219 réponses à ce sujet

[pjotroos]

RogueBot wrote...

I really don't think Bioware sees ME3 as a video game. They'd probably classify it as an "interactive story" or something. I wish they'd go back to making video games.

"Heavy Rain" was actually advertised as interactive drama. It was really bleak all the way through. I'd pay a lot to have the same scope of endings for "Mass Effect 3" that "Heavy Rain" had.

[Sarevok Synder]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...



I call him StarHitler and I was so expecting to has an option to take him down.

I think Bioware were going for the whole sacrifice thing. It fell flat on its face however, since Shepards sacrifice counted for nothing as no matter what "choice" you picked, pretty much everybody gets f**ked over.

[Atomsk Rex Pirata]

Anyone else reminded of that quote from Noah (of Noah's Arcade) in Waynes World?

"Zantar is a gelatinous cube that eats warriors in a medieval village, and every time it eats a chieftain, you ascend to a higher level. Beauty part is, you can't get to the next level, so the kids keep coughing up quarters, you know?"

Mass Effect 3 = "Zantar the Gelatinous Cube"

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

It depends on your definition of "winning." That could mean the cliche ultimate hero victory where everyone lives and the bad guys are dead. That could also mean the more tragic approach heavy on sacrifice. It really depends on the genre of the game and the direction the writers want to go with it. With that said, ME3 admittedly did have a very bleak and nihilistic ending... it wouldn't have hurt to inject a bit of hope in the big finale. However, I'd also be pretty irritated if we won against the Reapers without a scratch.

Uplifting would have been on the cards if the Reapers were simply destroyed with the Relays intact. Balance it with Shepard's death, the visible devestation of the fleet, the Destiny Ascencion flying into Harbinger to take him out, and a ceremony that remembers everyone who died, not one specifically about Shepard. A bit like Halo 3's ending, where none of the named characters who actually fight and die during the game are mentioned or put above the rest. 

Yep well said.  As I said the endings we have now make everything you do feel pointless.

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...



I call him StarHitler and I was so expecting to has an option to take him down.

I think Bioware were going for the whole sacrifice thing. It fell flat on its face however, since Shepards sacrifice counted for nothing as no matter what "choice" you picked, pretty much everybody gets f**ked over.

Yeah what is the point of the hero giving his life if it doesn't help anyone?

[ChildOfEden]

I might as well just play platforming games T___T
At least they got good endings...

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@ OP: I said the same thing a month ago when I finished the game.

"There is no way of winning: 140 hrs of game play (all three games), carefully gathering >7200 Total Military Assets; playing sufficient multi-player to have 100% galactic readiness before the Cerberus base assault and keeping that through the end only to have none of that make any difference except for whether or not I get a gasp of air in the Red ending. It is like playing tic tac toe. The only way to win is not to play."

And as a big middle finger to the Catalyst: I wanted to have Grunt fly in onto the Crucible with a 50 MT nuke. Shepard and he throw the starkid off. Set the charge, have a smoke, kill bottle of Ryncol, talk about old times, and blow the citadel and send every single reaper in the system, along with everyone else to Hell.

PS: I'm probably older than your dad.

[crimzontearz]

and honestly eve with Shepard surviving the end is still bittersweet dammit

[Agiyosi]

I agree. It doesn't mean that you, or in this case, Shepard, has to live, but his sacrifice has to be both tragic and rewarding; tragic in that he loses his life, but rewarding in that he saves the galaxy (and all his pals). Also, dying at the end like that needs to be inevitable and a logical necessity, and not just some arbitrary, forced sacrifice just for the sake of it.

[FBI-Azzurri]

We did win though. We all won a kick in the gut for our years of support for Mass Effect. Congratulations. And EA won Worst Company in America.

[Sarevok Synder]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

Yeah what is the point of the hero giving his life if it doesn't help anyone?

Yep, Shepard may as well have said "f**k this, I'm outa here," and planted a bomb. Would have accomplished as much and lived.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 avril 2012 - 10:38 .

[mupp3tz]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

It depends on your definition of "winning." That could mean the cliche ultimate hero victory where everyone lives and the bad guys are dead. That could also mean the more tragic approach heavy on sacrifice. It really depends on the genre of the game and the direction the writers want to go with it. With that said, ME3 admittedly did have a very bleak and nihilistic ending... it wouldn't have hurt to inject a bit of hope in the big finale. However, I'd also be pretty irritated if we won against the Reapers without a scratch.

