419 réponses à ce sujet

[historybrat]

Sidney wrote...

historybrat wrote...

I wouldn't presume to speak for everyone, but the reason I am against the "dark" ending is that it was our only choice. For a franchise built on choice, in the end we had none. You pretty much die no matter what. I know some people really like this, but I would have preferred that my choices matter.

You had three ways to end the series, and you could live so there were actually 4 plus possible variations within the selected option based on readiness - where your choices matter. Dear god, like DAO had an amazing panoply of ways to end. There are three endings, 2 of which use the exact same animation (DS and S) and the other swaps your model with Allistar (sort of like swapping colors out).  Your choices don't matter a whit in that final battle other than what nearly useless helpers come along with you. Yea! 

The choices matter because you made them. Shep is who he is for you, as opposed to me, because of those choices. That is all that matters. The fact that in the end Shep dies doesn't change that who he was for you was different than who he was for me.

I have to respectfully disagree. After doing one playthrough and then watching all of the endings on Youtube to try and figure out what I did wrong, I just don't see it. The ending are 95% the same, regardless of your choices. I do understand that for some people this equals different endings, but for me it does not. I really expected that Bioware would provide us with drastically different endings. Yes there are slight differences but not drastic differences. Its the same ending with a slightly different intro and a different color, the meat of it is the same.

As far as choices, the only choice that I can see that has really made a difference is whether I am an SP or MP. That makes a world of difference, which is sad because we were told it wouldn't. 

I doubt I will change your opinion, which please understand I respect even if I disagree, and I know you won't change mine. But that being said I want to leave this final thought:

If in the end your Shep and my Shep, and really everyone else's Shep ends up in basically the same exact place regardless of their decisions did our choices really matter?

[coldflame]

To some a happy ending is not "artistic enough".

[bjdbwea]

I was very much hoping for the possibility of a happy ending in ME 3. After so many hours invested into a game or a whole series even, I want an optimistic conclusion as well as some well-deserved rest for my player character and their companions. Only then does the game really feel right and rewarding. There is certainly no reason to belittle anyone for wanting their games or stories in general to end on an optimistic note. Happy endings have been popular pretty much since the beginning of written or filmed entertainment, and there's no reason why they should have any less right to be there than any other sort of ending.

I understand that some people feel otherwise and think that it wouldn't be fitting, but of course it should be up to the player to decide. BioWare just needed to provide different options, as they promised and as it should be in an RPG, then most people would have been satisfied, those who prefer a happy ending for ME 3 as well as those who don't.

[PlatonicWaffles]

I was under the impression we'd get a bittersweet ending, but no, "artistic integrity" had to come first.

Plus, if it truly is "art", then I believe another artist would've put more effort in than switch a color of their work.

Modifié par Dylia, 13 mai 2012 - 09:29 .

[Dead_Meat357]

tcgtqu wrote...

To some a happy ending is not "artistic enough".

Screw artistic. I don't like atsy films, artsy beer or other crap that's supposedly good just because people think it's unique or profound. Half the time it isn't. It's just cool to like it because it isn't mainstream.

[UltimateTobi]

Because happy endings are common. C'mon, admit, after such a war, there can't be a happy ending like we know it. You can just be happy about surviving.

[InBleedingRapture]

Dead_Meat357 wrote...

Screw artistic. I don't like atsy films, artsy beer or other crap that's supposedly good just because people think it's unique or profound. Half the time it isn't. It's just cool to like it because it isn't mainstream.

I have to disagree -- I've never met a beer I didn't like ; )

But yeah, it doesn't have to be artsy fartsy to be satisfying. I think that's the trouble with the ending(s): it's not that they're "happy" or "sad," but they just don't sum up enough of the loose ends or complete the plot to a suitable degree.

Three choices = really no difference = dead either way = not enough explanation. I'm cool with Shep biting it at the end, but the endings don't seem to justify his sacrifice sufficiently enough for me.

[DeinonSlayer]

UltimateTobi wrote...

Because happy endings are common. C'mon, admit, after such a war, there can't be a happy ending like we know it. You can just be happy about surviving.

The only happy ending you get in war is surviving and going home to the people you care about. I don't see what others find unrealistic about that being a possible outcome. Nobody's asking for partying ewoks here.

[furryrage59]

In all honesty i have no idea where this new hipster fad came from where only a horrible ending is a good ending.

