5087 réponses à ce sujet

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

Ha, I have not played recently enough to be able to come up with good response though. But since Mantorok is good against anything: Tier, Aretak, Mantorok!

On the topic of future careers for squadmates I see Garrus opening his own calibration business.

Vakarian Quality Calibrations Ltd.

And Kasumi could open her own No Questions Asked Antiques Shop, or maybe go into the museum business with Zaeed.

Edit: Ah crumbs, quick hum the Lord of The Rings theme.

Modifié par edisnooM, 04 juin 2012 - 08:06 .

[Jassu1979]

GoblinSapper wrote...

The excellent literary criticisms that arise from threads such as these are the fuel for my dislike of IT, which outright denies there ever was or will be a problem and covers it's ears going la la la bioware gonna fix it. Instead, we ought to be examining and learning, but to do that we must first understand that a problem exists.

The IT does not ignore the problems - it's a (successful) attempt at dealing with the narrative problems.

It scraps the whole ending without having to delete existing material, gives existing plot holes and inconsistencies new meaning by turning them into symptoms of a dreamlike state, and ultimately nullifies everything we hate about the starchild scene.

The "godchild" was never really there. The "Normandy" never crashed on a paradise planet. And Shepard failed to question the hilarious illogic of his antagonist because nothing seems strange to you in a dream-state.

As far as I'm concerned, the IT is still the most elegant way of fixing the game, because it allows for a radical change with relatively little effort, and can even make some of the sloppy work on the part of the programmers and writers more palatable.
A gun that never runs out of ammo? Devastating blasts that pulverize tanks, yet only burn Shepard's armor while catapulting her TOWARDS her goal? A kid that appears on a roof and runs through a closed door, even though it was somewhere else entirely mere minutes before?

[KitaSaturnyne]

Silly Mani Mani guy. You can't summon with Mantorok! I ended up not humming the LotR theme, but Luke's theme from Star Wars. Sorry.

Ugh. IT.

[edisnooM]

Ah, it was a summon. As I said it's been a while.

Edit: Probably shoulda went with Xelotath anyway. (If I'm remembering the order right)

Modifié par edisnooM, 04 juin 2012 - 08:20 .

[Hawk227]

I just beat Max Payne 3 last night, and I have to say I largely agree with Phil Hornshaw about it. As a Rockstar TPS, it works pretty well. Max is still a compelling character, it still has the noir feel (minus the comic panel style) with Max narrating as you go and the insane combat. My biggest complaint is the cutscenes, which are prevalent and long through the first third of the game, before getting better after that. I'd rate it higher than Phil does, but I haven't played the original in 10 years and therefore can't really compare them.

[frypan]

EDIT: Good lord, this one got out of hand. Apologies for that.

I just finished watching an old Robert Altman movie called McCabe & Mrs Miller, a frontier movie that makes for an interesting comparison to ME3.

The film was not a success at the time, something David Foster, the producer, attributes to its fairly downbeat ending. Audience desire for a "happy" ending was what Foster claimed was the problem, and the reason it failed at the box office. However while the movie failed, 5-6 years later it gained recognition as a minor classic, as it is quite well made and has strong underlying themes.

On a tonal level, it makes for an interesting comparison because the movie as a whole is fairly downbeat, and more importantly foreshadows the ending in the relationship of the two main characters. In this way it is like ME3, in that the movie prepared its audience for something less than pleasant in the resolution. However it is unlike the ME trilogy as a whole which is generally upbeat and about beating the odds.

That is one contrast, the idea that in ME3 the ending only matched the tone of one of the games, which may explain why many of us have issues with it when viewed to the whole. The film was fairly bleak or subdued throughout, rather than just in the final third.

Also the film, which was surely an inspiration for Deadwood, also has a powerful thematic background about the creation of a town, an issue that is brought to the fore in the final gun battle. This fight is juxtaposed against scenes of the townsfolk working together to save a church they neither care about nor attended, while Warren Beatty's character, who built the place, fights for his life at the same time.

This is the second point of contrast, as the film has this powerful underlying theme that is visually transmitted throughout, with buildings getting built, the arrival of steam engines and so forth.This serves to offset somewhat the grim fate of the two main characters with an examination of the coming of civilisation, both good and bad.

While the film centred in the two characters, neither were made particularly likeable, and were hard to empathise with. When the development of the townbuilding theme came to the fore at the end, the fate of the two was offset with something that could conceivably be called constructive. But it was something that had been quite powerful throughout the whole film in comparison to the two somewhat distant protagonists.

