650 réponses à ce sujet

[tetrisblock4x1]

ME3 had a real underdog theme to it... a happy ending would remove that.

[Darth Wolfenbarg]

 I don't want a happy ending, I want a bittersweet ending similar to Dragon Age: Origins. Despite facing the worst odds since the first blight, you and all the armies you gather manage to win through. It comes at a high cost, but there is a sense of accomplishment. Sunshine and rainbows would ruin that ending, but so would misery and despair. Bioware's current attempt at that same thing is so ambiguous that it leaves everything up to player assumption, and the only thing you can possibly assume is that the galaxy is screwed.

[Delta_V2]

The Stabilo Boss wrote...

I consider stopping the Reapers to be the sweet part. But I see how people could want a little less bitter and a little more sweet. Losing the relays AND Shepard was pretty intense.

The only thing worse than the current endings would be an outright Reaper victory.  I have a really hard time considering something that is one step above abject failure to be "bittersweet"

Also, Bioware confirmed there would be no "Reapers win" option months ago, so we knew going in that we would defeat them one way or another.  I think that makes it feel like we didn't really accomplish anything, since that was going to happen no matter what.

[BioWareM0d13]

iVitriol wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

iVitriol wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

DJBare wrote...

The Stabilo Boss wrote...

My problem with a happy ending is that I feel like it would diminish the seriousness of the Reaper threat. For 3 games, we've been leading up to this big conflict with an unstoppable fleet of galaxy destroying machines - to defeat them without the whole galaxy making serious sacrifices would leave me thinking "That was it? That wasn't such a big deal. We didn't even break a sweat."

Billions are already dead or converted, whole planets have been wiped out, I'd say the Reapers have earned their reputation.

The problem is that the player doesn't really know those billions. Seeing the damage done to the galaxy might provoke an emotional reaction, but no where near the level of seeing Shepard or a couple team mates die. An ending where eveyone on the Normandy's manifest survives would be lacking in emotional impact.

I think getting out battered but alive sparks a serious emotional impact along the lines of holy sh*t, we just won!

Imagine for a moment if Saving Private Ryan ended with not a single member of the squad dying on the beach, or in the final battle in the town. Whatever emotional impact that  victory would have had would have be undercut both by the implausible nature of that victory, and the fact that it was seemingly purchased far too easily.

The final battle against the Reapers should involve someone on the team dying. If it isn't Shepard, it should be a crew member or two.

Thane, Legion, Mordin. I think enough good people died along the way.

They all had great, emotional scenes. But none of them is on the team in Mass Effect 3 and none of them participates in that final battle.

[RocketManSR2]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

ME3 had a real underdog theme to it... a happy ending would remove that.

It could be said that 1 & 2 had that, too. Just because this is part 3 doesn't mean everything should totally go to s***. How does it hurt you if others have the option to get what they want, too?

[Soul Spector]

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. 

I'm with ya on that, there can be others as well, but i'd like to see something good come out of all the things i've done throughout my game play.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Calbeb wrote...

The game has a really dark tone, and I just don't want an ending that is happiness and rainbows. If they did something hopeful and at the same time represent the costs of the war, I wouldn't mind that.

With that said, the intent was clearly to do something a little more about self-sacrifice. I have NO problem with that as long as it is clear and dramatic. While the current ending being dramatic is debatable, clear is not.

The bolded part is what I don't understand.  Your follow up sentence pretty much points out you can have a "happy" ending without it being over the top.  It would still be considered a happy ending.

I guess my question/comment is, why do those against a happy ending always refer to it as "happiness and rainbows"?  Even IF Shepard and Co. all survive in an ending, there was already a massive amount of death and sadness throughout the game that it wouldn't be considered "happiness and rainbows".

[Vaktathi]

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. 

I don't particularly need a "happy" ending, though nobody seemed to mind it for ME1 and ME2, I'd be fine with grim/bittersweet/dark/etc, but the ending we got was just nonsensical, which is really the bigger issue. 

However, for some reason a lot of people think "happy" endings (e.g. zomg everyone wasn't massacred and the hero lives!) are somehow bad/cliche/easy/overdone/etc. Most of the time they think it's edgier to be something else. 

