650 réponses à ce sujet

[ile_1979]

kalle90 wrote...

ile_1979 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

ile_1979 wrote...

IF the writers want to force me to feel such an emotion they should go and make a movie about it. Or write a book. Or maybe even a tunnel shooter! Oh wait, they already did that <_<

So ... video-games shouldn't be able to make us feel emotions we don't want or choose to, like other artistic mediums?

Read my post again. RPGs are at their very core about choice and roleplaying. Take away this and you are left with what we got at the moment. Story based shooter. You might even get an oscar for it.

But there has to be some scripting. We aren't allowed to just walk away and build a home on some random planet, nor can we try to romance everyone... Developers have to force certain stuff. It would be just bland if at any given moment you had infinite possibilities.

Still not defending the endings. There was no reason to simply force a color on us.

Some scripting. And we should definitely not be in total controll og other NPC's actions. But for the PC? The more you script the PC the more you take away the role play aspect. Take the dreams Shep has for example. Superb story telling. If it wasn't for the thousands of Shepards that would not give much damn about some random death. Force the junctions if you must (i'd argue even against this) but never the turns. Never give the player the motive. Give the player a reason. Live it to every individual to find their own motives. This is fundemental differenc in the medium. You want to know what makes gaming unique form of art? One that distinguishes it from movies and books? This is mate. The role of the player. At least for the RPG games. Take away out role and the distinction is gone. In stead of defining a new form of art, some people push for blending the games with the other art forms.

[LordCrux]

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

Suspire wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...
You forgot, everyone dies and the reapers lose.
Also, what makes you think that just because they're alive they're happy?  Their families are baiscally all dead.  Their homes have been destroyed.  Many of their friends are dead.  They're probably going to be suffering from severe PTSD.  They're not happy, they're just survivors.

What you're missing is that Shepard essentially had the power of a god in his hands, so if there was an ending where the main character lives, then the rest of the galaxy would never learn the lesson to rise above their current level of maturity, and essentially the entire galaxy will destroy itself if the machines can't. The name Shepard given is not by coincidence. There is an overarching theme since the very beginning of the series, and whatever ending has been decided, it must be relevant to that theme.

I don't think anyone agrees with what the theme is. I know for me it's more like "take no bull**** for an answer, there's always another option, against all odds, there's no impossible, I'll show you, we can do this"

I'm pretty sure the overarching theme for Mass Effect 1 2 &3 has always been about technological singularity, where the advancement of intelligent life is at a critical point. What is the next step if life? Do highly advanced intelligent beings still having things like greed and corruption? Can life evolve beyond material wealth? Is there such a thing as utopia and intellectual enlightenment? You deal with this throughout the entire series, it's sci-fi. The theme is not about 'kicking ass" but about how those grandiose debates relate to very personal and emotional feelings, and it carries through the different people you meet along the way. You define that experience through the choices you make, but ultimately there will be a choice where there is no win-win situation. And while facing your own mortality at the very end, you reflect on the decisions you've made. That what I get out of it. So for me, the open-ended (and unavoidable) climax makes sense for me on many different levels.

All of this would be great if the ending actually made any sense.  I think you're missing the fact that it isn't really openended, emotionally gratifying, logical, or fitting with the overall tone, themes, or style of the trillogy.  It's all just nonsensical space magic.

You probably prefered the second Matrix movie to the first, because the second was all about philosophy and occasional fights, whereas the first was about being a fun comicbook style movie.

Actually, no I hate the 2nd and 3rd Matrix because they've detached the characters from the backdrop of the man vs. machines theme. The first one works because it's seen through the eyes of a personal lens. You feel what Neo is feeling as he slowly uncovers the truth of the matrix. Without the emotions, you wouldn't care about the theme. In the first one, the philosphical (in its condensed form) and the personal are interrelated, just like ME.

And ME3's ending made perfect sense to me precisely because the philosphical and the personal are interrelated. What you interpret as nonsensical space magic, I see a mortal trying to deal with stuff that's beyond his capacity. 

If I were to use your criteria for judging others, I would say that you probably thought 2001's ending didn't make any sense either.

