650 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterrAlex]

The game may have a dark tone, but if you worked hard to unite EVERYONE to cooperate, along with having so many allies lost for the cause of war, you damn well deserve a happy ending if you earned it

Modifié par MisterrAlex, 01 avril 2012 - 12:11 .

[OlympusMons423]

I would like a happy ending, at least a slim chance. Lets say we Shepard survives, and everything is in ruins and starting over...there is still struggle and different issue to deal with. Its not 100% flowery happy ending even in the best of cases.

Shepard is almost Jesus dieing for our sins. I could see that happening, but if you coudl have an ending where you got to reunite with a love interest after all this, don;t tell me you wouldn't like that too. People think that would be a sell out, when its really an opportunity to writer more excellent dialogue and take it still in an unexpected direction.

Shep already burned to a crisp on re-entry in ME2. Their body layed out in the open for knows how long. If ME2's beginning set up was how this game ended, people would on here saying he/she never could have survived...and you know, they would be right. But it didn't play that way did it.... Just give me one chance for a ME2 type death....Maybe an empty wish, but I want it. All art does not have to be painted in grey and black to be serious and meaningful.

[LordCrux]

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...
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.  

The reapers are immortal, and you accept from the very first game. They were 'created' by the starchild, so why would the notion that the starchild can be immortal as well seem nonsensical to you? Also the kid is in the first scene of the game, and you have recurring dream sequences of him throughout, so he didn't just pop out of nowhere. As for sci fiction / science fantasy, it's not uncommon for sci fi to explore the relationship between science and the supernatural because they're both very much intertwined. For all we know, the starchild form that you see can be just Shepard's visual interpretation of an entity that no one can comprehend.

From the very first game, the reaper storyline deals with very big ideas about life on a galactic scale, so why would a literal ending (ie, we get a Macguffin to kill the bad guys, let's party at the Citadel) serve any justice to it? Obviously, you, I, Shepard and everyone would like that to happen, but the idea in Mass Effect is that there will be point where life itself will destroy itself if it is not dealt with. And to deal with it, you either a) reset life, which is purpose of the reaper control it, which is what TIM is trying to do, or c) evolve life as know into another level, which is synthesis. So if you want an ending in which Shep survives and the Reapers are gone, then everything that you've been fighting for is for nothing in the long term, because the cycle will repeat itself. Sure, you can have blue babies with have a happy ending, but in the next 2,000 years or so, the galaxy will be destroyed be its own inhabitants because they haven't evolved / reset. That's the choice Shep is making at the end, and if Shep were to survive that choice, then he is essentially cheating death.

[Getorex]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

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.

What I don't get is this whole myth of "theme of sacrifice of the game".  Huh?  Where did THAT theme come from?  In all 3 games I never got the impression that the theme was "sacrifice". 

In any case, ME3 totally derails the type of Shepard you play too.  Let's say your Shepard was the "sole survivor" background.  Let's say you also play renegade or mostly renegade.  So, what's with Shepard being a mamby-pamby having dreams about one kid all the time?  HE'S WAS SOLE SURVIVOR!  He is USED to everyone else biting the dust but with him still being there.  Also, he's renegade so he goes hardcore in general...until ME3 where he gets all ****wussy and mamby-pamby with nightmares about some anonymous kid AND he's all self-sacrificy to boot?  

Now I actually always play a paragrade favoring heavy toward paragon but still, he was sole survivor Shepard.  MY Shepard doesn't get a teary and squishy about some kid getting blown to sh*t on earth.  He's military AND a sole survivor!  That crap happens ALL THE TIME.  He's USED to it and he deals.  He doesn't toss and turn about anonymous creepy tots.  He's also no fool - he doesn't go into something he KNOWS he wont get out of.  There's ALWAYS an exit plan (or intention).  Always. <_<

[JBONE27]

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...
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.  

