650 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Il Divo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But Nightwriter's missed the point. Grimdark doesn't work if the player has to affirmatively has to choose that fate. That's just Shepard being a fool. People who think everyone can get what they want are deluding themselves.

Without a doubt, it's a crossroads kind of issue. And everyone getting what they want on this does strike me as difficult, if not impossible. It's the differentation between playing an incompetent Shepard and an exceptional Shepard. It's why I like to bring up the Virmire Survivor situation so often. If Bioware had included an option for the player to somehow save both characters, you didn't really make a hard decision- you played badly. Sequences like the ME3 genophage arc and DA:O's handling of the Ultimate sacrifice (with minor reservations) I think demonstrate better how to handle the decision-making process. Quid pro quo - the Warden lives, you had to give up something in return.

Grim dark/bittersweet endings are themselves artificial if the player is required to choose them. As Shepard, the goal is to succeed with as few casualties as possible, something which applies across any version of the character. Choosing to give yourself more casualties is itself forcing the ending.  That's why Jade Empire's "neutral" ending, where you let Master Li murder you, and ME2's "Shepard dies" ending are throw aways, in my opinion.

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to ask for a happy ending, that's their perogative and I myself do enjoy bittersweet endings. I'm just making clear that to implement a happy ending is itself to negate the concept of hard decisions in an RPG.

I have a lot to say to this, but essentially: I don't think it has to be as either/or as you're making it sound.

Hard choices and hopeful endings are not mutually exclusive; I cannot stress that enough. Hell, the entirety of ME3 prior to the ending was a superb example of how triumph and loss can be balanced and blended perfectly. Perhaps the problem here is the word "happy." When I use it, I don't mean "nobody dies and everyone lives happily ever after and there is a big party." I mean, "Losses are sustained, but there is indication that the hero goes on, and the galaxy can recover."

Good ending options present the player with choices concerning how much they are willing to sacrifice to achieve happier endings vs. how much they are not willing to sacrifice, resulting in sadder endings. This means that grimdark fans choose the more bittersweet options, not because they are retards deliberately picking the worse outcome, but because their values and the actions they are willing to take are different. And you can roleplay this easily. "My Warden is not willing to turn a baby into a demon god; therefore, he will sacrifice himself." And so on.

And I for one think that the amount of forced tragedy (the fall of Thessia, Thane's death, Joker losing his family, Anderson's death, etc.) was more than enough for the game to pass its "presents war believably" check.

[JBONE27]

iakus wrote...

Fleshdress wrote...


No s/he shouldn't. Sorry. I don't hate happy ending but it's my opinion that letting Shepard walk away from the last I don't even know how long fight, with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend would make the game feel ridiculous to me. I know where your coming from, truely I do, I want my Shepard to have happiness with her Garrus, I love her, I created her... why wouldn't I want the very best for her. But try to see it from my point of view, how that epic battle would end, Shep destroying the reapers and the next scene is her walking away hand in hand with garrus and their adopted turian kiddo. I just can't honestly believe that you feel like that belongs in this game, that it in any way fits. I can headcanon my way out of sevral saddness bubbles, but to do so in ME3, with everything that does or can happen, I wouldn't even want to try.

That specific scene?  No.  That would be ridiculous.  But how about a battered and broken Shepard leaning on Garrus as they survey a devasted London?  Or gazing sadly upon Anderson's body?  Or some other reminder that the war wasn't without cost.  

We probably won't agree. That's fine , but I stick to my guns that the outcry for a "happy" ending will only hinder the larger majorities outcry for an ending that makes more sense. I don't think BW will be forthecoming with a "wedding scene DLC" or a "Shepard walks away for the most part unscathed with a couple friends, and LI DLC" I can see news outlets and PR using you as a "see their just pissy about how they can't keep their bf/gf" strategy which could really damage any outside support because it makes the movment look like immature gamers.     

It's about  options.  Not everyone likes the current choices of "what shade of space magic do you walk into"?  People want more and more varied endings.  That by definition implies endings where Shepard doesn't do the Suicide-by-Crucible thing.  I suppose people naturally like happy endings more, or otherwise we'd be arguing in a thread advocating an ending where the Reapers win 

The two endings you just mentioned would be awesome.

