419 réponses à ce sujet

[Legion64]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

On Topic: Because it's too cliche.

Unlike "the hero dies", which is startlingly original.

It used to not be that way until Superman died.

[Bluko]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I don't have any issue with BioWare creating ME3 to their own tastes and wants. It's their game and they've shown they love the characters and the galaxy in ME as much as we do. In the first and second games, BioWare let us kick ass and reunite with the characters we love. How that suddenly became a no-no between 2 and 3 I'll never know.

Bioware are not the ones paying for and playing the game. It is imperative for them as a business to make products that we the customers will enjoy.

Let's say I'm a tycoon and by god I want to go work not just in my Ferrari.. but in a giant Mech with laser beams that weighs 50 tons and can destroy everything in it's path! Ha ha ha ha! But to make such a creation is pretty expensive and let's say the price tag is $120 Million. Do you really think this is good idea? Who's going to buy this save perhaps the military? Yes I will be pleased with my Mech-o-Doom but hardly anyone will be able to afford such a thing. Not to mention it's probably for all intents and purposes largely illegal and impractical. So in the end no one really benefits. Few people get to enjoy Mech-o-Doom. And I just waste a lot of money on some frivolous fantasy.

The folks at Bioware are suppose to be Professionals. They have a job that they specialize in which they get paid for because it is deemed worthwhile by a sufficient portion of society to be profitable. An Artist on the other hand just simply makes things because they feel like it. To make art under the assumption it will be deemed valuable by others is very foolish. That's not to say you can't make a profession from art, but you must understand that  you must make art others will value such as to be worth your time. Otherwise you may soon be faced with making art in just a cardboard box.


Look it's all fine and well for Bioware to enjoy making games that they do. But it's doubly important that we enjoy them too otherwise Bioware is wasting it's time and resources. Which is something I should hope nobody wants.

Modifié par Bluko, 31 mai 2012 - 02:49 .

[Lyrebon]

Bluko wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I don't have any issue with BioWare creating ME3 to their own tastes and wants. It's their game and they've shown they love the characters and the galaxy in ME as much as we do. In the first and second games, BioWare let us kick ass and reunite with the characters we love. How that suddenly became a no-no between 2 and 3 I'll never know.

Bioware are not the ones paying for and playing the game. It is imperative for them as a business to make products that we the customers will enjoy.

Let's say I'm a tycoon and by god I want to go work not just in my Ferrari.. but in a giant Mech with laser beams that weighs 50 tons and can destroy everything in it's path! Ha ha ha ha! But to make such a creation is pretty expensive and let's say the price tag is $120 Million. Do you really think this is good idea? Who's going to buy this save perhaps the military? Yes I will be pleased with my Mech-o-Doom but hardly anyone will be able to afford such a thing. Not to mention it's probably for all intents and purposes largely illegal and impractical. So in the end no one really benefits. Few people get to enjoy Mech-o-Doom. And I just waste a lot of money on some frivolous fantasy.

To Tony Stark that's pocket change.

Happy endings are so old skool; so Hollywood.

[Legion64]

Lyrebon wrote...

Bluko wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I don't have any issue with BioWare creating ME3 to their own tastes and wants. It's their game and they've shown they love the characters and the galaxy in ME as much as we do. In the first and second games, BioWare let us kick ass and reunite with the characters we love. How that suddenly became a no-no between 2 and 3 I'll never know.

Bioware are not the ones paying for and playing the game. It is imperative for them as a business to make products that we the customers will enjoy.

Let's say I'm a tycoon and by god I want to go work not just in my Ferrari.. but in a giant Mech with laser beams that weighs 50 tons and can destroy everything in it's path! Ha ha ha ha! But to make such a creation is pretty expensive and let's say the price tag is $120 Million. Do you really think this is good idea? Who's going to buy this save perhaps the military? Yes I will be pleased with my Mech-o-Doom but hardly anyone will be able to afford such a thing. Not to mention it's probably for all intents and purposes largely illegal and impractical. So in the end no one really benefits. Few people get to enjoy Mech-o-Doom. And I just waste a lot of money on some frivolous fantasy.

To Tony Stark that's pocket change.

Happy endings are so old skool; so Hollywood.

Pffffh I know right? Everyone needs to die!

[Vormaerin]

3DandBeyond wrote...

My previous post indicates that if they even follow what they've previously written there can't be any happy ending unless they don't destroy the Mass Relays.  There's a lot they'd have to change.  And there would be isolation and starvation unless they do something about this.