The reapers are immortal, and you accept from the very first game. They were 'created' by the starchild, so why would the notion that the starchild can be immortal as well seem nonsensical to you? Also the kid is in the first scene of the game, and you have recurring dream sequences of him throughout, so he didn't just pop out of nowhere. As for sci fiction / science fantasy, it's not uncommon for sci fi to explore the relationship between science and the supernatural because they're both very much intertwined. For all we know, the starchild form that you see can be just Shepard's visual interpretation of an entity that no one can comprehend.

From the very first game, the reaper storyline deals with very big ideas about life on a galactic scale, so why would a literal ending (ie, we get a Macguffin to kill the bad guys, let's party at the Citadel) serve any justice to it? Obviously, you, I, Shepard and everyone would like that to happen, but the idea in Mass Effect is that there will be point where life itself will destroy itself if it is not dealt with. And to deal with it, you either a) reset life, which is purpose of the reaper control it, which is what TIM is trying to do, or c) evolve life as know into another level, which is synthesis. So if you want an ending in which Shep survives and the Reapers are gone, then everything that you've been fighting for is for nothing in the long term, because the cycle will repeat itself. Sure, you can have blue babies with have a happy ending, but in the next 2,000 years or so, the galaxy will be destroyed be its own inhabitants because they haven't evolved / reset. That's the choice Shep is making at the end, and if Shep were to survive that choice, then he is essentially cheating death.

I don't accept that they are immortal.  They destroy whole civilzations every 50,000 years to create new reapers (revealed in ME2, confirmed in ME3).  They spend 50,000 years in stasis leaving one behind to monitor.  They may last a long time, but they are not immortal, if they were, then they would not need to go into stasis or reproduce.

[kbct]

Getorex wrote...
What I don't get is this whole myth of "theme of sacrifice of the game".  Huh?  Where did THAT theme come from?  In all 3 games I never got the impression that the theme was "sacrifice". 

The ending should be tragic. The ending should be bittersweet. Or so I am told.

You're a smart guy. How do you make it satifying for the majority?

[JBONE27]

Getorex wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

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.

What I don't get is this whole myth of "theme of sacrifice of the game".  Huh?  Where did THAT theme come from?  In all 3 games I never got the impression that the theme was "sacrifice". 

In any case, ME3 totally derails the type of Shepard you play too.  Let's say your Shepard was the "sole survivor" background.  Let's say you also play renegade or mostly renegade.  So, what's with Shepard being a mamby-pamby having dreams about one kid all the time?  HE'S WAS SOLE SURVIVOR!  He is USED to everyone else biting the dust but with him still being there.  Also, he's renegade so he goes hardcore in general...until ME3 where he gets all ****wussy and mamby-pamby with nightmares about some anonymous kid AND he's all self-sacrificy to boot?  

Now I actually always play a paragrade favoring heavy toward paragon but still, he was sole survivor Shepard.  MY Shepard doesn't get a teary and squishy about some kid getting blown to sh*t on earth.  He's military AND a sole survivor!  That crap happens ALL THE TIME.  He's USED to it and he deals.  He doesn't toss and turn about anonymous creepy tots.  He's also no fool - he doesn't go into something he KNOWS he wont get out of.  There's ALWAYS an exit plan (or intention).  Always. <_<

It's even worse if Shepard is ruthless.  Why would (s)he care about one kid, when (s)he willingly, indeed happliy sacrificed a lot of people for the sake of revenge?

[mauro2222]

Immortal? yes.
Invincible? Nope.

They don't die of age. But you can kill them.

[JBONE27]

mauro2222 wrote...

Immortal? yes.
Invincible? Nope.

They don't die of age. But you can kill them.

Again, I disagree.  They can run out of power, it is explicitly stated in ME1.

[someguy1231]

In my opinion, a cheesy, sappy ending showing Shepard living happily ever after with their Love Interest would be even worse than what we actually got.

[Getorex]

LordCrux wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

LordCrux wrote...
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.  

