650 réponses à ce sujet

[Rafe34]

The Razman wrote...

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.

One word after you take this option. Tali.

Nothing detracted because its not optional.

[The Razman]

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 and on these forums. Not true?

So?

[DigitalAvatar]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...
Father Jerusalem just because you don't think ***, ***, ***, Virmire death means nothing to you doesn't mean it's meaningless to everyone else.

But the only one Shepard sacrificied was the Virmire Dust Cloud. *** sacrificed HIMSELF to *** the ***. *** was toast anyway, but *** ** to  try and stop ***. *** sacrificed himself to bring freedom to ***.
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.

Woah, guys, spoilers.
Also Father Jerusalem, you're wrong. You can make choices for a couple of the character deaths in Mass Effect 3.

[kbct]

Rafe34 wrote...

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.

By all means, go for it. He would drown me in a sea of words anyway.

[The Razman]

Rafe34 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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.

One word after you take this option. Tali.

Nothing detracted because its not optional.

Really? I don't see anybody on these forums discussing the Tali moment very much, in comparison to the Mordin or Thane moments?

[The Razman]

kbct wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

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.

By all means, go for it. He would drown me in a sea of words anyway.

I could use semophore ...?

Modifié par The Razman, 31 mars 2012 - 01:34 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

DigitalAvatar wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...
Father Jerusalem just because you don't think ***, ***, ***, Virmire death means nothing to you doesn't mean it's meaningless to everyone else.

But the only one Shepard sacrificied was the Virmire Dust Cloud. *** sacrificed HIMSELF to *** the ***. *** was toast anyway, but *** ** to  try and stop ***. *** sacrificed himself to bring freedom to ***.
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.

Woah, guys, spoilers.
Also Father Jerusalem, you're wrong. You can make choices for a couple of the character deaths in Mass Effect 3.

Only if you do it WRONG. If you do it right, you can get out with barely anyone dying except those few. It's a complete cop-out to the scale of this war.

[DeinonSlayer]

The Razman wrote...

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.

So, you're going to tell me how I feel about it now? The thought of it alone is an emotional kick in the gut. If this had been a forced event, I wouldn't want to play the game at all. That's how a lot of people feel about the existing endings. It saps the replay value out of the entire trilogy, because it is that bad, and it is forced.

The Razman wrote...

Really? I don't see anybody on these forums discussing the Tali moment very much, in comparison to the Mordin or Thane moments?

Mordin's death isn't forced. And yet people are persistently talking about it. Interesting.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 31 mars 2012 - 01:40 .

[Rafe34]

The Razman wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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.

One word after you take this option. Tali.

Nothing detracted because its not optional.

Really? I don't see anybody on these forums discussing the Tali moment very much, in comparison to the Mordin or Thane moments?

Because of what he said. Most people won't pick it.  That doesn't detract from it, why would it? That makes no sense. So if only 20% of people who play ME3 see Tali... you know what I mean, why does that detract from the powerful moment in any way? So in order for it to be moving it has to completely unadvoidable?

You do realize you contradict yourself in your own statement there because what happens to Mordin IS avoidable.

[Rafe34]

DeinonSlayer wrote... 

The Razman wrote...
Really? I don't see anybody on these forums discussing the Tali moment very much, in comparison to the Mordin or Thane moments?

Mordin's death isn't forced. And yet people are persistently talking about it. Interesting.

Give this man a cookie.

Modifié par Rafe34, 31 mars 2012 - 01:40 .

[The Razman]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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.

So, you're going to tell me how I feel about it now? If this had been a forced event, I wouldn't want to play the game at all. That's how a lot of people feel about the existing endings. It saps the replay value out of the entire trilogy.

I'm not telling you how you feel, sorry if I came off that way. I just quoted what you said ... you said it would be an emotional moment, implying it wasn't because you chose to avoid it.

Nobody likes a tragedy. If you did, something would be wrong with you. That's not a reason for writers to avoid them. The fact that the tragedy makes you feel that strongly shows they've got the characters spot on.

[The Razman]

Rafe34 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote... 

The Razman wrote...
Really? I don't see anybody on these forums discussing the Tali moment very much, in comparison to the Mordin or Thane moments?

Mordin's death isn't forced. And yet people are persistently talking about it. Interesting.

Give this man a cookie.

Mordin's death is forced unless you've killed Wrex in the first game. It's not something you have an active choice in within ME3.

Back to the point ... do you not agree people have been discussing Mordin and Thane's deaths much more than Tali's, the one you have the active choice not to do?

[DeinonSlayer]

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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.

So, you're going to tell me how I feel about it now? The thought of it alone is an emotional kick in the gut. If this had been a forced event, I wouldn't want to play the game at all. That's how a lot of people feel about the existing endings. It saps the replay value out of the entire trilogy, because it is that bad, and it is forced.

I'm not telling you how you feel, sorry if I came off that way. I just quoted what you said ... you said it would be an emotional moment, implying it wasn't because you chose to avoid it.