By contrast, Shepherd, to me is the thematic centre of ME3 and is inextricably tied to ideas of unity, the resolution of synthetic issues and so forth. He is too intertwined with those for the loss of the character to be viewed in juxtaposition to those themes, at least in my view. When I see my Shepherd die, I see the destruction of a symbol, something he served as throughout the series.On screen, the saving of the galaxy mey be somewhat resolved, but I find it hard to substitute for the loss of my in game avatar as it is presented.

Shepherd is the thing I most bonded with in game, and his symbolic role meant that even the facial import bug was not so much a problem, as long as the relationships and decisions carried over. Killing all that at the end was hard to take in the absence of a theme I cared about separately.

I'm just nutting out the idea here, but suspect this is often why games have issues when the main character dies. The character and themes are simply too closely entwined. We were not even given the "happy" ending for the other close characters, such as companions, love interests and insultingly even the ship - we had nothing close to us to pick up when the centre was taken away. Unlike the film, the "distant" themes took over the deeply personal at the end.

To draw another parallel, in Fable 2, I chose to save my dog rather than all the people I could bring back. Selfish, yes, but I chose what meant something to me over more abstract characters and concepts. They had little meaning, and  I saw them just as game icons when given a hard choice. Same goes for the shipmate I lose on Virmire, who is now distanced on playthroughs as I know they will not make it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that Shepherd's so called sacrifice is a problem for me as no other theme or concept could match the bond formed with the avatar, their living symbolic role, and the bond formed with the shipmates. With the close companions omitted or removed at the end, we have been left with the background universe only as the constructive action to offset the loss of the central figure and his relationships.

In this sense, the movie made for an interesting comparison .In the case of McCabe & Mrs Miller, the presentation of the two themes meant the loss of one could be balanced by the other. I dont think this was the case with ME3, and Shepherd's ending was not balanced with anything beyond an abstract, poorly defined and distant victory.

Modifié par frypan, 04 juin 2012 - 11:10 .

[Seijin8]

Great post as always, Frypan. I have not seen the movie in its entirety, so I can't offer anything substantive there.

I shared that connection to the avatar of Shepard, though I fully expected a "final sacrifice" to be made. As a fan of Japan's samurai culture and literature, it was never a question of Shepard retiring to grow fat under the tropical sun, all grizzled in his sunglasses and faded Hawaiian shirt, balancing open enjoyment of a simpler life with the desire to remain unrecognized among the townies on the beach.

It might've been a dream, a thought of a future that would never be... the mental image one grabs for in the dark, contemplative moments between life-and-death battles. Some small, simple goal to distract yourself from the reality that you are warring against unknowable entities that have devoured countless worlds, and expect to do so again... expectations honed through a million malevolent years.

Yeah, somthing simple to focus on. Hawaiian shirt. Beach. Sun. No more details than that. Keep it simple.

But Shepard (to me) was always going to perish along the way. In those moments where he could be honest with himself about it (and not feel guilty about abandoning this fight, or the next... or the next), all Shepard ever wanted was a good death, a warrior's death, a final proud moment where his duty ended with honor, mission completed.

The half-hearted attempt to recruit Thane at Huerta Memorial was an acknowledgement between brothers-in-arms. Thane showed Shepard how to let go, decide that at this moment, the warrior's role was complete, duty to squad and galaxy fulfilled with no guilt. And with all Thane had done in the last six months, who could possibly question his commitment? No, for Thane, simply resting comfortably to await the end was honorable and right. Lingering on in the warrior's role would merely court death, and there is a difference between sacrifice and dying.

So, my Separd was ready for sacrifice, so long as the Reapers were stopped.

By rewriting the mission parameters in the final moments... that was never going to be possible. At best, Shepard passed on wondering what he was doing, whether this was a good death, and if this "sacrifice" was truly in service to the galaxy.

For the briefest moment, Shepard had to wonder: Is this horrific choice truly a sacrifice in the name of duty? Or is it just acting, and exiting the scene so that he will never have to experience the aftermath of this decision?

Maybe some Shepards did not have that moment of doubt. Maybe some ran for the red/blue/green solution with a clear conscience. Mine couldn't. And that hurt.

[frypan]

Nicely said Seijin8. I agree that a good death would have a noble way to express Shepherd's commitment and warrior code. If I'd ever got around to reading my copy of Musashi, I might feel closer to that sentiment myself.

With the end so poorly defined, we just cannot rate the sacrifice against anything meaningful, and the personal code of behaviour, so strongly expressed in your Shepherd, is steamrolled over in favour of a less personal theme.

