5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Hawk227]

@osbornep

drayfish wrote...

osbornep wrote...
 
Second, I don't really think it's the element of sacrifice or hard choices which makes the endings so awful. If for instance, activating the crucible caused some unintented effect that resulted in the destruction of most of the Victory Fleet, that would be a big sacrifice to make, but it wouldn't be so off-putting as what we have. Here's a silly analogy: Imagine that at the end of Return of the Jedi, the Emperor tells Luke, "You know, if you turn to the Dark side, all of the galaxy's problems will be solved. There will be utopia." Then, Luke turns to the Dark side, and that really does solve all the galaxy's problems. Nominally, you could call this a happy end, but it's incredibly stupid. All of Luke's efforts to become a Jedi, resist the dark side, and fight against the Emperor were a complete waste of time. Victory is earned by recognizing that after all, you were wrong and the cackling, murderous villians were right.

Wow, osbornep. I know you claimed that this was 'silly' (and some have taken issue with it) but I find this parallel to be extremely revealing. Hell, that's exactly what it felt like to me. All this stuff you learned, all these sacrifices you made, everything you were fighting for... well you have to forget all that to 'do what needs to be done'... Such an arbitrary end.
 

I'd like to share in the praise. I know one or two don't think it's applicable, but it's totally in line with my viewing. My girlfriend didn't understand why I'm still discussing this, so I shared your analogy and now she understands a little better why I was so put off by the ending.

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...
Just a general question: what is the problem with the Crucible Destroy weapon of mass destruction?

Is it some combination of one of the following, or is it something else:
1) It is a weapon of mass destruction
2) Its purpose is explained by the Catalyst, whose affects that Catalyst finds acceptable
3) It targets one type of life-form: Synthetics

From what I've read on this thread it seems like some combination of 1 and 2 make it or its implications unacceptable.

Is there a version of this weapon that is acceptable:
a) targets only Reapers
targets another life-form
c) targets everyone
d) is not explained by or acceptable to the Catalyst

@ Obadiah:

Just three quick things: firstly, I wanted to echo 3DandBeyond's thank you for all of your comments. The only way for us all to appreciate each other's opinions – and even to comprehend our own – is to have healthy, thoughtful debate, and the best way in which to do that is with intelligent, respectful inquiry such as those that you offer here.
 
For me, the problem with the Destroy option is easily your third proposed issue. I would be infinitely more comfortable with this premise if the weapon were indiscriminate – if it just killed anyone in proximity. Even if it were some kind of Reaper kill switch that forced them to just blow up and take out whoever was nearby, causing enormous civilian and soldier losses. As people have said, if the 'sacrifice' we were asked to make was lives it would be a weighty, haunting, but ultimately necessary sacrifice. But it's not just that. It's the right to life of a race of beings. It forces us to value one race above another.
 
The theme the Cacciatore trumpets throughout is that Synthetics and Organics can't get along, so he builds a weapon that 'solves' that problem between the races. It has three functions, all of which impose his racist scheme on the universe as the only possible means of ending conflict. The Destroy option appears superficially appealing – it will blow his smirking face to hell – but it's actual purpose is to wipe out a specific race of life, again furthering his premise and fulfilling his plan.
 
I much prefer the more inclusive themes that have run throughout the game previous to this moment: my crew is my family; I am an honorary Krogan; the Geth just want to be free; the (stupidly inactive) Council gives a democratic voice to the peoples of the Galaxy, etc. To be told in the end that such respect for diversity was never the point of the game was heartbreaking.
 

Obadiah wrote...
 
@drayfish

It is easy to come up with ethical dilemmas, but since this one was delivered so plausibly, I don't consider it easy or cheap.

With respect to hypotheticals - tedious indeed. Which is why I haven't raised them.

The options you gave for yours aren't in the game. The options in the game are:
a) kill the pyscho and one of your family members; the rest survive
die yourself, assume control of him and his buddies and make them do communitiy service for the rest of their lives; your family survives
c) die youself and "upgrade" your family until they meet some standard the psycho feels they are worthy of to go on living; then the psycho turns into a benevolent librarian helping your family build a better life.
d) you attack, you and your whole family dies, and the next family the psycho threatens is able to kill him becasue you weakened him..

I only mention that to illustrate the fact that, as distasteful as you think this game is (perfectly legitimate response to look my options and say "f**k off"), you aren't actually talking about it.

Secondly, I did want to clarify, I only find the ending of the game distasteful. The remainder of Mass Effect 3 (indeed, the remainder of the series) I find to be profoundly moving, filled with rich, multifaceted moral questions that deepened my experience and incited healthy debate. CulturalGeekGirl has already noted a couple of the complex conundrums that I too wrestled with in my multiple play-throughs: saving the council; the killing/rewriting of the Geth; who to leave behind on Virmire, etc. It is only because I find the ending so utterly disconnected and discordant from that extraordinary build up, and the genuine moral dimensions it presented, that I find the final choices, as you rightly say, so distasteful.
 
For me, a question like 'Is it more important to preserve the lives of politicians rather than thousands of soldiers' is far more interesting, and operates in a vastly different conversation space than 'Is it okay to obliterate an entire cooperative race of people to ensure that others can live?' When the game turns toward racial profiling and forced authoritarian domination as the only means for victory, it moves out of the sphere of moral exploration and into an unnerving validation of some profoundly frightening ideologies. 
 
And this leads directly to my third point: the reason that I used that ridiculous hypothetical analogy was to show how ugly and recursive such discussions become. There is no right answer, and any debate over the merits of each 'right' answer just leads to needless rancour and bile. One might rationalise why they chose a specific option, given the hateful circumstances in which they were inflicted upon us, but no choice is actually better than any other. Again: all are horrifying sacrifices of the defining elements we treasure as human beings.
 
I'm not really sure what the purpose of knowing which atrocity was 'better' ultimately is; nor why Bioware thought it was so important that I should.
 
While I find it intellectually interesting that you found a means of aligning my intentionally stupid and vile scenario with the details of the game, ultimately it just reveals the central problem I'm trying to point out: no matter what you do you just sacrificed yourself, your soul, and the autonomy of your loved ones, and all it did was make a psycho happy.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 21 juillet 2012 - 07:17 .

[Sajuro]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Because you are using the fact that he is a literature professor as his credentials for having a more valid opinion. Like a said several pages and weeks back, just because I could get a films professor to talk about how killing Kai Leng with the omni blade is freudian penetration doesn't mean its any more valid.

I'm sorry but if your appendix ruptures do you go to McDonald's or the hospital?  Someone with knowledge does have validity and nowhere has anyone ever said his opinion is more valid than anyone else's.  However, he has stated at length many things that are mechanically wrong with how the story ending was crafted.  It has been stated by others with some similar knowledge and there is very truly far more validity in that than in just saying the ending was bad because I didn't like it.

The professor can put to words what many of us feel is wrong or right in a story.  He can look and say that this is why it doesn't work and that expertise is something he learned.  And since when is real knowledge not valid?  There is validity to knowlege and the OP expresses a great many things that we all could just feel but never put quite to words. 

A lot of us could say the endings don't fit with the rest of the story and he could say exactly why that is so.  I defer to knowledge.  That doesn't mean I don't have my own opinion and no one is stopping you from expressing yours.  So, are you saying the professor is not allowed his?

Intelligence and learning do matter, but no one has ever said that means a "smart" person has more right to their opinion than anyone else.  Perhaps you need to read again.

He asked why the person was commenting and I gave an answer, oh and I would go to Mcdonalds just to show my Appendix that I give zero ****s

[robertthebard]

drayfish wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

(with regrettable snippage...)

After reading discussions on the DA forums about romances in ME when it was supposed to be about romances in DA, I had to play them to try them so that I could get an idea what people were talking about.  Then I got hooked, and wound up getting all three games.  Knowing full well that the whole world was about to end due to the endings, at least reading stuff around the internet anyway.  Despite that, I enjoyed it, and still do.  It won't hold me like NWN's did, but I played MP in NWN's and wrote scripts/quest arcs/built areas too.  MP isn't that fun for me, too much like a shooter.  I'm not going to let the endings ruin my experience though, and this was my way to say, thanks for the memories.