Nobody likes a tragedy. If you did, something would be wrong with you. That's not a reason for writers to avoid them. The fact that the tragedy makes you feel that strongly shows they've got the characters spot on.

That's all right. I questioned whether I should have included the word "would" in my first post. The thought of it alone is an emotional kick in the gut to me - I've invested more in that aspect of the plot than, say, the genophage.

That said, they did get the characters spot on. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be here.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 31 mars 2012 - 01:57 .

[kbct]

The Razman wrote...

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 and on these forums. Not true?

So?

So you don't maximize revenue by listening to the minority. People here want the option of a happy ending. Give it to them.

Heh, I guess if you used word count or post count, you would be in the majority.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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.

Who said, "Nobody dies."  Shepard and crew survive, that is it for the happy ending.  How can 9 people surviving be unrealistic?  How many people survived WWI?  Sure as a hell lot more than 9.

[The Razman]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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.

So, you're going to tell me how I feel about it now? The thought of it alone is an emotional kick in the gut. If this had been a forced event, I wouldn't want to play the game at all. That's how a lot of people feel about the existing endings. It saps the replay value out of the entire trilogy, because it is that bad, and it is forced.

I'm not telling you how you feel, sorry if I came off that way. I just quoted what you said ... you said it would be an emotional moment, implying it wasn't because you chose to avoid it.

Nobody likes a tragedy. If you did, something would be wrong with you. That's not a reason for writers to avoid them. The fact that the tragedy makes you feel that strongly shows they've got the characters spot on.

That's all right. I questioned whether I should have included the word "would" in my first post. The thought of it alone is an emotional kick in the gut to me - I've invested more in that aspect of the plot than, say, the genophage.

And we remember emotional kicks in the gut. For a very, very long time. I don't think I'll ever forget a screen fading to black with that strong girl I've spent three whole games with sobbing hysterically over her father's dead body saying "Please don't leave me".

But you can't have that long-lasting kick in the gut following you around in your memory if you can flip a switch and play the happy ending instead, where Tali's alive and everything's good. That will take precedent in your mind when you think back on the experience. You'll choose to believe the good ending, whether you consciously think about it or not. Because our minds always want to run away from the bad emotions which make tragedy so heart-breaking.

If it's going to stay with you ... it has to be unavoidable.

[Father_Jerusalem]

[quote]JBONE27 wrote...

[quote]Father_Jerusalem wrote...

[quote]JBONE27 wrote...

[quote]Father_Jerusalem wrote...


Who said, "Nobody dies."  Shepard and crew survive, that is it for the happy ending.  How can 9 people surviving be unrealistic?  How many people survived WWI?  Sure as a hell lot more than 9.

[/quote]

Well... this isn't WW1. This is a video game based on a galaxy wide war. Yes, billions of people die - but that's billions of people you've never met or interacted with or had an emotional connection to. It makes no sense to have an ending try to make an emotional impact when Shepard and the entire crew fly away to happily ever after land without so much as a broken arm. 

To have an actual emotional impact, you have to give something up to get something. If you want the happy ending with the blue babies, you should have to give something else up. My question, again, is what are you willing to sacrifice to get that? Part of the crew? Shepard? One of the fleets/homeworlds? The happier you want the ending, the bigger the sacrifice should be that you have to make to get it. 

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 31 mars 2012 - 01:57 .

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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?

Wait, so deaths only count if they're at the very end?  What if Wrex died?  Would that not count?  What about Anderson (I honestly love him, but I think he should die in every ending because he's a mentor figure and in order for the student to move on, the mentor has to die)?  Why does it only have to be a member of your current crew?

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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?

Wait, so deaths only count if they're at the very end?  What if Wrex died?  Would that not count?  What about Anderson (I honestly love him, but I think he should die in every ending because he's a mentor figure and in order for the student to move on, the mentor has to die)?  Why does it only have to be a member of your current crew?

Deaths count if it's a choice YOU have to make to get what you want. Sacrificing Wrex and the Krogan ground forces in order to secure your LI's safety, for example, would be something that MATTERS.

That's why Whosit, Whatshisface, and Theotherguy's deaths don't matter in ME3 - they're plot scripted. Not a choice Shepard has to make and live with - you don't sacrifice Whosit in order to live happily ever after with Liara, they die regardless.

[DigitalAvatar]

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...
I for one will never do a playthrough in which the **** 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 youare doing. If the writers want to make you feel those emotions ... thenthey 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.

I don't think that's a particularly good example. The outcome of the event you're talking about is not something that you "can just avoid", because it is dependent on your decisions in previous games. I want to save both, and the fact that I would pick the same somebodies every time doesn't detract from the fact that you can't necessarily save evreyone. I don't want to have to sacrifice either of them, and I don't want to betray either of my friends.
Being able to get a really good outcome comes back to player choice, how your decisions in previous games play out to affect the final conflict. If you made the wrong call, it will ultimately have bad consequences, but the game shouldn't force you into inevitable bad outcomes - if you made good decisions you should be rewarded with good
outcomes. If you made the right decisions in previous games, you have earned your reward.
With this specific situation, obviously most player's emotions will prefer saving the one particular side, but this should have a much greater effect on the endgame. Ultimately if you sacrifice one side, the far more effective ground combat forces of the other side should provide much greater assistance in the final combat missions. Therefore choosing to go with emotions might make things far more difficult for you in the endgame. Here's hoping for an improved final battle DLC.
I'm not saying there should be roses for every ending; the existing character deaths were appropriate and satisfying. There should be some emotional choices that can't be avoided, but you performance in previous games should be taken into account,
Player choice. It should matter.

