; IIRC either you commit suicide, or you live and have to watch your fiance come down with lung cancer and die slowly, or ... there was one where you try and do some kind of resurrection ritual, I think? I think Silent Hill 2 can go down in "none of the choices are going to leave you with a nice warm fuzzy feeling" territory.

For your fourth point, you're right. I don't have hard, solid, empirical evidence. You're not going to get that short of doing a scientific study on the subject. That's why I'm asking ... is this pattern of none of the games people talk about as having sad/emotional moments being ones which have happier alternatives a coincidence, or are you saying that pattern simply doesn't exist?

[The Razman]

kbct wrote...

So, we're in agreement then. A majority in this thread want the option for a "happy" ending.

I don't think I've ever seen you make an argument on these forums outside of argumentum ad populam.

[DeinonSlayer]

Rafe34 wrote...

Third, I googled for all of five minutes and found a list that has an avoidable choice as a powerful one. http://www.gamesrada...moments/?page=2  GTA IV, apparently. Having never played GTA, I wouldn't know.
http://www.gamesrada...-us-sad/?page=3 Here's one from ME1- Ash's death. Completely avoidable, albeit by substituting another person.
I have also seen Silent Hill 2's ending, In the Water, mentioned several times while looking through this. Silent Hill 2, as you may be aware, has six endings, in some of which the protagonist does not die. That apparently did not take away from his death in the ending where he did.
I have seen The Warden's Sacrifice ending to Dragon Age Origins mentioned as one of the greatest emotional endings of all time. Granted, it's just us poor people that don't write articles opinions, but it is out there quite a bit, mostly in responses to articles.
Dragon Age 2 your sibling's death in the deep roads is listed as one of the more emotional moments. Again- completely avoidable. Though it's not easy to avoid if you decide to take them along. She died in my playthrough, and finding out I could have avoided it didn't cheapen the scene in any way.

Fourth, you have zero evidence whatsoever that the *reason* why people like them, or rather, are emotionally moved by them, is *because* they are unavoidable. It wouldn't cheapen a death in any way to make it not necessarily the way things have to work out.

Agreed.

I for one will never do a playthrough in which the Quarian migrant fleet is destroyed. I don't think I could even stomach watching it happen on YouTube. The fact that it's optional in no way detracts from my belief that it would be an extremely emotional moment.

The Geth, on the other hand? Not so much. Others view it differently.

Options. The fact that Mass Effect's narrative finds ways to accommodate so many of us is what makes this series so remarkable. There's no reason to throw that out in the last five minutes of the trilogy.

I'm willing to make trades. I appreciate the need for balance. That said, none of the endings we're offered now are in my view worth fighting for.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 31 mars 2012 - 01:21 .

[FocusCanon]

I came in a little late, but I agree. Clearly, millions and millions have already died, so it's always going to be a little bitter. But I'd prefer an ending where you know, the whole of galactic civilization doesn't get completely f***ed for tens of thousands of years. And I agree, you should have to work hard to acheive that ending.

[Rafe34]

The Razman wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

I have also seen Silent Hill 2's ending, In the Water, mentioned several times while looking through this. Silent Hill 2, as you may be aware, has six endings, in some of which the protagonist does not die. That apparently did not take away from his death in the ending where he did.
I have seen The Warden's Sacrifice ending to Dragon Age Origins mentioned as one of the greatest emotional endings of all time. Granted, it's just us poor people that don't write articles opinions, but it is out there quite a bit, mostly in responses to articles.

Fourth, you have zero evidence whatsoever that the *reason* why people like them, or rather, are emotionally moved by them, is *because* they are unavoidable. It wouldn't cheapen a death in any way to make it not necessarily the way things have to work out.

I'm not so sure what your first two points are saying ... but in the case of GTA4 and ME1, there's no happier alternative. GTA4 is pretty much exactly like ME1's Virmire; either your cousin dies or your girlfriend dies. There's no happy choice. Where both choices are as tragic as each other, that can work fine; in fact, ME1 proved just how effective that is in video-game's non-linear narrative form. It's where its a direct choice between happy and tragic that it breaks down.

Silent Hill 2 ... really, really, really doesn't have any endings which you can categorise as happier than any of the rest. They're all pretty much depressing; IIRC either you commit suicide, or you live and have to watch your fiance come down with lung cancer and die slowly, or ... there was one where you try and do some kind of resurrection ritual, I think? I think Silent Hill 2 can go down in "none of the choices are going to leave you with a nice warm fuzzy feeling" territory.

For your fourth point, you're right. I don't have hard, solid, empirical evidence. You're not going to get that short of doing a scientific study on the subject. That's why I'm asking ... is this pattern of none of the games people talk about as having sad/emotional moments being ones which have happier alternatives a coincidence, or are you saying that pattern simply doesn't exist?

But there is an alternative. You CAN avoid the character's death. 

SH2 does have a happier ending, just one where you go off and later on you're told that you went missing. Certainly happier than suicide. It's like DAO-DA2, where you're told the Warden is now missing in DA2. That's still happier than the Sacrifice ending. Not as emotionally powerful, though.