Sorry, shameful aside, but: man, I need to play me some Never Winter Nights...  I've heard nothing but good things.

But I did love the relationsips in DA:O, they helped me really understand the way that world worked with more clarity than reading any backstory or lore (and profoundly influenced my final decisions in my two playthroughs of the game).

I only played through the Official Campaigns twice, and that only because I had a HD crash, and didn't know how to unlock them for the toolset any other way until I was almost done with the second time.  They aren't bad, per se, as much as the online servers where immensely varied and most were immensely fun.  The song featured in the video link in my sig was even used in one of the taverns in one of the modules, since that's where the guy it's dedicated to played before his death.  I had as much fun building as I did playing towards the end, and still have the backups of the server I tried to make on DVD's around here somewhere.

I played a lot of DA O, even tried the toolset, but it wasn't as intuitive as the NWN/NWN 2 toolsets were.  I loved the game/setting as well.  The Kleenex box in my sig was specifically "created" for Alistair.  I hated the person he was written to be, but loved the character as a whole.  The whole crew gave interesting insights into the world of Thedas, and I can't wait to see what DA 3 brings.

[SHARXTREME]

Obadiah wrote...

With respect to hypotheticals - tedious indeed. Which is why I haven't raised them.

The options you gave for yours aren't in the game. The options in the game are:
a) kill the pyscho and one of your family members; the rest survive
die yourself, assume control of him and his buddies and make them do communitiy service for the rest of their lives; your family survives
c) die youself and "upgrade" your family until they meet some standard the psycho feels they are worthy of to go on living; then the psycho turns into a benevolent librarian helping your family build a better life.
d) you attack, you and your whole family dies, and the next family the psycho threatens is able to kill him becasue you weakened him..

I only mention that to illustrate the fact that, as distasteful as you think this game is (perfectly legitimate response to look my options and say "f**k off"), you aren't actually talking about it.

I would use the similar analogy in light of terrorizing psycho's demands.

Let's say that some large gang - the Logic Ledge Leapers - is terrorizing and killing people in some post-apocaliptic town. They are driving some black, bad-ass armoured vehicles, and you have a few shotguns and revolvers. 
Some of your neighbours get recruited buy them and most of the time you fight them, most get killed, houses burned down.
You organise some resistance by uniting the neighborhood, persuading the town's council and later the entire town.
 In final push you manage to engage their forces in large scale fight, while you get the chance to come to their boss.
To your surprise you find  their boss in basement of Town Hall and find out that gang boss is a son of former, pre-apocalipse chief of police.
He says that the reason for all that killing is because said Chief of police figured out that violent elements of society /gangs and normal civilians cannot live in peace. He invented the Mind Control device and placed it in the Town Hall. The Chief's solution was to leave the decision to his son(as "impartial") and the chief's son decided that in order to stop the fighting between gangs and civilians - he must kill all the civilians or recruit them to the gang to kill more civilians as they encounter them. First thing that he's done is to make the population in one big violent gang.
Then he proceeds to give you the new, ideal solution. 
His first ideal solution was to enforce order by making everybody violent.
His final ideal solution was to enforce order by making everybody "understand each other".

You have 2 more options.
- to replace him as the Boss
- to kill every gang member and all gang members that joined you as allies in your fight(because the premise is that they would revert to being uncooperative and violent).

As for what robertthebard said that he did "die trying". It's honourable thing for a soldier, yes. And a way out of bad ending. But, Shepard wasn't just a soldier, as I saw it. 
What if Shepard never agreed to Catalyst's options? What if Shepard, bleeding, half-dead, with last atoms of power tried to inform the fleet about the Catalyst, called for help, or tried to rip every damn terminal, cable, bolt and screw in the Citadel with his bare hands, hoping that he can, somehow, shut-down the catalyst. He could fail and die, but he would try.(similar to platform scene before the "ascension" to Catalyst's realm)

They could have made it infinitely more dramatic before that point. But the game lost its pace after the beam jump.
For me they could have ended the game there(interactive part of the game) and finish it as they see fit, given that is obvious that they didn't know how to finish it with respect to the many possible individual decisions made beforehand. 

Obadiah wrote...
Just a general question: what is the problem with the Crucible Destroy weapon of mass destruction? 
 

all of your a/b/c options, c) option is discriminative (even though the Catalyst says that it will not discriminate? What?)but mostly this:
d) it's pointed at the wrong enemy 
e) only way to use it, is to directly use your enemy's methods under his terms and to enforce the consequences of your decision on countless lives
f) ...k this ending
 

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 21 juillet 2012 - 11:14 .

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Thanks for the compliment.  The endings themselves were bland for me, but it's the sequence leading up to them that ruined it for me.  Rather than rage, and throw fits, I did what I would do if there was something I can't stomach in real life; I avoid it.  I have enjoyed the journey to get to that point.  I didn't even own Mass Effect 1 until early last month, viewing it as a shooter, and I'm far too old for those any more.  After reading discussions on the DA forums about romances in ME when it was supposed to be about romances in DA, I had to play them to try them so that I could get an idea what people were talking about.  Then I got hooked, and wound up getting all three games.  Knowing full well that the whole world was about to end due to the endings, at least reading stuff around the internet anyway.  Despite that, I enjoyed it, and still do.  It won't hold me like NWN's did, but I played MP in NWN's and wrote scripts/quest arcs/built areas too.  MP isn't that fun for me, too much like a shooter.  I'm not going to let the endings ruin my experience though, and this was my way to say, thanks for the memories.

Well to give credit where it's due, you are way more "adult" about it than I could be.  I got too emotionally attached to the story and people and all.  Yeah, there's a lot that's wrong within ME3 and not just the endings.  MP is ok for awhile but not enough to keep me going, because I like stories in story games. 

I do think that most of us are in avoidance mode, we've just taken longer to get there.  Personally, I was in shock over the initial endings for a long time wondering how they could get everything so wrong when there were parts that were so amazingly right in places in the game.  It led to really examining the rest of the game for a lot of us and that's when the beginning (that had always seemed really "off") started to stink.  And then the fetch quests really began to be so awful it was an "why bother" moment.  And then it so seemed like characters were just being abandoned right and left to get the game over with.  The bad endings made the rest fall apart for me and it sang a sour song for the rest of the series.  The new ones didn't fix it.

So even though you and I haven't always seen eye to eye, I do wish I could be more like you in this, satisfied even with not getting the full story I wanted.  I'm older too and wanted one single possible ending that might be like the previous game's along with all the other sacrificial, true loss, and so on types.  It was the idea I had when I started playing, hoping if I tried hard I'd get that.  It's a game and that's what happened in ME games, but we got what we got.  You're a better person than I to be able to be more pragmatic about it.

I just see my game as unfinished past the beam in London because while there's a lot that's bad before that, the game starts playing itself past that point.

A lot of people did, and there's a lot to get attached to.  I was engaged with another member that had the same issue, they let the endings jade them to the whole game.  I had way too much fun with the journey to let the destination spoil it.  To some, it seems like this was the single most important thing in their lives, and, if true, I wish I could share that.  It's not, to me.  If the controversy about the endings were that it ended along the lines of my own headcanon, I would have bought it, played it and loved it, and said so here.  If the blast had been 20 feet to one side, and it just knocked me into or out of my cover, if any, or just knocked me down, I could have played past that point, but it doesn't.  It seems like it scores a direct hit, and a direct hit can drop a dreadnaught, how am I supposed to survive that?  I don't see it happening, and so I do the logical thing, to me, and die.  Others don't, and that's good too.  These kinds of subjective conversations can have everyone in them right, or wrong, and it wouldn't matter.