Wow, that's a false equivilancy.  Other than the space baby, which I think was a mistake on Kubrick's part, the ending to 2001 made perfect sense in the world that was set up.  The whole final scene felt exactly like the architect scene from the second Matrix movie.  It comes basically out of nowhere, gives the illusion of choice, and basically says, "Hey, you know the game you've been playing for hundreds of hours?  You know how the story actually had some grounding both emotionally and physically?  Well, you can say goodbye to that, because now you're space Jesus and the only choice you have is how you want to sacrifice yourself."

You're fixated on the idea that the last minutes must provide closure when in fact the entire game is one big closure. The ending "didn't come out of nowhere" as it's been set up from the very first scene of the game. And here's the thing: 2001 is emotionally detached, Matrix 2 and 3 forcebly detached the first movie's emotional elements, but ME3 kept its emotional attachments up to the very end. Again, it did not come out of nowhere: before the final battle, the majority of the game is about Shepard saying goodbye and having closure, and the final moment is Shepard facing his mortality. Speilberg's ending to AI? That's coming out of nowhere vs. ME3, where everything that happens during the entre game you've playing leads up to the so-called space baby/space jesus ending. How can you not expect this when you have an area where every squadmate you've ever met lines up and say their last words to you?

[TacDavey]

Han Shot First wrote...

TacDavey wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

But people can and already have died. Your only response to this so far hads been "But those people weren't actually able to come on missions with you this game", which, 1) isn't true, as both Tali and Ashley/Kaiden are team members who can both die, and 2) completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter that these people technically can't be selected for mission's leaving the Normany. They are still your friends/comrades who you have been through hell with.

Tali & Ashley can die, but only if Shepard makes blunders. In that respect it is more like the Mass Effect 2 suicide mission, where it is fairly easy to get everyone through unscathed, and people only die if Shepard makes mistakes. Having characters die at the expense of the main character looking incompetent sort of sucks all the emotional impact right out of the scene.

Likewise having an end game where everyone lives clashes thematically with the rest of the game. Quite frankly, Bioware would be knowlingly inserting bad storytelling as fan service. The best possible ending as far as the fate of the galaxy goes, should require some sacrifice.

(Spoilers) Characters don't only die if Shepard makes mistakes. In fact, Mordin only LIVES if Shepard makes a mistake. Along with Legion and Thane these characters deaths are unavoidable and emotional. And the fact that they aren't available to take on missions with you is, again, irrelevant. They are still close friends/comrades that you are unable to save who die for the greater good.

Having the option for more people to die isn't bad, but I see no reason it should be NESSESARY. There has already been significant loss of characters who are close to you.

[Il Divo]

TacDavey wrote...

(Spoilers) Characters don't only die if Shepard makes mistakes. In fact, Mordin only LIVES if Shepard makes a mistake. Along with Legion and Thane these characters deaths are unavoidable and emotional. And the fact that they aren't available to take on missions with you is, again, irrelevant. They are still close friends/comrades that you are unable to save who die for the greater good.

Having the option for more people to die isn't bad, but I see no reason it should be NESSESARY. There has already been significant loss of characters who are close to you.

I can agree with this. Mordin, Legion, and Thane were my three favorite characters in the entire series, and all their deaths affected me, regardless of their status as squad-members or not. What was important was that the story set them up as being "close" to Shepard and I was allowed to explore their backgrounds in depth. Likewise, if Bioware had chosen to kill Joker instead, I wouldn't be less affected simply because he wasn't a squad-mate; he'd been there with me since the beginning.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[JBONE27]

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

Suspire wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...
You forgot, everyone dies and the reapers lose.
Also, what makes you think that just because they're alive they're happy?  Their families are baiscally all dead.  Their homes have been destroyed.  Many of their friends are dead.  They're probably going to be suffering from severe PTSD.  They're not happy, they're just survivors.

What you're missing is that Shepard essentially had the power of a god in his hands, so if there was an ending where the main character lives, then the rest of the galaxy would never learn the lesson to rise above their current level of maturity, and essentially the entire galaxy will destroy itself if the machines can't. The name Shepard given is not by coincidence. There is an overarching theme since the very beginning of the series, and whatever ending has been decided, it must be relevant to that theme.