[Han Shot First]

TJ_Mullet wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


Shepard *and* every single member of his crew suriving would absolutely be a butterflies and rainbows ending. It is a fairy tale ending, not one grounded in any sense of realism, and completely devoid of any emotional impact. To have Shepard and his crew go into the final battle against a technologically superior foe that has annihilated every civilization it has ever faced in battle, only to come out completely unscathed, is so ridiculously implausible that it would be as unsatisfying a conclusion as the exisiting endings. The sweetest victories are dearly bought ones.

By that logic, Lord of the Rings has an ending that's completely devoid of any emotional impact simply because all of the main characters aside from Boromir and Theoden survive, and that's nowhere near the case. Frodo should've died, that would've been grounded in realism. But he didn't. And the last half hour of the film version is IMO one of the most emotionally satisfying endings in media. Why can't Mass Effect have a conclusion like that, or at least an optional perfect-ending-type-deal?

Actually Lord of the Rings is a good example of a series with a bittersweet ending.

Frodo saves Middle-Earth, but in the end it wasn't saved for him. He is psychologically scarred by his experience and life in the Shire is destined never to be the same for him. This was no doubt inspired by Tolkien's own experiences in the trenches during the First World War, where a great many people returned home with PTSD. Unable to find peace, Frodo departs for Valinor, which is akin to dying, as Valinor is the Middle Earth version of heaven.

On another note, you think an ending where the characters survive WOULDN'T be bittersweet. Have you been paying attention to what Earth looks like in the game AND in EVERY SINGLE ad?? Or Thessia? Or Palavan? What do you think the casualty rate would be in something like that?

Hearing about the billions dying on Earth and Palaven and Thessia may give the game a dark mood, but all those people dying are faceless. They aren't characters that we've known since the first game and who we've grown attached to. Hearing about 40,000 people being snuffed out on same random colony would not cause the same emotional impact as seeing Garrus or Liara or Tali die on screen.

[JBONE27]

Nightwriter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But Nightwriter's missed the point. Grimdark doesn't work if the player has to affirmatively has to choose that fate. That's just Shepard being a fool. People who think everyone can get what they want are deluding themselves.

Without a doubt, it's a crossroads kind of issue. And everyone getting what they want on this does strike me as difficult, if not impossible. It's the differentation between playing an incompetent Shepard and an exceptional Shepard. It's why I like to bring up the Virmire Survivor situation so often. If Bioware had included an option for the player to somehow save both characters, you didn't really make a hard decision- you played badly. Sequences like the ME3 genophage arc and DA:O's handling of the Ultimate sacrifice (with minor reservations) I think demonstrate better how to handle the decision-making process. Quid pro quo - the Warden lives, you had to give up something in return.

Grim dark/bittersweet endings are themselves artificial if the player is required to choose them. As Shepard, the goal is to succeed with as few casualties as possible, something which applies across any version of the character. Choosing to give yourself more casualties is itself forcing the ending.  That's why Jade Empire's "neutral" ending, where you let Master Li murder you, and ME2's "Shepard dies" ending are throw aways, in my opinion.

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to ask for a happy ending, that's their perogative and I myself do enjoy bittersweet endings. I'm just making clear that to implement a happy ending is itself to negate the concept of hard decisions in an RPG.

I have a lot to say to this, but essentially: I don't think it has to be as either/or as you're making it sound.

Hard choices and hopeful endings are not mutually exclusive; I cannot stress that enough. Hell, the entirety of ME3 prior to the ending was a superb example of how triumph and loss can be balanced and blended perfectly. Perhaps the problem here is the word "happy." When I use it, I don't mean "nobody dies and everyone lives happily ever after and there is a big party." I mean, "Losses are sustained, but there is indication that the hero goes on, and the galaxy can recover."

Good ending options present the player with choices concerning how much they are willing to sacrifice to achieve happier endings vs. how much they are not willing to sacrifice, resulting in sadder endings. This means that grimdark fans choose the more bittersweet options, not because they are retards deliberately picking the worse outcome, but because their values and the actions they are willing to take are different. And you can roleplay this easily. "My Warden is not willing to turn a baby into a demon god; therefore, he will sacrifice himself." And so on.

And I for one think that the amount of forced tragedy (the fall of Thessia, Thane's death, Joker losing his family, Anderson's death, etc.) was more than enough for the game to pass its "presents war believably" check.