No, your previous post just indicates that you can make insane leaps of illogic.

Smashing the Mass Relays like in the codex entry and what happened at the end of ME3 are the same thing at all.   It sure looks like the Relays vented their energy into those beams before they blew up.

As for food, that could  certainly be a problem in the mining colonies and other places that aren't self sufficient.  But most of those places were probably destroyed or abandoned during the war.  Its not like regular supply runs were going on during the reaper rampage.  Famine tends to go hand in hand with war even in fertile areas.

Isolation...  somewhat.    Certainly we wouldn't have the same degree of galactic contact.  But FTL travel still exists.   And most planets were within easy ftl distance of other inhabited planets.   There's like a 100+ stars within two days' travel of Earth without the Relays.

[God_Emperor]

Happy endings are a cliche and bad endings are a new thing? Ha! Obviously, people that claim this aren't fans of the horror genre where protagonists have been dying off since the 70s in films like the Exorcist or who knows even before.

Bioware hasn't done a happy ending to one of their games since KotOR, every "good" ending Bioware has done since ends with the words: "And the hero disappears never to be seen again".

Frankly this is such bs. A game like ME3 should have LOTS of different endings (As originally advertised). And yeah there should be endings ranging from the Reapers destroy the entire universe through the cheesy ticker day parade with medals as Earth is being rebuilt in the background.

I find it so amusing the people that claim that the game needs to ONLY have Shep die, the Normandy crew stranded and lost, ect. in order to show how grim and "realistic" this war could be. Gallilions of species dead across the entire galaxy isn't enough, every single inhabited world and capital obliterated not enough, nope the game is still too cheerie with leaving it at that and showing some semblance of hope as the survivors begin to rebuild from the ashes. And as far as realism in Shep dying against those odds, yeah threw that out the window somewhere post Eden Prime in Mass Effect 1.

[3DandBeyond]

Legion64 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

On Topic: Because it's too cliche.

Unlike "the hero dies", which is startlingly original.

It used to not be that way until Superman died.

Actually you are quite wrong in that-in moviedom before Star Wars came along, every single movie seemed to have a bad ending - I won't say sad, because some of the movies were so dreary and sad already that the ending just topped them off.

Endings are only cliche when they are unoriginally done or just not well done.  No matter how you parse it, no one sits there at a hero lives movie and says, "gee he should have died horribly in an awe inspiring non-cliche sacrificial way so everyone could have felt bad and never wanted to come see this movie again."  There's a reason why "happily ever after" is used more often than "sadly ever after".  Most people want happy even when it is cliche.  So much of life is sad enough.  If I want to see real sacrifice on a daily basis, I know where to look.  It exists in real life.  I don't need a game for that.  In fact, doing so in a game "just because" cheapens the meaning of real sacrifice.

[Yakko77]

That a "happy ending" wasn't a choice is the real issue. For those who wanted a bittersweet ending, they should've been able to play in such a manner that would enable that. For those of us who did every side mission and went out of our way to gain every war asset to enable victory as best we could should've at least been given the option somehow. Ah well, "artistic integrity" and all that rot....

[Rhalle]

Bioware should have just had the guts to do a thorough "Space Jesus" ending, with proper respect paid to your choices and emotional attachments, as well as a comprehensible and consistent plot-- even if as simple as "Destroy Bad Reapers With A Big Gun". 

I'd guess that's what they wanted to do but were afraid of fanboi backlash, the anger of rustled nerd jimmies and the crying of those inconsolable if they couldn't make their Shepard live.

So they gave us something utterly incoherent in-between happy and "Space Jesus".

And look how that turned out.

Modifié par Rhalle, 31 mai 2012 - 08:17 .

[3DandBeyond]

Rhalle wrote...

Bioware should have just had the guts to do a thorough "Space Jesus" ending, with proper respect paid to your choices and emotional attachments, as well as a comprehensible and consistent plot-- even if as simple as "Destroy Bad Reapers With A Big Gun". 

I'd guess that's what they wanted to do but were afraid of fanboi backlash, the anger of rustled nerd jimmies and the crying of those inconsolable if they couldn't make their Shepard live.

So they gave us something utterly incoherent in-between happy and "Space Jesus".

And look how that turned out.

Yes, really.  Even cliche can be oh so satisfying if accompanied by a big gun that you actually use to shoot reapers.

[iamthedave3]

Legion64 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

On Topic: Because it's too cliche.

Unlike "the hero dies", which is startlingly original.

