419 réponses à ce sujet

[Deadly Sniper Goat]

Mass Effect 1 had a happy ending, no matter what. (Well, I suppose the renegade ones might not have been so happy... I never chose the kill the council option)

Mass Effect 2 had a happy ending, but you had to wrk your ass off to achieve it, and had very little room for error to achieve it.

Why can't ME3?

Of course, by ME3's nature, no ending can be truely happy. Trillions are still dead, a minimum of three trusted companions died in your vicinity, and there's immense damage left in the Reaper's wake. Nobody's disputing that.

But why can't Shepard survive? Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to kill a character to end their story. Why can't Shepard stand in the sunset with his/her friends, stare down at Harbinger's burning wreckage, and mourn the losses it took to get that far, yet still have the hope for tomorrow with a galaxy full of intact relays and dead/dying/signifigantly weakened Reapers, or even just the knowledge of how to kill said Reapers effectively?

Why does it have to end on a mercilessly dark ending that goes against established themes, and forces a sacrifice that the whole series up to that point, EVEN THE GAME ITSELF, led you to believe was not a forgone conclusion?

What I'm asking boils down to: The people who are vehemetly opposed to the ending being lighter, or that critisize the retakers because 'The ending isn't happy enough": What is wrong with that? What, on earth, is wrong with a happy ending? What is it about the chance of a happy ending that brings so much anger?

I don't want sarcastic "Happy endings aren't ARTISTIC" remarks, though I can't stop you if you wish to do so. I don't want bile, or rage. I just want an honest answer- What, exactly, so irritates people about the prospect of a happy ending?

[Redstar6]

No its not artistic enough for people. Anything even remotely enjoyable should be scrapped with Beethoven playing in the background of a mass suicide (exaggeration). I'm surprised Shepard didn't tag along with the reapers at the end for a night of ultra violence

[legion999]

I honestly have no idea why some are so againist a happy ending.

[Atakuma]

Happiness is for hippies.

[arial]

1) 90% of games out there have the hero survive, they want to be different

2) in real life war is about sacrifice (my brother died in Afghanistan, so i know), and they did this to reflect it.

3) as Shepard said "each of you need to be willing to die, if not, your already dead"

4) I am sure they have a reason of some kind (isn't there a plot flag that you only get in Destroy? and they did say to keep our ME3 saves...)

[Atakuma]

Seriously though, I have no problem with a "happy" ending as long as you have to work for it.

[detbasketball13]

This is really a major problem I have with the FEW that like the ending. What's so bad about a happy ending. If you work for it and do the required steps and make the right decisions why would it be so unnatural to have a good ending. My mass effect 1/2 endings were glorious because I worked for those ending. Why can't we have options people. This is a interactive game based on choices. Hell the main reasons I got into this game many years ago was because of the option the game had.

[Han Shot First]

I'm all for a happy ending.

By happy ending I mean one where the Reapers are destroyed and the galaxy is saved. I disagree however with some people's narrow definition of a happy ending, where a 100% survival rate amongst the crew of the Normandy is deemed necessary.

In no work of fiction is it necessary for every protagonist to survive in order to have a happy ending. Mass Effect is no different.

[Kaelef]

I wish there were more threads with "happy ending" in the title.

[DWH1982]

Because happy endings are so lame!

Stargate SG-1 should have ended with the entire squad being killed, don't you know. Including Jack O'Neill, even though he had been in a desk job for years by that point. Who cares if it wouldn't have felt like Stargate? Wouldn't it be so AWESOME and EDGY?

[Deadly Sniper Goat]

arial wrote...

1) 90% of games out there have the hero survive, they want to be different

2) in real life war is about sacrifice (my brother died in Afghanistan, so i know), and they did this to reflect it.

3) as Shepard said "each of you need to be willing to die, if not, your already dead"

4) I am sure they have a reason of some kind (isn't there a plot flag that you only get in Destroy? and they did say to keep our ME3 saves...)

Finally, a non-troll answer.

1). Generally the hero survives because they're the audience expy or some other reason. In a video game format though, killing your hero- The player's avatar- Is so ingrained with failure, because at any point if you die you lose. In a game like Red Dead Redemption, killing the hero works because of themes established throughout the game. In Marston's case specifically, the theme is that you can't escape your past, and he did some really nasty things in his youth that he finally pays for. But the game conditions you for that, you expect it. You know it's coming sooner or later. And besides- Marston isn't your hero, he's Red Dead Redemption's hero. You're viewing his story as an observer, not as the one crafting it. His choices are his, and the only ones you get a hand in are so minor that they might as well have not been there at all. When he dies, its the conclusion to his tale.