[Seijin8]

I'd skip Musashi, as his works are strictly tactical in nature; pretty much Sun Tzu on a person-to-person level.

The Hagakure translated by William Scott Wilson is (IMO) the best overall treatise on what it means to be a samurai. Parts of it don't cross to modern cultures, and the WSW translation isn't complete, but the fundamentals are timeless warrior ethics, and my Shepard absolutely had studied that book, prior to becoming N7.

[frypan]

Thanks for the tip Seijin8. There is so little time to read at the moment and that means I have to think harc about reading choices....and Musashi is a big book. Nice to focus in on more relevant stuff and then decide if I want to go further.

[SimonTheFrog]

The Hagakure is an important historical piece of literature. Not as much as it describes Samurai (it doesn't) but as it inspired readers back at that time to become what we knowadays understand by the term.
I don't know about that particular translation, but it's not a comfortable read in general.

And i'm not sure if it relates to the ME universe very closely. The bushi-do has very specific demands and notions that feel a bit alien to, say, modern mainstream military ethics. And i always felt that Shepard is more set in a mainstreamy modern, idealistic, patriotic and military kind of mind set. At least on paragon side. Renegade is a bit of a mess as it covers genocidal tendencies with "getting things done no matter what" and cool kick-ass attitude.

Anyhow I agree that having Shep doing a "take one for the team" jump at the end is not a big surprise for the trilogy. It would have surprised me much more if it had been the Hawaii-shirt instead.

And i agree that the ending lacks the part where we understand why the sacrifice was worth it. We see how Mordins sacrifice is important, or Legions.

But we don't see what exactly is achieved by Sheps death.

[edisnooM]

@frypan

Good post.

For myself I couldn't get past the face import bug. I saw the Shepard they wanted to give me and my first thought was "That's not Shepard". Perhaps a bit of an overreaction, but after spending two games and five years with this Shepard, I couldn't imagine playing with a different one. Fortunately there were ways of overcoming this issue, though they were complicated slightly by having to extract a Xbox save to the PC.

Also your sister was saved as well in the Fable 2 choice, though despite getting a letter from her you never see her again, which I thought was a bit of a wasted opportunity.

@Seijin8

Good post as well.

I too expected my Shepard to die in the fight, I had sort of expected a heroic death since way back in ME1. I envisioned my Shepard amid a symphony of explosions and a world on fire, with his last breath activating "whatever" and taking the Reapers down with him, looking death in the face and firmly grinning.

I didn't expect to shuffle slowly towards three different choices of ambiguous intent.

That said I would not have objected in the slightest to the possibility of a happy ending, to have Shepard overcome the odds and achieve the impossible one last time.

Modifié par edisnooM, 04 juin 2012 - 07:04 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

First, yay for diverting off of yet another impending IT discussion!

Second, great posts from frypan and Seijin. Gave me quite a bit to think about as I get ready to fire up Max Payne 2.

Third, I just keep going back to that "emotional beats" chart from the Final Hours app, and thinking "they needed to think less about our emotions and more about the meaning and significance things (like Tuchanka, squad mates, Earth, etc.) have to the players". As I've said before, it's like they're just putting scenes together designed by a machine to evoke an emotional reaction from us, without realizing that it's the meaning behind the emotions that matters.

[frypan]

@Kitasaturnyne

I really have to check out the app. I downloaded it when it first came out but just really didnt feel like viewing it at the time.

The idea of "emotional beats" is an interesting one as it feels like a con job. You've nailed precisely my feelings about the big moments at the end of the game. We get hammered with various techniques at the time of play, and only afterwards realise something is wrong. Bombastic music, slow motion, all the post Saving Private Ryan techniques were used to flood our senses, so from a technical standpoint the game was fully utilising methods to evoke feelings in the players.

All well and good, those tools are an essential part of a designer's arsenal these days. However it is important to note that the Sci Fi crowd have never relied on these tools - look at the ye cheape special effects of Dr Who, early Trek, and the techniques used in any other classic Sci Fi TV show, and you'll recognise we prefer meaty concepts to flash bang wizzery. Sure, mainstream audiences lap up less deep concepts and are happy with the smoke and mirrors, but effects and techniques alone create a rather shallow experience.

Bioware must have simply misread the audience on this one. They can certainly be proud of getting such details correct, but maybe they simply forgot the core audience's sensibilities, having been influenced by mainstream successes. A huge mistake from our perspective, but like so much of the game probably driven by the overarching marketing strategy that in this case affected the design in a debilitative way.