Well, that's what got us the ending we got.

A "happy" ending where the Reapers are destroyed, the main factions come together, Shepard lives and we get a big nice epilogue with all the crew would still would leave billions dead, hundreds of planets in ruins, simmering political tensions, tons of potential conflicts in the wake of the reapers as factions vie to rebuild or scavenge, opportunities for new threats to emerge, etc. 

Modifié par Vaktathi, 30 mars 2012 - 06:22 .

[BioWareM0d13]

Deaths should be the action of player choice, not scripted. If I wanted to play a linear shoot 'em up, I would play something else. The choice aspect of Mass Effect is what appeals to me. Taking choice away is what BioWare did wrong with the ending.

If there were deaths in the end game I think player choice should have a role. But one of those choices shouldn't be "everyone gets to live." Not unless an everyone lives ending results in the galaxy being hammered harder than an ending where some sacrifices are made.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 30 mars 2012 - 06:24 .

[JBONE27]

Darth Wolfenbarg wrote...

 I don't want a happy ending, I want a bittersweet ending similar to Dragon Age: Origins. Despite facing the worst odds since the first blight, you and all the armies you gather manage to win through. It comes at a high cost, but there is a sense of accomplishment. Sunshine and rainbows would ruin that ending, but so would misery and despair. Bioware's current attempt at that same thing is so ambiguous that it leaves everything up to player assumption, and the only thing you can possibly assume is that the galaxy is screwed.

That's the same ending that most people view as happy.

Modifié par JBONE27, 30 mars 2012 - 06:28 .

[Vaktathi]

Han Shot First wrote...

Deaths should be the action of player choice, not scripted. If I wanted to play a linear shoot 'em up, I would play something else. The choice aspect of Mass Effect is what appeals to me. Taking choice away is what BioWare did wrong with the ending.

If there were deaths in the end game I think player choice should have a role. But one of those choices shouldn't be "everyone gets to live." Not unless an everyone lives ending results in the galaxy being hammered harder than an ending where some sacrifices are made.

They managed to make that work in ME1 and ME2, even with such a "happy" ending, the galaxy is in ruins, billions are dead, and there's vultures aplenty picking over the ruins. 

[BioWareM0d13]

Vaktathi wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Deaths should be the action of player choice, not scripted. If I wanted to play a linear shoot 'em up, I would play something else. The choice aspect of Mass Effect is what appeals to me. Taking choice away is what BioWare did wrong with the ending.

If there were deaths in the end game I think player choice should have a role. But one of those choices shouldn't be "everyone gets to live." Not unless an everyone lives ending results in the galaxy being hammered harder than an ending where some sacrifices are made.

They managed to make that work in ME1 and ME2, even with such a "happy" ending, the galaxy is in ruins, billions are dead, and there's vultures aplenty picking over the ruins. 

In ME1 Kaidan or Ashley died.

Only in ME2 was there an 'everyone lives' option, which was a mistake IMO.

[Nadya2]

MaestroX101 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

MaestroX101 wrote...

Wes Mordine wrote...

The galaxy will still be mourning their billions! It's sad enough.

But Shepard (and by extension, the player) may have a happy ending by winning the war and reuniting with his/friends and LI.

Why not?

Whatever way you look at it, people shouldn't expect Shepard to survive, whether he wins or loses the war. In fact, the game would have a perfect ending if Shepard didn't defeat the Reapers. There are warnings starting from ME1 telling Shepard that he only continues to delay the enevitable.

You call that a perfect ending? Seriously? Your thought is that the best possible ending is that the entire galaxy should be annihilated and everything you've done should be pointless?

Man, you must be a lot of fun at parties.