The reapers are immortal, and you accept from the very first game. They were 'created' by the starchild, so why would the notion that the starchild can be immortal as well seem nonsensical to you? Also the kid is in the first scene of the game, and you have recurring dream sequences of him throughout, so he didn't just pop out of nowhere. As for sci fiction / science fantasy, it's not uncommon for sci fi to explore the relationship between science and the supernatural because they're both very much intertwined. For all we know, the starchild form that you see can be just Shepard's visual interpretation of an entity that no one can comprehend.

From the very first game, the reaper storyline deals with very big ideas about life on a galactic scale, so why would a literal ending (ie, we get a Macguffin to kill the bad guys, let's party at the Citadel) serve any justice to it? Obviously, you, I, Shepard and everyone would like that to happen, but the idea in Mass Effect is that there will be point where life itself will destroy itself if it is not dealt with. And to deal with it, you either a) reset life, which is purpose of the reaper control it, which is what TIM is trying to do, or c) evolve life as know into another level, which is synthesis. So if you want an ending in which Shep survives and the Reapers are gone, then everything that you've been fighting for is for nothing in the long term, because the cycle will repeat itself. Sure, you can have blue babies with have a happy ending, but in the next 2,000 years or so, the galaxy will be destroyed be its own inhabitants because they haven't evolved / reset. That's the choice Shep is making at the end, and if Shep were to survive that choice, then he is essentially cheating death.

Utter bollocks.  First, the entire premise of "synthetics will always turn on their creators" is crap and disproved by ME2 (Legion vs the "Heretics"...in which the killer synthetics WERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE REAPERS!) and ME3 where Legion gives you the TRUE history of the Geth:Quarian problem...it wasn't synthetics attacking their creators, it was the other way around!  Then there's EDI in ME2 and 3 - not only NOT trying to turn on her creators, but actually BOINKNG one of the organic creators!  

Second, you are simply assuming that godkid is right (when he is clearly wrong...see above under Legion:Geth and EDI) and that the "highest form of evolution is synthesis".  No it isn't.  See?  I backed that up with precisely the same amount of data/proof that the kid did.  Mine is more true though because I'm not some idiot kid.  Third, you cannot do "synthesis" in any case because the godkid tells Shepard that it would require the combination of organic and synthetic DNA.  Synthetics do not have DNA!  None.  DNA is ENTIRELY an organic thing (by definition).  On top of that, how do you combine (nonexistent) synthetic DNA with organic DNA via green radio waves?  Now, I work with DNA on a regular basis and I'd LOVE to know how one combines or alters DNA via broadcast.  No contact necessary, just green magic beams sent out like radio waves.  POOF!  Space magic making "new" DNA.  IN ADDITION:  all that would be needed, at worst, for the synthesis thing was a mouth swab with a Q-tip of Shepard (or any other organic) and drop that into the magical beam.  BOOP!  Done, with Shepard fully alive because...giving a HUGE DNA sample (mouth swab, spit sample, skin biopsy, etc) is NOT fatal.  Ever.  Not in any circumstance except the truly bizarre: mouth swab breaks skin in mouth and skin break gets infected with a VERY nasty form of MRSA.  OR: taking small skin biopsy (overkill bigtime) with dirty needle directly innoculates virulant bacteria into blood.  Sepsis sets in.  Of course, being ~150yrs in the future, the medical establishment would be helpless before MRSA or any other infective organism because...because?  

Control:  no death needed there either.  We saw a simple way to control synthetics in "Overlord".  Not comfy but not fatal. 

No, the fatality schtick is ENTIRELY arbitrary and simply not necessary or realistic (in the ME universe or our own).  Garbage.  All garbage.

Look, the entire godkid, 3 choice crap is just that: crap.  It was NOT thought out.  It is NOT rational (not in the ME universe and CERTAINLY not in ours). 

[Getorex]

someguy1231 wrote...

In my opinion, a cheesy, sappy ending showing Shepard living happily ever after with their Love Interest would be even worse than what we actually got.

So you would be free to NOT choose that ending.  Ta-da!  Fixed.

[mauro2222]

JBONE27 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Immortal? yes.
Invincible? Nope.

