Modifié par MegaSovereign, 13 mai 2012 - 09:32 .
Deadly Sniper Goat wrote...
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?
Mr.House wrote...
Shepard already died once, making her die again is stupid. Also there should be an option for a happy or at least a bittersweet ending, not what ME3 gave us.
DeinonSlayer wrote...
I don't think anyone is calling for a fourth, arbitrarily happy ending to be added in the final decision. I, too, would find that inappropriate.
Jackdespisesu wrote...
I don't know if it was possible to have a "happy ending" per-se after the first two games. I think that Sheppard knew the score early on and accepted it.
MegaSovereign wrote...
Because it would have been incredibly cliche. Bioware has been pounding the whole idea of the reapers being an unstoppable/overwhelming force for 2.9 games. No matter how much war assets you have, you'll never beat the Reapers conventionally. This is something that has been repeated over and over. With that said, the destruction of the mass relays wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The Mass Relays were Reaper tech. Organic civilizations are finally free of any Reaper influence and can now advance and evolve at their own pace. I think that's what Bioware was going for. And if you don't agree with that, then choose control where the Citadel and Mass Relays are largely intact.
And as vague as the whole Crucible/Catalyst plot device was, it's better than having the Reapers being killed off by the power of friendship.
The problems with the ending was not that it wasn't happy. There was just no closure. Thane and Mordin's deaths weren't at all happy, but they were well executed and provided closure to their character developments.
Modifié par Karimloo, 14 mai 2012 - 01:29 .
Shepard isn't railroaded into being a cynic. The "marraige, old age, and little blue children" line from LotSB is infamous. I can't speak for all of the love interests, but I know Shepard can promise to come back to Rannoch and build Tali a house, and in their goodbye dialogue he can tell her that she worries too much. Other people chose other dialogue, but it's entirely possible for Shepard to be optimistic about his/her prospects for both victory and survival.TonyTitan wrote...
Jackdespisesu wrote...
I don't know if it was possible to have a "happy ending" per-se after the first two games. I think that Sheppard knew the score early on and accepted it.
Of course he/she did. However, listen to some of the conversations between Shep and Samara throughout ME2 and ME3. In a way, Shep mocks Samara on her decision to become a Justicar. How deeply she holds herself to the 'code'....Then, when Shep meets up with Samara on the Citadel in ME3 (if a certain interupt is used), Shep once again makes mention of almost how ridiculous it is for Samara to follow those codes again. Samara knows her life as a Justicar is going to end in death at some point......But listen to what Shep says to her in that scene. Shep pretty much sounds like he/she knows what CAN happen as he/she fights the Reapers...but at that particular moment, Shep sure sounds like he/she is going to fight to win.....but also survive.
I would have liked to have had the option of Shep surviving....ALL of the fighting, the "Saving of the Galaxy", he/she did throughout the series...and now the main antogonist is here....The Reapers. That 'evil' that Shepard warned the Alliance, the Council, and anyone else who would listen...that they were coming. Shep should have gotten the opportunity at the end, after he/she had beaten them, to stand in front of the Council and say, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!".
Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 14 mai 2012 - 01:32 .
Guest_Imperium Alpha_*
Modifié par Imperium Alpha, 14 mai 2012 - 01:37 .
Klijpope wrote...
(A number of people have brought up Captian Sheriden of B5, saying he did not die until long after the end of the Shadow War. However, have they forgotten that he already died on Zha'ha'dum? Only to be resurrected by a Deus Ex Machina far more egregious than the Catalyst, who then made clear he was on borrowed time from then on. And who is to say that if JSM had been able to complete his arc as intended, rather than rushing the Shadow War only to get another series, who is to say that the original (artistic!) intention would have had him dying at the end of the war...?)
Modifié par iakus, 14 mai 2012 - 01:53 .
Jackdespisesu wrote...
I don't know if it was possible to have a "happy ending" per-se after the first two games. I think that Sheppard knew the score early on and accepted it. I mean how else could it have ended in all honesty, the galaxy is saved-and so are your friends for the most part.
I say give it a rest-Sheppard obviously did.
me neither thats why i busted my butt in me2 why not have the same for the LAST gameAtakuma wrote...