[DeinonSlayer]

furryrage59 wrote...

In all honesty i have no idea where this new hipster fad came from where only a horrible ending is a good ending.

Well, where's the replay value without that bit of variety? They expect us to go through another playthrough of the complete trilogy, make different decisions, romance a different character, make different promises... and not keep any of them? Knowing all along that that is the inevitable conclusion? Sorry. I can't. That's not enjoyable at all. It turns an already badly-done ending into an emotionally-manipulative travesty.

I didn't sign up for a 200-hour lesson in the meaning of futility. You don't climb a mountain just so someone standing at the top can kick you in the balls and send you tumbling all the way back down. You certainly don't climb it a second time for the same treatment. How they thought this ending would give the game any kind of replay value is a mystery to me.

[NRieh]

To all "happy-haters" I must remind one nice example of literature. I'm talking about LOtR here (a book, not a film, you know). Can anyone say it has "hollywood happy ending"??? Something tells me - no. It's just one English Professor knew it well, that killing char is NOT needed to show the grade of their sacrifice and sufferings. It just does not add anything, at all. We have "canon" last-minute-saving", but there are still enough sorrow and smiles on the rest of the pages, which show world cahnging, which show what happened after.

Imo, Shep made his\\her sacrifices when (s)he left Earth seeing blown shuttles, when (s)he was with Modrin, when (s)he saw burning Thessia, when (s)he said last farewells in London before steping out for the last mission. THAT is "top" of everything. Do you think that those last chats were less epic and important then jumping into the beam (in case someone liked te idea of robohumans) or shooting the pipe(in case someone did not like starkid at all)?

Also, I should remind you, that all the epic stories and myths follow inner rules and logics. When this logic fails - people feel it, and they dislike it. Shep was a typical Hero though all the series (using this word meaning an archetype), like Odysseus, let's say. Shep had his\\her journey, fighted all those monsters and finaly got back home to Penelope...where they suddenly nailed him\\her to the rock. It might be original, but there are cases where "different" does not mean "good". Mythological archetypes were developed for ages, and had a reason, not just because someone thought them looking cool and easy to sell.

[InBleedingRapture]

I'm not a "happy-hater," but literature is filled with examples of bittersweet endings -- sometimes even endings that leave a person with absolutely no sense of closure. Does that make them intrinsicly "bad?"

Personally, I don't play games for the satisfaction of the ending. In fact, I rarely complete any games I play (unless there's something special about the ending(s), like in The Witcher series). I hate using platitudes, but books, movies, RPGs, etc. are about the journey and development of the story itself, not for the shiny prize at the bottom of the ****** Jack box. Just because I may not like the ending, that, in itself, doesn't negate the rest of the excellent gameplay and story interaction that came before it.

And Greek mythology... well, let's just say, viewed as a whole, there isn't a whole lot of happiness to be found there.

[Iakus]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

Because happy endings are common. C'mon, admit, after such a war, there can't be a happy ending like we know it. You can just be happy about surviving.

The only happy ending you get in war is surviving and going home to the people you care about. I don't see what others find unrealistic about that being a possible outcome. Nobody's asking for partying ewoks here.

QF frakking T

[Iakus]

InBleedingRapture wrote...

I'm not a "happy-hater," but literature is filled with examples of bittersweet endings -- sometimes even endings that leave a person with absolutely no sense of closure. Does that make them intrinsicly "bad?"

Personally, I don't play games for the satisfaction of the ending. In fact, I rarely complete any games I play (unless there's something special about the ending(s), like in The Witcher series). I hate using platitudes, but books, movies, RPGs, etc. are about the journey and development of the story itself, not for the shiny prize at the bottom of the ****** Jack box. Just because I may not like the ending, that, in itself, doesn't negate the rest of the excellent gameplay and story interaction that came before it.

And Greek mythology... well, let's just say, viewed as a whole, there isn't a whole lot of happiness to be found there.

As far as I'm concerned, if I don't get at least two full playthroughs of a game, I wasted my money on it.  The way this game ends, I'm just waiting on EC to decide whether or not to just uninstall it.

The ending is as important as the journey.  Not more important, not less important.  Equally important.  If the destination doesn't fit the journey, it's a bad story.

[Robhuzz]

iakus wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

Because happy endings are common. C'mon, admit, after such a war, there can't be a happy ending like we know it. You can just be happy about surviving.

