13 réponses à ce sujet

[AlisdairMAgain]

 Yes, there are many reasons.  In my case, my paragon got to the end of the game, faced down the illusive foe he had spent the game fighting, who told me 'control' is the only way.  Duly dispatched, the Star Child appears, and gives me my options.  I dutifully take the 'blue' paragon option to destroy these monsters, rather than take the renegade option of stealing the very plans of the villain I had been battling all game.

Lo! and Behold!  There is a big blue explosion and the entire universe is plunged into darkness.  I guess there is a cost for blowing up all that reaper tech, but yay good guys, we totally blew them up.

Wait, now I read the forums and I actually used the illusive plan?
I totally failed at the very last step of the game, in the biggest way possible?
AND I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE!!!!

The last part is unforgivably sloppy story telling.  Bad on me for screwing up while the universe hangs in the balance.  Bad on Bioware that I had to read here what I had actually done!

(Yes, I saw the reapers leave, but that was simply being responsible and blowing them up where the explosions don't kill people - clearly the destruct called them into the mass relay network, the only way to safely destroy them all at once, at the expense of the relay network itself.  Hey, I hadn't see any other endings, and knew what I *thought* I had asked my shepherd to do)

[Allan Schumacher]

Note, the open ended nature of the ending means you cannot definitively conclude whether the ending is good or bad compared to the others.

There's been a lot of discussion about the three choices, and a common topic that comes up is that some people feel they couldn't choose the Control ending because it's what The Illusive Man wanted.

It's perfectly justified for you to feel that the Control ending is the best and most ideal of the three choices presented to you though.

[Allan Schumacher]

ReggarBlane wrote...

But all we get are speculations for every choice. We have nothing solid as a reward for getting to an ending once and for all.

I get that someone wanted speculations for everyone, but I really don't believe that this was a good way to implement it.

That's fine but it's actually a different topic

You mean "morally good or morally bad", right?

I can definitely conclude that the ending was bad...

[Allan Schumacher]

zovoes wrote...

they are all war crimes and could count as crimes against humanity, all of them. what about that makes any of them good?

My comment to being "good or bad" was explicitly concerning how they are relative to one another.  Which still actually fits your idea that they are each war crimes.  If they are all roughly equivalent in how much they are war crimes, then no choice is any better or worse than the other choices.  They are equivalent.

I agree that none of the options are really "good."  Personally that's what I like about them.  I think the execution of the ending could be better, but the fundamental choices that are provided are actually very interesting for me.  The only thing missing is a 4th "do nothing" option, but the "jerk developer" in me would make that result in a situation where the fleet puts up a good fight, but ultimately ends with Shepard and Co. fighting to preserve their knowledge (Liara's project) and fire it off for another cycle to discover.  If done well I think it still could have been very powerful too.

Similar to Legion's loyalty mission, though,  I found the ending made me pause for a moment and more seriously evaluate the consequences of my actions.  I wanted to defeat the reapers, but at what cost?

Actually, I missed making my point. It's a moral vacuum. We are left
with speculations and no foundations to make a moral judgment for
ourselves. We have to try to head-canonize the endings, but in the end,
it's still just head-canon. Some part of us is always stuck wondering if
it's the way things happened or not.

Speculations on the
consequences of a moral judgment that affects the entire fate of
everything Shepard knows leaves everyone hanging.

Any morality of
the choices become meaningless. The ultimate moral decision has no
basis for people to place their the morality upon it.

I'm ambivalent towards the open ended ending.  I don't really mind it, but I don't think I would have necessarily enjoyed the ending more if a full epilogue also existed.  Both have there merits IMO.

In terms of making the choice, I prefer an open ended ending.  This prevents any choice from being the "wrong" choice, and makes the choices more a reflection about the player/Shepard and what they feel is the best decision.  It tells a slightly different story than one that has full epilogues, where I feel more weight would be placed on the aftermath of the choice made, rather than the choice itself.  Having the full epilogues also enables the player to make a choice based on information that Shepard actually cannot.  I found it interesting that, while there being some additional information, we don't reall see much more than what Shepard already knows.  We have to make the same difficult decision not knowing the full effect of our actions, the same way that Shepard must.