Uplifting would have been on the cards if the Reapers were simply destroyed with the Relays intact. Balance it with Shepard's death, the visible devestation of the fleet, the Destiny Ascencion flying into Harbinger to take him out, and a ceremony that remembers everyone who died, not one specifically about Shepard. A bit like Halo 3's ending, where none of the named characters who actually fight and die during the game are mentioned or put above the rest. 

Yep well said.  As I said the endings we have now make everything you do feel pointless.

Agreed. I fully expected Shepard to die and even my squadmembers.  I mean, this IS the Reapers we're talking about... an entity that has been doing it's thing far longer than we can even fathom.  As another poster mentioned, the ending also fails because it feels like the victory was "given" to you.  There was no sense of beating the Reapers.. it was just... a dull, lackluster, and illogical ending to everything that the story stood for beforehand.

[Johcande XX]

There are always going to be games in which things don't turn out so well for the protagonist; but in order for a video game to be successful SOMEONE needs to be able to win.

In ME3 Shepard didn't win, the alliance fleet didn't win (not that we saw), the reapers / synthetics don't win; I guess you could say Joker wins by being marooned on a random planet, or maybe it was Buzz Aldrin who won?

[AlienSpaceBats]

I thought the same thing myself.

I've come to think of Mass Effect 3 as a book with the last few pages torn out.

[ticklefist]

Yeah when this whole thing started one of the first things that popped into my head was Herm Edwards's old rant, "You play to win the game"

[mupp3tz]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

It depends on your definition of "winning." That could mean the cliche ultimate hero victory where everyone lives and the bad guys are dead. That could also mean the more tragic approach heavy on sacrifice. It really depends on the genre of the game and the direction the writers want to go with it. With that said, ME3 admittedly did have a very bleak and nihilistic ending... it wouldn't have hurt to inject a bit of hope in the big finale. However, I'd also be pretty irritated if we won against the Reapers without a scratch.

How so?  In the game you can end up losing three or four of Shepard's freinds and millions have died,how is winning after that winning "without a scratch"?

I didn't hear anyone complaining that getting out of the colector's base in ME2,or Shepard living at the end of ME1 was irritating.

Well.. Shepard dying at the end of ME2 or ME1 would have completely destroyed the entire point of trilogy... don't you think?  So, that's kind of a pointless thing to use as a counterargument.  Mass Effect 3 is the END of the trilogy, and, as such, represents the finale... which could result in many things since this is obviously meant to be the end of Shepard's story.

What I mean with the phrase "without a scratch" is that there needs to be tragedy in the end.  Tragedy that is personal.  Let's be real.  If the game ended with all your squaddies (minus the unpreventable deaths) and millions of other species dying.. would you really care?  Probably not as much as you would if a few of your squadmates sacrificed themselves in the final battle.  Or Shepard himself, even.  You have to understand that the Reapers aren't just a generic "bad guy"... they are really something far greater than we can understand.  That is why their motivations and the whole handing you a solution in the end is stupid.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 15 avril 2012 - 10:41 .

[eddieoctane]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

It depends on your definition of "winning." That could mean the cliche ultimate hero victory where everyone lives and the bad guys are dead. That could also mean the more tragic approach heavy on sacrifice. It really depends on the genre of the game and the direction the writers want to go with it. With that said, ME3 admittedly did have a very bleak and nihilistic ending... it wouldn't have hurt to inject a bit of hope in the big finale. However, I'd also be pretty irritated if we won against the Reapers without a scratch.

No. There was no "winning" in ME3's ending, regardless of definition. At best, it's a pyrrhic victory. That has little-no place in video games. Especially when every other title in the series lets you come out on top. I walked away from the suicide mission with everyone alive, because I refused to accept otherwise. I lost 1 person in ME1. One person. that was it. Suddenly, everything has to go to hell despite the franchise clearly allowing the player to achieve the "perfect victory" elsewhere.

That is BS. The ending sucked by every metric.

[PaxtonFetel]

How do you think this case has already entered the history? The most horrible end in the history of games. Or the greatest indignation in the history of the fans..

[OH-UP-THIS!]

short memories, the lot of you!!!

FAR CRY 2, the absolute epitome of STUPID ending EVER!!!