I learned long ago that the point of these discussions is entertainment, not to change one's views, or get them changed, although, I have been known to pick up something from a viewpoint that I didn't see, and have it reflect in my views, and have had others react the same way.  Sometimes I can be abrasive about how I present things, but that's totally "in character" for me, since I can be pretty abrasive in real life.  You'd be surprised to know how many of my responses don't get past the submit button, as I just backspace out.  Hell, I wrote this post 4 times.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

A lot of people did, and there's a lot to get attached to.  I was engaged with another member that had the same issue, they let the endings jade them to the whole game.  I had way too much fun with the journey to let the destination spoil it.  To some, it seems like this was the single most important thing in their lives, and, if true, I wish I could share that.  It's not, to me.  If the controversy about the endings were that it ended along the lines of my own headcanon, I would have bought it, played it and loved it, and said so here.  If the blast had been 20 feet to one side, and it just knocked me into or out of my cover, if any, or just knocked me down, I could have played past that point, but it doesn't.  It seems like it scores a direct hit, and a direct hit can drop a dreadnaught, how am I supposed to survive that?  I don't see it happening, and so I do the logical thing, to me, and die.  Others don't, and that's good too.  These kinds of subjective conversations can have everyone in them right, or wrong, and it wouldn't matter.

I learned long ago that the point of these discussions is entertainment, not to change one's views, or get them changed, although, I have been known to pick up something from a viewpoint that I didn't see, and have it reflect in my views, and have had others react the same way.  Sometimes I can be abrasive about how I present things, but that's totally "in character" for me, since I can be pretty abrasive in real life.  You'd be surprised to know how many of my responses don't get past the submit button, as I just backspace out.  Hell, I wrote this post 4 times.

Yes, totally agree.  The reasoning for any of the things happening as they supposedly do does not exist.  In effect, achieving any ending requires such a rapid change in what's believable as to be off the chart.  In the original endings, the problem was the change was like falling off a cliff.  In the EC, it's like being pulled down a less steep but no less pernicious incline.  You do hit bottom but some think now that they landed in velvet.

One of the most interesting conclusions (for me and not for others) that I came to last night is that this game and its meaning and/or mechanics and all could be a good subject for 2 things:  how not to write a story and just what effect interactive entertainment has on the brain.  As far as the last point, perhaps someone has studied this, but I think a look at it based on these types of games (this one in particular based on its unique aspects of character building and the continuation of choices through 3 games) might prove interesting and enlightening.  I wonder just how similar some immersive interactive virtual reality is to actual actions in real life and what part of the brain gets engaged in both.  Movies and books and tv-passive entertainment can be immersive but not as fully as such a game.  In a book, you care about and identify with characters.  In a game like this you are meant to become the character.  How does that change a person?

Well, I too have often rejected the submit button-I think we all have.  And sometimes I can't hit edit quite fast enough.  I don't write in brief for one main reason--it's hard to convey meaning in a text message type of sentence.  One of the stupidest sentences in the ending and the first the catalyst says kind of says it all--he tells Shepard to "wake up".  But, Shepard is clearly not asleep.  Why not "get up".  I think because that sounds too harsh and the writers wanted people to identify with the kid as sort of innocent (didn't work, I disliked the real kid and dislike his fleshless version even more).

Benny Hill once did a take on this, how intent can be changed simply by changing the emphasis in a sentence slightly.  One example that got me laughing hysterically and still makes me laugh is this in his 2 versions:

What's that in the road up there ahead?
What's that in the road up there, a head?

I love reading all the different thoughts in these forums and especially this thread.  It is good to challenge your own beliefs and it is good to just see what others think even if you never will agree.  So much of society seems to lack that these days.  We form ideas and consider them written in stone and anyone that does not agree is ignored.  And to ignore is to become well.......you know.

[Sajuro]

SHARXTREME wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Just a general question: what is the problem with the Crucible Destroy weapon of mass destruction? 
 

all of your a/b/c options, c) option is discriminative (even though the Catalyst says that it will not discriminate? What?)but mostly this:
d) it's pointed at the wrong enemy 
e) only way to use it, is to directly use your enemy's methods under his terms and to enforce the consequences of your decision on countless lives
f) ...k this ending
 

It's the geth's own fault for upgrading to Reaper, if someone who is a mass murderer lets you put a gun to their head, you really give a damn that it's under their terms? Also, what choice could you possibly have that wouldn't enforce the consequences on countless lives? You are dealing with how to stop a race of killer spaceships and you have a chance to destroy them and everything with Reaper code in it. I think it is a good if not sad thing that the Crucible targets Reaper code instead of just Reapers since Legion explicitely tells you that there will still be platforms under Reaper control because they are filled with Reaper code instead of Geth (justification for them being in multiplayer after Rannoch) and if Reapers can create more code and synthetic bodies, they could build ships and start the cycle over again. The analogies yall keep using are over simplified and seem to be structured in such a way so that you can all keep agreeing about how horrible the ending choice was.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...
One of the stupidest sentences in the ending and the first the catalyst says kind of says it all--he tells Shepard to "wake up".  But, Shepard is clearly not asleep.  Why not "get up".  I think because that sounds too harsh and the writers wanted people to identify with the kid as sort of innocent (didn't work, I disliked the real kid and dislike his fleshless version even more).

Benny Hill once did a take on this, how intent can be changed simply by changing the emphasis in a sentence slightly.  One example that got me laughing hysterically and still makes me laugh is this in his 2 versions:

What's that in the road up there ahead?
What's that in the road up there, a head?

I love reading all the different thoughts in these forums and especially this thread.  It is good to challenge your own beliefs and it is good to just see what others think even if you never will agree.  So much of society seems to lack that these days.  We form ideas and consider them written in stone and anyone that does not agree is ignored.  And to ignore is to become well.......you know.

I tend to agree. So what lies in the road up there ahead? I think a head. And here's why.

The game sort of ends now with the EC with the Normandy pickup. After that everything still goes crazy and completely kills the suspension of disbelief. I have gone from a B movieland into an F movie wastebin.

1) What happened to my 50000 CR Cerberus Armor? This is supposed to be the toughest crap in the galaxy. It turns into charred N7 armor by  ! My brain imagines that while Shepard is stunned, the director (Hudson) yells "Cut! Wardrobe!" from his chair and a bunch of evil munchkins from "The Wizard of Oz" run out and change her armor to the N7 with no medigel and steal her weapons and leave her with that crappy pistol. Then he yells "Action!"

Now I know this scene is never going to be the same for you. You are always going to picture this from here onward.

2) From that point on it's a glorified playable cutscene, aka the plot hole from hell. You have no control over Shepard other than moving forward and firing the gun and choosing dialogue. This also kills suspension of disbelief.

3) So I walked up backwards onto the platform. No TIM. No TIM. No TIM. Forced turn around and *poof* TIM appears out of nowhere! How did that happen?  And how did Anderson get there? Another huge break in suspension of disbelief.

4) Blah blah blah. the elevator to WTF land.... okay. Shepard's arm and legs that are hanging over the edge would get sliced off but magically don't. Okay the big white blur is the big white blur in the Matrix Reloaded. I get that. We're meeting The Architect.

So what's in the road up there, a head? No silly. "Wake up!" I agree, why not "Get up!" It's not like this is a sympathetic being, and you're obviously awake. So why not "Get up!" If you don't have the EMS it says "Why are you here?" in an accusatory tone. So why not "Get up!" And they call it "Child" just to be cute. No need to go further. It's a malevolent AI.

Okay, now can you just imagine if they'd pulled just the first thing I listed in the ending sequence of a movie? What would the critics be saying?

* that it was all a dream from that point onward. -- this would be the artsy people.
* that if it wasn't a dream from that point onward it was one of the worst film examples of film editing they'd seen since "Plan Nine From Outer Space". -- this would be the objective people.

What I call the attempt to get deep is pretentious. Attempting to be artsy in this story at the end is pretentious. It doesn't fit.