It used to not be that way until Superman died.

Really? Not questioning because I wasn't reading comics at the original printing, but I thought Superman's death was just one part of the death and RETURN of Superman? 

[crazyrabbits]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Really? Not questioning because I wasn't reading comics at the original printing, but I thought Superman's death was just one part of the death and RETURN of Superman? 

Yes, that was the plan, although DC threw a number of different "revamped Supermen" at the reader base at the same time in an attempt to find out what would stick. The resolution, and his "return", was hastily swept under the rug a year later when it was revealed that one of the "fake Superman" (actually one of his reformed enemies posing as him) recovered Supes' body and stuck it in a regeneration chamber. It was a giant waste of time for everyone involved.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

This.

An affirmative choice is one that Shepard worked towards and said "This is the best option available"

It is not one that the Catalyst says "This is a choice I deign to give to you"

That about sums it up. ME3's ending feels like the Catalyst throwing Shepard a bone: "Hey, you made it this far, so we may as well just end it" than it does like Shepard actually accomplished something.

[OlympusMons423]

I like many tragic movies.... but the idea that bad endings are somehow more cutting edge or serious is just as unimaginative as old hollywood good endings.

A hopeful ending where Shep lives, with a rebuild our worlds, like a Phoenix from the ashes, would have been fine.. at least as one alternative. All the problems don;t have to be Reaper sized to be interesting. Actually most of the best stuff in this game happened on a very small scale. Those are where most of the sense of this end and gloom came from. Bad ending are a cliche now. They can work but it really comes down to just making a good ending that works...good or bad. A video game could do several different great endings, unlike a movie or a book. This game seemed to be based on that concept somewhat..all along...up until the ending based on the color filters on their computer screen..RGB.

Sorry to beat the dead horse again. I click my ruby slippers and hope I wake up in a better ending sometime in July. Hey Dorathy was IT too

[3DandBeyond]

The problem is all that Shepard knows at the end is what the Catalyst Kid tells him. The kid could be lying. He moved the Citadel closer to Earth for easier harvesting. No one knows where the plans for the Crucible originally came from and no one knows what the Crucible does. So, based on a whole bunch of unknowns and the word of the "kid" who could be Harbinger (Harbinger said they would find a new solution), the game requires the player make Shepard do what Shepard would never do.

So, there's no bittersweet sacrifice here. Shepard has no way of knowing if the choices will do what the kid says they do and since is supposed to die, Shepard will never know.

It was said that one of the first things the reapers do when they come back is they control the relays, in order to strand people for easier harvesting. But, for some reason they don't do that this time. Maybe what the Protheans did when tampering with the keepers caused this not to happen. And the reapers were said to use FTL to enter and traverse the galaxy. So, they didn't or couldn't shut down the relays. But if Shepard makes a choice, what is the one thing all choices do? They effectively shut down the relays. So, this might have been what the star kid needed Shepard for.

What the ending is is fatalistic. I've read posts from some "pro-enders" who say to quit yer beetching, saying we got a happy ending with the wonderful Shepard gasp. Well, I have a different, all-encompassing view of what any ending should be, happy or sad. And the words that always come up are: satisfying, contextual, heart-warming (even true sacrifice can do this), sensible, explanatory. For some even a sacrificial ending can be a happy one. For me, it's a full blown syrupy sweet ending where doing the best that could be done yielded the best that anyone could ever want. But it all must make sense as well.

[78stonewobble]

I still see it a bit like this:

Odds of beating the reapers at any cost: 1 to 10.000.000 (guesstimate)
Odds of beating the reapers and surviving: 1 to 13.000.000

Yeh and the problem is the second leap of faith -.- first one is perfectly acceptable...

That is... Apparently it's quite ok that we go 99.99 percent of the way to a "happy ending" by beating the reapers.

If you wanted "realism" there should only have been one ending consisting of the "Game Over... The reapers are too powerfull" screen.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 31 mai 2012 - 12:58 .

[3DandBeyond]

OlympusMons423 wrote...

I like many tragic movies.... but the idea that bad endings are somehow more cutting edge or serious is just as unimaginative as old hollywood good endings.

A hopeful ending where Shep lives, with a rebuild our worlds, like a Phoenix from the ashes, would have been fine.. at least as one alternative. All the problems don;t have to be Reaper sized to be interesting. Actually most of the best stuff in this game happened on a very small scale. Those are where most of the sense of this end and gloom came from. Bad ending are a cliche now. They can work but it really comes down to just making a good ending that works...good or bad. A video game could do several different great endings, unlike a movie or a book. This game seemed to be based on that concept somewhat..all along...up until the ending based on the color filters on their computer screen..RGB.