The only happy ending you get in war is surviving and going home to the people you care about. I don't see what others find unrealistic about that being a possible outcome. Nobody's asking for partying ewoks here.

QF frakking T

The truth is strong in this one...

Modifié par Robhuzz, 13 mai 2012 - 04:38 .

[chengthao]

i don't understand why "happy-ending-haters" can't grasp the concept of having more than 1 ending

[Deltakarma]

I just want to have little blue children..... I dont give a flying Javik if I have to kill all life in the galaxy if I have to achieve that.

[DaJe]

If it is done right and feels appropriate, there is nothing wrong with it. Positive examples are DA:Origins or the LotR trillogy.

If the happy end comes out of nowhere and is unplausible that would be bad, just like the crappy ending that comes out of nowhere and is unplausible we got in ME3.

[NedPepper]

Because, if you pay attention, a happy ending was never, ever implied by any of these games. You are fighting a war with sacrifice and have had to make brutal decisions. I EXPECTED Shepard to die before I ever bought the game. In a way, he should. I'm a big believer that characters who constantly put themselves in dangerous, life threatening situations should eventually pay the price. It's a touch of realism. People die in war. Shepard is a SOLDIER.

All this being said, I didn't find it to be a sad ending. There's still a sense of hope. I think Bioware ultimately misread their audience's expectations, which apparently are for rainbows, bunnies, and they lived happily ever after....like a Disney cartoon ...and the strange thing is that that theme WAS NEVER IMPLIED in any of the games in this series. It's like expecting Saving Private Ryan to have "and no one died and they all lived happily ever after."

An ending doesn't have to be "happy" to be satisfying. You know how I know this? Years of reading literature and watching great films. I don't know what makes gaming different, but apparently a large portion of the audience expect that. Mario always saves Peach. Link always defeats Gannon. No one dies. They all live happily ever after....

[DaJe]

If it is done right and feels appropriate, there is nothing wrong with it. Positive examples are DA:Origins or the LotR trillogy.

If the happy end comes out of nowhere and is unplausible that would be bad, just like the crappy ending that comes out of nowhere and is unplausible we got in ME3.

[NRieh]

I'm not a "happy-hater," but literature is filled with examples of bittersweet endings -- sometimes even endings that leave a person with absolutely no sense of closure. Does that make them intrinsicly "bad?"

I personally gave you an example of bitter-sweet ending. Probably, one of the most vivid ones. Hero did not have to die there. Harry Potter did not have to die as well - if you need something more modern, and don't tell me JR just listened to her fans - she just read a lot of right books to understand how myths and epic stories are done.

Capitan J.Sheridan from Babylon 5 was not killed in action, if you remember it. And God knows - there are little video\\books that made me cry (literally). B5 ending lines - did, several times I watched it. I really'd love to see something B5-like here. No "little blue children" - may be, but no stupid "hero must die" as the culmination of the story (which is not one, anyway).

I'm all after such endings. ME2 had one (especially if you lost anyone on SM).
ME3 does not have bitter-sweet ending. As it is now it has more something like "uhm..WUT?" and "WTF?!" ending, which can (with some imagination efforts) be turned into bitter-sweet\\happy\\unhappy one. But "do-it-yourself" style is good for gameplay, not for endings, imo. Though it is nice when gameplay does matter. 

hink Bioware ultimately misread their audience's expectations, which apparently are for rainbows, bunnies, and they lived happily ever after....like a Disney cartoon ..

so...LOtR is like a dysney cartoon since Hero was not left to die?..

Modifié par Nrieh, 13 mai 2012 - 05:07 .

[DeinonSlayer]

nedpepper wrote...

Because, if you pay attention, a happy ending was never, ever implied by any of these games. You are fighting a war with sacrifice and have had to make brutal decisions. I EXPECTED Shepard to die before I ever bought the game. In a way, he should. I'm a big believer that characters who constantly put themselves in dangerous, life threatening situations should eventually pay the price. It's a touch of realism. People die in war. Shepard is a SOLDIER.

All this being said, I didn't find it to be a sad ending. There's still a sense of hope. I think Bioware ultimately misread their audience's expectations, which apparently are for rainbows, bunnies, and they lived happily ever after....like a Disney cartoon ...and the strange thing is that that theme WAS NEVER IMPLIED in any of the games in this series. It's like expecting Saving Private Ryan to have "and no one died and they all lived happily ever after."