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

A lot of people did, and there's a lot to get attached to.  I was engaged with another member that had the same issue, they let the endings jade them to the whole game.  I had way too much fun with the journey to let the destination spoil it.  To some, it seems like this was the single most important thing in their lives, and, if true, I wish I could share that.  It's not, to me.  If the controversy about the endings were that it ended along the lines of my own headcanon, I would have bought it, played it and loved it, and said so here.  If the blast had been 20 feet to one side, and it just knocked me into or out of my cover, if any, or just knocked me down, I could have played past that point, but it doesn't.  It seems like it scores a direct hit, and a direct hit can drop a dreadnaught, how am I supposed to survive that?  I don't see it happening, and so I do the logical thing, to me, and die.  Others don't, and that's good too.  These kinds of subjective conversations can have everyone in them right, or wrong, and it wouldn't matter.

I learned long ago that the point of these discussions is entertainment, not to change one's views, or get them changed, although, I have been known to pick up something from a viewpoint that I didn't see, and have it reflect in my views, and have had others react the same way.  Sometimes I can be abrasive about how I present things, but that's totally "in character" for me, since I can be pretty abrasive in real life.  You'd be surprised to know how many of my responses don't get past the submit button, as I just backspace out.  Hell, I wrote this post 4 times.

Yes, totally agree.  The reasoning for any of the things happening as they supposedly do does not exist.  In effect, achieving any ending requires such a rapid change in what's believable as to be off the chart.  In the original endings, the problem was the change was like falling off a cliff.  In the EC, it's like being pulled down a less steep but no less pernicious incline.  You do hit bottom but some think now that they landed in velvet.

One of the most interesting conclusions (for me and not for others) that I came to last night is that this game and its meaning and/or mechanics and all could be a good subject for 2 things:  how not to write a story and just what effect interactive entertainment has on the brain.  As far as the last point, perhaps someone has studied this, but I think a look at it based on these types of games (this one in particular based on its unique aspects of character building and the continuation of choices through 3 games) might prove interesting and enlightening.  I wonder just how similar some immersive interactive virtual reality is to actual actions in real life and what part of the brain gets engaged in both.  Movies and books and tv-passive entertainment can be immersive but not as fully as such a game.  In a book, you care about and identify with characters.  In a game like this you are meant to become the character.  How does that change a person?

Well, I too have often rejected the submit button-I think we all have.  And sometimes I can't hit edit quite fast enough.  I don't write in brief for one main reason--it's hard to convey meaning in a text message type of sentence.  One of the stupidest sentences in the ending and the first the catalyst says kind of says it all--he tells Shepard to "wake up".  But, Shepard is clearly not asleep.  Why not "get up".  I think because that sounds too harsh and the writers wanted people to identify with the kid as sort of innocent (didn't work, I disliked the real kid and dislike his fleshless version even more).

Benny Hill once did a take on this, how intent can be changed simply by changing the emphasis in a sentence slightly.  One example that got me laughing hysterically and still makes me laugh is this in his 2 versions:

What's that in the road up there ahead?
What's that in the road up there, a head?

I love reading all the different thoughts in these forums and especially this thread.  It is good to challenge your own beliefs and it is good to just see what others think even if you never will agree.  So much of society seems to lack that these days.  We form ideas and consider them written in stone and anyone that does not agree is ignored.  And to ignore is to become well.......you know.

Actually, I posted something here earlier about Best for whom choices we had at other points in the game, just sticking to two examples, IIRC, specifically because they paralled the logic of SC.  Actually, I guess it was three, the Rachi, Krogan and the Collector Base.  You commented along the lines of context, and I didn't respond, because context wasn't the point, the point was the moral position needed for the choice.  With the Rachni, you have two squaddies, and one will voice up about destroy, and the other about release, and it seems to be in the order you take them in, rather than a personal belief, since I had Liara chime in both ways in subsequent playthroughs.  This decision, which is essentially to genocide or not, is left entirely up to you.

The same thing is true about the Collector Base, one will support keeping it, and the other will support destroying it.  I have had Garrus chime in both ways in subsequent playthroughs, so I don't see it as a morality but order chosen line.  In the one save where I elected to keep the base, every single member of the crew objected to giving Cerberus the base.  To quote Joker from your sig "This is my favorite no choice choice ever" since I don't like Cerberus, and I don't like having to work with them.  The Genophage deception is entirely on you, as unless you spill the beans, I always do, Wrex is my friend, nobody knows until Mordin, and I don't know how that plays out, as I have never done it, because to me, this is a morality issue on par with what I understand your position on the final choices is.

[SHARXTREME]

Sajuro wrote...
It's the geth's own fault for upgrading to Reaper

Actually, it's the Quarians fault. They have destroyed Geth Dyson Sphere, which forced Geth to seek help in Reapers.
Quarians tried to annihilate Geth the first time they disobeyed. In subsequent events Geth drove the Quarians from Rannoch, BUT Geth spared the Quarians. That is a crucial fact.
Another crucial fact is Legion. He could sabotage Shepard and Quarians, misuse Shepard's good will, but he extended his hand in peace, not because he was weak, but rather because he had its own beliefs and vision for the Geth future, future without Reaper control.

Next,
.

if someone who is a mass murderer lets you put a gun to their head, you really give a damn that it's under their terms?

Situation is not like that(Catalyst never lets you to put the gun against his head, but rather he lets you to put the gun against everybody-just not him).
Whole Catalyst situation is on his (winning)terms, he is the whole problem, he took the whole galaxy hostage, but he summons you to talk to him, and that can only mean 3 things:

1. He needs you for something(validation, approval, as a puppet, tool, etc)
You're not strong enough to win/choose(no such enemy that is that much stronger then you will give you the luxury of choice, unless you're doing exactly what is expected from you, or you are equals).
2. after that is established that you're not in position to win, you are then presumed to be equal(again you wouldn't be talking with the enemy if you're that much stronger or weaker, or not needed)
3. If you're equal, there is equal chance to win, But in the game you don't have that chance, because the game-gods are working in favor of your enemy- which means that you're weaker.
So we are back to position 1. and we enter Bioware's sadistic logic loop.
Only option, choice left that you have is to refuse, but that's also a non-choice, because the Bioware won't let you to resolve the problem unless you submit to Catalyst's 3 choices.
So again, you are back in position 1.
-Is the Shepard stronger, weaker or equal?
-Is he needed in the ending at all? is he needed to pull the trigger?
-What's the whole purpose of such stupid ending? Shepard is not needed at all there. He is decomposed lifeless corpse of the Shepard that he was throughout 3 games.
That zombie-half-dead-Shepard(s/he even talks and walks like a lifeless robot made of Shepard-meat) is then put in the position to choose something completely different that real Shepard never would by nodding his head to whatever monstrosity Catalyst suggests.

And the whole world. whole galaxy is... not watching.
Like they don't care, like everybody gave up all their hopes and put it in slimmest of chances that Zombie-Shepard will push the right button, whatever that button may be.
All that is not even the subtext, it's just a giant mistake that will go down in history as worst end possible to decent story.

Another bad ending, right there with ME3 ending is in worst SF movie ever - "Skyline".
In case you don't know what movie that is, it's about alien invasion, with group of people mostly observing the cataclysm from the top floor of tallest building in the city.
In the end they are sucked-up in alien mothership. Our hero wakes up in pile of human bodies(sounds familiar?). Human bodies that are without brain with the brain-sucking machine closing in on him. It sucks-his brain out too. In the next scene we witness three aliens at the end of brain-sucking machine how they enjoy eating human brains.
When one of them eats the brain of our late "hero" he shines blue(instead of red as his companions).
Next thing you know, the "hero's" girlfriend gets sucked-up in the ship, and just as the brain-sucking machine was about to kill her the blue-shining alien saves her and uses late hero's signature love move on her. The end.
Message of the movie: Love can even conquer brain-sucking out of your body, and even change the alien brain-sucker. Because love for someone must be in the brain, according to that ending.
I recommend to watch it just to see pure bizarre writing in action.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...


Actually, I posted something here earlier about Best for whom choices we had at other points in the game, just sticking to two examples, IIRC, specifically because they paralled the logic of SC.  Actually, I guess it was three, the Rachi, Krogan and the Collector Base.  You commented along the lines of context, and I didn't respond, because context wasn't the point, the point was the moral position needed for the choice.  With the Rachni, you have two squaddies, and one will voice up about destroy, and the other about release, and it seems to be in the order you take them in, rather than a personal belief, since I had Liara chime in both ways in subsequent playthroughs.  This decision, which is essentially to genocide or not, is left entirely up to you.