I don't think anyone agrees with what the theme is. I know for me it's more like "take no bull**** for an answer, there's always another option, against all odds, there's no impossible, I'll show you, we can do this"

I'm pretty sure the overarching theme for Mass Effect 1 2 &3 has always been about technological singularity, where the advancement of intelligent life is at a critical point. What is the next step if life? Do highly advanced intelligent beings still having things like greed and corruption? Can life evolve beyond material wealth? Is there such a thing as utopia and intellectual enlightenment? You deal with this throughout the entire series, it's sci-fi. The theme is not about 'kicking ass" but about how those grandiose debates relate to very personal and emotional feelings, and it carries through the different people you meet along the way. You define that experience through the choices you make, but ultimately there will be a choice where there is no win-win situation. And while facing your own mortality at the very end, you reflect on the decisions you've made. That what I get out of it. So for me, the open-ended (and unavoidable) climax makes sense for me on many different levels.

All of this would be great if the ending actually made any sense.  I think you're missing the fact that it isn't really openended, emotionally gratifying, logical, or fitting with the overall tone, themes, or style of the trillogy.  It's all just nonsensical space magic.

You probably prefered the second Matrix movie to the first, because the second was all about philosophy and occasional fights, whereas the first was about being a fun comicbook style movie.

Actually, no I hate the 2nd and 3rd Matrix because they've detached the characters from the backdrop of the man vs. machines theme. The first one works because it's seen through the eyes of a personal lens. You feel what Neo is feeling as he slowly uncovers the truth of the matrix. Without the emotions, you wouldn't care about the theme. In the first one, the philosphical (in its condensed form) and the personal are interrelated, just like ME.

And ME3's ending made perfect sense to me precisely because the philosphical and the personal are interrelated. What you interpret as nonsensical space magic, I see a mortal trying to deal with stuff that's beyond his capacity. 

If I were to use your criteria for judging others, I would say that you probably thought 2001's ending didn't make any sense either.

Wow, that's a false equivilancy.  Other than the space baby, which I think was a mistake on Kubrick's part, the ending to 2001 made perfect sense in the world that was set up.  The whole final scene felt exactly like the architect scene from the second Matrix movie.  It comes basically out of nowhere, gives the illusion of choice, and basically says, "Hey, you know the game you've been playing for hundreds of hours?  You know how the story actually had some grounding both emotionally and physically?  Well, you can say goodbye to that, because now you're space Jesus and the only choice you have is how you want to sacrifice yourself."

You're fixated on the idea that the last minutes must provide closure when in fact the entire game is one big closure. The ending "didn't come out of nowhere" as it's been set up from the very first scene of the game. And here's the thing: 2001 is emotionally detached, Matrix 2 and 3 forcebly detached the first movie's emotional elements, but ME3 kept its emotional attachments up to the very end. Again, it did not come out of nowhere: before the final battle, the majority of the game is about Shepard saying goodbye and having closure, and the final moment is Shepard facing his mortality. Speilberg's ending to AI? That's coming out of nowhere vs. ME3, where everything that happens during the entre game you've playing leads up to the so-called space baby/space jesus ending. How can you not expect this when you have an area where every squadmate you've ever met lines up and say their last words to you?

When did I ever say closure?  Also, AI was terrible from begining to end, so using that as an example defeats your entire argument.

I'm saying that it should fit in with the rest of the game, and make sense within the rules set up by the game's universe.  It fails completely in that respect.

[LordCrux]

JBONE27 wrote...

When did I ever say closure?  Also, AI was terrible from begining to end, so using that as an example defeats your entire argument.

I'm saying that it should fit in with the rest of the game, and make sense within the rules set up by the game's universe.  It fails completely in that respect.

AI's ending was bad. If it ended when the boy dies then would have been a decent flick instead of the tacked-on alien scene. How does that defeat my entire argument?

And what are the rules of ME's universe? How does it fail?

[kalle90]

This goes a tad off-topic, but I thought about that architect thing a little futher.

How about, supposedly, the godchild gave you an option to spare, lets say 12 people, from harvesting and bring them to Citadel. The godchild urges you to decide carefully: who are the most resourceful, adaptive, experts in different areas, representative of different beliefs and races yet can co-operate.

