291 réponses à ce sujet

[sedrikhcain]

So one thing I'm getting from this thread is that whether the ending is happy or sad depends, in many minds, on whether Shepard dies. Am I right? Because I don't feel this way.

[Greed1914]

There is nothing wrong with an earn-able happy ending. Suicide Mission, anyone?

Honestly, a happy ending is pretty much always effective at making the player feel like it was worthwhile, especially when they had to do all the "right" things to make it happen.

[Bellendaine]

GBGriffin wrote...

Honestly, the general consensus I've read is that people feel the ending shouldn't be happy because people believe that war is brutal, Shepard HAS to die, and that life isn't always fair or happy, and there shouldn't be the option for it to be happy because it would be viewed as the "right" ending.

Those people read too much Ayn Rand imho ...

[CronoDragoon]

I'm assuming people who claim it shouldn't have a happy ending also skipped every single Paragon/Renegade dialogue option. Since, you know, those options usually resolve conflicts without anything sacrificed.

[sth88]

It became an over-correction to all the people who said we only wanted the ending changed because it wasn't happy. All of a sudden everyone was like "no, no, happiness doesn't matter, it's that the ending doesn't make sense, etc."

And while it's true that the nonsensical-ness(?) of the ending is important (I'd say more important) than getting a happy ending, it has become kind of a false choice that you can either have a sad ending that is well constructed or a happy ending that is poorly constructed.

[ctanctan]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Because dark is automatically deep man.

If your serious I call  bull#$%^. If sarcastic then lol.

[ctanctan]

StillOverrated wrote...

Because killing your main character makes any story deep and meaningful. Oh, wait. No, it doesn't.

I mean, it's not like we're demanding a happy ending is the ONLY ENDING EVARRR RAAAAAAAAAAGH ANYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE BURNED AT A STAKE!! We're asking for a possibility of one. You know, like in Dragon Age: Origins; you can agree to Morrigan's ritual and your Warden can run off with whoever he or she romanced and live happily ever after until they're driven insane by the taint. Or you can just kill your Warden and make the story DEEP and MEANINGFUL!!!1one. Having both possibilities didn't ruin the game none, methinks.

D^&n Straight

[GreenDragon37]

tractrpl wrote...

Nitsugalego wrote...

Well, we should've gotten multiple endings ( including happy and sad ones)...

To me, any ending resulting in the destruction of the Reapers without having some star kid with messed up reasoning would be a happy ending. I think Shepard making the ultimate sacrifice is necessary, it's what being a soldier means.

That may be what that means to your Shep. But not every Shepard is the same. Well, at least not until Mass Effect 3.

[The Angry One]

The "war is hell" justification always gets me.
I'm sorry, were the millions dead on Earth, Palaven and Thessia not enough? Entire populations being wiped out? Galactic genocide on an unheard of scale. People being tortured and mutilated into grotesque abominations by the millions. Massive pain and suffering.

No we have to have a downer ending on top of that or it's not realistic! Really, what?

[HiddenKING]

Don't hate happy endings, any happy endin in Mass Effect 3 wouldn't be fittin. It wouldn't be a true happy endin. There can't be a happy endin with worlds destroyed, billions dead, friends lost, sacrificed and (in some cases) betrayed, galactic civilization in a very vulnerable situation, with everyone's dirty laundry out in the open. And in some cases genocide committed, and the LI either dead, moved on, or shot by Shepard. So you get a nice scene with Shepard's friends and LI (except for those that romanced Jacob and Thane), but then what? It doesn't mean anythin when there is more goin on. How will the citadel species react to the fact that the Asari hid a Prothean VI, knew of the Reapers, and did nothin. Or that the Salarians planned to uplift the Yahg to further their interests? That the Human Councillor was a traitor and helped a terrorist organization attack the Citadel? And that the Turians had a Doomsday bomb in Tuchanka? If you cured the Krogans will they petition the council for a new world? Will they be given a world when other species have their destroyed? While the Batarians are refugees? They have to rebuild, and it won't be easy for anyone. The mere fact that they have the chance to rebuild, that Shepard stopped a cycle that destroyed countless civilizations, would have doomed them, and everyone that was to come is happy enough.

