305 réponses à ce sujet

[Bantz]

I'll say this. if the extended dlc cut thing whatever the **** they want to call it. If this thing allows me to pick destroy and get more then half a breath in some rubble (which I hardly call shep "living" as he'd be in seriously dire straights to survive with all his synthetic implants destroyed, injured and burned badly from the explosion/reentry into earth) and reunite with tali... erm.. my LI, and friends I would be satisfied with that ending. I wouldn't like it, but I'd be ok with it least.

[Keldaurz]

LightweightJustice wrote...

Seriously.
Just explain it to me.
What is wrong with happy endings?
Is it SO bad to have one?
Is it so cool to dwell in darkness, tears, realism and despair? Is it so cool to watch someone die?
I’m not trying to whine here, I just want some logic. Not just “it’s manlier” or “too mainstream to have good ending”. And please don’t get me wrong. I like bittersweet endings…when they are destined to happen. In ME where “your choices matter”, I would like to HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOOSE.
And what exactly do people want these days? Do they want to smile or do they want to cry?

Because you can't save everyone, which is the main theme on ME3.

[Sgt Stryker]

Optimystic_X wrote...

1) Poor logic again, of course disobeying orders was a sacrifice - he risked being court-martialled or worse by defying the lockdown, and the entire crew risked it too by going with him. And he risked it all again by joining Cerberus, a terorrist group, in ME2.
As for firefighters and soldiers, they know what they sign up for. It's when they go above and beyond the call of duty that they truly sacrifice. You don't get purple heart for just doing basic training every day, you know?

I'd say Shepard goes above and beyond the call of duty in practically every mission, if we're going by real life standards.

[PsyrenY]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Because epic means everyone has to die at the end.

There's never been an epic story, trilogy or movie where the hero survives and there's a happy ending, even though great sacrifices were made throughout.

Hero can survive in ME3. Troll harder.

Sgt Stryker wrote...

I'd say Shepard goes above and beyond the call of duty in practically every mission, if we're going by real life standards.

Never said s/he didn't.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 06 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[YukiFA]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Because epic means everyone has to die at the end.

There's never been an epic story, trilogy or movie where the hero survives and there's a happy ending, even though great sacrifices were made throughout.

Challenge accepted, my good sir.

The Original Star Wars Trilogy. Luke Skywalker was the hero. He survived, great sacrifices were made to destroy the second Death Star, his father redeemed himself before dying. Both his montors died. But they still won, he still survived, and Han Solo still got the girl.

... Though Lando did ding the Millenium Falcon...

Edit: ah, my sarcasm-o-meter was on the fritz. Nevermind.

Modifié par YukiFA, 06 avril 2012 - 03:16 .

[jumpingkaede]

Cgrissom wrote...

Aslanasadi wrote...

I hate dark and depressing endings. I can't stand them and normally I don't watch movies or read books, when I know they have this kind of endings. I don't mind that others love to sacrifice the hero and enjoy these endings, but I would want to have a little brighter ending, which means Shepard alive and reunited with Crew and LI. This is just my personal taste and I don't care if it's cliché or not.

I personally agree with you. I've never much liked dark and depressing endings. Though ultimately I mainly care that the ending makes sense. If the hero has to die, that's fine.... If, and only if, there is a good reason for it.

I'm fine with dark  and depressing endings IF I'm playing a dark and depressing game.  

ME3 was "sort of" dark and depressing.  But that's not the theme of the Mass Effect trilogy!  Even the pro-enders who say it had to end this way... what?

Because when I was describing Mass Effect to my friends I can think of a few adjectives that I didn't use:

grim, bleak, dark, hopeless, tragic, etc.

Were there dark moments?  Sure.  Liquifying humans into Reapers and the whole Dragon's Teeth thing were pretty dark.  But by and large that didn't define the series.  Otherwise you wouldn't have Conrad Verner, all the light banter between crew mates, saving the Citadel Council and stopping Sovereign, brodates with Garrus, and basicall Shepard WINNING at every turn including completing the Suicide Mission without a loss.  Has Shepard EVER lost?  

But suddenly it's "unrealistic" to expect Shepard to win again.  Sure, he beat Sovereign, and sure he destroyed the Collectors, but against the Reapers?  It's "unrealistic" to win conventionally so it "had to be" a Crucible and everyone dying and Shepard sacrificing himself.

...what?  