An ending doesn't have to be "happy" to be satisfying. You know how I know this? Years of reading literature and watching great films. I don't know what makes gaming different, but apparently a large portion of the audience expect that. Mario always saves Peach. Link always defeats Gannon. No one dies. They all live happily ever after....

Why do you people always feel the need to stoop to straw-man arguments? Rainbows, bunnies, Disney, Ewoks, happily ever after, no one died (people have already died. A LOT of people, and not just faceless "statistics")...

There were dialogue options throughout which implied differently. You can make promises for after the war (House on Rannoch, blue babies, etc.). You're not forced to be cynical. I get that some people might not see those dialogues if they feel compelled to play pure paragon/renegade, but they are there nonetheless.

[Han Shot First]

AlanC9 wrote...



Edit: I'll bet first. My bet is that everything I said here will be shown to be true. In addition, Shepard will be able to reunite with his companions if you chose the red ending and have sufficient EMS. So if genocide's your cup of tea, go for it. 500 Bio points for stakes?

I think you'll be right about what is in the EC, but I don't think the existing ending and the EC are exactly the same thing. The EC is Bioware saving face. After so vigorously defending their 'artistic integrity,' they don't want to be seen as making any changes to the ending. Also if major changes were introduced, they are going to have issues with not satisfying everyone and other people accusing them of releasing a game without the complete ending. So the star brat and the A, B, C choice will remain.

That being said, I think Bioware will back away from some of the more unpopular outcomes of those A, B, C choices. I think it was originally the writers intent that the Mass Effect relays going boom did knock the universe back into a more primitive state, but in the EC this will be either downplayed or whitewashed, while Bioware pretends the updated version was the writers intent all along.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 13 mai 2012 - 05:31 .

[Iakus]

nedpepper wrote...

Because, if you pay attention, a happy ending was never, ever implied by any of these games. You are fighting a war with sacrifice and have had to make brutal decisions. I EXPECTED Shepard to die before I ever bought the game. In a way, he should. I'm a big believer that characters who constantly put themselves in dangerous, life threatening situations should eventually pay the price. It's a touch of realism. People die in war. Shepard is a SOLDIER.  

Newsflash:  Shepard already died once.  At the start of ME2.  Isn't Shepard unavoidably dying getting a little old?

Yes, soldiers die in war.  Soldiers also live through wars  too..  That's the beauty of having divergent stories, choice and consequences, and multiple endings:  you can have something for everyone.

All this being said, I didn't find it to be a sad ending. There's still a sense of hope. I think Bioware ultimately misread their audience's expectations, which apparently are for rainbows, bunnies, and they lived happily ever after....like a Disney cartoon ...and the strange thing is that that theme WAS NEVER IMPLIED in any of the games in this series. It's like expecting Saving Private Ryan to have "and no one died and they all lived happily ever after."

How many times does it have to be repeated that rainbows, butterlies, and unicorns were not expected?  The fall of Earth alone makes it clear that's not going to happen.  We're not talking about no one dying.  We're talking about Shepard living.  Does the main character's survival really undo the massive amounts of carnage we witnessed in the game and Disneyfy it?

Me I found even the "best" ending unbearably sad, a testament to the futility of choice and the pointleness of expecting any happines in life.  In the end, you die alone and in pain.  Your only option the color of the explosion you die in.

An ending doesn't have to be "happy" to be satisfying. You know how I know this? Years of reading literature and watching great films. I don't know what makes gaming different, but apparently a large portion of the audience expect that. Mario always saves Peach. Link always defeats Gannon. No one dies. They all live happily ever after....

If you can't attack the arguement, attack the arguer...

Modifié par iakus, 13 mai 2012 - 05:14 .

[NedPepper]

The person who stated I just wanted to have little blue babies and live in a house on Thessia. How is that not "and they lived happily ever after?" A home, children, these are big dreams for everyone. For anyone fighting a war, these dreams keep the person going. It doesn't mean they come true. I wanted Tom Hanks to get home to his family while watching Saving Private Ryan. It was the "hope" of that film. It didn't happen. That said, I don't hate Saving Private Ryan or feel that I was cheated in some way. I didn't go to the theater manager and ask for my money back, nor did I write Spielberg and DEMAND he let Tom Hanks' character live in a rereleased special edition. I didn't start a TAKE BACK SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Why? Because that's just silly.