Then you had a big list (50-100?) of names sort of like in suicide mission, pretty much everyone alive Shepard knows from himself to Hackett to Garrus to Shiala to Rachni Queen to Geth. You pick a name after name and they are brought unharmed to the Citadel asking what's going on and questioning why you chose them. After choosing them all Citadel closes and you know everyone outside is doomed to die at the hands of Reapers (For the greater good of preserving galaxy)

(Ok, lets make this a bit more viable reproductionwise: Every one of the 12 people you chose get to pick 10 people on their own who are also spared and brought to Citadel but mostly they are just generic unknowns or left unexplained)

Then afterwards there could be a video or text screen explaining how each of the people you chose contributed to the new society. They could help it, ruin it, leave it or just keep it running.

[JBONE27]

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

When did I ever say closure?  Also, AI was terrible from begining to end, so using that as an example defeats your entire argument.

I'm saying that it should fit in with the rest of the game, and make sense within the rules set up by the game's universe.  It fails completely in that respect.

AI's ending was bad. If it ended when the boy dies then would have been a decent flick instead of the tacked-on alien scene. How does that defeat my entire argument?

And what are the rules of ME's universe? How does it fail?

It wouldn't have been as bad, but it would still have been poorly written, acted, and incredibly stupid.

Alright, you want a few rules which I've discovered.
1.  Everything dies.  This is completely undermined by the space child.
2.  Every decision you make affects the universe in some small way.  This is completely undermined by the fact that regardless of what you choose you only get the three options.
3.  Regardless of the odds people (especially Shepard) will fight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final battle isn't a battle at all; it's a little ghost child talking to you, and you just accepting what he says.
4.  There is no teleportation.  This is undermined by the fact that your ground team magically appears on the Normandy.
5.  Much like rule number two, every decison you have has weight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final cut scenes are all the same, simply with a color swap.  
6.  The universe craves diversity.  This is undermined by not showing a diverse space battle at any point.

Modifié par JBONE27, 31 mars 2012 - 04:41 .

[Reorte]

Forget for a moment that things are scripted - that's a (fairly fundamental, if you want anything that appears to have depth) limitation of technology. If complete freedom were possible would the miserable ending we've got be the only possible one? Would it be impossible to win without Shepard dying and LI at best spending the rest of his or her life depressed? No. Any argument that says that those outcomes must happen seems ridiculous to me. The fate of any individual in a war, no matter how significant or otherwise, is unpredictable. A book or film can only navigate one way through those possibilities but for an RPG not to try to at least give the appearance of unpredictability is a huge failure.

The implications for the rest of the galaxy.are arguably more straightforward, since it seems even more impossible to win without some set of large and unpleasant consequences.

[JBONE27]

Reorte wrote...

Forget for a moment that things are scripted - that's a (fairly fundamental, if you want anything that appears to have depth) limitation of technology. If complete freedom were possible would the miserable ending we've got be the only possible one? Would it be impossible to win without Shepard dying and LI at best spending the rest of his or her life depressed? No. Any argument that says that those outcomes must happen seems ridiculous to me. The fate of any individual in a war, no matter how significant or otherwise, is unpredictable. A book or film can only navigate one way through those possibilities but for an RPG not to try to at least give the appearance of unpredictability is a huge failure.

The implications for the rest of the galaxy.are arguably more straightforward, since it seems even more impossible to win without some set of large and unpleasant consequences.

I think most people would agree to that.

[LordCrux]

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

When did I ever say closure?  Also, AI was terrible from begining to end, so using that as an example defeats your entire argument.

I'm saying that it should fit in with the rest of the game, and make sense within the rules set up by the game's universe.  It fails completely in that respect.

AI's ending was bad. If it ended when the boy dies then would have been a decent flick instead of the tacked-on alien scene. How does that defeat my entire argument?

And what are the rules of ME's universe? How does it fail?

It wouldn't have been as bad, but it would still have been poorly written, acted, and incredibly stupid.

Alright, you want a few rules which I've discovered.
1.  Everything dies.  This is completely undermined by the space child.
2.  Every decision you make affects the universe in some small way.  This is completely undermined by the fact that regardless of what you choose you only get the three options.
3.  Regardless of the odds people (especially Shepard) will fight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final battle isn't a battle at all; it's a little ghost child talking to you, and you just accepting what he says.
4.  There is no teleportation.  This is undermined by the fact that your ground team magically appears on the Normandy.
5.  Much like rule number two, every decison you have has weight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final cut scenes are all the same, simply with a color swap.  
6.  The universe craves diversity.  This is undermined by not showing a diverse space battle at any point.