That's not what I expected and that's not why I play Mass Effect and if Bioware had told me that ME3 was  going to be a game where Shepard is set against impossible odds yet again... and loses I honestly would never have picked it up.

Optimystic_X wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Because epic means everyone has to die at the end. 

There's never been an epic story, trilogy or movie where the hero survives and there's a happy ending, even though great sacrifices were made throughout.

Hero can survive in ME3. Troll harder.

Good point.  I forgot about the 5 second scene of Shepard taking a single breath while buried in rubble.

My bad.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 06 avril 2012 - 03:14 .

[PsyrenY]

jumpingkaede wrote...
It's "unrealistic" to win conventionally so it "had to be" a Crucible and everyone dying and Shepard sacrificing himself.

*facepalm*

Sometimes I wonder why Bioware bothers telling the community anything.

[Kandon Arc]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Kandon Arc wrote...

1) I guess soldiers or firefighters sacrifice nothing, because they are just doing their job. More to the point, Shepard isn't just doing his job. He disobeys orders to go to Ilos, he works with the Illusive Man even though TIM says he is free to leave. Not to mention that he isn't a conscript. He can resign his post if he wants.

2) Anderson could have helped form alliances on the Citadel. More to the point, staying to fight when you have the oppurtinity to flee is almost the defintion of a sacrifice.

3) So they do sacrifice things then?

4) I don't really see what we're arguing about on this one, I've already said I was fine with sacrifices being made.

5) Here is where I'm a bit confused. The only shared component of most peoples happy ending is an alive Shepard reuniting with their LI/crew. If you have no problem with this then what are you arguing against?

As to Merizan's tweets I'll wait before I can make any decision on that, I remember being told I wouldn't get an A, B or C ending also.

1) Poor logic again, of course disobeying orders was a sacrifice - he risked being court-martialled or worse by defying the lockdown, and the entire crew risked it too by going with him. And he risked it all again by joining Cerberus, a terorrist group, in ME2.
As for firefighters and soldiers, they know what they sign up for. It's when they go above and beyond the call of duty that they truly sacrifice. You don't get purple heart for just doing basic training every day, you know?

2) Helped form alliances how? He is bad at politics, he said so himself. Where he stayed was the best spot for him.

3) I never said they didn't, reread my posts. I said it was less.

4) Then what are YOU arguing against?

5) I'm arguing against golden ending with no hard choices. The current endings force you to choose between retiring with your LI and saving the Geth, and I'm okay with that.

Ok I'm going to be try to be as clear as possible here. I am arguing that since so much has been sacrificed by the time Shepard meets the Catalyst, having an option where the Reapers are destroyed with no collateral damage to the Geth or Mass Relays doesn't suddenly mean that there was no hard choices involved or that everything is perfect now. Similarly, the fact that when Frodo got to Mount Doom, he wasn't forced to exterminate the Dwarves before he could destroy the ring didn't mean that he had sacrificied nothing along the way either; or that Middle-Earth hadn't suffered irrevocable damage.

[jumpingkaede]

Optimystic_X wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...
It's "unrealistic" to win conventionally so it "had to be" a Crucible and everyone dying and Shepard sacrificing himself.

*facepalm*

Sometimes I wonder why Bioware bothers telling the community anything.

Explain and I'll retract my statement if you actually say something.  

Anything said in Mass Effect 3 is just setting up the Crucible when the decision to use the Crucible was already made.

Unless you're telling me that the entire plan for Shepard and the Alliance from ME1 and ME2 was to hopefully stumble upon long-lost Prothean anti-Reaper superweapons.  And they never planned or intended to, say, assemble the largest fleet ever and fight the Reapers.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 06 avril 2012 - 03:18 .

[Cadence of the Planes]

LightweightJustice wrote...

Seriously.
Just explain it to me.
What is wrong with happy endings?
Is it SO bad to have one?
Is it so cool to dwell in darkness, tears, realism and despair? Is it so cool to watch someone die?
I’m not trying to whine here, I just want some logic. Not just “it’s manlier” or “too mainstream to have good ending”. And please don’t get me wrong. I like bittersweet endings…when they are destined to happen. In ME where “your choices matter”, I would like to HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOOSE.
And what exactly do people want these days? Do they want to smile or do they want to cry?

You're one of the few OPs here expressing a viewpoint without being a .. you know what. (and this is coming from someone who disagrees with you - I think the endings should be bittersweet). 

and for that, I <3 U:D

[PsyrenY]

Kandon Arc wrote...