I meant perfect as far as storytelling goes. Sure, a lot of people wouldn't like it, but I'm sure that kind of ending would be more appreciated than the current ending to most people. I mean, with as little spoilers as possible, how many people expected anything after Harbinger appeared?

when you say, alot of people you refer to yourself mostly.   so no  i don't think alot of people likes to get screwed after investing so much time and money with this series.

perhaps you should try some Bondage,  i think it fits your personality well.


with so many unavoidable death : Warning  Spoiler


Thane dies,  Legion dies, Mordin dies.  whole planets devasted with millions of people dead.


i think the least they can do, is to add a less depressing ending,  one where shepard survives  and reunites with his, her Li  and whatever is left of normandy in that remote far away planet,  after destroying the reapers.  and even that woulden't be considered a true happy ending.

 

[Darth Wolfenbarg]

iVitriol wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Deaths should be the action of player choice, not scripted. If I wanted to play a linear shoot 'em up, I would play something else. The choice aspect of Mass Effect is what appeals to me. Taking choice away is what BioWare did wrong with the ending.

If there were deaths in the end game I think player choice should have a role. But one of those choices shouldn't be "everyone gets to live." Not unless an everyone lives ending results in the galaxy being hammered harder than an ending where some sacrifices are made.

Or it should be included so that everyone can get an ending they deserve.

They're trying to tell a story, not please the specific wants of each and every fan. There's nothing wrong with a scripted death sequence, it ups the intensity and can sell just how dangerous a mission really is. Having to choose between Ashely or Kaidan was the first time in Mass Effect where you really got a feeling for how high the stakes were. 

[BioWareM0d13]

Vaktathi wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Deaths should be the action of player choice, not scripted. If I wanted to play a linear shoot 'em up, I would play something else. The choice aspect of Mass Effect is what appeals to me. Taking choice away is what BioWare did wrong with the ending.

If there were deaths in the end game I think player choice should have a role. But one of those choices shouldn't be "everyone gets to live." Not unless an everyone lives ending results in the galaxy being hammered harder than an ending where some sacrifices are made.

They managed to make that work in ME1 and ME2, even with such a "happy" ending, the galaxy is in ruins, billions are dead, and there's vultures aplenty picking over the ruins.

In ME1 Kaidan or Ashley died.

Only in ME2 was there an 'everyone lives' option, which was a mistake IMO.

Or it should be included so that everyone can get an ending they deserve.

Here is the problem with an 'everyone lives' ending, as most people want it:

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Besides getting everyone on their team out alive, they also want that ending to have the best possible outcome as far as the fate of the galaxy is concerned. That by default, makes every other ending a lesser ending. And as such, less desirable. It in effect, kills the possibility of having a bittersweet ending that still manages to be satisfying.

In short, in a game with multiple endings a butterflies and rainbows ending (everyone lives, everything saved) cannot exist on a equal level with one where people die. ME2 is a perfect example of this. Unlike Virmire, people only die if Shepard makes tactical or strategic blunders, which automatically makes those endings less desirable than one where everyone lives. An ending where people die only occurs if Shepard is undermined as a combat leader.

So this really only leaves two options: Either the everyone lives ending also comes with a price (greater galactic damage), or one of the two (butterflies & rainbows vs bittersweet) should be scrapped all together.

Of course this is all speculative. Chances are we are stuck with the existing endings.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 30 mars 2012 - 06:43 .

[Blight Nug]

I just want myself to survive and reunite with my LI, and I would call this a "happy ending".
I already made several difficult discussion along the game, such as killing wrex and mordin.
Its already impossible to have a "rainbow butterfly" ending considering the death and destruction that happens before the game ends.

[BioWareM0d13]

Thanks for cramming your opinion down my throat.
Do yourself a favor and just accept the fact that yes, people want their cake and want to eat it too.

No need to take it personal.

Besides, people tend to disagree with each other frequently in online discussions. That is sort of the point of discussing topics like these to begin with. 40 pages of 'This' and 'I agree' would make for a boring read, no matter the topic.

[Nadya2]

in ME1 our choices and decisions had some consequences. we had to decide who lived and who died. Wrex, Ash, or Kaidan.

in ME2 they gave us alot more freedom and way more choices, thus the player had the power to play the game with multiple endings based on their decisions.

ME3 they made every single one of our previous decisions and every one of our game choices irrelevant, the whole game turned into a linear 100 % linear scripted Ancient Greek Tragedy, with tons of plotholes and cheesy Drama left and right.