Edit: Formating fixed.

Modifié par DigitalAvatar, 31 mars 2012 - 02:06 .

[DeinonSlayer]

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

That's all right. I questioned whether I should have included the word "would" in my first post. The thought of it alone is an emotional kick in the gut to me - I've invested more in that aspect of the plot than, say, the genophage.

And we remember emotional kicks in the gut. For a very, very long time. I don't think I'll ever forget a screen fading to black with that strong girl I've spent three whole games with sobbing hysterically over her father's dead body saying "Please don't leave me".

But you can't have that long-lasting kick in the gut following you around in your memory if you can flip a switch and play the happy ending instead, where Tali's alive and everything's good. That will take precedent in your mind when you think back on the experience. You'll choose to believe the good ending, whether you consciously think about it or not. Because our minds always want to run away from the bad emotions which make tragedy so heart-breaking.

If it's going to stay with you ... it has to be unavoidable.

I assume that's Half-Life 2 you're referring to? classic, but, again, linear.

This is a game based on choices. I'm willing to make trade-offs. Kaidan or Ashley? Wrex or Mordin? It's great, and I'm motivated to do multiple play-throughs to see what's different. I appreciate the need for balance. But, that said, none of the existing endings is worth fighting for. I view them the same way I view the destruction of the Migrant Fleet: a brick wall in the plot which saps my will to keep going after being rammed through it.

It hurts replay value, and that will hurt DLC sales. DLC should enrich the experience - it shouldn't simply prolong the walk off the end of the plank.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 31 mars 2012 - 02:13 .

[JBONE27]

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".

You've basically just defeated every argument for a happy ending.  What I, and most of the HEP are saying is that the everybody lives ending should be hard to get.  You need to make all the right choices over all three games, and be a complettionist.  Otherwise you get one of the other four possible endings (Reapers win; Shepard, Crew and Earth destroyed along with Reapers; Shepard and crew destroyed along with Reapers; Some of Shepard's Crew [possibly Shepard] destroyed along with reapers.)

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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?

Wait, so deaths only count if they're at the very end?  What if Wrex died?  Would that not count?  What about Anderson (I honestly love him, but I think he should die in every ending because he's a mentor figure and in order for the student to move on, the mentor has to die)?  Why does it only have to be a member of your current crew?

Deaths count if it's a choice YOU have to make to get what you want. Sacrificing Wrex and the Krogan ground forces in order to secure your LI's safety, for example, would be something that MATTERS.

That's why Whosit, Whatshisface, and Theotherguy's deaths don't matter in ME3 - they're plot scripted. Not a choice Shepard has to make and live with - you don't sacrifice Whosit in order to live happily ever after with Liara, they die regardless.

I actually agree with you.  You should make your point more clear.  Though I would honestly sacrifice someone else... Cortez, Anderson, Javik... Actually just thow Allers at the reapers to save my Liara.  lol

Modifié par JBONE27, 31 mars 2012 - 02:17 .

[The Razman]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I assume that's Half-Life 2 you're referring to? classic, but, again, linear.

This is a game based on choices. I'm willing to make trade-offs. Kaidan or Ashley? Wrex or Mordin? It's great, and I'm motivated to do multiple play-throughs to see what's different. I appreciate the need for balance. But, that said, none of the existing endings is worth fighting for. I view them the same way I view the destruction of the Migrant Fleet: a brick wall in the plot which saps my will to keep going after being rammed through it.

It's linearity doesn't negate the point. If the same plot point happened in a non-linear fashion, and you could prevent that death from happening ... it wouldn't be the classic, tragic emotional moment we all remember it as.

Any tragic ending where Sheperd had to die was going to colour people's replay experiences. That's just something that happened as a result of the creative decision they took. I don't see why that's the "wrong" choice.

[Rafe34]

The Razman wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote... 

The Razman wrote...
Really? I don't see anybody on these forums discussing the Tali moment very much, in comparison to the Mordin or Thane moments?

Mordin's death isn't forced. And yet people are persistently talking about it. Interesting.

Give this man a cookie.

Mordin's death is forced unless you've killed Wrex in the first game. It's not something you have an active choice in within ME3.

Back to the point ... do you not agree people have been discussing Mordin and Thane's deaths much more than Tali's, the one you have the active choice not to do?

It's part of the Mass Effect series. It IS avoidable. Can you play ME3 and not have Mordin die? Yes. Your argument doesn't work. 

Yes, they've been discussing Mordin's death more than Tali's, because more people have seen the former. Most people don't want to see the later. Your argument that this somehow takes away from it simply doesn't work.