Ok I'm going to be try to be as clear as possible here. I am arguing that since so much has been sacrificed by the time Shepard meets the Catalyst, having an option where the Reapers are destroyed with no collateral damage to the Geth or Mass Relays doesn't suddenly mean that there was no hard choices involved or that everything is perfect now. Similarly, the fact that when Frodo got to Mount Doom, he wasn't forced to exterminate the Dwarves before he could destroy the ring didn't mean that he had sacrificied nothing along the way either; or that Middle-Earth hadn't suffered irrevocable damage.

You realize that if it wasn't for Gollum that the Ring would have won, right?

LotR's ending was like Shep reaching the console, getting indoctrinated, and just when he's about to use the Crucible to blow up the fleet, TIM saves the day by shooting you.

jumpingkaede wrote...

Explain and I'll retract my statement if you actually say something.

You. Can. Live.

Hard to take a breath when dead, you know?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 06 avril 2012 - 03:18 .

[jumpingkaede]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You. Can. Live.

Hard to take a breath when dead, you know?

Oh.  Why did you take two posts to make the same point?

I responded to your first post already.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 06 avril 2012 - 03:20 .

[Trentgamer]

Biotic Sage wrote...

NGC1300 wrote...

LightweightJustice wrote...

NGC1300 wrote...

There are choices but there is also theme. It ain't the Sims.

Theme? Can you be more specific?
I hope you don't mean the "jesus and palls" theme.

It was obvious that ME3 is doomed to have dark endings, whichever way it is. It is a war you can't win. People are doomed to die. Genocide everywhere.
 
And you expect to see a unicorn farting rainbow at the end?  don't think so.

Some people apparently like their storytelling to be inconsistent and to have jarring tonal shifts.

You mean like Bioware? lol I wouldn't call the last 20 minutes of the game consistent. Oh..and they even gave us jarring tonal shifts! Red, Green, or Blue!

Modifié par Trentgamer, 06 avril 2012 - 03:22 .

[PsyrenY]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Oh.  Why did you take two [/b][b]posts to make the same point?

I responded to your first post already.

Yeah, with skepticism. Well, if the video clip, the description in the Prima Guide and a quote from Bioware aren't enough to convince you, then obviously I'm not going to either and you'll just have to wait until summer.

jumpingkaede wrote...

Unless you're telling me that the entire plan for Shepard and the Alliance from ME1 and ME2 was to hopefully
stumble upon long-lost Prothean anti-Reaper superweapons.  And they
never planned or intended to, say, assemble the largest fleet ever and
fight the Reapers.

Hackett and Victus both tell you they can't win conventionally. I would think the two best generals in the galaxy know what they're talking about.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 06 avril 2012 - 03:24 .

[jumpingkaede]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You realize that if it wasn't for Gollum that the Ring would have won, right?

LotR's ending was like Shep reaching the console, getting indoctrinated, and just when he's about to use the Crucible to blow up the fleet, TIM saves the day by shooting you.

I really have no idea if you're being sarcastic anymore but I would've thought that to be a better and more consistent ending.  Fits in with TIM actually looking out for humanity, despite doing it in renegade fashion.

Optimystic_X wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Oh.  Why did you take two posts to make the same point?

I responded to your first post already.

Yeah, with skepticism. Well, if the video clip, the description in the Prima Guide and a quote from Bioware aren't enough to convince you, then obviously I'm not going to either and you'll just have to wait until summer.

Gotcha.  Well, fair enough I HOPE Shepard does survive somehow.  But that's only 1 of 6 endings, yes?  5/6 other endings Shepard is dead, including in the "best" ending according to Bioware.

Edit:  "Survive" as in is alive beyond that breath and actually does things afterward. 

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 06 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Optimystic_X wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...
It's "unrealistic" to win conventionally so it "had to be" a Crucible and everyone dying and Shepard sacrificing himself.

*facepalm*

Sometimes I wonder why Bioware bothers telling the community anything.

You mean like the time they told us we wouldn't seek out a long-lost Reaper off button, or the time they told us the ending wouldn't be broken down to an A, B, C choice?

[Kandon Arc]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Kandon Arc wrote...

Ok I'm going to be try to be as clear as possible here. I am arguing that since so much has been sacrificed by the time Shepard meets the Catalyst, having an option where the Reapers are destroyed with no collateral damage to the Geth or Mass Relays doesn't suddenly mean that there was no hard choices involved or that everything is perfect now. Similarly, the fact that when Frodo got to Mount Doom, he wasn't forced to exterminate the Dwarves before he could destroy the ring didn't mean that he had sacrificied nothing along the way either; or that Middle-Earth hadn't suffered irrevocable damage.