They don't die of age. But you can kill them.

Again, I disagree.  They can run out of power, it is explicitly stated in ME1.

Immortality means that you don't die from age, but you can die if you don't eat or you are hurt. The Turriptosis Nutricula it's a type of jellyfish wich is immortal, but if it doesn't eat, it runs out of power and dies.

Invincibility means that you can't die, by any means.

Modifié par mauro2222, 01 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[JBONE27]

mauro2222 wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Immortal? yes.
Invincible? Nope.

They don't die of age. But you can kill them.

Again, I disagree.  They can run out of power, it is explicitly stated in ME1.

Immortality means that you don't die from age, but you can die if you don't eat or you are hurt. The Turriptosis Nutricula it's a type of jellyfish wich is immortal.

Invincibility means that you can't die, by any means.

Ah, I misunderstood what you said.  People usually die of old age because some part of their body breaks down, that is how I understand the reapers' preverbial bataries running out.

[Getorex]

Until there is a PROPER ending (not entirely fatal for Shepard) then these two vids can be substituted for the crappy ending that currently sits in the game like a steaming turd:


This one ends the whole thing on Rannoch:

[mauro2222]

JBONE27 wrote...

Ah, I misunderstood what you said.  People usually die of old age because some part of their body breaks down, that is how I understand the reapers' preverbial bataries running out.

Well, we actually die because our genes are "programmed" to cease all reproductive functions, our DNA gets damaged and every single cell in our body stops the mitosis process. Cells start to die and aren't replaced, so diseases appear, tissue becomes weaker and old, and well... death. That's why people don't simply die of "old age".

It's more complicated and not so... like that
But the idea it's the same.

Lobster have the ability to repair DNA chains, and are considered to be immortal, the problem is that it's still a theory because its really hard to find a lobster as old as the world itself, they die of disease, injury or well... they get bigger and bigger with time, so they look really tasty for everyone.

Modifié par mauro2222, 01 avril 2012 - 01:58 .

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

kbct wrote...

Getorex wrote...
What I don't get is this whole myth of "theme of sacrifice of the game".  Huh?  Where did THAT theme come from?  In all 3 games I never got the impression that the theme was "sacrifice". 

The ending should be tragic. The ending should be bittersweet. Or so I am told.

You're a smart guy. How do you make it satifying for the majority?

Easy. Give them a choice. Have them meet(or avoid) requirements. You know, like the last game. If you wanted to infuse drama into your playthrough you could pretty much select who you wished to die.

[Zeal]

JBONE27 wrote...

I've seen a lot of people on this board who either say, "Don't change the ending to something happy," or "I hope the ending DLC doesn't have a happy ending."  I say, if you have to work for it, why not have a happy ending.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has grown to love these characters, and I do want to see them happy.  Do I think the happy ending should be easy to achieve... HELL NO!  I believe that what ever is worth having, it's worth working hard for, and a happy ending with everyone you care about surviving, is worth having. 

It's not about happy or sad. There's so much discussion going on about this I don't know how you missed it, but here's a handy summary:





^SPOILERS IN IT^

Modifié par Zeal, 01 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[DeviousCastle]

If I wanted to be depressed about something, I would watch the news. I play games to escape the BS of real life. The end of ME1 and ME2 both expressed hope, the best ending of the Quarrian/Geth line expressed hope, the best ending for the Krogan line expressed hope... which pretty much came crashing down at the end of the game.

Bittersweet: Billions died  ----- (EDIT)   rest deleted for spoilers  ------  sorry.. didn't realize I was on the non-spoiler side. 

Yeah.. I think there should be a happy ending... killing off the main doesn't always end a series in the long run... just ask Bungie.

Modifié par DeviousCastle, 01 avril 2012 - 03:03 .

[kbct]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

kbct wrote...

Getorex wrote...
What I don't get is this whole myth of "theme of sacrifice of the game".  Huh?  Where did THAT theme come from?  In all 3 games I never got the impression that the theme was "sacrifice". 