While an open ended ending lets you morally justify your decision, the full epilogue effectively has the writers judge the player on their decision.  Whether or not the decision was a good one to make is now determined by the contents of the epilogue.  It does provide closure, but is actually still just as susceptible to being disappointing for the gamer.  Closure works well if it fits in line with what you're expecting or hoping for.  If I pick the destroy ending thinking it's the best option, and it turns out that by wiping out the Geth total anarchy happens and the galaxy dies a horrible death, well that still kind of sucks.  But if the epilogue were to show the Quarians mourning the Geth, and attempting to recreate them to atone for their past actions, ultimately succeeding and having the Geth/Quarians working together and proving the Catalyst wrong, I think it'd be better received.  So it really depends on what is provided.  I loved the epilogues in Baldur's Gate saga, as well as Fallout 1 and 2, so I'm not at all against them.

[Allan Schumacher]

That, right there, is probably the biggest reason as to why the ending fails. Truthfully, Allan, that sounds like a cop-out. It sounds like you now that narratively, the ending is terrible. But we can't take the discussion much further than that because we know nothing about what happens.

I emphatically disagree that it's a cop-out. I do not think it would have been very difficult to add on some junk after the fact and go "hey look epilogue." I do not think that that would have made the endings better. I think it would have made them worse. I also think it's important to note that there are still a lot of people that DO enjoy the endings.

As I said, it changes what the ending focuses on. If you would rather have the endings be qualitatively superior to the others, then that is simply a reflection of what differs between you and I as a gamer.

I've been giving this a bit more thought as it commonly comes up, and the main reason I don't think it's a cop out is because a game like the original Deus Ex (easily in my Top 5 of all time) is a game that presented 3 choices at the end of the game, with no real epilogue about what happens afterward. It's also 3 choices where anyone could make an argument that any of the endings is superior to the rest. Had Ion Storm shown full epilogues of your decisions, it'd undermine this choice because it'd enable the player to make a more informed decision. If merging with Helios ends up resulting in a perfect Utopia (or backfires and ends up making humanity extinct and forces everyone to become cyborgs) then the player can more definitively state if that is the ideal ending.

Whereas a game like Fallout doesn't actually provide any real choice at the end, but the epilogue nature of it shows the consequences of the choices you made throughout the game. If you want the moment to be about the choice itself, I think an open ended ending can work really well because you're left only with your own internal justifications about why that is the correct choice.


This is I think why I have no real issue with the choices as they are on a fundamental level. I think if the execution of them was a bit better done they would have been received a lot better, even if the choices were not any different.

[Allan Schumacher]

Devil Mingy wrote...

So, if I may ask, what is your opinion on the Extended Cut that may potentially add such things?

My point was more "Epilogues would only help the ending if they are good epilogues.  The ending is not inherently weaker than one with epilogues simply because it's open ended.

On your main point, I do see where you're coming from, though I do not agree that Deus Ex and Mass Effect are similar enough in tone and style to share the same ending as they did. However, I can definitely see how adding details and results can hurt their intention to have everybody personalize the ending for themselves (though, as I said, being told that what I have speculated is wrong has already soured this for me).

I think a good way to illustrate this is when RPGs provide epilogues for the PC, and people get upset because that epilogue depicts actions that the player doesn't feel they would have done had they still controlled the PC.

At this point though the decisions has been made to provideing the ending DLC, so yes any of the open endedness that exists is essentially not going to applicable anymore.

For what it's worth, I've really enjoyed a lot of the discussions I have had with people about the ending too.

For example, if they omitted the Normandy escape and crash scene altogether and let me "speculate" on their fate, I would have about 15 less problems with this ending than I do now.

Agreed haha.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 05:29 .

[Allan Schumacher]

It's a total cop-out to say it was just an issue of execution and the only problem was a little lack of closure. There are fundamental problems with the ending choices in themselves and the whole ending plot line, not just "execution". That's the biggest cop-out in this whole mess. The endings in themselves, not just the execution of the endings, are fundamental failures.