Mass Effect, however, from the beginning is not Shepard's story- It's yours. It's made abundantly clear even from character creation, where you're asked to craft your backstory. You're picking from options, sure, but those options intersect in a large amount of ways. Are you the spacer, born and raised to be a hero, exemplifying it when you single handedly held off a horde of batarians? Or did you go wrong and murder your entire squad and hundreds of innocent batarians just to finish your mission? And then the game happens, and you can further craft your legacy as you see fit. Even in ME3, you have to make the big decisions. Auto dialogue be damned, you still have a huge hand in how the story plays out right until the very end, and in ME3's credit, very often you don't see the payoff immediately. The decision if Shepard lives or dies should have been by your hand, either by direct choice or by the weight of what you achieved beforehand. There was no reason to believe that Shepard was doomed to death even if you united the entire galaxy to fight the Reapers together.

I can see what you're saying, though, Too often, the hero is immortal for no good reason, and there should have been several chances for Shepard to die. That I don't dispute. But why does it have to be the ONLY choice?

2). Believe me, this I know. However, there is no lack of sacrifice in ME3. Mordin dies so that the krogan may be free of the genophage. Kirrahe/Thane sacrifice themselves to save the salarian counciler from Kai Leng (Thane far more stylishly than Kirrahe). Urdnot Dagg, a total stranger to Shepard, will sacrifice himself so that Shepard can get out of the Rachni caves... Unless Grunt beats him to it (Granted, grunt can survive but still). Legion gives up his brand new conciousness, identity, and sense of being as a PERSON, in order to give the geth intelligence. The entire ME2 cast have the option to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and while most survive if you obtained their loyalty in ME2, the fact remains that they were willing to DIE to stop the Reapers. Hell, Kasumi can die to save the hanar- A race she has very little contact with, or any reason to care about!

It's not even limited to the named characters. Walk around through the citadel, and you hear NPCs telling stories. The turian cop who would be willing to fight the Reapers on Palaven just so his partner can find his family. The kid on Benning who distracted Cerberus so his squad could escape. The quarian engineer on Rannoch, a complete civillian, who died fighting the geth so that the rest of his crew could get to safety... a crew that you have to sacrifice to ensure that no one else has to die in the geth and quarian conflict.

Sacrifice is a key theme throughout the series, and especially so in ME3. They made their point, and even as Shepard stares down the star kid, the combined militaries of the galaxy are fighting, dying, and giving their lives so that Shepard can save them all. And with a single choice, he damns them all to a fate worse than the Reapers.

3). This more or less rolls along with 2, which I put just now.

4). My pipe dream is just to have Walters or Weekes or whoever it was that wrote the ending, and just listen to their honest reason why it was the way it was, without the lawyers or EA or damage control or any of that bull**** clouding things. I want to know why they thought it was a good idea, what they were trying to say, what they hoped to accomplish. But I doubt we're ever going to get this answer.

EDIT: Posts suddenly appeared while I was writing this! Well, my points here generally apply to those too.

Modifié par Deadly Sniper Goat, 13 mai 2012 - 01:11 .

[Quething]

Many people feel the existence of an option in a game affects their choice of another option. Say you set your game up so Zaeed and Jacob die in the Suicide Mission, because you feel that it makes more sense to the story than everyone surviving. But you'll always know that they could, in fact, have lived, if you did things differently, and maybe your Shepard had to make decisions you think are beneath her intelligence to arrange that. It makes it harder to appreciate the "realism" of your tragic, hard-earned ending when you know a better one was easily available to you.

As for why some people prefer the tragedy in the first place, some folks just want different things from their stories.

I'm not entirely sure why those people are playing Mass Effect, though. ME1 and its triumphant Faunts bridge at the end there set a pretty clear tone, and ME2's choice to turn the "ending Shepard smirk" into a trademark didn't do anything to discourage it. 3 was a fairly weird anomaly in that sense.

[Han Shot First]

Mass Effect, however, from the beginning is not Shepard's story- It's yours.

Mass Effect has always been Shepard's story.

The player may had a lot of influence over his actions or certain aspects of his backstory, but at the end of the day it is his or her story, and not ours. Shepard was never a blank slate character with his entire backstory and personality defined by the player, like the hero in Skyrim. There are certain aspects of his character that the player cannot change or alter, and it has been that way since Mass Effect 1.

Also if Shepard dies, there has been plenty of foreshadowing. He has dialogue options throughout the series for example where he'll indicate that he doesn't expect to survive. My favorite is an exchange he has with Liara about the Reapers in LotSB, where he can tell her, "You've seen the data, Liara. If we somehow pull this off, I don't think either of us gets to see the victory parade." But that isn't the only example.