1. The starchild doesn't undermine death. The starchld affects whether you die now, 'die' to become part of the reapers, or die later from your own causes.

2 and 5 are the same thing. You basically want Shepard's past decisions to affect the outcome of the final ending. Therefore, you want an ending to be something along the lines of: if you a) saved the rachni, the queen will fly down and save you, else you die or c) a squadmate sacrifices himself for you. This kind of scenario actually happens not at the end, but during the entire game (Thane, Kasumi, Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, etc). If you designed the game so that all of these decisions' consequences unfold in the last 5 minutes, then what are you going to fill up during the first 40 hours of the game? And if you make just one or two past decision to affect the last minutes, what would it be? Wouldn't that be an even cheaper ending? ("Oh geez, if I only saved the rachni, then Shepard would have lived.")

3. The final battle is the battle on earth before the starchild scene. That's pretty much in your face, as it says so in the journal.

4. That's a technicality that can be debated forever. It's meant to be open-ended so you can interpret how you like, but I agree that it should have made clearer.

6. Huh? You didn't see the Turian, Asari, Quarian, and Geth working together in the final battle? That's not even a rule, that's a cutscene complaint that has nothing to do how the story ends. You might as well say that seeing your sniper Infiltrator holding the Avenger completely ruined the ending because it broke a vital rule.

Modifié par LordCrux, 31 mars 2012 - 05:24 .

[JBONE27]

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

When did I ever say closure?  Also, AI was terrible from begining to end, so using that as an example defeats your entire argument.

I'm saying that it should fit in with the rest of the game, and make sense within the rules set up by the game's universe.  It fails completely in that respect.

AI's ending was bad. If it ended when the boy dies then would have been a decent flick instead of the tacked-on alien scene. How does that defeat my entire argument?

And what are the rules of ME's universe? How does it fail?

It wouldn't have been as bad, but it would still have been poorly written, acted, and incredibly stupid.

Alright, you want a few rules which I've discovered.
1.  Everything dies.  This is completely undermined by the space child.
2.  Every decision you make affects the universe in some small way.  This is completely undermined by the fact that regardless of what you choose you only get the three options.
3.  Regardless of the odds people (especially Shepard) will fight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final battle isn't a battle at all; it's a little ghost child talking to you, and you just accepting what he says.
4.  There is no teleportation.  This is undermined by the fact that your ground team magically appears on the Normandy.
5.  Much like rule number two, every decison you have has weight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final cut scenes are all the same, simply with a color swap.  
6.  The universe craves diversity.  This is undermined by not showing a diverse space battle at any point.

1. The starchild doesn't undermine death. The starchld affects whether you die now, 'die' to become part of the reapers, or die later from your own causes.

2 and 5 are the same thing. You basically want Shepard's past decisions to affect the outcome of the final ending. Therefore, you want an ending to be something along the lines of: if you a) saved the rachni, the queen will fly down and save you, else you die or c) a squadmate sacrifices himself for you. This kind of scenario actually happens not at the end, but during the entire game (Thane, Kasumi, Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, etc). If you designed the game so that all of these decisions' consequences unfold in the last 5 minutes, then what are you going to fill up during the first 40 hours of the game? And if you make just one or two past decision to affect the last minutes, what would it be? Wouldn't that be an even cheaper ending?

3. The final battle is the battle on earth before the starchild scene. That's pretty much in your face, as it says so in the journal.

4. That's a technicality that can be debated forever. It's meant to be open-ended so you can interpret how you like, but I agree that it should have made clearer.

6. Huh? You didn't see the Turian, Asari, Quarian, and Geth working together in the final battle? That's not even a rule, that's a cutscene complaint that has nothing to do how the story ends. You might as well say that seeing your sniper Infiltrator holding the Avenger completely ruined the game because if broke a vital rule.

The star child never dies, therefore not everything dies, therefor it is undermined.

I think you were actaully playing the first game for point six, which did have an epic ending.