[TODD9999]

Hmm. The thing in this case is that "winning" means something different to different people. Does it mean the hero vanquishes the evil and rides off into the sunset? Or does it mean that the game has a conclusion that makes sense for it? Or, to phrase it differently, does the protagonist need to win in order for the player to win?

Personally, I'd say that the player can win even if the protagonist loses, so long as the game's story is coherent, the themes are well-maintained, and so forth. I would say that BioWare has achieved an odd inverse of this, where Shepard can "win" by defeating the Reapers and suchlike, but the player does not get to "win", in that the final scenes are not coherent with the remainder of the game, the themes are oddly disjointed, the our choices have no impact, etc.

As an aside, I once heard something about how video games are one of the few types of entertainment where you can pay full price, but not be able to experience the whole thing because you are bad at it. You can't be bad at watching a movie, reading a book, seeing a play, etc. - even if you didn't like it, you got to experience the whole thing. But if you can't beat the first stage of Super Mario Brothers, you will never be able to see the second. I thought it was an interesting observation.

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

Yeah I mean otherwise why not just give up in the first level? I mean it's not like Shepard did anything that counts after that with the endings we have so he may as well have been killed when the Reapers first attacked earth and saved me from playing 30+ hours of gameplay trying to set it up so I could win.

[mupp3tz]

eddieoctane wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

It depends on your definition of "winning." That could mean the cliche ultimate hero victory where everyone lives and the bad guys are dead. That could also mean the more tragic approach heavy on sacrifice. It really depends on the genre of the game and the direction the writers want to go with it. With that said, ME3 admittedly did have a very bleak and nihilistic ending... it wouldn't have hurt to inject a bit of hope in the big finale. However, I'd also be pretty irritated if we won against the Reapers without a scratch.

No. There was no "winning" in ME3's ending, regardless of definition. At best, it's a pyrrhic victory. That has little-no place in video games. Especially when every other title in the series lets you come out on top. I walked away from the suicide mission with everyone alive, because I refused to accept otherwise. I lost 1 person in ME1. One person. that was it. Suddenly, everything has to go to hell despite the franchise clearly allowing the player to achieve the "perfect victory" elsewhere.

That is BS. The ending sucked by every metric.

What do you mean "no?"  My point was that the ending was bleak and needed more hope, but with also a tinge of personal tragedy.  We are basically agreeing on the key points, minus the level of tragedy.  I'm unhappy with the ending because it made the journey pointless.  Isn't that the same thing you. just. said?

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 15 avril 2012 - 10:44 .

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

@ OP: I said the same thing a month ago when I finished the game.

"There is no way of winning: 140 hrs of game play (all three games), carefully gathering >7200 Total Military Assets; playing sufficient multi-player to have 100% galactic readiness before the Cerberus base assault and keeping that through the end only to have none of that make any difference except for whether or not I get a gasp of air in the Red ending. It is like playing tic tac toe. The only way to win is not to play."

And as a big middle finger to the Catalyst: I wanted to have Grunt fly in onto the Crucible with a 50 MT nuke. Shepard and he throw the starkid off. Set the charge, have a smoke, kill bottle of Ryncol, talk about old times, and blow the citadel and send every single reaper in the system, along with everyone else to Hell.

PS: I'm probably older than your dad.

My Dad is 54.

Oh and I agree with you.

[WangGozinya]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

We can go on about video games as art and if Bioware lied and all this other stuff but I think my dad said it best when talking about this the other day when he said..."there has to be a way to win in a video game".

No matter what you do in Mass Effect you end up losing in some form or another and video games at their most basic are things people play to have fun and win with. A video game that gives you no way to win is pretty pointless in the end.  I mean it's not like a movie or a book where you are watching someone else do all the work,you are doing the work and the reason you keep playing is to beat the game.

I think

"there needs to be a way to win in a video game" sums everything up nicely.

Anyone else agree?

Yes, agreed completely

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

Agiyosi wrote...

I agree. It doesn't mean that you, or in this case, Shepard, has to live, but his sacrifice has to be both tragic and rewarding; tragic in that he loses his life, but rewarding in that he saves the galaxy (and all his pals). Also, dying at the end like that needs to be inevitable and a logical necessity, and not just some arbitrary, forced sacrifice just for the sake of it.

Yeah if you want to see a hero dying done right watch Star Trek 2.  In that movie there was a clear reason Spock had to die,they needed the warp drive back online and while his death was very sad it was not pointless. He saved all his friends and gave Kirk a second chance with his son.  That is how you do a hero dies ending.