The ending should be tragic. The ending should be bittersweet. Or so I am told.

You're a smart guy. How do you make it satifying for the majority?

Easy. Give them a choice. Have them meet(or avoid) requirements. You know, like the last game. If you wanted to infuse drama into your playthrough you could pretty much select who you wished to die.

Unless there is a poll, the talkative ones will always out-speak everyone else. This thread is a good example. Look at the post-count. Do the people with the most posts (besides the OP) represent the majority? The answer is no.

[JBONE27]

Zeal wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I've seen a lot of people on this board who either say, "Don't change the ending to something happy," or "I hope the ending DLC doesn't have a happy ending."  I say, if you have to work for it, why not have a happy ending.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has grown to love these characters, and I do want to see them happy.  Do I think the happy ending should be easy to achieve... HELL NO!  I believe that what ever is worth having, it's worth working hard for, and a happy ending with everyone you care about surviving, is worth having. 

It's not about happy or sad. There's so much discussion going on about this I don't know how you missed it, but here's a handy summary:





^SPOILERS IN IT^

Okay, I agree that the ending sucks, what's your point?

Modifié par JBONE27, 01 avril 2012 - 12:21 .

[ile_1979]

JBONE27 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

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.

What I don't get is this whole myth of "theme of sacrifice of the game".  Huh?  Where did THAT theme come from?  In all 3 games I never got the impression that the theme was "sacrifice". 

In any case, ME3 totally derails the type of Shepard you play too.  Let's say your Shepard was the "sole survivor" background.  Let's say you also play renegade or mostly renegade.  So, what's with Shepard being a mamby-pamby having dreams about one kid all the time?  HE'S WAS SOLE SURVIVOR!  He is USED to everyone else biting the dust but with him still being there.  Also, he's renegade so he goes hardcore in general...until ME3 where he gets all ****wussy and mamby-pamby with nightmares about some anonymous kid AND he's all self-sacrificy to boot?  

Now I actually always play a paragrade favoring heavy toward paragon but still, he was sole survivor Shepard.  MY Shepard doesn't get a teary and squishy about some kid getting blown to sh*t on earth.  He's military AND a sole survivor!  That crap happens ALL THE TIME.  He's USED to it and he deals.  He doesn't toss and turn about anonymous creepy tots.  He's also no fool - he doesn't go into something he KNOWS he wont get out of.  There's ALWAYS an exit plan (or intention).  Always. <_<

It's even worse if Shepard is ruthless.  Why would (s)he care about one kid, when (s)he willingly, indeed happliy sacrificed a lot of people for the sake of revenge?

My biggest problem along with the lack of causality (choices matter) in this game. No need for polls, no need for petitions, no need for law suits. There it is right there and you can't deny it. In all the other games in the series Shep could be (based on player prefferance) anywhere from from the most empathic goodie-two shoes to the most ruthless SOB infront whos gun barerl you don't want to get. This game, this entire game (with the help of those cutsecens of the nightmares) is undermining every other Shepard except one. It slaps your playthjroughs in the face unless this is the way you imagined it. Makes all of your other Sheps invalid. Are they trying to say that EVERY single human, would react in the exact same manner if presented with same situational input? Try using that in court as your argument and see what happenes. IF that was true, we should all be locked up somewhere, because all of us are murderers or thiefs.

[Reorte]

kbct wrote...

Unless there is a poll, the talkative ones will always out-speak everyone else. This thread is a good example. Look at the post-count. Do the people with the most posts (besides the OP) represent the majority? The answer is no.

The same could be said for the poll (those with the strongest feelings are most likely to be aware of it and vote).

How do you know that they don't represent the majority unless you've some other means of being aware of the majority's view?

[Getorex]

Hipsters are not the target audience, nor are FPSers...so pointlessly "tragic" endings or blatantly illogical (yet still "tragic") endings are not required.

[Accall]

Nowadays, "dark, frustrating and sad" are often confused with "deep, uplifting and philosophical".