Total agreement.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

I have a lot to say to this, but essentially: I don't think it has to be as either/or as you're making it sound.

Hard choices and hopeful endings are not mutually exclusive; I cannot stress that enough. Hell, the entirety of ME3 prior to the ending was a superb example of how triumph and loss can be balanced and blended perfectly. Perhaps the problem here is the word "happy." When I use it, I don't mean "nobody dies and everyone lives happily ever after and there is a big party." I mean, "Losses are sustained, but there is indication that the hero goes on, and the galaxy can recover."

Good ending options present the player with choices concerning how much they are willing to sacrifice to achieve happier endings vs. how much they are not willing to sacrifice, resulting in sadder endings. This means that grimdark fans choose the more bittersweet options, not because they are retards deliberately picking the worse outcome, but because their values and the actions they are willing to take are different. And you can roleplay this easily. "My Warden is not willing to turn a baby into a demon god; therefore, he will sacrifice himself." And so on.

And I for one think that the amount of forced tragedy (the fall of Thessia, Thane's death, Joker losing his family, Anderson's death, etc.) was more than enough for the game to pass its "presents war believably" check.

This.  All of it.

A "happy ending" means different things to different people.  I'm not even sure everyone here is using the same definition of it.  I've said many many times that a completely happy ending as some detractors here define it simply isn't possible no matter what gets done to the endings by the very nature of what happened in the rest of the game.  Everyone who died before the endgame would still be dead.

Simply having an ending where Shepard lives and is reunited with the LI, or even with the Normandy crew, still wouldn't be a unicorns and rainbows ending.  Mainly becuase, I think the Reapers turned most of the unicorns into Reaper goo and rainbows are hard to see given Earth is on fire!  Shepard alive and leaning on LI for support would to be be the definition of a bittersweet ending.  They won, Shepard's alive, but a lot of friends died along the way.  Earth is still trashed, a sizeable chunk of its population huskified, smoothified, or indoctrinated.  Heck, throw in some exploding relays while we're at it.  

Still sound like a "completely happy" ending?

[Il Divo]

Nightwriter wrote...

Hard choices and hopeful endings are not mutually exclusive; I cannot stress that enough. Hell, the entirety of ME3 prior to the ending was a superb example of how triumph and loss can be balanced and blended perfectly. Perhaps the problem here is the word "happy." When I use it, I don't mean "nobody dies and everyone lives happily ever after and there is a big party." I mean, "Losses are sustained, but there is indication that the hero goes on, and the galaxy can recover."

I should probably clarify. You can have hard choices and hopeful endings. But you cannot have a hard choice and a hopeful ending be contingent on the same "choice". So we can have a hard choice through the genophage sequence, followed by a happy ending, but we cannot have ME1 give the player the ability to save both the Destiny Ascension and human fleet in ME1, otherwise the purpose of a hard choice (one without cost) is negated.

You used the DA:O example of how it was reasonable for the Warden to die, and I agree, but I think that itself is an example where the ending is not 100% happy, or at least had the opportunity to present some ambiguity. As an example of a hard choice, the set up is well done, however the aftermath was lacking, because very little focus is placed on the fact that the Warden, in a sense, failed in his purpose (kill the Archdemon).

This could be an example of a semantics issue, since we both seem to be citing the same example to indicate what we want, but I'd be comfortable with a DA:O style approach, assuming it's pulled off.

And I for one think that the amount of forced tragedy (the fall of Thessia, Thane's death, Joker losing his family, Anderson's death, etc.) was more than enough for the game to pass its "presents war believably" check.

I'm inclined to agree. Halo 3's ending jumps out at me at how to successfully achieve the bittersweet ending.

[Lasien]

Il Divo wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Hard choices and hopeful endings are not mutually exclusive; I cannot stress that enough. Hell, the entirety of ME3 prior to the ending was a superb example of how triumph and loss can be balanced and blended perfectly. Perhaps the problem here is the word "happy." When I use it, I don't mean "nobody dies and everyone lives happily ever after and there is a big party." I mean, "Losses are sustained, but there is indication that the hero goes on, and the galaxy can recover."