[LordCrux]

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

When did I ever say closure?  Also, AI was terrible from begining to end, so using that as an example defeats your entire argument.

I'm saying that it should fit in with the rest of the game, and make sense within the rules set up by the game's universe.  It fails completely in that respect.

AI's ending was bad. If it ended when the boy dies then would have been a decent flick instead of the tacked-on alien scene. How does that defeat my entire argument?

And what are the rules of ME's universe? How does it fail?

It wouldn't have been as bad, but it would still have been poorly written, acted, and incredibly stupid.

Alright, you want a few rules which I've discovered.
1.  Everything dies.  This is completely undermined by the space child.
2.  Every decision you make affects the universe in some small way.  This is completely undermined by the fact that regardless of what you choose you only get the three options.
3.  Regardless of the odds people (especially Shepard) will fight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final battle isn't a battle at all; it's a little ghost child talking to you, and you just accepting what he says.
4.  There is no teleportation.  This is undermined by the fact that your ground team magically appears on the Normandy.
5.  Much like rule number two, every decison you have has weight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final cut scenes are all the same, simply with a color swap.  
6.  The universe craves diversity.  This is undermined by not showing a diverse space battle at any point.

1. The starchild doesn't undermine death. The starchld affects whether you die now, 'die' to become part of the reapers, or die later from your own causes.

2 and 5 are the same thing. You basically want Shepard's past decisions to affect the outcome of the final ending. Therefore, you want an ending to be something along the lines of: if you a) saved the rachni, the queen will fly down and save you, else you die or c) a squadmate sacrifices himself for you. This kind of scenario actually happens not at the end, but during the entire game (Thane, Kasumi, Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, etc). If you designed the game so that all of these decisions' consequences unfold in the last 5 minutes, then what are you going to fill up during the first 40 hours of the game? And if you make just one or two past decision to affect the last minutes, what would it be? Wouldn't that be an even cheaper ending?

3. The final battle is the battle on earth before the starchild scene. That's pretty much in your face, as it says so in the journal.

4. That's a technicality that can be debated forever. It's meant to be open-ended so you can interpret how you like, but I agree that it should have made clearer.

6. Huh? You didn't see the Turian, Asari, Quarian, and Geth working together in the final battle? That's not even a rule, that's a cutscene complaint that has nothing to do how the story ends. You might as well say that seeing your sniper Infiltrator holding the Avenger completely ruined the game because if broke a vital rule.

The star child never dies, therefore not everything dies, therefor it is undermined.

I think you were actaully playing the first game for point six, which did have an epic ending.

I don't really get how the starchild being immortal can be so upsetting, other than perhaps you have a very firm belief on the issue of the after-life that the seeing starchild (and the Lazarus Project for that matter)  somehow upsets that belief. If so then I can't comment on that. For the record, I'm agnotistic, so I'm open to the possibility of something unknown, simply because I know that I don't know everything.

Modifié par LordCrux, 31 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[JBONE27]

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

When did I ever say closure?  Also, AI was terrible from begining to end, so using that as an example defeats your entire argument.

I'm saying that it should fit in with the rest of the game, and make sense within the rules set up by the game's universe.  It fails completely in that respect.

AI's ending was bad. If it ended when the boy dies then would have been a decent flick instead of the tacked-on alien scene. How does that defeat my entire argument?

And what are the rules of ME's universe? How does it fail?

It wouldn't have been as bad, but it would still have been poorly written, acted, and incredibly stupid.

Alright, you want a few rules which I've discovered.
1.  Everything dies.  This is completely undermined by the space child.
2.  Every decision you make affects the universe in some small way.  This is completely undermined by the fact that regardless of what you choose you only get the three options.
3.  Regardless of the odds people (especially Shepard) will fight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final battle isn't a battle at all; it's a little ghost child talking to you, and you just accepting what he says.
4.  There is no teleportation.  This is undermined by the fact that your ground team magically appears on the Normandy.
5.  Much like rule number two, every decison you have has weight.  This is completely undermined by the fact that the final cut scenes are all the same, simply with a color swap.  
6.  The universe craves diversity.  This is undermined by not showing a diverse space battle at any point.

1. The starchild doesn't undermine death. The starchld affects whether you die now, 'die' to become part of the reapers, or die later from your own causes.