Another reason to hate marketing's influence I suspect.

[drayfish]

[Okay, in this one I'm going all River Song on everyone's asses and throwing down some SPOILER WARNINGS. But we're all nerds here. We know Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and Red Dead Redemption. We all even know that I just used a beloved (although perhaps already tired) Doctor Who reference just then. But in any case, I'm going to be referring to the endings of them all. Well, maybe not Doctor Who, obviously. Although I have some theories. You never see Doctor Who and Batman in the same place ever. Just sayin'. ...Also, The Crying Game – she was a dude. Yep. That one's just 'cause I'm a jerk.]
 
 
@ frypan:
 
Just wanted to add to the commendation of the post. Lovely work. I've not seen McCabe and Mrs Miller, but it sounds incerdibly interesting. Indeed, your fascinating description of that contrast between the emerging town and the seemingly preordained demise of the central characters reminded me of another of my favourite games...
 
It's probably a painfully obvious observation to make, but I've got to say, I loved everything about the death of John Marsten in Red Dead Redemption. I thought they sold that demise of the main character incredibly well – for much the same reason that you seem to be describing the deaths of the central characters in McCabe and Mrs Miller (although please do correct me if I'm off the mark). Marsten was a relic of a dying past, a component of the old west mythos that had no place in the emerging industrialised, expanding 'civilised' west. And so he had to go. He was gunned down as much for being an emblem of a Western Code that was no longer viable as for being a reformed killer who knew too much. Marsten, wild frontier man with a complicated past who lived by his own rules, was annihilated by big government, who used him and discarded him 'for the greater good', who had no place for such overt moral ambiguity in the birth of a new world order. 
 
(And by the way, hell yes I saved my dog in Fable 2 as well. There might be plenty to complain about in the Fable series, but I felt that dog's death hard, and like you, I brought him back the second it was offered. Screw everyone else. They hadn't fought the good fight. In fact, most of them couldn't help themselves from insulting me and my several peculiar hats as I passed them in the street. Weirdly I didn't feel that same attachment to the dog in Fable 3, but maybe that's just me...)
 
I agree with Seijin8 and edisnooM that in the lead up to the end I was certainly feeling the expectation of death, that there would be a moment in which Shepard would be called upon to forfeit herself, but I certainly don't think it was ultimately necessary to kill her. 
 
For me the moment of heroism comes in being willing to die – to have the hero stand knowing that this could be their final act, the action that sacrifices all. If the narrative then subsequently allows them a way out, a means, after proving their worth in the face of overwhelming odds, to live on, then that is just gravy. It doesn't undermine the original sacrificial act.
 
Frodo lives after three books of having every character in Middle Earth shoot dire looks at him from the corners of their eyes, certain that he will never make it, all too aware that this quest will destroy him. And he too (although faltering at the very last second) walks into Mount Doom prepared to meet his end. Harry Potter stands before Voldermort with no plan, no way out, just willing to fight to the very last for all that he believed in and loved – and just because he doesn't actually die, doesn't rob the finale of its sacrificial tone, or the bravery of its action. Indeed, like Shepard in Mass Effect 3, the tone that is set through the final book is one of sacrifice and mutual destruction, it's just that unlike Harry Potter Bioware chose to do the arguably less interesting thing and follow through on it, dissolving or 'sploding Shepard alone.
 
I think, much like frypan and SimonTheFrog, I would have appreciated an ending where Shepard survived. I don't think it would have devalued her willingness to do and sacrifice everything she was for everyone. She still stood up. She still put her life entirely on hold to babysit the universe and got nothing but crap for it for three games. I don't see why growing older, settling down and listening to space-npr devalues the epic mythology that Bioware was trying to crank out. If the message of the game was that life endures, and is worth preserving, I don't see why illogical death has to be central to it's propagation. By the end of the game we are informed directly that this is the Reaper's specific belief. On those grounds alone I feel compelled to reject it.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 05 juin 2012 - 10:01 .

[WhiteKnyght]

1. The Reapers have been dominating and enslaving innocent races and using them to destroy their own for eons. Controlling them and using them to restore the races they've subjugated is an appropriate and karmic punishment.

2. Destroying the Reapers is an act of hatred and intolerance, or an act of personal self preservation. The entire galaxy is a mess because of the Reaper's actions, and destroying them possibly destroys several friends and allies, and leaves the galaxy worse off unless you have the highest possible ending effecting EMS.