I should probably clarify. You can have hard choices and hopeful endings. But you cannot have a hard choice and a hopeful ending be contingent on the same "choice". So we can have a hard choice through the genophage sequence, followed by a happy ending, but we cannot have ME1 give the player the ability to save both the Destiny Ascension and human fleet in ME1, otherwise the purpose of a hard choice (one without cost) is negated.

You used the DA:O example of how it was reasonable for the Warden to die, and I agree, but I think that itself is an example where the ending is not 100% happy, or at least had the opportunity to present some ambiguity. As an example of a hard choice, the set up is well done, however the aftermath was lacking, because very little focus is placed on the fact that the Warden, in a sense, failed in his purpose (kill the Archdemon).

This could be an example of a semantics issue, since we both seem to be citing the same example to indicate what we want, but I'd be comfortable with a DA:O style approach, assuming it's pulled off.

And I for one think that the amount of forced tragedy (the fall of Thessia, Thane's death, Joker losing his family, Anderson's death, etc.) was more than enough for the game to pass its "presents war believably" check.

I'm inclined to agree. Halo 3's ending jumps out at me at how to successfully achieve the bittersweet ending.

I kind of thought of the synthesis choice as the old god baby. You did save everyone, but at what cost, and what are the future ramifications.

[Festae]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I sired a few Asari children.,, I would have at least liked to see them "ripping S up" in a flash forward.

[Sealy]

iakus wrote...

Fleshdress wrote...


No s/he shouldn't. Sorry. I don't hate happy ending but it's my opinion that letting Shepard walk away from the last I don't even know how long fight, with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend would make the game feel ridiculous to me. I know where your coming from, truely I do, I want my Shepard to have happiness with her Garrus, I love her, I created her... why wouldn't I want the very best for her. But try to see it from my point of view, how that epic battle would end, Shep destroying the reapers and the next scene is her walking away hand in hand with garrus and their adopted turian kiddo. I just can't honestly believe that you feel like that belongs in this game, that it in any way fits. I can headcanon my way out of sevral saddness bubbles, but to do so in ME3, with everything that does or can happen, I wouldn't even want to try.

That specific scene?  No.  That would be ridiculous.  But how about a battered and broken Shepard leaning on Garrus as they survey a devasted London?  Or gazing sadly upon Anderson's body?  Or some other reminder that the war wasn't without cost.  

We probably won't agree. That's fine , but I stick to my guns that the outcry for a "happy" ending will only hinder the larger majorities outcry for an ending that makes more sense. I don't think BW will be forthecoming with a "wedding scene DLC" or a "Shepard walks away for the most part unscathed with a couple friends, and LI DLC" I can see news outlets and PR using you as a "see their just pissy about how they can't keep their bf/gf" strategy which could really damage any outside support because it makes the movment look like immature gamers.     

It's about  options.  Not everyone likes the current choices of "what shade of space magic do you walk into"?  People want more and more varied endings.  That by definition implies endings where Shepard doesn't do the Suicide-by-Crucible thing.  I suppose people naturally like happy endings more, or otherwise we'd be arguing in a thread advocating an ending where the Reapers win 

 Lol you caught me, I do so want that ending, I mean poor Reapers, they're just doing their job.

I won't lie. your ideas give me that little heart thrill. Also, my wedding DLC comment was sarcasm.

I have said it once (not here) and I will say it again. I am not against a Shep and LI being together again ending... I want her to have that. But I don't think Bioware will give it to you. I have a less then 10% feeling that they will give anything along those lines... unless they go indoctrination Shep wakes up from attempt under rubble in london and The Normany crashing on Mysterious Island was some Drell licking induced hallucination... so I think focusing on fixing the endings we already have should be the main focus. I think anything involving any colour of babies and or beach scenes is no good. Your ideas, vague hopefulness with hope... fine okay that fits, but anything more...

Modifié par Fleshdress, 31 mars 2012 - 06:00 .

[Han Shot First]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Viyu wrote...

James_Raynor wrote...

I think the reason that a completely happy ending is hated is because it becomes anti-climatic just like how the completely bad ending is anti-climatic.

I think it wouldn't be anti-climatic....just so long as it was incredibly hard to get.

That's where the conflict stems from. There are "grimdarkers" who want the "best ending" to be their ending, nothing less. "Happy enders," by contrast, aren't demanding exclusivity.