2 and 5 are the same thing. You basically want Shepard's past decisions to affect the outcome of the final ending. Therefore, you want an ending to be something along the lines of: if you a) saved the rachni, the queen will fly down and save you, else you die or c) a squadmate sacrifices himself for you. This kind of scenario actually happens not at the end, but during the entire game (Thane, Kasumi, Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, etc). If you designed the game so that all of these decisions' consequences unfold in the last 5 minutes, then what are you going to fill up during the first 40 hours of the game? And if you make just one or two past decision to affect the last minutes, what would it be? Wouldn't that be an even cheaper ending?

3. The final battle is the battle on earth before the starchild scene. That's pretty much in your face, as it says so in the journal.

4. That's a technicality that can be debated forever. It's meant to be open-ended so you can interpret how you like, but I agree that it should have made clearer.

6. Huh? You didn't see the Turian, Asari, Quarian, and Geth working together in the final battle? That's not even a rule, that's a cutscene complaint that has nothing to do how the story ends. You might as well say that seeing your sniper Infiltrator holding the Avenger completely ruined the game because if broke a vital rule.

The star child never dies, therefore not everything dies, therefor it is undermined.

I think you were actaully playing the first game for point six, which did have an epic ending.

I don't really get how the starchild being immortal can be so upsetting, other than perhaps you have a very firm belief on the issue of the after-life that the seeing starchild (and the Lazarus Project for that matter)  somehow upsets that belief. If so then I can't comment on that. For the record, I'm agnotistic, so I'm open to the possibility of something unknown, simply because I know don't know everything.

That's the thing, the Lazerus project is grounded in science.  I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, so that's a rediculous strawman.  The Starchild is just randomly immortal.  The game took a quick heel turn from science fiction to science fantasy.  It's jarring and nonsensicle.  

Modifié par JBONE27, 31 mars 2012 - 05:43 .

[crazyrabbits]

When you think about it, ME2 had endings representing a wide spectrum of success:

1) Shepard Dies: Work really hard at making the worst possible scenario for yourself, get treated to a constant stream of deaths and failure at every turn, leave your sole crewmate from the first game lost and alone, and leave the galaxy in dire straits.
2) Memorial Ending: Some of your party members die (any combination), you look at their coffins, then pass a different set of squadmates who will hopefully help you down the line.
3) No One Left Behind: Get 100% completion and make the Collectors wet themselves. You walk through the ship like the best captain ever while your crew repairs the ship, you pass your team (Jack, Legion, Garrus, Grunt) ready to kick the Reapers back into the last cycle and get the stinger of the Reapers at the edge of dark space.

Three endings (not counting the save/destroy base decision and resulting cutscene) that go from extreme loss and despair to overwhelming triumph.

And the following game had none of these elements, nor any feeling besides confusion and disappointment.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 31 mars 2012 - 05:37 .

[crazyrabbits]

LordCrux wrote...

2 and 5 are the same thing. You basically want Shepard's past decisions to affect the outcome of the final ending. Therefore, you want an ending to be something along the lines of: if you a) saved the rachni, the queen will fly down and save you, else you die or c) a squadmate sacrifices himself for you. This kind of scenario actually happens not at the end, but during the entire game (Thane, Kasumi, Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, etc). If you designed the game so that all of these decisions' consequences unfold in the last 5 minutes, then what are you going to fill up during the first 40 hours of the game? And if you make just one or two past decision to affect the last minutes, what would it be? Wouldn't that be an even cheaper ending? ("Oh geez, if I only saved the rachni, then Shepard would have lived.")

In regards to the Rachni mission, a Queen always shows up, regardless of whether you saved it back on Noveria or not. Likewise, a Krogan (Grunt/Dagg) always stalls the Rachni so you and your team can escape. The only difference is that both these situations will negatively impact your War Assets (a trivial element anyway) if you didn't do things correctly in the prior game.

If you've never played Final Fantasy VI (which was released on the SNES back in 1995), you REALLY should. That was a game whose ending was greatly influenced by how many characters you recruited in the second half of the game. The ending would play different cutscenes based on whether certain characters were present to solve obstacles or not (i.e. having the character who's strong allows him to move a boulder to allow the other characters to pass, whereas an alternate scene has three characters struggling to lift the rock and getting delayed if he isn't around).