[GBJ13]

The viewpoint that "tragic" is a superior form of literature is a pretty long-standing belief. See Aristotle's Poetics, for example. You also see in movie and tv awards, where dramas almost uniformly beat comedies.

I do agree, on some level, that a well-done tragedy, invoking the full range of pity, rage, and sadness, is superior to a bubble-gum happy ending on some levels However, a poorly done tragedy is a literary disaster. Additionally, those conventions apply to movies, plays, etc. .Video games ARE DIFFERENT. The best RPGs give you the chance to have a happy, sad, tragic, or disconcerting ending in the same game.

It's one of the arguments that I think has been missing from the discussion. Even if ME3 endings were good (they're not, they're total crap), why should those be the only emotions you feel at the end? I don't understand why there can't be an ending where Shepherd fails horribly and you see Anderson in a Collector's tube or an ending that is a empowering as the Star Wars medal ceremony. Sure, a movie can't have multiple ending, changing it from a comedy to a tragedy. But, a Video game can!

[Icinix]

The Angry One wrote...

The "war is hell" justification always gets me.
I'm sorry, were the millions dead on Earth, Palaven and Thessia not enough? Entire populations being wiped out? Galactic genocide on an unheard of scale. People being tortured and mutilated into grotesque abominations by the millions. Massive pain and suffering.

No we have to have a downer ending on top of that or it's not realistic! Really, what?

Not to mention that you are forced to lose people along the way. You lose the first one at Virmire.

Even if you manage to get everyone out of the Suicide mission, you'll lose at least 3 of them in ME3.

Truth is, before the ending came around, it was already a non-happy ending. Sacrifices had already been made.

It didn't need to be worse. Millions, maybe billions dead. Worlds devastated. Personal friends lost. The ending was just salt in the wound.

[Slayer299]

The Angry One wrote...

The "war is hell" justification always gets me.
I'm sorry, were the millions dead on Earth, Palaven and Thessia not enough? Entire populations being wiped out? Galactic genocide on an unheard of scale. People being tortured and mutilated into grotesque abominations by the millions. Massive pain and suffering.

No we have to have a downer ending on top of that or it's not realistic! Really, what?

Beat me to it, but this ^

[Mr_Byddy]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

I'm fine with "Happy Endings" so long as they make sense under the circumstances.

This is a war... with the Reapers, no less. No one, out of dozens of civilizations, has managed to so much as cause a significant dent in their numbers. I don't expect, nor want, rainbows and butterflies.

The Mission Objective for me is to ensure the fall of the Reapers. If I, (my Shepard), can survive and maybe reunite with the crew of the Normandy, then great. But that darn Space Brat is in my way...

This.

I don't think there's hostility towards a happy ending, so much as it needs to make sense in the scheme of things (something many would argue is already missing from the ending). There isn't a race in the story that has beaten the reapers. The protheans were far superior, technologically speaking, to all the races you encounter in the ME series, and even they were wiped out (except one).

Just surviving the Reapers would be accomplishment enough. Beating them would be an overwhelming victory. There should be some rejoicing in preserving the future for millions and breaking the cycle that has doomed billions of sentient beings before they even knew it.

I think there can be a happy ending, even if there is a lot of loss incurred in the struggle. You shouldn't look to those that died to find meaning, you should be looking to all that you managed to save.

[JasonDaPsycho]

Yea because killing off the main character automatically makes you indie and no longer a sellout, and it's deep and thought-provoking. By default, it makes you a good writer.

And you haven't heard? Dark endings = keeping it real. You can't possibly get married and have kids ie live a normal life if you become a cop or a soldier or a spy. Even if you did, it won't last. You'll get PTSD and become an alcoholic. Your family will leave you. An eventual suicide attempt by blowing your brains out is pretty much inevitable. That's real life for you.

[MakeMineMako]

I have no problem with happy endings, even in a war story. A bright light at the end of the proverbial tunnel gives the hero something to work for, and makes it all worth it.

But then again, I don't dress like a freak and cut on myself either. I guess that's why I don't think all aspects of entertainment have to be nilistic, dark, and depressing.