You realize that if it wasn't for Gollum that the Ring would have won, right?

LotR's ending was like Shep reaching the console, getting indoctrinated, and just when he's about to use the Crucible to blow up the fleet, TIM saves the day by shooting you.

Gollum is totally irrelevant to my point. I'm not saying that these endings should be exactly the same, I'm using LotR to illustrate a single point.

Can you please tell me if you disagree with this point and if so why; rather than talking about something completely different.

[PsyrenY]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Gotcha.  Well, fair enough I HOPE Shepard does survive somehow.  But that's only 1 of 6 endings, yes?  5/6 other endings Shepard is dead, including in the "best" ending according to Bioware.

So what if you die? Was your goal to save the galaxy, or save yourself?

Kandon Arc wrote...

Gollum is totally irrelevant to my
point. I'm not saying that these endings should be exactly the same, I'm
using LotR to illustrate a single point.

Can you please tell me if you disagree with this point and if so why; rather than talking about something completely different.

If Destroy had no collateral damage to something you cared about it would
be a no-brainer. That removes any difficulty from the choice at all. Bioware might as well have hung a neon sign over the red path saying "pick this if you're not a total moron!"

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 06 avril 2012 - 03:27 .

[Namz89]

I want a happy ending, along with a bad ending and all kinds of shades in between.

[christrek1982]

you know what I F**king hate this unicorn BS some people look the fact is that mass effect 3 is a dark game there are some lovely hart braking scan and just because Shepherd lives in the end dose not tern the story into snow fu**ing white. People want Shepherd to live and the chance for a ray of hope at the end so if you want shepherd to die in the end for some reason that fine but don't belittle the ones that want something happier because it goes against what you think is right

[jumpingkaede]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Hackett and Victus both tell you they can't win conventionally. I would think the two best generals in the galaxy know what they're talking about.

That's in ME3 though.  When Bioware already decided that the Crucible was the only way to win.  Was there ever any talk before that about "conventional" warfare not working?

Really looking to ME2 and ME1.  If it was a foregone conclusion that "conventional" warfare wouldn't work, then what the hell was Shepard and the Alliance planning this whole time?

Again, I assumed something like... outfit the fleets with the best weaponry possible and assemble the largest fleet ever and fight off the Reapers.

And not... do nothing but hope to uncover lost Prothean Anti-Reaper weapon otherwise give up and surrender to the Reapers because we're all dead anyway.

That's what I meant when I thought it was inconsistent.  Not the ending so much, but all of ME3.  Because when I played ME1 and ME2 I expected, and was never told otherwise, that the whole "outfit the fleets with the best weaponry possible and assemble the largest fleet ever and fight off the Reapers" could possibly work.

Optimystic_X wrote...

So what if you die? Was your goal to save the galaxy, or save yourself?

Putting aside the question of whether Shepard does actually survive in Destroy/Red, seeing as how Mass Effect is fiction, and the options are in Bioware's hands, I'm really just wondering why there isn't an option to save the galaxy AND save Shepard.

If you did everything right and 100% the first two games and paragon everything.  

(Not save the galaxy AND save Shepard AND also save everyone everywhere forever.)

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 06 avril 2012 - 03:31 .

[Kandon Arc]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Kandon Arc wrote...

Gollum is totally irrelevant to my
point. I'm not saying that these endings should be exactly the same, I'm
using LotR to illustrate a single point.

Can you please tell me if you disagree with this point and if so why; rather than talking about something completely different.

If Destroy had no collateral damage to something you cared about it would
be a no-brainer. That removes any difficulty from the choice at all. Bioware might as well have hung a neon sign over the red path saying "pick this if you're not a total moron!"

No because you could believe the catalyst and decide that by destroying the Reapers  you were dooming organic life, therefore you would choose synthesis. Or a Renegade could agree with TIM and control the Reapers to establish Human dominance over the other races. This is what I mean about roleplay rather than just trying to go for the high score.

Moreover, why does the last choice have to be difficult? Was the last choice of KOTOR difficult? No you either helped the Republic or the Sith. What I'm trying to say is that the hard choices have already been made.

Modifié par Kandon Arc, 06 avril 2012 - 03:34 .