3. Synthesis grants the galaxy intelligence and potential beyond anything we could dream. The sky is literally the limit with the possibilities.

In any case. Each option is a choice with variables. Not the only choice, contrary to what ignorants claim.

[frypan]

Nice post Drayfish, I struggled at the time with Marsden's death but found that it was given meaning and place through the epilogue. Funny how a simple technique of allowing a measure of closure through the son was fitting.

Seeing the two graves together and realising the wife had not lived long past Marsden was touching, and said more about their relationship that we could find out in game. However, by tracking down the federal agent and putting paid to him, the game ended perfectly for me - the cycle of violence transcended the dying of men like Marsden and the old west itself, it just changed the environment. When that Red Dead caption came up then, I fell in love with the game. It was pure Sergio Leone.

Methinks Garrus, a sniper rifle and Starchild in the crosshairs would help ME3 as an epilogue. If Ennio Morricone's theme blared out in a freeze frame, just as our old friend offed the little terror, all would be right.

Modifié par frypan, 04 juin 2012 - 11:33 .

[drayfish]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

1. The Reapers have been dominating and enslaving innocent races and using them to destroy their own for eons. Controlling them and using them to restore the races they've subjugated is an appropriate and karmic punishment.

2. Destroying the Reapers is an act of hatred and intolerance, or an act of personal self preservation. The entire galaxy is a mess because of the Reaper's actions, and destroying them possibly destroys several friends and allies, and leaves the galaxy worse off unless you have the highest possible ending effecting EMS.

3. Synthesis grants the galaxy intelligence and potential beyond anything we could dream. The sky is literally the limit with the possibilities.

In any case. Each option is a choice with variables. Not the only choice, contrary to what ignorants claim.

Hi The Gray Nayr, and welcome to the conversation - or I hope welcome.  I would hate to think you were just argument bombing, because the 'ignorants' comment probably wasn't necessary. 

You raise an interesting point - but I just want to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting it.  Are you arguing 'An eye for an eye'?  The Reapers want to control us, well we will control them.  They want to Destroy us, well we'll destroy them.  You want to synthesis us, we'll synthesis you.

Is this old school biblical retribution?  I don't mean that to in any way sound sarcastic, by the way.  That's a genuine question.  That's a very interesting, and specific take for a great number of Shepard's, I imagine.  Clearly yours.  My Shepard thinks differently, and that's okay.  The beauty of the franchise is that we can all have different takes on the actions within the game, and our character's responses to them.

Do keep continuing to share your thoughts.  Although, again, I don't think you need to brace for hostility in this thread.  Your viewpoint is just as valid as everyone else's.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 juin 2012 - 10:04 .

[drayfish]

frypan wrote...

Seeing the two graves together and realising the wife had not lived long past Marsden was touching, and said more about their relationship that we could find out in game. However, by tracking down the federal agent and putting paid to him, the game ended perfectly for me - the cycle of violence transcended the dying of men like Marsden and the old west itself, it just changed the environment. When that Red Dead caption came up then, I fell in love with the game. It was pure Sergio Leone.

Wow.  Beautiful summation frypan.  Ooo.. you make me want to fire up Red Dead right now...

[Fapmaster5000]

 EDIT: Because the BSN hates lists, and expresses this rage with formatting errors.

As many have said (I've been lurking for about 10 pages), the sudden narrative thanatos in the conclusion is not justified, but I can't even seem to grasp why Bioware felt it was necessary. 

Playing devil's advocate, the primary reason I can see for this would be to prevent an "optimal" conclusion, a "correct" ending to a story with no canon.  I can understand the basis of this urge, if the game is simply viewed through the lens of previous Mass Effect games and the small crowd of power gamers who dominate gaming boards.  This particular breed of person likes to hammer out optimal and pre-planned "choices", much like the tabletop gamer who starts the first session of a campaign with an intricate max-level build.

For this particular gamer, the Mass Effect games might be played repeatedly, playing ME1 over and over until the "perfect" combinations for the ending were found, then doing this again to ME2, and then going back to ME1 with the knowledge of ME2, rigging variables with retroactive knowledge of sequel optimization, then repeating this pattern with ME3, until the final outcome was a cohesive golden playthrough in which Shepard matched the players desires completely, whether it be for good, ill, or bizarre outcomes.

If this player were confronted with a scale of endings they might not be satisfied without a golden ending, and they would hammer out the games over and over (or simply read the wiki's and pre-optimize) until they achieved a result that was "true" to them. 

The bloody, unknowable endings prevent this from happening.  Mission accomplished.