Sorry to beat the dead horse again. I click my ruby slippers and hope I wake up in a better ending sometime in July. Hey Dorathy was IT too

Actually, I half thought that this was where Bioware was intending to go with the Phoenix in MP.  I thought that Shepard might end up being some different type of person, maybe this Phoenix.

Most of the game did feature small things coming together in big ways.  But the one place where they really needed something big, they downsized.  The reapers were such a good final foe and lent themself to the epic videogame battle for the ages.  You didn't need to artificially tack on a boss battle, by introducing some new bad guy to fight.  They were there, ready and waiting.  Everything Bioware did at the end was counter to what would have been the easiest thing to do and the most satisfying.  Killing that reaper on Rannoch wasn't the greatest battle ever, but it was huge and it was satisfying when it died and when it knew it was Shepard (and of course EDI and all the other Quarian ships) that did it.  Shepard should have been able to get the last laugh.  Especially when you consider all that Shepard had to go through-not only in assembling and getting all these people to work together, but in just getting someone, anyone to listen.  I wanted total vindication.

Unfortunately, what we do tend to get is a Wizard of Oz enemy, the man behind the curtain, but I keep wanting to see who's behind the man behind the curtain.  I want more to blast the kid vid to smithereens, but I digress.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 31 mai 2012 - 01:15 .

[3DandBeyond]

78stonewobble wrote...

I still see it a bit like this:

Odds of beating the reapers at any cost: 1 to 10.000.000 (guesstimate)
Odds of beating the reapers and surviving: 1 to 13.000.000

Yeh and the problem is the second leap of faith -.- first one is perfectly acceptable...

That is... Apparently it's quite ok that we go 99.99 percent of the way to a "happy ending" by beating the reapers.

If you wanted "realism" there should only have been one ending consisting of the "Game Over... The reapers are too powerfull" screen.

Exactly.  Actually many of us have said that the ending should have featured vastly different outcomes.  I want full blown happy as a possibility.

But I also think it would be great to have some total failure ending (makes you want to play again) and I think it would be great to have some partial failure ones.  Keep in mind I see anything less than full on success as a failure.

Why not have an ending where Shepard survives only to see the reapers gaining ground-Shepard faces the inevitable thought that the reapers will win.  This to me would be some great horror and pathos.

I can also envision an ending in which Shepard dies and yet, the galaxy wins.  Or the galaxy is in shreds but the reapers are defeated.

But, the full monty for me would be the reapers destroyed, Shepard and whatever friends you salvaged along the way are alive, the galaxy is picking up the pieces, and Shepard gets reunited with the Love Interest or finds one maybe-might give the player a chance to forge a new relationship (for those who may have romanced Thane especially).  A home on Rannoch, little blue children, reality tv show (with ugh Allers), helping Jack with her biotic kids, traveling the galaxy with Garrus or whatever that might be.  I want the chance to win and have a game end on a happy note.

The fact that so much could have been done and wasn't-well that's the sad thing.

[HeDo6pbluTpOJlb]

Not happy ending:

Modifié par HeDo6pbluTpOJlb, 31 mai 2012 - 01:44 .

[AdamJenson]

Lyrebon wrote...

Bluko wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I don't have any issue with BioWare creating ME3 to their own tastes and wants. It's their game and they've shown they love the characters and the galaxy in ME as much as we do. In the first and second games, BioWare let us kick ass and reunite with the characters we love. How that suddenly became a no-no between 2 and 3 I'll never know.

Bioware are not the ones paying for and playing the game. It is imperative for them as a business to make products that we the customers will enjoy.

Let's say I'm a tycoon and by god I want to go work not just in my Ferrari.. but in a giant Mech with laser beams that weighs 50 tons and can destroy everything in it's path! Ha ha ha ha! But to make such a creation is pretty expensive and let's say the price tag is $120 Million. Do you really think this is good idea? Who's going to buy this save perhaps the military? Yes I will be pleased with my Mech-o-Doom but hardly anyone will be able to afford such a thing. Not to mention it's probably for all intents and purposes largely illegal and impractical. So in the end no one really benefits. Few people get to enjoy Mech-o-Doom. And I just waste a lot of money on some frivolous fantasy.

To Tony Stark that's pocket change.

Happy endings are so old skool; so Hollywood.