The pattern doesn't hold true completely. It does seem to be a majority. But I think there's a pretty obvious reason why.

I think its a combination of things. How many people play RPGs vs other games? The sad fact is that, I believe the number was, something like 50-55% of gamers don't play RPG s at all. (This needs to be looked up somehow, this number was from a couple years back when we were talking about something totally different in the Dragon Age forums). So half your base that we're drawing from has never even played a game where something WAS avoidable. Things were always scripted- they were always playing someone else's story, not their own.

This combined with the fact that many of the rest of us play both types of games. I will say that I really enjoyed COD4.  So we're going to be using both types of games in our experience, so some of us will say that COD4's ending was emotionally moving, (it was). They both are- DAO's Sacrifice ending is emotionally powerful. So is COD4. It has nothing to do with whether the event is scripted. It's simply because I KNOW the characters. I feel like I'm watching a friend die. Or me die, as the case may be. 

These two, also combined with the fact that more companies make games, a lot more, that do not have diverging paths than companies that DO make games that have such diverging paths. I mean, how many games really are there where a character death is avoidable? Not many- not even in RPGs. Heck, Legion and Thane's deaths were both completely unavoidable. Nearly every game now has a major character die in order to try to show "We are for realz, here, guys, take us srsly. This is srz bzns." But how many of those games even allow you to choose? 

There's simply far too many variables to say that the *reason* why character deaths hit people hard is *because* they are unavoidable. It's not an assertion you can make.

"Too many variables, too many variables!" As the best character in the ME series would put it.

[Rafe34]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Third, I googled for all of five minutes and found a list that has an avoidable choice as a powerful one. http://www.gamesrada...moments/?page=2  GTA IV, apparently. Having never played GTA, I wouldn't know.
http://www.gamesrada...-us-sad/?page=3 Here's one from ME1- Ash's death. Completely avoidable, albeit by substituting another person.
I have also seen Silent Hill 2's ending, In the Water, mentioned several times while looking through this. Silent Hill 2, as you may be aware, has six endings, in some of which the protagonist does not die. That apparently did not take away from his death in the ending where he did.
I have seen The Warden's Sacrifice ending to Dragon Age Origins mentioned as one of the greatest emotional endings of all time. Granted, it's just us poor people that don't write articles opinions, but it is out there quite a bit, mostly in responses to articles.
Dragon Age 2 your sibling's death in the deep roads is listed as one of the more emotional moments. Again- completely avoidable. Though it's not easy to avoid if you decide to take them along. She died in my playthrough, and finding out I could have avoided it didn't cheapen the scene in any way.

Fourth, you have zero evidence whatsoever that the *reason* why people like them, or rather, are emotionally moved by them, is *because* they are unavoidable. It wouldn't cheapen a death in any way to make it not necessarily the way things have to work out.

Agreed.

I for one will never do a playthrough in which the Quarian migrant fleet is destroyed. I don't think I could even stomach watching it happen on YouTube. The fact that it's optional in no way detracts from my belief that it would be an extremely emotional moment.

The Geth, on the other hand? Not so much. Others view it differently.

Options. The fact that Mass Effect's narrative finds ways to accommodate so many of us is what makes this series so remarkable. There's no reason to throw that out in the last five minutes of the trilogy.

I'm willing to make trades. I appreciate the need for balance. That said, none of the endings we're offered now are in my view worth fighting for.

Damn it why is this thread in the No ME3 spoilers allowed. I have a perfect example and I can't use it.

Modifié par Rafe34, 31 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[kbct]

The Razman wrote...

kbct wrote...

So, we're in agreement then. A majority in this thread want the option for a "happy" ending.

I don't think I've ever seen you make an argument on these forums outside of argumentum ad populam.

Well, you are in the minority in this thread and on these forums. Not true?

Are you in college still or do you have a career?

Modifié par kbct, 31 mars 2012 - 01:29 .

[The Razman]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Agreed.

I for one will never do a playthrough in which the Quarian migrant fleet is destroyed. I don't think I could even stomach watching it happen on YouTube. The fact that it's optional in no way detracts from my belief that it would be an extremely emotional moment.

Would be ... but isn't. Because you can just avoid it in favour of the happier version, like you are doing. If the writers want to make you feel those emotions ... then they have to force them on you. You're not going to pick the one you find so heart-wrenching voluntarily, are you? Nobody would. That's why its tragedy.

It's not necessary to make people feel those emotions, but if the writers feel that they want to make their audience feel tragedy, then that's their artistic license.

[Rafe34]

kbct wrote...

The Razman wrote...

kbct wrote...

So, we're in agreement then. A majority in this thread want the option for a "happy" ending.

I don't think I've ever seen you make an argument on these forums outside of argumentum ad populam.

Well, you are in the minority in this thread on these forums. Not true?

Are you still in college still or do you have a career?

And he follows ad populam up with ad hominem. Truly a master debater. Please leave Raz alone. He's being civil and we're actually having a debate for once.