When I say execution, I'm more referring to the context by which the choices were provided. Had the Catalyst been completely omitted from the end of the game, but some alternative way resulted in the same three choices being provided to the player would constitute a difference in the execution of the endings. As a result, I as a player have little issue with the actual choices presented to me as they stand. The choices I find interesting and make me think. The execution of it (i.e. via the Catalyst and so forth) is where I think people would have liked to see improvement.

Unless you're trying to tell me that people don't want to see changes to the Catalyst. After all, I'm the person (that hasn't been commenting on the EC since I don't know anything about it) that "just doesn't get it" so I probably could use a little hand here.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 05:29 .

[Allan Schumacher]

AIR MOORE wrote...

You are comparing a stand alone game that was (as far as I know) never intended to have sequels or prequels, but very well could... to Mass Effect 3?

It can "work" in a stand-alone game, because there was nothing stopping them from doing this namely: (Cohesion with the rest of Universe created in games 1 & 2, ability to create a sequel that could pick up on all this and show us exactly what happend, and notions this was a conclusion of the trilogy of our Shep all along, whereas DE had nothing of the sort).

There you have it, explained why it's fundamentally different than DE... and a very bad analogy if that is how you harken these two together.

In other words: I agree with you that it worked in DE, but it fails as an end to a trilogy in ME3.

When dealing purely with the notion of whether or not an open ending works, I find your explanation of why it's a bad analogy arbitrary.

Taken as a whole, the ME saga is coming to an end.  There's been talk that this will be the last game in the Mass Effect series, and certainly the last one with regarding Shepard's story. 

If you agree that it can work in Deus Ex because there's no certainty that anything will come after it, then the only distinction you have made is that ME3 is the third part of a game.  So am I correct in assuming that had the entire Mass Effect trilogy just been a single game from start to finish, you'd have less issue because the only meaningful difference is that Mass Effect's story takes place over 3 games instead of just 1.

If your issue lies with things like the Catalyst or the options that are provided themselves and whether they make thematic sense with the rest of the Mass Effect story, that is a different issue than whether or not the ending is open ended or provides closure.

Tisk, tisk... I wouldn't imagine you'd lose sight of that glaring
difference in these two games and why "3" can work in game "D" but not
"M". .

I try my best to not talk down to people when I disagree with them.  I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 05:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

The difference here is that Denton had differnt people advocating for the different endings, explaining the justifications for them and why the others were wrong.  There wasn't a ghostly kid with 2-3 lines for each choice.

In addition, Denton had to work for each ending.  There were different mission parameters fro each one.  Denton work work on any or all of them on teh final map.  Denton makes an active choice when he finally makes his decision. He is not herded towards a light with only a vague notion of what's going to happen. I should also mention that each choice in eus Ex came with a unique ending.

You won't find any argument for me that Deus Ex did it better.

The thing I was trying to illustrate was that a more open ended ending places more emphasis on the decision, and the justification for the decision, rather than the explicit consequences of the decision that you get with epilogues.

Whether or not it works for the player depends on that player.  Obviously for a large group of people it didn't work with ME3.  But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the open ended ending.  I think it shifts the focus, and I think Deus Ex is an example of a game that did it quite well.

How is that a good thing? If all the endings are the same, then why even have an ending cinematic?

Endings don't need to be the same to not be definitively "better" endings compared to other endings.  When I said no ending is "good or bad compared to the others" I mean that it's perfectly justifiable for someone to feel that the choice they made was the best choice for the galaxy of the options available to them.  I'm not talking about whether or not the endings are of good or bad quality in this context, but whether or not they are desirable when compared to the other endings.

Deus Ex is a great example of a game where all 3 endings (which are all different) have merit to them and you can make an argument why any of the endings is the best ending.

[Allan Schumacher]

Gogzilla wrote...