If Shepard dies at the end of Mass Effect 3 his death isn't unexpected. In fact I was suprised when my Shepard did survive.

[Dan Dark]

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm all for a happy ending.

By happy ending I mean one where the Reapers are destroyed and the galaxy is saved. I disagree however with some people's narrow definition of a happy ending, where a 100% survival rate amongst the crew of the Normandy is deemed necessary.

In no work of fiction is it necessary for every protagonist to survive in order to have a happy ending. Mass Effect is no different.

Oh. You again. Not trying to be mean, here; you actually make a far bit of sense, usually. I just wanted to throw out an alternative idea here, where it hopefully won't get buried as quickly, and see what you think.

So: Since there is so much loss already, is more really necessary? Or would it be enough to simply highlight and further emphasize the losses that have already happened? For example, say the entire squad and crew survives... and then during the ending, there's a memorial service for all of those who you couldn't save (pity this is in the non-spoiler section...can't go into further detail, but, there's always at least a handful who's deaths are dictated by the plot; and those are, of course, on top of the countless millions we do not know as well). If they were to show the survivors, mourning the loss of these friends and loved ones, would that, coupled with showing just how horribly Earth, and most other notable planets, have been devastated... would that be enough to provoke the kind of emotional reaction you're looking for? Even though the characters we are personally invested in all survive, we see none of them are completely "unscathed" (sp?), as each of them feels grief and loss over everything that has happened - since we already relate to these characters so strongly, it would make sense that that should have some effect on the player, wouldn't it?

Modifié par Dan Dark, 13 mai 2012 - 01:25 .

[Ratharos]

To be honest, from the very begining I was prepared to sacrifice shepard. In fact I would probably be dissapointed in a typical happy ending. The problem is that other people like Op were the opposite of me and bioware did not give them a choice to get their happy ending. And in a game that has always been about choice well.....

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...


Also if Shepard dies, there has been plenty of foreshadowing. He has dialogue options throughout the series for example where he'll indicate that he doesn't expect to survive. My favorite is an exchange he has with Liara about the Reapers in LotSB, where he can tell her, "You've seen the data, Liara. If we somehow pull this off, I don't think either of us gets to see the victory parade." But that isn't the only example.

And I could counter those examples with those of Shepard expressing confidence in coming back (the whole "marriage old age and lots of blue children" bit is a line fro that same conversation)

If Shepard dies at the end of Mass Effect 3 his death isn't unexpected. In fact I was suprised when my Shepard did survive.

Shepard dying isn't unexpected, it's Shepard dying in virtually every single permutation that is.

If you saw Shepard live, you chose one particular ending, and either played MP or own an iOS device.

Modifié par iakus, 13 mai 2012 - 01:35 .

[Rxdiaz]

I thought this was topic was about what John Travolta said to his masseur....

[Han Shot First]

Dan Dark wrote...


So: Since there is so much loss already, is more really necessary? Or would it be enough to simply highlight and further emphasize the losses that have already happened? For example, say the entire squad and crew survives... and then during the ending, there's a memorial service for all of those who you couldn't save (pity this is in the non-spoiler section...can't go into further detail, but, there's always at least a handful who's deaths are dictated by the plot; and those are, of course, on top of the countless millions we do not know as well). If they were to show the survivors, mourning the loss of these friends and loved ones, would that, coupled with showing just how horribly Earth, and most other notable planets, have been devastated... would that be enough to provoke the kind of emotional reaction you're looking for? Even though the characters we are personally invested in all survive, we see none of them are completely "unscathed" (sp?), as each of them feels grief and loss over everything that has happened - since we already relate to these characters so strongly, it would make sense that that should have some effect on the player, wouldn't it?

That could potentially work, depending how the whole thing is written or plays out. However they go about it, I think the ending should have an element of tragedy and loss mixed in with the sense of victory. Too syrupy sweet an ending cinematic and you whitewash what the galaxy and the characters in it went through.

Having just recently reread With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa by E.B. Sledge, probably the best first hand account of combat to come out of the Second World War, I think there is one passage towards the end of the book that applies. In it Sledge recounts how the men of his company reacted to news that Japan had surrendered, and the war was finally over:

"Many refused to believe it. Sitting in stunned silence, we remembered our dead. So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past. So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us. Except for a few widely scattered shouts of joy, the survivors of the abyss sat hollow-eyed and silent, trying to comprehend a world without war."

There wasn't much wild cheering and celebrating. While that may have been true for Times Square, for the people who were actually in the meat grinder, they felt more like battered survivors than conquering heroes. If the ending cinematic could convey something like that for the galaxy at large, it might work.