The same thing is true about the Collector Base, one will support keeping it, and the other will support destroying it.  I have had Garrus chime in both ways in subsequent playthroughs, so I don't see it as a morality but order chosen line.  In the one save where I elected to keep the base, every single member of the crew objected to giving Cerberus the base.  To quote Joker from your sig "This is my favorite no choice choice ever" since I don't like Cerberus, and I don't like having to work with them.  The Genophage deception is entirely on you, as unless you spill the beans, I always do, Wrex is my friend, nobody knows until Mordin, and I don't know how that plays out, as I have never done it, because to me, this is a morality issue on par with what I understand your position on the final choices is.

Actually depends who your squaddies are-you can get two that want to let the queen live and same for base.

Since it is about genocide that is totally about morality.  Consider that as far as I know, no decision yet has been made as to what to do with the remaining small pox virus. 

And the genophage is also about genocide-controlling birth rates is a form of genocide.

I guess as I see it morality and values can and do change, but they must do so in full context with what you know and what you feel to be right-it's as much about feelings as it is about what the brain knows.  If I see suffering and the ones causing the suffering are my foes or just seem wrong, I am predisposed to sympathize and even empathize with the sufferer, even if I never liked the one in pain personally.  In doing this I keep true to my values, but I may have had to change them a bit to find some way to help someone I don't like.

I think if you don't tell anyone about the genophage, and if you don't want it cured, you have to kill Mordin, since he will want to fix the sabotage.

If you don't want to cure it at all and want Mordin to live then Wreav needs to lead Urdnot and Bakara must be dead so Mordin has no reason to fix the sabotage.

This is what the game repeatedly does-want to remain moral and a total paragon, well you must be punished and sacrifice someone or something for it.  I fully realize that there can be costs for doing the right thing, but I think it's a real problem that they keep doing that in a game.

Saving the Collector Base should have real consequences.  I could see a renegade getting something for saving it and a paragon for destroying it, but it has very little impact.  It should also matter to  the story, but it doesn't.

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...


Actually, I posted something here earlier about Best for whom choices we had at other points in the game, just sticking to two examples, IIRC, specifically because they paralled the logic of SC.  Actually, I guess it was three, the Rachi, Krogan and the Collector Base.  You commented along the lines of context, and I didn't respond, because context wasn't the point, the point was the moral position needed for the choice.  With the Rachni, you have two squaddies, and one will voice up about destroy, and the other about release, and it seems to be in the order you take them in, rather than a personal belief, since I had Liara chime in both ways in subsequent playthroughs.  This decision, which is essentially to genocide or not, is left entirely up to you.

The same thing is true about the Collector Base, one will support keeping it, and the other will support destroying it.  I have had Garrus chime in both ways in subsequent playthroughs, so I don't see it as a morality but order chosen line.  In the one save where I elected to keep the base, every single member of the crew objected to giving Cerberus the base.  To quote Joker from your sig "This is my favorite no choice choice ever" since I don't like Cerberus, and I don't like having to work with them.  The Genophage deception is entirely on you, as unless you spill the beans, I always do, Wrex is my friend, nobody knows until Mordin, and I don't know how that plays out, as I have never done it, because to me, this is a morality issue on par with what I understand your position on the final choices is.

Actually depends who your squaddies are-you can get two that want to let the queen live and same for base.

Since it is about genocide that is totally about morality.  Consider that as far as I know, no decision yet has been made as to what to do with the remaining small pox virus. 

And the genophage is also about genocide-controlling birth rates is a form of genocide.

I guess as I see it morality and values can and do change, but they must do so in full context with what you know and what you feel to be right-it's as much about feelings as it is about what the brain knows.  If I see suffering and the ones causing the suffering are my foes or just seem wrong, I am predisposed to sympathize and even empathize with the sufferer, even if I never liked the one in pain personally.  In doing this I keep true to my values, but I may have had to change them a bit to find some way to help someone I don't like.

I think if you don't tell anyone about the genophage, and if you don't want it cured, you have to kill Mordin, since he will want to fix the sabotage.

If you don't want to cure it at all and want Mordin to live then Wreav needs to lead Urdnot and Bakara must be dead so Mordin has no reason to fix the sabotage.

This is what the game repeatedly does-want to remain moral and a total paragon, well you must be punished and sacrifice someone or something for it.  I fully realize that there can be costs for doing the right thing, but I think it's a real problem that they keep doing that in a game.

Saving the Collector Base should have real consequences.  I could see a renegade getting something for saving it and a paragon for destroying it, but it has very little impact.  It should also matter to  the story, but it doesn't.

Yeah, the whole "what difference did it ultimately make" on the Rachni queen, and the Collector Base bothered me somewhat, especially since there's nothing that says how the Reaper IFF got off the Normandy, or if it did, or didn't for that matter, for TIM to get there in a Destroy(the base) and get the Terminator baby.  But I agree about morality.

It's not so cut and dried as A is good and E is Evil.  There are multiple shades of black, white and grey in there.  What one person sees as reprehensible, another may see as acceptable.  That doesn't mean they'll think it's good, just acceptable.  It's like being able to tell Garrus that working with Cerberus is a necessary evil.  I railed against that the whole game, waiting for the promised way out, that didn't come until after the SM, and by then, it's too late, since it's game over anyway.  Which brings me back to the whole reason I posted those scenarios in the first place:  The kinds of choices you are faced with at the SC have been in the game from the very beginning, if some would see them as being to a lessor degree.  The same kind of logic that SB uses can likely be applied to solving them, depending on what you do.  Much lessor degree on the Collector Base, perhaps, but the other two, they are choosing to doom a species.

[Sajuro]

I need to see Skyline then, but I still don't see how Destroy= startchild wins, he's dead and the reapers are dead. The geth and Edi are dead because of Reaper code and I explained why that is ultimately a good thing. The only ending where the starchild really 'wins' is in refusal and even then he doesn't because he's back to the solution that Shepard making it far proved was no longer working. Like I said before, looking for reasons to dislike Mass Effect.

[3DandBeyond]

Sajuro wrote...

I need to see Skyline then, but I still don't see how Destroy= startchild wins, he's dead and the reapers are dead. The geth and Edi are dead because of Reaper code and I explained why that is ultimately a good thing. The only ending where the starchild really 'wins' is in refusal and even then he doesn't because he's back to the solution that Shepard making it far proved was no longer working. Like I said before, looking for reasons to dislike Mass Effect.

Well you are totally wrong with your last statement.  All along the majority has been looking for ways to love ME3's ending because of the love we have for ME.

EDI and the geth being dead is not a good thing-that is genocide.  All choices are created to help the kid solve his goal and fulfill his purpose, not Shepard's and not the galaxy's.  They do that and don't necessarily solve even part of Shepard's goal.  Destroy is a part of this.  There are all kinds of indicators the kid could be deceptive and that's a heck of a lot to risk with a galaxy at stake.

The enemy gives Shepard what he says is a gun, but Shepard doesn't have any idea what it does, no one knows what it does, except the enemy.  The enemy then says Shepard can use it to kill him and his friends, but it will kill someone Shepard cares about and destroy a whole race of people and is ambiguous about what other stuff will happen.  Or Shepard can use the "gun", take his place and die (ooh, that doesn't sound good), or make everyone part people and part "enemy" and Shepard dies (that doesn't sound good either).  And all of these are "wins" for the galaxy and Shepard?  Ok, let's say this could happen?  In polls, most people would not want to be synthesized if it were real.  That's a problem.  Most people characterize the Shepard entity in Control as Shepard god or Shepard reaper or Shreaper.  In real life people do not want serial killers who have "eaten" people roaming around free. That's a problem.

[SHARXTREME]

Sajuro wrote...