Allan Schumacher sure likes to argue semantics :l

Let me ask you a question to clarify what you been saying.
Considering all the feed back and backlash over the ending,
Can it be said that the ending to ME3 does not work as a result of its open ended nature and/or execution of content.
So it may actually need more closure and an epilogue sequence reflected past choices.

I think the fact that there is ending DLC in the works is a fair enough assessment on whether or not the endings for ME3 worked as they are.

Now are you saying that the 'problems the fans have' may be because ME3 ending as an open ending is not executed to the level that is satisfactory to those fans.

Is it not possible that the problem may be the fact that it is as open ended as it is , and it needs the epilogue sequence ?

At the same time, there ARE people that do enjoy the ME3 endings.  Particularly the open ended nature of them.  Whether or not it needs the epilogues is evidently more of a personal thing.  If it wasn't, then there'd be definitive consensus from everyone.

This is beyond absurd reasoning if you're trying to evaluate something
on moral grounds.  You can absolutely determine and conclude whether the
ending is good or bad (moral judgements) compared to the others based
simply on the fact that the ends do not justify the means.  At least not
if you're trying to be ethical.

To reiterate, my "good or bad" comment is based upon their moral value relative to each other.  If you feel that each of the three choices are equally morally bankrupt, then you actually agree with my statement that none of the endings are good or bad compared to the other endings.  They are morally equivalent (even if that means devoid of ethical consideration).

[Allan Schumacher]

Reddof Nonnac wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

...

Whereas a game like Fallout doesn't actually provide any real choice at the end, but the epilogue nature of it shows the consequences of the choices you made throughout the game. If you want the moment to be about the choice itself, I think an open ended ending can work really well because you're left only with your own internal justifications about why that is the correct choice.


This is I think why I have no real issue with the choices as they are on a fundamental level. I think if the execution of them was a bit better done they would have been received a lot better, even if the choices were not any different.

 
But by what you’re saying, while Fallout didn’t give you a choice at the end, it did give the player the one thing the ME3 ending really didn’t, and that is your choices though out the game mattered!

That's fair and I understand that criticism with the ending of ME3.  ME3's ending could have easily been a single choice but have the divergence be in the epilogues for the choices players made throughout the game (or even the whole series).

When I brought up Fallout, I think I was more postulating that epilogues may be better served if there isn't choice at just the end.

[Allan Schumacher]

Helios969 wrote...

But this goes to a point I've raised on a number of occasions.  Is it EA/BW's objective to make art? or is it to sell games to the masses?  Ideally, you want to do both, but objectively and ultimately as a corporate entity you need to cater to the masses tastes.  Otherwise less people are inclined to play the product at potentially the cost of any artistic pursuit at all.  It's a fine line to be sure.

Ideally, as developers, we want to make the game that we want to make and hopefully the rest of the world agrees that it's awesome and buys it in droves.

As a developer, I understand that economies of scale are important and that making a game that ONLY I want isn't going to work very well for sustained development.  If I were to make a game that I think would have the widest appeal, it'd probably be an FPS in the vein of Modern Warfare games.  Or maybe some online social game instead.  Though that's not the type of game that I'm interested in playing, which means it's probably not the type of game I'd be very good at making either.

antares_sublight wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The
thing I was trying to illustrate was that a more open ended ending
places more emphasis on the decision, and the justification for the
decision, rather than the explicit consequences of the decision that you
get with epilogues.

It's disheartening to continually
hear BioWare speak as if this is the actual issue (when it's just a
cop-out to avoid recognizing the deeper failures). The very concept of the endings is flawed in itself. Lack of understanding of the consequences is an issue, but only comes after the fact that the ending choices themselves are disjointed from the rest of the series.

So I just don't get it?

Repeated assertions of this don't help BioWare's case. Excuse to cop-out.

If you feel that I'm just a shill making cop-out excuses, then that's that.

Take care.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm still reading the forums don't worry.  I haven't gone anywhere.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 07:44 .

[Allan Schumacher]

That's fine. But I don't think it's fair to outright dismiss the person that feels the costs with the other two endings are too high, and if I am able to control the Reapers and use them for the greater good of the Galaxy (including rebuilding it) then that's a better solution.