Actually, they are.

The people who want a butterflies and rainbows ending want their ending to be the best possible ending in the game. Besides the fact that they'd be having everyone on the team surviving, they also want that ending to have the best possible outcome as far as the fate of the galaxy goes.

That automatically renders any ending where people die as a lesser ending, because it achieves the same or worse results as the ending where everyone lives, *except* squad mates die.  There would be no reason to go for an ending where people die, unless you like that your Shepard makes tactical blunders.

Rather than having squad mate deaths only occur when tactical blunders are made, I prefer it when people die because Shepard made the right tactical decision. That is more accurate reflection of the reality of war and the dark side of command.

This is why if Bioware were to add new endings, and assuming one of those was an 'everyone lives' ending, it should be paired with a less than ideal outcome as far as the fate of the galaxy goes. You succeed in saving your squad, but don't save every homeworld. The ending where every homeworld was saved would result in the squad taking casualties, and possibly Shepard dying as well.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 31 mars 2012 - 06:01 .

[Lasien]

Lasien wrote...

I kind of thought of the synthesis choice as the old god baby. You did save everyone, but at what cost, and what are the future ramifications.

Also, just a question, but if shepard/the reapers are now part of everyone, does that mean that some people got his memories?

And thus begins ME4...



(i.e. - at character creation, what memories did they get, and what is your original background, what part of Shep's abilities did you get {if porting over you save file})

[Il Divo]

Lasien wrote...

I kind of thought of the synthesis choice as the old god baby. You did save everyone, but at what cost, and what are the future ramifications.

Still, that gets into a different problem; the ending, as it stands, isn't happy, bittersweet, or grimdark, (imo) because it spends very little time reflecting on the implications of what the player chose to do. That I think is why so many people hate the current division of the endings. So I chose synthesis, which showed almost entirely the exact same thing as Control or Destroy. What are the implications of my actions? Alot of that feels ignored at this junction.

In this sense, DA:O was a much better approach, since each of the three choices (Dark Ritual, suicide, kill other Warden) had a very clear effect attached to it, which the player experiences. If you kill the Archdemon, you aren't even alive to experience the epilogue, if you let Alistair die, he's not around for the epilogue, so on and so forth.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 mars 2012 - 06:01 .

[Nightwriter]

Il Divo wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Hard choices and hopeful endings are not mutually exclusive; I cannot stress that enough. Hell, the entirety of ME3 prior to the ending was a superb example of how triumph and loss can be balanced and blended perfectly. Perhaps the problem here is the word "happy." When I use it, I don't mean "nobody dies and everyone lives happily ever after and there is a big party." I mean, "Losses are sustained, but there is indication that the hero goes on, and the galaxy can recover."

I should probably clarify. You can have hard choices and hopeful endings. But you cannot have a hard choice and a hopeful ending be contingent on the same "choice". So we can have a hard choice through the genophage sequence, followed by a happy ending, but we cannot have ME1 give the player the ability to save both the Destiny Ascension and human fleet in ME1, otherwise the purpose of a hard choice (one without cost) is negated.

You used the DA:O example of how it was reasonable for the Warden to die, and I agree, but I think that itself is an example where the ending is not 100% happy, or at least had the opportunity to present some ambiguity. As an example of a hard choice, the set up is well done, however the aftermath was lacking, because very little focus is placed on the fact that the Warden, in a sense, failed in his purpose (kill the Archdemon).

This could be an example of a semantics issue, since we both seem to be citing the same example to indicate what we want, but I'd be comfortable with a DA:O style approach, assuming it's pulled off.

Which brings me back to the whole definition confusion with the word "happy." It doesn't mean "perfect." It just means I can live with it.

So, yes, I agree with you: choosing the dark ritual ending in DA:O doesn't result in a perfect happy ending. But the Blight is defeated, and the hero can live on to have more adventures or travel the world with his/her LI. I can live with that.

[JBONE27]

Han Shot First wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Viyu wrote...

James_Raynor wrote...

I think the reason that a completely happy ending is hated is because it becomes anti-climatic just like how the completely bad ending is anti-climatic.

I think it wouldn't be anti-climatic....just so long as it was incredibly hard to get.