I need to see Skyline then, but I still don't see how Destroy= startchild wins, he's dead and the reapers are dead. The geth and Edi are dead because of Reaper code and I explained why that is ultimately a good thing. The only ending where the starchild really 'wins' is in refusal and even then he doesn't because he's back to the solution that Shepard making it far proved was no longer working. Like I said before, looking for reasons to dislike Mass Effect.

So, how does the Starchild win in Destroy also? 
First:  
-What is the Catalyst and why has he been created?(problem solver-made to solve the organics vs synthetics problem in that time)
-What has he done up to the point of ME3 ending?(enforced synthesis on his creators and "their" synthetics, subsequently Destroyed, Controlled and Synthesized all organic life in countless cycles)
-What is his main purpose?(to solve the problem, bring order)
-How does he ensure the fulfilling of his purpose?(by force and by three methods in sequence- 1.Control(indoctrination and power) 2. Destroy(destroys advanced species and use those that are not viable to become a Reaper as ground weapons) 3. Synthesis(make a new Reaper in every cycle and use them as space forces)

Second:
- Is his premise of eternal organic-create-synthetics-rebel-and-kill-all-organics cycle of war valid? The war which ends in synthetics killing all organics? (it is not. Never happened. Disproven by Geth and the Quarians, especially by EDI and Legion. Even if his hypothesis were true, ME story is about just one galaxy of trillions. So his complete existence and all his actions is senseless mass slaughter. 
- Who is the enemy here? Reapers are just like husks-weaponized beings used to slaughter other beings. Are synthetics the enemy? No, they are fighting alongside you.
- So catalyst is the enemy. He is in Control. 
1. (embrace his strength)Take the Control from him/replace him and you're doing EXACTLY what he has been doing. Your shepard-god-VI may spare the synthetics, but he will for certain find another enemy to use the Reapers against them. Why stop there, make more Reapers if enemy is strong, nobody will mind.
2. (embrace his idea and main goal) Synthesis- by choosing this you're agreeing with the already obliterated hypothesis of Catalyst's creators AND you're forcing his ideal solution on entire galaxy(ideal solution is why we're in this mess in the first place).
First Synthesis made everybody a weapon(Catalyst takes everybody as hostage).
This synthesis made everybody a non-weapon(Catalyst releases the hostages, whole galaxy to live in his and only his "ideal world") That's the "logic" he uses. It's absolute, unbreakable and unbendable. It's inside the boundries of his original program never to change. Like ME is inside the Galaxy in ever repeating logic-loop. Truly, ultimately limited vision. 
3. (embrace his faulty reasoning) Destroy is also win for the Catalyst because Destroy validates original, now obliterated hypothesis of his creators: "Synthetics and organics cannot live in peace AND synthetics will Rebel(created against creators)"
Quarians rebeled against Geth who gained self-awareness, not the other way around. Geth spared the Quarians from total extinction. Finaly both agreed to live in peace. Whole point of Catalysts existence is completely, monstrously unnecessary.
To destroy the Geth, it would be to take the risk of another Reaper situation in the future, because you would rob yourself of the chance to learn from the Geth 
Not to mention you would go hand in hand with Catalyst who cannot view anybody to be "worthy of life".
He doesn't care, he doesn't want to live either. He is a completely amoral, corrupted machine
Reapers are tools, not sentient beings for him. Everybody else are vermin/bacteria, even less then that. By agreeing to Destroy, you're agreeing that some people don't deserve to live, or are expendable, and you're agreeing that all life, diversity and different opinions are worthless and only your idea is valid, which is ultimate logical fallacy.

For me, the most surprising, refreshing and complex character in the entire series was Legion(alongside Mordin and Wrex). Legion- a small part of the Geth Collective that acted autonomosly, by his beliefs, being cooperative, smart and full of forgiveness for Quarians, objective about whole heretics situation, ultimately sacrificing himself for peace and the right of Geth to live. To help him, and then to exterminate his race is unnaceptable.   

One possible ending that's missing in my opinion is to force/convince the Catalyst to give up control over Reapers. It certainly cannot make the situation worse, but it could make continuation of the story much more interesting, or viable. It would still be Catalyst's decision, but Shepard could have that one choice. 

And no, you're wrong, I'm not trying to find reasons to hate the game- I'm praising the game. I'm only upset about the ending because it ruined the whole story. Story with few, but strong moments of great inspiration.   

In paralel, I have finished the Final Fantasy XIII-2. Main enemy is similar. "Gifted by the curse(!) of eternal life by the Godess Etro. She put her heart of chaos in place of his to give him strength admiring and rewarding his dedication". He knows whole history, he is the guardian of seeres of Paddra(who is gifted by seeing the future and cursed to die when she does), and not once he can save her. His only hope is that someone would kill him and release the chaos from his heart(kill the godess) and by doing that destroy whole time and space and let the world slip into eternal chaos so he can free himself and seeres of Paddra of the curse.
Difference is, this game has 9 completely different paradox endings to be explored.   

[Pinax]

@ SHARXTREME

+1 for the post and thank you for making me laugh with "Skyline" reference. Gosh, ME was never a good sci-fi (I mean in the context of a probable futuristic and scientific vision), however it was always a good story with full emotional impact. The ending just leaves a dry feeling that all the emotions you put into the game were in vain.

@ Sajuro

I endorse 3D's post that most of us here is just because of the love we have for ME. I was never in my whole lifetime a person posting on forums or being active in any type of Internet community. ME3 ending and EC disappointment is the first experience in my gaming life that made me so sad and angry that I logged into BSN to vent all the feelings of disappointment how 10 mins of bad ending writing ruined almost the whole experience of my beloved game. I found here great discussions and very creative and intelligent posts - and they all come not from dislike, but rather from all the positive emotions related to ME series broken by the bad ending denying all what made many of us it's loyal and devoted fans.

[3DandBeyond]

Pinax wrote...

@ SHARXTREME

+1 for the post and thank you for making me laugh with "Skyline" reference. Gosh, ME was never a good sci-fi (I mean in the context of a probable futuristic and scientific vision), however it was always a good story with full emotional impact. The ending just leaves a dry feeling that all the emotions you put into the game were in vain.

@ Sajuro

I endorse 3D's post that most of us here is just because of the love we have for ME. I was never in my whole lifetime a person posting on forums or being active in any type of Internet community. ME3 ending and EC disappointment is the first experience in my gaming life that made me so sad and angry that I logged into BSN to vent all the feelings of disappointment how 10 mins of bad ending writing ruined almost the whole experience of my beloved game. I found here great discussions and very creative and intelligent posts - and they all come not from dislike, but rather from all the positive emotions related to ME series broken by the bad ending denying all what made many of us it's loyal and devoted fans.

This exactly.  I registered here because of the endings.  I couldn't believe someone seriously decided that was the way ME was meant to end.  Honestly, why create a Shepard who is diametrically opposed to (on moral and logical grounds) what s/he is then forced to do at the end?  I hesistate to say this, but in some ways I think it's true; as producers of media meant for mass consumption there's an internal responsibility you must hold yourself to.  In ME3, we are told at the end that a "win" means choosing between genocide, molestation, and totalitarianism as well as in part the denial of self-determination, self-reliance, independence, individuality.  We are further shown that a loss is defined by adhering to ideals, morals, values, belief in oneself and one's ability (self-reliance), logic, and denial of inevitability in choosing to believe in self-determination. 

The player is punished for wanting to see the galaxy determine its own path and for wanting to avoid choices that create to high of a compromise of the heart, the "soul", and all the things that give the galaxy some "license" to exist.  I mean if I am given the choice of blowing up my neighborhood and neighbors to save my family or 5 people I don't know and I do that, what value does life have?  I am destroying the meaning of it all by saying some life is more important.  Or that people must not find their own way because they can't be trusted to do it right and/or they are not smart enough to learn.

I just cannot see it as being "responsible" (to the vision of the story) for a video game to abolish values and morals established within and provide the exact opposite of that as "wins" while the one non-choice that adheres to the best ideals is a loss.  I'm not sold on the idea of it being a victory because some future cycle of people defeats the reapers.  The people I care about are punished for doing the "right" thing.  In a video game. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 22 juillet 2012 - 06:36 .