The problem, though, is that while this defeats this mode of play, it serves no greater purpose, and can be defeated with the following question: "Is this type of play inherently wrong?"

When children play make believe in the sandbox, can they be told they are playing 'wrong'?  How many games, from childhood to adulthood, are played with agreed-upon 'house rules' established by play with friends?  How many people go to the golf course and take 'mulligans' on shots, or decide to skip a hole, or play a different pattern?  The designers of golf do no spin in their graves when Steve from work shanks one into the lake and then just puts out another ball and blames it on the sun, any more than they embrace every particular nuance of modern tournament rules.  

So, the ending prevents this one style of play?  Why?  Was it somehow against the grain of the game?  
This strikes me as wrong, but I'll play devil's advocate again, and think of another angle.  Perhaps this wasn't done to prevent an illegitimate style of play, but to prevent one ending from being held over the others.  Bioware didn't want to have what we currently have on the forums, an ending that said, "this is right and this is wrong", with a chunk of the fanbase alienated by authorial fiat.

If this was the intent, it failed miserably.  Instead, the crushing ending and sheer lack of closure has produced tribalism like I've never seen, where different segments of the community find one flavor or the rainbow to be completely appalling, and spend their time picking arguments about which is the worst, all with the tingling fear that "that one ending" will turn into the canon outcome in the Extended Cut.  (I must confess, I've even taken part in this, as one of the endings, as presented, sends ethical ice through my veins with its subtext.  I will not bring that into this thread.)

Even if we ignore the failure of outcome, this intent could have been solved much more elegantly with more data, not less.  If "Shepard lives and the galaxy is saved" was such a golden outcome that it would invalidate every other, and all choices are equally valid, then why not allow a tiered ending for each color?  Bad, neutral, and good outcomes, based on paragon/renegade flavor and EMS success metric.  Boom.  Instant satisfaction.  Now, people who chose destroy because "fack that ghostbaby" and people who chose destroy because they denied the Catalyst's pessimism are presented endings that are satisfactory, as are people who chose control because they were Cerberus fangirls, people who chose control in order to preserve galactic civilization, people who chose synthesis because they want to be transhuman, and people who chose synthesis because they want to unite all people.

There were already two metrics in the game that could track a players basic urges: idealism vs cynicism through paragade tracking, and odds of success via EMS.  Take these metrics, color with a final choice, spice with tracked and flagged choices throughout the series, and then rake in the profit.  Sure, some people would have been lost in the cracks, but not the vast amounts alienated by the endings as they stand.

Consider, for instance, the ending to Dragon Age: Origins.  Even cutting out the various choices throughout the game, and just boiling it down to "how do you kill the Archdemon", there were four basic boilerplate endings, and they covered a large range of endings. (SPOILER ALERT!)


[*]Kill the Archdemon yourself and die.
[*]Have Alistair kill the Archdemon and he dies.
[*]Have Logain kill the Archdemon and he dies.
[*]Make a deal with Morrigan to kill the Archdemon yourself... and live.[/list]
Each of these had a range of meanings. Kill it yourself and be a martyr, losing everything you had (friends, family, lover, etc)? Or send someone else to do it. Maybe Alistair was your friend (or lover). Maybe he was the king. Maybe he wasn't. This could be a tragic loss or an easy move. Maybe you could use Logain, your sworn enemy. This could be political maneuver, or a chance to let a man redeem himself (while saving you and yours). Or maybe, just maybe, you could cut a deal with the witch Morrigan to do it without loss, and all it would cost was giving her a child (the old fashioned way) to raise as a possible demon or god. Would this be the conclusion to your romance with her, redeeming her and trusting her with the fate of the world? Perhaps this was the fall of your character, Arthur siring Mordred?

The point is, each outcome was valid, in its own way. I have had multiple play-throughs, using each outcome except killing Alistair ('cause he's my dude, and I can't do that to friends, even digital ones). I don't consider any of them to be "canon" over the others, or more correct. My characters might choose one over the other, with conviction, but as a player, I can see each as an expression of worldview.

So this leaves the ME3 ending as a simple cop-out, showcasing an apparent inability (or unwillingness) to write an ending with multiple valid outcomes, and instead relying on a cheap trick (lack of closure) to prevent any from being rendered "incorrect". Further, this fuels a fear of mine:

There is a "correct" ending to Mass Effect 3, and whichever it is, it's going to alienate a lot of people.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 05 juin 2012 - 12:00 .