And I could counter those examples with those of Shepard expressing confidence in coming back (the whole "marriage old age and lots of blue children" bit is a line fro that same conversation)

I wasn't saying that Shepard's death should be guaranteed. Only that if he does die, it isn't out of the blue or unexpected. There has been plenty of foreshadowing, and the threat the Reapers pose to the galaxy and everyone in it is never downplayed, even if Shepard's dialogue is generally hopefull or optimistic.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 13 mai 2012 - 01:44 .

[Iakus]

Han Shot First wrote...

That could potentially work, depending how the whole thing is written or plays out. However they go about it, I think the ending should have an element of tragedy and loss mixed in with the sense of victory. Too syrupy sweet an ending cinematic and you whitewash what the galaxy and the characters in it went through.

And this is why I say a good "Shepard lives" ending could be with Shepard eulogizing at a funeral for a certain admiral.

[silentassassin264]

The reason I am against a happy ending is because of the whole "third option' everything turns out well type of deal. The Reapers were hyped up to be unstoppable juggernauts who were going to bring the pain if they made it back to inhabited space. Their tech was so much better and when combined with indoctrination/huskification they are unstoppable by conventional means. If you make a happy ending when Shep lives with Li/crew, reapers are defeated, and it basically looks like there was no sacrifice, it cheapens the enemy. You spend this whole time hearing about how unstoppable the Reapers are and then you get a flawless victory...it just sounds ridiculous. Even if you make "all the right choices" (IE play paragon) it turns out that this unstoppable force was stopped by just making the right choices. The whole point about the Reapers being light years stronger than you is that if you make all the right choices you should still suffer just because of how much stronger they are. Fighting against the reapers is not supposed to be a fair or winnable fight. The fact that you do win is what makes you legendary. A yay everything is worked out ending would make the whole series completely pointless....worse than the catalyst and primary color explosions ever could.

[arial]

Deadly Sniper Goat wrote...

arial wrote...

1) 90% of games out there have the hero survive, they want to be different

2) in real life war is about sacrifice (my brother died in Afghanistan, so i know), and they did this to reflect it.

3) as Shepard said "each of you need to be willing to die, if not, your already dead"

4) I am sure they have a reason of some kind (isn't there a plot flag that you only get in Destroy? and they did say to keep our ME3 saves...)

Finally, a non-troll answer.

1). Generally the hero survives because they're the audience expy or some other reason. In a video game format though, killing your hero- The player's avatar- Is so ingrained with failure, because at any point if you die you lose. In a game like Red Dead Redemption, killing the hero works because of themes established throughout the game. In Marston's case specifically, the theme is that you can't escape your past, and he did some really nasty things in his youth that he finally pays for. But the game conditions you for that, you expect it. You know it's coming sooner or later. And besides- Marston isn't your hero, he's Red Dead Redemption's hero. You're viewing his story as an observer, not as the one crafting it. His choices are his, and the only ones you get a hand in are so minor that they might as well have not been there at all. When he dies, its the conclusion to his tale.

Mass Effect, however, from the beginning is not Shepard's story- It's yours. It's made abundantly clear even from character creation, where you're asked to craft your backstory. You're picking from options, sure, but those options intersect in a large amount of ways. Are you the spacer, born and raised to be a hero, exemplifying it when you single handedly held off a horde of batarians? Or did you go wrong and murder your entire squad and hundreds of innocent batarians just to finish your mission? And then the game happens, and you can further craft your legacy as you see fit. Even in ME3, you have to make the big decisions. Auto dialogue be damned, you still have a huge hand in how the story plays out right until the very end, and in ME3's credit, very often you don't see the payoff immediately. The decision if Shepard lives or dies should have been by your hand, either by direct choice or by the weight of what you achieved beforehand. There was no reason to believe that Shepard was doomed to death even if you united the entire galaxy to fight the Reapers together.

I can see what you're saying, though, Too often, the hero is immortal for no good reason, and there should have been several chances for Shepard to die. That I don't dispute. But why does it have to be the ONLY choice?

2). Believe me, this I know. However, there is no lack of sacrifice in ME3. Mordin dies so that the krogan may be free of the genophage. Kirrahe/Thane sacrifice themselves to save the salarian counciler from Kai Leng (Thane far more stylishly than Kirrahe). Urdnot Dagg, a total stranger to Shepard, will sacrifice himself so that Shepard can get out of the Rachni caves... Unless Grunt beats him to it (Granted, grunt can survive but still). Legion gives up his brand new conciousness, identity, and sense of being as a PERSON, in order to give the geth intelligence. The entire ME2 cast have the option to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and while most survive if you obtained their loyalty in ME2, the fact remains that they were willing to DIE to stop the Reapers. Hell, Kasumi can die to save the hanar- A race she has very little contact with, or any reason to care about!