[vallore]

When we speak and debate about the endings and victory, we usually speak about either Shepard’s victory or the Catalyst’s. But there is another whose victory is far less debated, one whose victory I would deem far more important; and that is the player’s.

Shepard goals are apparently relatively simple: End the Reaper threat and, if possible, survive to tell the tale. But….what about the player’s victory?

Are Shepard’s and the player's victory conditions the same?

I would argue against it.

For (many a) player it is not just about ending the Reaper threat; it is about how to end the reaper war. The victory must not just happen, it must feel satisfying, and that requires that a number of parameters are fulfilled. Here’s a few, in my view, fundamental:

One: Shepard must earn, or conquer, her victory. Does that happen?

No. True, it could happen but, at the last minute, the victory options are taken from Shepard, (the crucible doesn’t work), only to be later granted by the enemy leader. Only he can concede it, or deny it; if the player refuses to play ball on the enemies’ terms, it’s game over.

Two: The final confrontation must be clearly won by the player’s character. Does this happen?

No. The final confrontation could be a battle of wills between Shepard and the Catalyst, but that doesn’t happen; instead Shepard submits without much of a fight.I stress that only if she submits she has the option of fulfilling her goals. But the implication is obvious: Shepard’s resistance is futile. What she is allowed happens only because her enemy wills it; she was granted a choice, not because of her merit, not because the merit of her cause, but because the enemy so wishes it.
So, there is no victory here, either.

Third: Are the choices offered satisfying, from the player’s perspective?

I would argue that, for many of us, no.

Why?

The choices poised by the Catalyst are the kind of Sophie’s choice; they may create an interesting moral dilemma to ponder at an abstract level, but they are not “fun,” to play.

How can it be fun to choose between genocide & murder of a friend; or to change everyone in the galaxy into some different form of life, without their consent (including possibly altering their personalities and free will); or to play god in the hope that it won’t backfire? (After repeating Control wouldn’t work over and over again, at least in my play through).

Fourth: Shepard’s possible deaths, are they “enjoyable”?

I would argue, mostly no. They simply do not make much sense. The death of a hero must feel as something more than a price to pay for victory. It must also feel necessary and heroic.

Saving the day by walking into an exploding tube doesn’t feel necessary, or heroic, (just looks dumb, no matter the intended symbolism). Likewise, jumping into a beam of light so you can mix you genetic code with that of the catalyst just seems… awkward. (We have methods today of extracting genetic samples that are far less lethal… and that story of “mixing your life energy” really, really wasn’t at the usual high level of storytelling we know Bioware can do… seriously).

Fifth: Survival of the character. Is the one option available satisfying?

No. All we can see is a gasping torso and…that’s it. Now, survival is in itself a form of victory. By making it deliberately ambiguous, they made it as little satisfying as it could possibly be.

Conclusion:


Even if we assume Shepard fulfilled her goals, she did it in such a way that the many a player does not feel rewarded, victorious. Shepard’s victory, even if it exists, it is not the player’s victory, or so it would seem to me.

[3DandBeyond]

vallore wrote...


When we speak and debate about the endings and victory, we usually speak about either Shepard’s victory or the Catalyst’s. But there is another whose victory is far less debated, one whose victory I would deem far more important; and that is the player’s.

Shepard goals are apparently relatively simple: End the Reaper threat and, if possible, survive to tell the tale. But….what about the player’s victory?

Are Shepard’s and the player's victory conditions the same?

I would argue against it.

For (many a) player it is not just about ending the Reaper threat; it is about how to end the reaper war. The victory must not just happen, it must feel satisfying, and that requires that a number of parameters are fulfilled. Here’s a few, in my view, fundamental:

One: Shepard must earn, or conquer, her victory. Does that happen?

No. True, it could happen but, at the last minute, the victory options are taken from Shepard, (the crucible doesn’t work), only to be later granted by the enemy leader. Only he can concede it, or deny it; if the player refuses to play ball on the enemies’ terms, it’s game over.

Two: The final confrontation must be clearly won by the player’s character. Does this happen?

No. The final confrontation could be a battle of wills between Shepard and the Catalyst, but that doesn’t happen; instead Shepard submits without much of a fight.I stress that only if she submits she has the option of fulfilling her goals. But the implication is obvious: Shepard’s resistance is futile. What she is allowed happens only because her enemy wills it; she was granted a choice, not because of her merit, not because the merit of her cause, but because the enemy so wishes it.
So, there is no victory here, either.

Third: Are the choices offered satisfying, from the player’s perspective?

I would argue that, for many of us, no.

Why?

The choices poised by the Catalyst are the kind of Sophie’s choice; they may create an interesting moral dilemma to ponder at an abstract level, but they are not “fun,” to play.

How can it be fun to choose between genocide & murder of a friend; or to change everyone in the galaxy into some different form of life, without their consent (including possibly altering their personalities and free will); or to play god in the hope that it won’t backfire? (After repeating Control wouldn’t work over and over again, at least in my play through).

Fourth: Shepard’s possible deaths, are they “enjoyable”?

I would argue, mostly no. They simply do not make much sense. The death of a hero must feel as something more than a price to pay for victory. It must also feel necessary and heroic.

Saving the day by walking into an exploding tube doesn’t feel necessary, or heroic, (just looks dumb, no matter the intended symbolism). Likewise, jumping into a beam of light so you can mix you genetic code with that of the catalyst just seems… awkward. (We have methods today of extracting genetic samples that are far less lethal… and that story of “mixing your life energy” really, really wasn’t at the usual high level of storytelling we know Bioware can do… seriously).

Fifth: Survival of the character. Is the one option available satisfying?

No. All we can see is a gasping torso and…that’s it. Now, survival is in itself a form of victory. By making it deliberately ambiguous, they made it as little satisfying as it could possibly be.

Conclusion:


Even if we assume Shepard fulfilled her goals, she did it in such a way that the many a player does not feel rewarded, victorious. Shepard’s victory, even if it exists, it is not the player’s victory, or so it would seem to me.

QFT!

It's why we play games, read books, watch movies, listen to music, play sports, or do any of the things that entertain us.  We can lose in a game and achieve a victory for US, because it is quite true that it isn't only about what happens to the character or the world that character lives in if the ending feels right and fulfills something we needed to have happen, or that made some sense in happening.

I have seen movies, read books where the main character died and I cried everytime I thought about it and I loved every minute and all of that ending.  I've even said that my favorite tv series ending of all time was for "Six Feet Under" and that is at once the saddest and yet most satisfying ending I have yet to see.  It was even uplifting because it was in character and it gave context and meaning to the lives of the show's characters.  Tragic things happen in that ending, but it is so well done and so fitting an end for all those people I cared about that I can't think of one single other ending that would have been more appropriate.

For ME3, I can think of a lot of more appropriate endings and my imagination and abilities in that regard are not as great as the hundreds of others I have seen on this site alone.  I've seen many youtube videos with better endings and visited other sites where there are better endings.  The list is almost endless.  That means that the game's endings failed the player.  You are so right in all of this.

[Rustedness]

vallore wrote...

*snip*

I truly wish I could be so eloquent.

Not happy, not a perfect everyone lives ending, but an ending that feels earned.

Modifié par Rustedness, 23 juillet 2012 - 01:47 .

[SHARXTREME]

vallore wrote...
Shepard’s resistance is futile

Yes, indeed.
And you are right in other points as well. As I have mentioned too, the very ending was played by Bioware, not by player. From the moment of the charge at the beam, player lost all control over the vast, complicated world constructed from players decisions, and entered ultimately limited microcosm of Bioware's ending "vision".
They could even pull the "Skyline's" ending completely. Catalyst could suck Shepard's brain out and turn to red or blue(renegade or paragon) or techno-green (if you were in the middle).
Then, at the climax of synthesis ending, Catalyst would visit your love interest, for example Liara, and say: Now off to make some blue babies.