[kyg_20X6]

I want the resolutions the game was heading towards. E.g. If you romance Liara, Shepard and Liara talk about settling down and having children after the war. They mention it in both ME2 and (multiple times) in ME3. So, if both Shepard and Liara manage to survive the war, that's what I want to see. Same goes for other relationships, friendships, alliances, etc. I want to see their resolutions. I want to see the natural endpoint of the story I've shaped.

Depending on how you've played that may seem 'happy' or not. But that's what I want and, it seems to me, should logically be expected from a story.

[PsyrenY]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

You mean like the time they told us we wouldn't seek out a long-lost Reaper off button, or the time they told us the ending wouldn't be broken down to an A, B, C choice?

Again, I can't force you to believe them, I'm just telling you what they said.

If you don't believe them then why are you on their forums? If all they do is lie, you are the fool for staying here. Cancel your account and move on with life.

jumpingkaede wrote...


That's in ME3 though.  When Bioware already decided that the Crucible was the only way to win.  Was there ever any talk before that about "conventional" warfare not working?

Really looking to ME2 and ME1.  If it was a foregone conclusion that "conventional" warfare wouldn't work, then what the hell was Shepard and the Alliance planning this whole time?

Again, I assumed something like... outfit the fleets with the best weaponry possible and assemble the largest fleet ever and fight off the Reapers.

And not... do nothing but hope to uncover lost Prothean Anti-Reaper weapon otherwise give up and surrender to the Reapers because we're all dead anyway.

That's what I meant when I thought it was inconsistent.  Not the ending so much, but all of ME3.  Because when I played ME1 and ME2 I expected, and was never told otherwise, that the whole "outfit the fleets with the best weaponry possible and assemble the largest fleet ever and fight off the Reapers" could possibly work.

In ME1 the whole goal was to keep them in dark space - preventing the attack entirely rather than fighting them head-on. That itself was a pretty big hint that they were not to be messed with.

ME2 was barely about Reapers at all until Arrival.

[Deltoran]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Cgrissom wrote...

Aslanasadi wrote...

I
hate dark and depressing endings. I can't stand them and normally I
don't watch movies or read books, when I know they have this kind of
endings. I don't mind that others love to sacrifice the hero and enjoy
these endings, but I would want to have a little brighter ending, which
means Shepard alive and reunited with Crew and LI. This is just my
personal taste and I don't care if it's cliché or not.

I
personally agree with you. I've never much liked dark and depressing
endings. Though ultimately I mainly care that the ending makes sense. If
the hero has to die, that's fine.... If, and only if, there is a good
reason for it.

I'm fine with dark  and depressing endings IF I'm playing a dark and depressing game.  

ME3
was "sort of" dark and depressing.  But that's not the theme of the
Mass Effect trilogy!  Even the pro-enders who say it had to end this
way... what?

Because when I was describing Mass Effect to my friends I can think of a few adjectives that I didn't use:

grim, bleak, dark, hopeless, tragic, etc.

Were
there dark moments?  Sure.  Liquifying humans into Reapers and the
whole Dragon's Teeth thing were pretty dark.  But by and large that
didn't define the series.  Otherwise you wouldn't have Conrad Verner,
all the light banter between crew mates, saving the Citadel Council and
stopping Sovereign, brodates with Garrus, and basicall Shepard WINNING
at every turn including completing the Suicide Mission without a loss.
 Has Shepard EVER lost?  

But suddenly it's "unrealistic" to
expect Shepard to win again.  Sure, he beat Sovereign, and sure he
destroyed the Collectors, but against the Reapers?  It's "unrealistic"
to win conventionally so it "had to be" a Crucible and everyone dying
and Shepard sacrificing himself.

...what?  

That's not
what I expected and that's not why I play Mass Effect and if Bioware had
told me that ME3 was  going to be a game where Shepard is set against
impossible odds yet again... and loses I honestly would never have picked it up.

Optimystic_X wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Because epic means everyone has to die at the end. 

There's
never been an epic story, trilogy or movie where the hero survives and
there's a happy ending, even though great sacrifices were made
throughout.

Hero can survive in ME3. Troll harder.

Good point.  I forgot about the 5 second scene of Shepard taking a single breath while buried in rubble.

My bad.

Nice post...I agree mostly.  I think that some people are thinking of the old greek ideal of epic and that's why they think it has to end tragically.  For me, the whole issue of a happy ending distills down to choice.  I want the choice for both a 'happy' ending and a terribad ending.