I think people expected something at the end regarding what was happening at the end of the battle with all your other squadmates on the planet and the fleets you acquired over the course of the game, even if it was a few seconds of screentime.

[kbct]

crazyrabbits wrote...

When you think about it, ME2 had endings representing a wide spectrum of success:

1) Shepard Dies: Work really hard at making the worst possible scenario for yourself, get treated to a constant stream of deaths and failure at every turn, leave your sole crewmate from the first game lost and alone, and leave the galaxy in dire straits.
2) Memorial Ending: Some of your party members die (any combination), you look at their coffins, then pass a different set of squadmates who will hopefully help you down the line.
3) No One Left Behind: Get 100% completion and make the Collectors wet themselves. You walk through the ship like the best captain ever while your crew repairs the ship, you pass your team (Jack, Legion, Garrus, Grunt) ready to kick the Reapers back into the last cycle and get the stinger of the Reapers at the edge of dark space.

Three endings (not counting the save/destroy base decision and resulting cutscene) that go from extreme loss and despair to overwhelming triumph.

And the following game had none of these elements, nor any feeling besides confusion and disappointment.

Agreed. ME3 could definitely make endings that run the same gamut - even with making the endings bittersweet.

[mrpoultry]

Simple, Emo is the in thing at the moment.
I am willing to bet that some of those say they don't want a happy ending do in fact want a happy ending but come out and say they don't because they want to come off as different or don't want to be lablled a sheep or a drone for wanting something that some people view as over rated. 

[hawat333]

Because it wouldn't fit the desperate tone, the theme of sacrifice of the game.
Simple.

[Suspire]

The question should be why people don't want other people to get an optional "happy" ending (no, not rainbows and butterflies again ffs). Nothing can justify that in my eyes.

[kbct]

Suspire wrote...

The question should be why people don't want other people to get an optional "happy" ending (no, not rainbows and butterflies again ffs). Nothing can justify that in my eyes.

They believe the story can't be tragic if there is the option for a happy ending. I think there can be a trade-off where both sides are "happy."

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

hawat333 wrote...
Because it wouldn't fit the desperate tone, the theme of sacrifice of the game.
Simple.

Which doesn't fit the "triumph against all odds" theme of the trilogy.
Simple.

Modifié par Kakita Tatsumaru, 31 mars 2012 - 11:44 .

[Strategyking92]

I don't want so much a "happy" ending (although it would be nice) as so much as I want a "Hopeful" ending. To me, since I played a paragon Shepard every time, hope became one of the main features of the story. That in the face of insurmountable odds, hope can prevail.

[OlympusMons423]

People who like the ending just as it is, would always still have it. If there were a download that cost money (which I expect it will) they would even get out of it cheaper, because they would not need to download anything.

I was disappointed in the ending. I know the whole symbolic ending thing, and actually some of my favorite movies are pretty surreal (Woman of the Dune for instance).... Everything before in this game was so honest. It made me make such tough choices, but I could see the logic in it.

You could rightfully argue that we were stuck dealing with a life form so beyond us, and part of it was we could never understand... but everything about this game before was that it was about US...not them. That was missing at the most critical time IMO.

Maybe its just in then cards that Shep is gone this time. I took my love interest (Tali) with me on the final assault. We got blown away by a big fat laser. Yet somehow she ends up escaping (not that I was not glad to see it, but it made no sense)... She exits the crashed Normandy with 3 others.

I was thinking, even if there were just a simple scene, with one of those crew members, or especially the love interst, reacting somehow all to what had just happened. Thinking about Shepard....

Maybe Garrus reenacts his clay shooting scene on a cliff on that planet...throwing the last stone and saying..."this ones for you buddy". He watches it fall untouched to the ground. Then he loos at the ski and thanks Shepard.

In my case Tali, who had said I was the man she loved...Who had an amazing goodbye with Shep....and now he's gone. Just think of the scene you could do with that. I need more than cookie-cutter scene of crew members walking off a crashed ship. Save that solution for lesser games.

Nothing may change I know. But if it were not an issue we wouldn't be needing posts like this either.

[kbct]

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.

"Hard choices and hopeful endings are not mutually exclusive."