And yes, Bioware said very early that this is the last story of Shepard. OK, but does that mean they must kill Shepard? Why, Shepard's death is meaningless in larger scheme. Shepard is non-character. S/he is no icon. Shepard is player's avatar.

They can't even make the ending, unless it ends in mass murder or geno-synthesis.
Something is very wrong there in Bioware, SF stories don't need heroes or ritual sacrifices, or individual philosophies that rule some village,world or galaxy closed upon itself.

That kind of limited worldview belongs to the darkest (p)ages of our history, certainly NOT in SF, or pseudo-SF. For fantasy it would be sort-of-OK.
They have made story of ME galaxy into a story about lone island with few villages and terrible, terrible monsters that live in the dark woods and only come out when stars align and they demand the ritualistic sacrifice of those chosen by them. And that limitation wasn't enough.
They needed to limit that world even further, to the smallest world possible.
A world with three possible outcomes, three choices and every choice being absolute.
Guided by one idea made in vacuum that surpasses monsters, heroes and ages.
And it was a stupid idea.

Dark energy plot was magnitudes stronger then this in all aspects.

Players victory is not possible because Bioware didn't want the player to play the ending, they wanted to convey some sort of twisted limited message or to destroy their franchise.

Who will buy next Mass effect(Mass Shift or something else) day one knowing that they can pull another catalyst?
SF story(for me) can't work like a tale of heroes, elves, dragons and magicians.
Most of that stories are about individual's morals, love, ethics, ideas, wishes and strengths, while SF(again for me) is dealing with society's problems(through the prism of science), expanding horizons and exploring, testing the frontiers. And Individuals that adapt to new and unknown situations.
In fantasy, individuals/heroes are a role. Role that must be played, improved upon, but not changed. Whole world is there in that individual, all the beauties and all the terror(dark and bright side).   
Individualism is only good in SF, when group or society can benefit from said individual and that individual can in return benefit from society.

There, where I find a single Hero, there I see the society that must be weak. That is what is bothersome with End-Shepard and galaxy full of NPC farmers and peasents waiting for the hero to pull some miracle and save the Milky Way Village.
I didn't want that End-Shepard to win, to be hero, I wanted the Catalyst to lose, to beat him as a player, or to watch Bioware that beats the Catalyst.
Galaxy should have the win. Personal victory in such situation is completely meaningless.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 23 juillet 2012 - 03:00 .

[3DandBeyond]

SHARXTREME wrote...

---snipped but the whole of your post is great.

And you are right in other points as well. As I have mentioned too, the very ending was played by Bioware, not by player. From the moment of the charge at the beam, player lost all control over the vast, complicated world constructed from players decisions, and entered ultimately limited microcosm of Bioware's ending "vision".
They could even pull the "Skyline's" ending completely. Catalyst could suck Shepard's brain out and turn to red or blue(renegade or paragon) or techno-green (if you were in the middle).
Then, at the climax of synthesis ending, Catalyst would visit your love interest, for example Liara, and say: Now off to make some blue babies.

And yes, Bioware said very early that this is the last story of Shepard. OK, but does that mean they must kill Shepard? Why, Shepard's death is meaningless in larger scheme. Shepard is non-character. S/he is no icon. Shepard is player's avatar.

I think as a whole your post hits some great points.  The ending is very much Bioware's ending and not anyone else's  We aren't playing it.  We aren't making choices with any relevance from before or any that occurs after.  We are watching it and hit a button a few times to make us think we have assumed control.

I did watch Skyline to find its relevance and oh my is it ever relevant.  That is what the ending of ME3 feels like.  And it even does really remind you of the corridor in the citadel.

Your point and previous poster's point are both right.

In fact as a whole the story is:
Shepard's story
The player's story with Shepard as avatar
The galaxy's story
The story of "your" friends and loved ones

The ending and the choices fail all of them.  No one wins here.  The galaxy exists in the here and now and it is perhaps a bit much to ask for the future cycle to matter more than what exists now.  We are not playing the game in the future and as a game, that is meaningless to us.

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

SHARXTREME wrote...

---snipped but the whole of your post is great.

And you are right in other points as well. As I have mentioned too, the very ending was played by Bioware, not by player. From the moment of the charge at the beam, player lost all control over the vast, complicated world constructed from players decisions, and entered ultimately limited microcosm of Bioware's ending "vision".
They could even pull the "Skyline's" ending completely. Catalyst could suck Shepard's brain out and turn to red or blue(renegade or paragon) or techno-green (if you were in the middle).
Then, at the climax of synthesis ending, Catalyst would visit your love interest, for example Liara, and say: Now off to make some blue babies.

And yes, Bioware said very early that this is the last story of Shepard. OK, but does that mean they must kill Shepard? Why, Shepard's death is meaningless in larger scheme. Shepard is non-character. S/he is no icon. Shepard is player's avatar.

I think as a whole your post hits some great points.  The ending is very much Bioware's ending and not anyone else's  We aren't playing it.  We aren't making choices with any relevance from before or any that occurs after.  We are watching it and hit a button a few times to make us think we have assumed control.

I did watch Skyline to find its relevance and oh my is it ever relevant.  That is what the ending of ME3 feels like.  And it even does really remind you of the corridor in the citadel.

Your point and previous poster's point are both right.

In fact as a whole the story is:
Shepard's story
The player's story with Shepard as avatar
The galaxy's story
The story of "your" friends and loved ones

The ending and the choices fail all of them.  No one wins here.  The galaxy exists in the here and now and it is perhaps a bit much to ask for the future cycle to matter more than what exists now.  We are not playing the game in the future and as a game, that is meaningless to us.

I won't disagree with this, with the addendum that, for me, with the planting of Liara's Time Capsules, although I'll never know one way or the other, I can go down with the hope that they do find them in time, and do manage to rally their galaxy and win.  I felt like I spent the first two thirds of the series beating my head against the wall rallying the galaxy, until all of a sudden, the boogeyman is at the door, then it's "That's our plan?".

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

I won't disagree with this, with the addendum that, for me, with the planting of Liara's Time Capsules, although I'll never know one way or the other, I can go down with the hope that they do find them in time, and do manage to rally their galaxy and win.  I felt like I spent the first two thirds of the series beating my head against the wall rallying the galaxy, until all of a sudden, the boogeyman is at the door, then it's "That's our plan?".

Oh yes.  I really want to know how many people started the series with ME1 (or at any point) and said they hoped the ending would be a conversation with a little boy about what it all means.

Whatever the feelings on ME2, there's a real sense you are going to do something big and difficult and you do that.  You even have these moments where you can really mess things up (crew members die because you don't reach them in time on the Collector's base) and you wonder how to fix that.  You can also go and get the IFF too early and really mess up a lot of things.  I know that some have criticized ME2 for being more about making friends of your teammates in doing their loyalty missions, but as I see it this is a core part of the story-it is the story.  It's just set against fighting some big bad guys, but for all that that matters the reapers could be pirates that are trying to take over the galaxy.  It only matters that there's a foe to fight.  Everyone Shepard meets is tormented by something and Shepard changes that.  That might mean a person finds some peace with what they've done or even dies, but no one's left unchanged by the meeting.  But, it comes down to the player making the decision and Shepard acting it out.

You do still have the idea that all these things/people were brought together for a purpose and that it's a race to save all.  But the writers made the focus of the game too small.  It's the galaxy, no it's Earth, no it's London, no it's the "citadel" hidden room.  Likewise the foes started to get pared down.  It's some unknown scary big threat with a lot of helpers, no it's a big scary threat with a big force, no it's a lot of horde minions that are fairly easy to kill, no it's one glowing kid that you need to discuss the meaning of life with.

I have a feeling that if this were a game about WWII, we'd start off working to get allies to come together to fight a common foe and save the world where there are many fields of battle.  Then we'd end up running into an apartment building in Tallahassee Florida, to talk to Hitler.  We'd end up agreeing with him that we need to pick one of his choices (not ours)  to get the allies to stop fighting each other because he was only fighting us to keep us from fighting each other.  After that we'd skip away together.