Seriously though, I have no problem with a "happy" ending as long as you have to work for it.
MegaSovereign wrote...
Because it would have been incredibly cliche. Bioware has been pounding the whole idea of the reapers being an unstoppable/overwhelming force for 2.9 games. No matter how much war assets you have, you'll never beat the Reapers conventionally. This is something that has been repeated over and over. With that said, the destruction of the mass relays wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The Mass Relays were Reaper tech. Organic civilizations are finally free of any Reaper influence and can now advance and evolve at their own pace. I think that's what Bioware was going for. And if you don't agree with that, then choose control where the Citadel and Mass Relays are largely intact.
And as vague as the whole Crucible/Catalyst plot device was, it's better than having the Reapers being killed off by the power of friendship.
The problems with the ending was not that it wasn't happy. There was just no closure. Thane and Mordin's deaths weren't at all happy, but they were well executed and provided closure to their character developments.
Modifié par iakus, 14 mai 2012 - 02:58 .
Modifié par Subject M, 14 mai 2012 - 02:40 .
iakus wrote...
The "happy ending" that I want, is that Shepard is there to help rebuild. Killing Shep off unavoidably strikes me as an arbitrary tragedy that serves no purpose to to manipulate the player into feeling bad.
Modifié par AlanC9, 14 mai 2012 - 03:00 .
AlanC9 wrote...
iakus wrote...
The "happy ending" that I want, is that Shepard is there to help rebuild. Killing Shep off unavoidably strikes me as an arbitrary tragedy that serves no purpose to to manipulate the player into feeling bad.
What about the existing "breath" ending? Are you OK with Shep living only if he does what that ending requires him to do? (Let's not get into the whole EMS issue here).
Modifié par iakus, 14 mai 2012 - 03:59 .
Guest_slyguy200_*
Modifié par slyguy200, 14 mai 2012 - 03:37 .
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
iakus wrote...
The "happy ending" that I want, is that Shepard is there to help rebuild. Killing Shep off unavoidably strikes me as an arbitrary tragedy that serves no purpose to to manipulate the player into feeling bad.
What about the existing "breath" ending? Are you OK with Shep living only if he does what that ending requires him to do? (Let's not get into the whole EMS issue here).
I find the "breath" ending, even aside from the EMS issue, to be far too ambiguous.
I'm not certain what you mean by what an ending requires him to do. If you mean Shepard has to choose the "Red" ending to survive, then yeah, I can live with that. Although there are other overly artifically tragic aspects to that ending I dislike as well. But that's an issue for another thread.
slyguy200 wrote...
Something about people being emo, and wanting to actually feel something/
I played through ME2 perfectly every time and got my squad out perfectly, this is what i wanted. The game rewarded me for playing through it without messing anything up.
That, however, is not how everyone sees it.
Some people wanted to play through perfectly and have some of the squad die dramatically on the mission. So, with the game rewarding them with their squads survival, it actually angered them that they all survived, and they never got an "EMOtional pay-off" from all there hard work.
Ridiculous. right?
And now they want ME3's ending to be all dark and emo for them. Even though most people are angered by the lack of survival chances and variability, the emo's want it to stay dark so that cutting themselves isn't required for them to feel something.
Subject M wrote...
The "red ending" being the only way out was clearly a mistake as it is an impossible choice for many player to make. You would need more then one way out, not just one "renegade option".
Modifié par kingtigernz, 14 mai 2012 - 05:16 .
iakus wrote...
Subject M wrote...
The "red ending" being the only way out was clearly a mistake as it is an impossible choice for many player to make. You would need more then one way out, not just one "renegade option".
I don't view any of the endings as being inherently "paragon" or "renegade" even with the colors associated with them. There's no morality atatched to them, they're simply choices.
What makes the "red ending" choice an impossible one is the extra arbitrary tragedy bolted onto it for no other reason than to make it sadder. Blue and Green also have their own problems that make them "impossible choices" as well. But Red's is far more overt.
Modifié par Subject M, 14 mai 2012 - 06:02 .
Retour en haut