It's not even limited to the named characters. Walk around through the citadel, and you hear NPCs telling stories. The turian cop who would be willing to fight the Reapers on Palaven just so his partner can find his family. The kid on Benning who distracted Cerberus so his squad could escape. The quarian engineer on Rannoch, a complete civillian, who died fighting the geth so that the rest of his crew could get to safety... a crew that you have to sacrifice to ensure that no one else has to die in the geth and quarian conflict.

Sacrifice is a key theme throughout the series, and especially so in ME3. They made their point, and even as Shepard stares down the star kid, the combined militaries of the galaxy are fighting, dying, and giving their lives so that Shepard can save them all. And with a single choice, he damns them all to a fate worse than the Reapers.

3). This more or less rolls along with 2, which I put just now.

4). My pipe dream is just to have Walters or Weekes or whoever it was that wrote the ending, and just listen to their honest reason why it was the way it was, without the lawyers or EA or damage control or any of that bull**** clouding things. I want to know why they thought it was a good idea, what they were trying to say, what they hoped to accomplish. But I doubt we're ever going to get this answer.

EDIT: Posts suddenly appeared while I was writing this! Well, my points here generally apply to those too.

I understand your points totally, i was just stateing a few of the possible reasons 

[Iakus]

silentassassin264 wrote...

The reason I am against a happy ending is because of the whole "third option' everything turns out well type of deal. The Reapers were hyped up to be unstoppable juggernauts who were going to bring the pain if they made it back to inhabited space. Their tech was so much better and when combined with indoctrination/huskification they are unstoppable by conventional means. If you make a happy ending when Shep lives with Li/crew, reapers are defeated, and it basically looks like there was no sacrifice, it cheapens the enemy. You spend this whole time hearing about how unstoppable the Reapers are and then you get a flawless victory...it just sounds ridiculous. Even if you make "all the right choices" (IE play paragon) it turns out that this unstoppable force was stopped by just making the right choices. The whole point about the Reapers being light years stronger than you is that if you make all the right choices you should still suffer just because of how much stronger they are. Fighting against the reapers is not supposed to be a fair or winnable fight. The fact that you do win is what makes you legendary. A yay everything is worked out ending would make the whole series completely pointless....worse than the catalyst and primary color explosions ever could.

The Reaper did bring the pain.  We see several planets on fire.

The Crucible was in fact the deus ex machina we apparantly needed because the Reapers can't be dealt with conventionally

There's plenty of sacrifice.  Note the planets on fire.  The deaths, including the deaths of several of Shepards' friends.  The refugees and their stories.  How pretty much every crew member on the Normandy has a sad tale to tell of the invasion.  

Even if everything worked out in the end and the Crucible was a big "I Win" button, it would not have been a flawless victory.  Everyone on the Normandy, even Shepard, lost family and/or friends.  Several homeworlds have been devastated.  There are literally piles of corpses laying about.  The galaxy will be centuries in recovering, if indeed it ever does.

And yet if Shepard and the Normandy crew manage to survive, it's "too happy"?  Are we really that jaded as a society?

Modifié par iakus, 13 mai 2012 - 02:14 .

[Piszi]

I think the ending of ME is kinda happy. Just think for a moment, you saved trillions of lives in the galaxy icluding Earth and some of your crew. You gave a second chance for everyone. So isn't this happy?
Ok I understand those who want Shep to survive the war and I think this should be at least one option if you were effective but it isn't so you need to finde some happiness in what you got.

[Han Shot First]

Piszi wrote...

I think the ending of ME is kinda happy. Just think for a moment, you saved trillions of lives in the galaxy icluding Earth and some of your crew. You gave a second chance for everyone. So isn't this happy?
Ok I understand those who want Shep to survive the war and I think this should be at least one option if you were effective but it isn't so you need to finde some happiness in what you got.

I think the ending is kind of happy if you destroy the Reapers and guarantee that the cycle will not repeat. That element feels like victory.

Galactic civilization utterly collapsing? Not so much. Ushering in a galactic dark age is a bit of a downer, to be honest. I'd compare the existing ending to the ending of The Road. There is a glimmer of hope, but still dark as f--k.

Personally I'd rather Shepard and every soul on the Normandy die than galactic civilization collapse. I find the latter more depressing. At the least the former is worth it, if the sacrifice saves civilization.