[Fapmaster5000]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

1. The Reapers have been dominating and enslaving innocent races and using them to destroy their own for eons. Controlling them and using them to restore the races they've subjugated is an appropriate and karmic punishment.

2. Destroying the Reapers is an act of hatred and intolerance, or an act of personal self preservation. The entire galaxy is a mess because of the Reaper's actions, and destroying them possibly destroys several friends and allies, and leaves the galaxy worse off unless you have the highest possible ending effecting EMS.

3. Synthesis grants the galaxy intelligence and potential beyond anything we could dream. The sky is literally the limit with the possibilities.

In any case. Each option is a choice with variables. Not the only choice, contrary to what ignorants claim.

But here's the rub.  That first choice can also be made because someone simply doesn't want to blow up galactic civilization, and seeks to plunge the Reapers into a sun, without also killing the geth, or keep them as insurance against the next Reaper-like threat.  In this case, t's not karma, it's pragmatism.

The second can also be made because someone refuses to accept the Catalyst's logic, and believes that the galaxy can overcome difference and intolerance WITHOUT the use of a giant magic blender.  Again, in this case, it's not hatred and intolerance, it's idealism and liberty.

The third could also be a strain of authoritarian "unity through force" and social darwinism, not just sunshine and rainbows.

To claim that anyone who disagrees with your interpretations of the endings is "ignorant", when the choices are so broad, the closure so lacking, and the meanings so varied... well, there's a certain saying about glass houses and black kettles, but I can't quite remember how it goes.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 05 juin 2012 - 12:06 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@frypan

It's an interesting read, and sheds light on how the team seemed to be running out of gas and making a mad dash towards the finish line.

drayfish wrote...

For me the moment of heroism comes in being willing to die – to have the hero stand knowing that this could be their final act, the action that sacrifices all. If the narrative then subsequently allows them a way out, a means, after proving their worth in the face of overwhelming odds, to live on, then that is just gravy. It doesn't undermine the original sacrificial act.
 
Frodo lives after three books of having every character in Middle Earth shoot dire looks at him from the corners of their eyes, certain that he will never make it, all too aware that this quest will destroy him. And he too (although faltering at the very last second) walks into Mount Doom prepared to meet his end. Harry Potter stands before Voldermort with no plan, no way out, just willing to fight to the very last for all that he believed in and loved – and just because he doesn't actually die, doesn't rob the finale of its sacrificial tone, or the bravery of its action. Indeed, like Shepard in Mass Effect 3, the tone that is set through the final book is one of sacrifice and mutual destruction, it's just that unlike Harry Potter Bioware chose to do the arguably less interesting thing and follow through on it, dissolving or 'sploding Shepard alone.
 
I think, much like frypan and SimonTheFrog, I would have appreciated an ending where Shepard survived. I don't think it would have devalued her willingness to do and sacrifice everything she was for everyone. She still stood up. She still put her life entirely on hold to babysit the universe and got nothing but crap for it for three games. I don't see why growing older, settling down and listening to space-npr devalues the epic mythology that Bioware was trying to crank out. If the message of the game was that life endures, and is worth preserving, I don't see why illogical death has to be central to it's propagation. By the end of the game we are informed directly that this is the Reaper's specific belief. On those grounds alone I feel compelled to reject it.

You know what I would have appreciated at the end of Mass Effect 3? AN ENDING.

That said, you reminded me of a story I "wrote" yesterday. See, my job is very physical, and my brain gets BORED. So yesterday, I entertained myself by improvising a story, obviously inspired by Max Payne. It was about a mafia enforcer named Sam Rivers (Sam Lake reference, of course) who wanted out. He didn't want out for love, having been divorced. He didn't want a chance to clear his conscience. (I think the line that came to me was, "After all the things I've seen and done, no amount of atonement will get me back on the path to Heaven") He was just old and tired.

Of course, before he could hand in his resignation, the don (Don Kinicklio) had one last job for him. An abnormal number of the don's drug deals had been going pear-shaped lately, so he wanted Sam to watch over a quick 'transaction' in one of the don's old hotels. The deal goes to hell, and a bunch of guys in trenchcoats swarm the area, one of which is Sam's friend of 20 years, Barry Winters. Sam leaps in with his guys and shoots down these goons. In the aftermath, Sam finds out that the trench-coated bodies were all carrying police badges, and  the whole thing was caught on a security camera. So, Sam's now a cop killer and the don has the footage. Just great. Sam also notices that Barry's not amongst the corpses.