That's where the conflict stems from. There are "grimdarkers" who want the "best ending" to be their ending, nothing less. "Happy enders," by contrast, aren't demanding exclusivity.

Actually, they are.

The people who want a butterflies and rainbows ending want their ending to be the best possible ending in the game. Besides the fact that they'd be having everyone on the team surviving, they also want that ending to have the best possible outcome as far as the fate of the galaxy goes.

That automatically renders any ending where people die as a lesser ending, because it achieves the same or worse results as the ending where everyone lives, *except* squad mates die.  There would be no reason to go for an ending where people die, unless you like that your Shepard makes tactical blunders.

Rather than having squad mate deaths only occur when tactical blunders are made, I prefer it when people die because Shepard made the right tactical decision. That is more accurate reflection of the reality of war and the dark side of command.

This is why if Bioware were to add new endings, and assuming one of those was an 'everyone lives' ending, it should be paired with a less than ideal outcome as far as the fate of the galaxy goes. You succeed in saving your squad, but don't save every homeworld. The ending where every homeworld was saved would result in the squad taking casualties, and possibly Shepard dying as well.

I don't think anyone who wants the happy ending is really all that concerned with the casualty rate outside of the people we know... I know I wouldn't really be bothered if the Krogan have to start with 50 individuals, or the Salarians get whiped out except of the few who joined us.

[Sgt Stryker]

Han Shot First wrote...

Hearing about the billions dying on Earth and Palaven and Thessia may give the game a dark mood, but all those people dying are faceless. They aren't characters that we've known since the first game and who we've grown attached to. Hearing about 40,000 people being snuffed out on same random colony would not cause the same emotional impact as seeing Garrus or Liara or Tali die on screen.

Not necessarily. While I agree that we don't "know" the faceless people of Palaven or Thessia in the same sense as we do with characters like Garrus and Liara, I'd say seeing these characters' responses to their homes being destroyed is sufficient emotional impact.

[Iakus]

Fleshdress wrote...
 Lol you caught me, I do so want that ending, I mean poor Reapers, they're just doing their job.

I won't lie. your ideas give me that little heart thrill. Also, my wedding DLC comment was sarcasm.

I have said it once (not here) and I will say it again. I am not against a Shep and LI being together again ending... I want her to have that. But I don't think Bioware will give it to you. I have a less then 10% feeling that they will give anything along those lines... unless they go indoctrination Shep wakes up from attempt under rubble in london and The Normany crashing on Mysterious Island was some Drell licking induced hallucination... so I think focusing on fixing the endings we already have should be the main focus. I think anything involving any colour of babies and or beach scenes is no good. Your ideas, vague hopefulness with hope... fine okay that fits, but anything more...

"Vague hopefulness with hope" is all I really need.  Shepard and Ash leaning against each other in a pile of rubble.  I can figure the rest out for myself.


The sad fact is the most hope many people have with the endings we current have is that what we saw isn't really what we saw.  And that's just wrong.

If we got more varied endings, I'd even do a "Reapers win" ending to see what it's like...

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...

This is why if Bioware were to add new endings, and assuming one of those was an 'everyone lives' ending, it should be paired with a less than ideal outcome as far as the fate of the galaxy goes. You succeed in saving your squad, but don't save every homeworld. The ending where every homeworld was saved would result in the squad taking casualties, and possibly Shepard dying as well.

I still don't see anyone seriously advocating an "everyone lives" ending.

[LordCrux]

This discussion really can't go any further without spoilers, but I think generally people want variety for the sake of variety. In ME3's situation, a variety where you have a happy, a so-so, and a sad ending actually destroys the significance of past choices even more, because by default, players will always choose the happy ending if they have that level of control. The key word here is control. If there are pre-defined endings, then the player will make choices to manipulate an outcome on some level (meta gaming) and your choices will not be completely genuine; you won't help an NPC because you're think about controlling an outcome. Think of more open-ended games like Skyrim and the nihilistic attitude it encourages, such as killing an entire town because it's fun.

But if the those variety end up being not all that different (ie bittersweet ending A vs. bittersweet ending then there is no point in making them. If you really think about it, the open-ended climax is the best possible ending because all the other ones (happy ending, incompetent Shepard ending, etc) are formulaic.

Modifié par LordCrux, 31 mars 2012 - 06:13 .