[cutegigi]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Yes, but Anikin didn't -- and it's actually his story.

wait wait...
are we talking about the original trilogy or the prequel ??
watching eps 4-6, I would swear it was Luke's (and Han and leia) story.....

[garf]

I think the root of the problem is pardon.. Threefold...

First and foremost. "Rainbows and puppies", "Disney ending", and "Hollywood ending" were the other slurs handed out alongside 'whiney" and 'entitled' this is where by being loud enough and repetitive enough the IGNorant managed to frame the debate. The only way to gain traction against this as far as media reporting went was to reframe it as a matter of 'endings that 'make sense'. which was a slight misstep in that it allowed the pro-enders a free hand to discredit the idea of a 'happy ending'

Secondly The IGNorant's natural allies. the ones who liked the ending, who believe it fit. are ones who naturally Liked the 'grimdark' who believe shepherd's 'sacrifice' was fitting. For them, they GOT the ending they wanted. and have no empathy for anyone who didn't get theirs. Many of them seem to sneer in their posts about the 'unicorns farting rainbows' crowd. this broader group also includes the 'war is hell' group. Who puzzle me honestly, They can't have actually read many 'war is hell' type books. if they thought that one of the them was Mass Effect.

Finally, there is the problem of defining 'happy'. Is it 'blue babies?' how about shepherd lives? how about shepherd dies but get's a big ****ing statue? how about no supernovas or at least no galactic dark age? For me by the way A 'happy' ending option HAS to include being a 3km tall cuttlefish. I will do a playthrough for a 'bad' end I will pay money... (a year from now) to get that ending on one of my playthroughs (assuming we get an ending eventually that allows me to do more playthroughs.)

Modifié par garf, 11 avril 2012 - 04:43 .

[tractrpl]

The "happy ending" is any ending without starbrat. Shepard could live or die, but no starbrat would have been fine with me.

[LucasShark]

tractrpl wrote...

The "happy ending" is any ending without starbrat. Shepard could live or die, but no starbrat would have been fine with me.

Blarg: and vice versa, no happy ending can exist while starbaby lives.

[sedrikhcain]

cutegigi wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

Yes, but Anikin didn't -- and it's actually his story.

wait wait...
are we talking about the original trilogy or the prequel ??
watching eps 4-6, I would swear it was Luke's (and Han and leia) story.....

Supposedly, it was all one big story to begin with: the fall and redemption of Anikin Skywalker. Lucas said that waaaaay back before we ever even heard anything about prequels, so I'm inclined to believe it. Back on one of the "special collection" releases on VHS, he gave an interview with, I think, Leonard Maltin, in which he talks about writing the whole thing and then realising it was way too big, so he wrote a version with just the parts involving luke and leia's role in the story and left the rest as back story.

Modifié par sedrikhcain, 11 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[halbert986]

I don't hate the idea of a happy ending. I hate that it's become the symbol of why we're angry. Shepard dying was the only part of the ending that didn't suck.

So I now hate all the "I want a happy ending" crew because I'm afraid they're giving the powers that be the wrong signal.

[TJX2045]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Because dark is automatically deep man.

^ This.

And because people think happy ending means Disneyfied.  But then the same people fell in love with Disney movies and went to a Disney Park and got all Disneyfied on vacation.  LOL.

halbert986 wrote...

I don't hate the idea of a happy ending. I hate that it's become the symbol of why we're angry. Shepard dying was the only part of the ending that didn't suck.

So I now hate all the "I want a happy ending" crew because I'm afraid they're giving the powers that be the wrong signal.

 
I also agree with this post.  I personally would like my Shepard to be alive, but if he was to die, I was fine as long as plot holes were filled and closure (on a majority of emphasized subplots that you've cared about over three games) was given.

Modifié par TJX2045, 11 avril 2012 - 06:56 .

[PsyrenY]

I'd be fine with a happy ending if it was believable. The army magically feeling their oats or the giant doomsday macguffin functioning exactly as described are boring.

[Lisylis]

I feel like the writers of the ending didn't want it to be particularly "video game"-y.

Pity it's actually a video game.