What you reminded me of specifically is that when he flees Manhatten and attempts to hide out in his ex-wife's place in Jersey, she unknowingly makes him realize his situation: He's got the mafia after him as well as the police. He can turn himself in and get killed in prison, wait for the mafia to catch up to him and kill him, or rush the don in an attempt to drag him into the abyss of death. With nothing to lose, he decides to at least try to take down the don.

It's not really a sacrifice, but in that moment, Sam becomes willing to die. He knows that behind each choice, death awaits. He becomes unafraid. He won't wait for death to claim him. He'll go running into its cold, bony arms.

As for the ending, should you be curious, Sam speeds back towards Manhatten with the police in pursuit. He has no plan. Hell, the ****** has no weapons. But he's chosen his path and has to follow it. Lost in thought, he doesn't remember exactly when or where he lost the police, but he arrives at the don's mansion, where the night had begun. Out front, things look fine (I think I called the guard at the front gate a twisted version of St. Peter), but in back, a door's open and some guys are dead. Inside, he finds Barry Winters. Barry explains how the don controls the police, and the police chief is tired of it. The increased number of crackdowns all took down the don's major players, so all that was left was the don himself. They storm the don's mansion, able to surprise many of its inhabitants, and reach the don himself. Being confident he has the police in his back pocket, the don fires and hits Barry. Sam fires back and puts the don down, just as the police storm the grounds. Sam's arrested, and is driven away in the back of a police cruiser as the sun comes up.

I came up with some dumb explanation for Sam being able to walk away. I think Barry stood up for him and told the DA that he killed the don defending a cop. Sam's mafia ties were never proven. The whole thing ends with Sam standing on his ex-wife's doorstep, ringing the bell. She answers, then they embrace and kiss.

Read as above, the ending is pretty stupid, especially considering that this synopsis doesn't go into the fact that Sam and his ex were in love, just unable to make things work because of his "job". I also didn't go into why Barry started calling Sam "Blarney" early in their friendship.

Er. Just wanted to share that. Carry on (dancing).

[Fapmaster5000]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...
-Film Noir snip-

Heh, I'd read/play/watch that.

Although, I think that that is a scenario where death might be the appropriate outcome.  The character is gray, the world is bleak, and the options are clear: surrender and die pointlessly, run and live in fear (not living), or go out in a blaze of glory lashing back at those responsible.  Make the protagonist dark, with a streak of redemption; make the antagonists pitch black, with spots of humanity; put in some jazz, make the ex a femm fatale; finally, let the "dead-best-friend-turned-corrupt-cop" be a morally ambiguous stand in for the devil himself during a war for hell.

Serve cold.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Heh, I'd read/play/watch that.

Although, I think that that is a scenario where death might be the appropriate outcome.  The character is gray, the world is bleak, and the options are clear: surrender and die pointlessly, run and live in fear (not living), or go out in a blaze of glory lashing back at those responsible.  Make the protagonist dark, with a streak of redemption; make the antagonists pitch black, with spots of humanity; put in some jazz, make the ex a femm fatale; finally, let the "dead-best-friend-turned-corrupt-cop" be a morally ambiguous stand in for the devil himself during a war for hell.

Serve cold.

Hah, thanks for the compliment and suggestions. I just had a thought. (EDIT: I think what I was going for was that, on some level, Sam redeems himself at least a little bit before the end of the story. But I do think that his death would have been a better way to go. No pun intended.)

I could pull a BioWare and end it right when the get to the don's room! SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYONE!!

That phrase really is a slap in the face, isn't it.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 05 juin 2012 - 12:32 .

[Fapmaster5000]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Heh, I'd read/play/watch that.

Although, I think that that is a scenario where death might be the appropriate outcome.  The character is gray, the world is bleak, and the options are clear: surrender and die pointlessly, run and live in fear (not living), or go out in a blaze of glory lashing back at those responsible.  Make the protagonist dark, with a streak of redemption; make the antagonists pitch black, with spots of humanity; put in some jazz, make the ex a femm fatale; finally, let the "dead-best-friend-turned-corrupt-cop" be a morally ambiguous stand in for the devil himself during a war for hell.

Serve cold.

Hah, thanks for the compliment and suggestions. I just had a thought.

I could pull a BioWare and end it right when the get to the don's room! SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYONE!!

That phrase really is a slap in the face, isn't it.

Dear God, it is.  I'd say take it further: tack on an epilogue where some random pizza guy in Jersey talks to his Mom in Brooklyn about how glad he is that it ended like that, then tell the reader to "BUY MOAR SEQUELS". 

Then claim artistic intregrity on the back jacket.