As is the movie they are tinkering with making.  So...hollywood. 

You know why I still think well and enjoy games like Half-Life, Half-Life2, FEAR, etc?  Because at the end your protagonist dies all "heroic" and setch.

Oh wait, no he doesn't.  Damnit!  I cannot think of a single game I've ever played and wanted to continue playing and have good memories of in which I DIE AT THE END FOR NO REASON AT ALL.  

[AdamJenson]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

Googleness wrote...

*facepalm*
Mass Effect 3 ending was utter crap for 1 sole reason, you destroyed the entire galaxy.

on Arrival we learned that a mass relay exploding takes out an entire star system so you just happened to self destruct every mass relay exist so you destroyed the galaxy! well done.

Actually, while watching the ending again on YT, I do believe that the Crucible changed the function of the relays when the signal beam hit them. The relays are changed to broadcast whatever color you picked (via another pretty shockwave) to that whole system before harmlessly overloading and sending the signal to another relay, then another, and so on. It ensures that whatever choice you made gets broadcast to the entire galaxy, thereby not missing a stray Reaper or two. 

- Yes, I hate the endings. I no longer believe I blew up the galaxy, though. Strand my poor crew to die of thirst or starvation? Yup.

You know what that is right?  The sudden and out of nowhere "change to the relays so they don't go boom-boom!"?  That is a McGuffin and adds insult to injury with the deus ex machina McGuffin of the startoddler God.  But then, once you start piling McGuffins up, you may as well keep on tossing them on the pile because you've already "gone there" and can do no more damage.

[AdamJenson]

3DandBeyond wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

This is one widely debated thing-just what type of explosion is it.  Well, there's a codex entry that states that a ruptured relay will destroy all terrestrial worlds within a system.

Desperate Measures---

Destroying a mass relay to stop the Reapers' advance is infeasbile.
Although it has recently been proven that mass relays can be destroyed, a
ruptured relay liberates enough energy to ruin any terrestrial world in
the relay's solar system.


So, good luck getting food from any Earth-like planet.  Good luck finding life on any Earth-like planet.

well i suck at putting things into words but i mean you watch how the first explosion affects earth, which the citadel is a relay which sends the signal out and so on. which if you have the lowest ems it destroys the earth , but any higher and any other option you can see it only affect the reapers. I do not think that any shockwave (other then the one from destroy if your ems is low) will destroy the earth and any other planets in the system. But that is just me, they don't exactly give you alot to go on so meh

and as for isolation, hopefully ftl still works. It might take a bit to get places but atleast they won't be stuck in one system. Unless you have low ems. I am not trying to argue but just saying if they did a better job with details it would've been easier to swallow

It isn't a shockwave that is shown to destroy the relays but the beam from the Citadel/Crucible.  And this codex entry specifically says, "a rupture".  Every view of the relays shows they have been ruptured.  Which according to this codex means that any terrestrial world is ruined.  That's pretty specific.  If it had been the shockwave that would have a possibly even more devastating effect as shown in the Arrival.  This codex and the Arrival are the only things I have found that describe what happens when a relay explodes and/or ruptures.  In the Arrival, the destruction of the relay destroys everything within the solar system.  In this codex, it merely says terrestrial (earth-like) worlds are ruined.  I take ruined to mean ruined.  And that would be every system in the galaxy and every planet that is habitable by organic life.  That doesn't mean they were destroyed totally but ruined is somewhere between destruction and habitable.

Exactly.  The relays are not just fizzling out with a big short-circuit, they are blowing to pieces.  Catastrophic failure, ie, explosion.  Pieces of spinning ring are going out all over the place, the main body of the gizmo is shattered and exploding.  Boom by any other name is an explosion. 

[3DandBeyond]

HeDo6pbluTpOJlb wrote...

Not happy ending:

OMG.  I laughed so hard at this because the look on the kid's face is exactly how I felt.  It's like I fecked up the whole freaking galaxy!  His reaction was priceless as he watched the mass relay destruction go throughout the galaxy.  Yes, this is exactly the type of reaction game companies want and it really helps solidify their place in fan's hearts.

[AdamJenson]

Googleness wrote...

as much as we'll like to believe that we can see the mass relays explode... also the kid says on the station that no matter what u will choose the entire mass relay system gets destroyed.

so what's the point of the entire journey if everything gets smacked?

Well see that?  That's just a typical toddler being a little monster.  He doesn't like you messing with his toys so, being a toddler he doesn't think rationally, so he breaks all his toys.