[Han Shot First]

iakus wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

This is why if Bioware were to add new endings, and assuming one of those was an 'everyone lives' ending, it should be paired with a less than ideal outcome as far as the fate of the galaxy goes. You succeed in saving your squad, but don't save every homeworld. The ending where every homeworld was saved would result in the squad taking casualties, and possibly Shepard dying as well.

I still don't see anyone seriously advocating an "everyone lives" ending.

Apparently they are, as whenever I post that I think there should be some deaths in the ending I get called a nihilist, accused of liking the existing endings (even though I don't), or asked what is wrong with happy endings, despite wanting a happy ending myself.

My definition of a happy ending however is one in which Shepard succeeds in his mission of destroying the Reapers and saving the galaxy. If people die achieving that goal, it doesn't make the outcome any less happy.

[Nightwriter]

LordCrux wrote...

This discussion really can't go any further without spoilers, but I think generally people want variety for the sake of variety. In ME3's situation, a variety where you have a happy, a so-so, and a sad ending actually destroys the significance of past choices even more, because by default, players will always choose the happy ending if they have that level of control. The key word here is control. If there are pre-defined endings, then the player will make choices to manipulate an outcome on some level (meta gaming) and your choices will not be completely genuine; you won't help an NPC because you're think about controlling an outcome. Think of more open-ended games like Skyrim and the nihilistic attitude it encourages, such as killing an entire town because it's fun.

But if the those variety end up being not all that different (ie bittersweet ending A vs. bittersweet ending then there is no point in making them. If you really think about it, the open-ended climax is the best possible ending because all the other ones (happy ending, incompetent Shepard ending, etc) are formulaic.

We want choice, not variety. We want options.

This is not for the sake of variety. It is for the sake of a meaningful and satisfying series conclusion.

Metagaming is a constant in all games that offer player choice and choice consequence. It seems like you are saying, "BioWare needed to take freedom of choice away from the player in order to prevent metagaming."

The developer is not obligated to scotchgard the game against metagaming. Whether or not you want to metagame or roleplay has always been the player's affair.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 31 mars 2012 - 06:18 .

[Sealy]

iakus wrote...

Fleshdress wrote...
 Lol you caught me, I do so want that ending, I mean poor Reapers, they're just doing their job.

I won't lie. your ideas give me that little heart thrill. Also, my wedding DLC comment was sarcasm.

I have said it once (not here) and I will say it again. I am not against a Shep and LI being together again ending... I want her to have that. But I don't think Bioware will give it to you. I have a less then 10% feeling that they will give anything along those lines... unless they go indoctrination Shep wakes up from attempt under rubble in london and The Normany crashing on Mysterious Island was some Drell licking induced hallucination... so I think focusing on fixing the endings we already have should be the main focus. I think anything involving any colour of babies and or beach scenes is no good. Your ideas, vague hopefulness with hope... fine okay that fits, but anything more...

"Vague hopefulness with hope" is all I really need.  Shepard and Ash leaning against each other in a pile of rubble.  I can figure the rest out for myself.


The sad fact is the most hope many people have with the endings we current have is that what we saw isn't really what we saw.  And that's just wrong.

If we got more varied endings, I'd even do a "Reapers win" ending to see what it's like...

Oh headcanon. what would we do without you.

*shrug* You're gonna hate this but I think it would be artistic!

*reapers win, leave, Yagh take over galactic control.*  *Sheps whole squad in heaven!bar* 

Shep: "Anyone else really glad we biffed it?"
Garrus: "Hey listen, they're saying something... T'soniiii"
*Shep cackles*
Liara: "I really hate you both, I'm not stuck with you forever am I?"
  

Modifié par Fleshdress, 31 mars 2012 - 06:24 .

[JBONE27]

LordCrux wrote...

This discussion really can't go any further without spoilers, but I think generally people want variety for the sake of variety. In ME3's situation, a variety where you have a happy, a so-so, and a sad ending actually destroys the significance of past choices even more, because by default, players will always choose the happy ending if they have that level of control. The key word here is control. If there are pre-defined endings, then the player will make choices to manipulate an outcome on some level (meta gaming) and your choices will not be completely genuine; you won't help an NPC because you're think about controlling an outcome. Think of more open-ended games like Skyrim and the nihilistic attitude it encourages, such as killing an entire town because it's fun.

But if the those variety end up being not all that different (ie bittersweet ending A vs. bittersweet ending then there is no point in making them. If you really think about it, the open-ended climax is the best possible ending because all the other ones (happy ending, incompetent Shepard ending, etc) are formulaic.

I'm sorry, but you're making no sense.  People will try to get the endings they want.  Many will want the happy ending (which is actually rather bittersweet because of everything that has happened in the game), others will want a so so ending (I know I intentionally killed off charaters I didn't like), and still others want the darkest possible ending.  It's not a zero sum thing.  People will chose what they like if given the oppertunity.

Things are formulaic because they work.  The ending we have now is completely non-formulatic, and it makes absoluetely no sense.

[Iakus]

JBONE27 wrote...

I'm sorry, but you're making no sense.  People will try to get the endings they want.  Many will want the happy ending (which is actually rather bittersweet because of everything that has happened in the game), others will want a so so ending (I know I intentionally killed off charaters I didn't like), and still others want the darkest possible ending.  It's not a zero sum thing.  People will chose what they like if given the oppertunity.

Things are formulaic because they work.  The ending we have now is completely non-formulatic, and it makes absoluetely no sense.

There's a reason why the "Shepard breathes" ending is considered the "best" ending to get by many players...

[LordCrux]

Nightwriter wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

This discussion really can't go any further without spoilers, but I think generally people want variety for the sake of variety. In ME3's situation, a variety where you have a happy, a so-so, and a sad ending actually destroys the significance of past choices even more, because by default, players will always choose the happy ending if they have that level of control. The key word here is control. If there are pre-defined endings, then the player will make choices to manipulate an outcome on some level (meta gaming) and your choices will not be completely genuine; you won't help an NPC because you're think about controlling an outcome. Think of more open-ended games like Skyrim and the nihilisti But if the those variety end up being not all that different (ie bittersweet ending A vs. bittersweet ending then there is no point in

We want choice, not variety. We want options.

This is not for the sake of variety. It is for the sake of a meaningful and satisfying series conclusion.

If ME3's ending isn't meaningful to you, what other ending would you have preferred? A happy ending? An incompetent Shepard ending? Presenting either one of those diminishes the bitter sweet one. And if you want a different bittersweet ending, how different can it be? In the end, what you're really saying is you want variety because you expected variety.

Metagaming is a constant in all games that offer player choice and choice consequence. It seems like you are saying, "BioWare needed to take freedom of choice away from the player in order to prevent metagaming."

The developer is not obligated to scotchgard the game against metagaming. Whether or not you want to metagame or roleplay has always been the player's affair.

And that's exactly why the ending is made to be deliberately open to self-interpretation.

Modifié par LordCrux, 31 mars 2012 - 06:24 .

[JBONE27]

LordCrux wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

This discussion really can't go any further without spoilers, but I think generally people want variety for the sake of variety. In ME3's situation, a variety where you have a happy, a so-so, and a sad ending actually destroys the significance of past choices even more, because by default, players will always choose the happy ending if they have that level of control. The key word here is control. If there are pre-defined endings, then the player will make choices to manipulate an outcome on some level (meta gaming) and your choices will not be completely genuine; you won't help an NPC because you're think about controlling an outcome. Think of more open-ended games like Skyrim and the nihilisti But if the those variety end up being not all that different (ie bittersweet ending A vs. bittersweet ending then there is no point in

We want choice, not variety. We want options.

This is not for the sake of variety. It is for the sake of a meaningful and satisfying series conclusion.

If ME3's ending isn't meaningful to you, what other ending would you have preferred? A happy ending? An incompetent Shepard ending? Presenting either one of those diminishes the bitter sweet one. And if you want a different bittersweet ending, how different can it be? In the end, what you're really saying is you want variety because you expected variety.

Metagaming is a constant in all games that offer player choice and choice consequence. It seems like you are saying, "BioWare needed to take freedom of choice away from the player in order to prevent metagaming."

The developer is not obligated to scotchgard the game against metagaming. Whether or not you want to metagame or roleplay has always been the player's affair.

And that's exactly why the ending is made to be deliberately open to self-interpretation.

And the fact that it makes no sense is incidental?