4 réponses à ce sujet

[wryterra]

Directly responding to players who wanted Shepard to reject the false-choice offered by the Starchild, now you can do just that. I was thrilled to see it.

When the option starts and Shepard straightens up, speaks confidently, rejects the Starchild, vows to fight to a conventional victory or to die free I thought 'hell yeah, this is how it should end'. 

And then, well... 

There's an old RPG saying 'rocks fall, everyone dies'. It's used to describe that moment when the GM (guy running the game and telling the story) gets frustrated with his players and just kills them all off to get it over with. That's how it felt. Rocks fell and everyone died. You just die. Like that.

It's the shortest ending with the least effort put into it. It's also ... well, kind of flawed. So we see Liara's time-capsule burried deep under the planet Joker landed the Normandy on after withdrawing from the Catalyst explosion. Just one problem, reject the Catalyst's choices and there was no explosion. So why did the Normandy end up there? 

It's like Casey and Mac specifically telling those of us who believed Shepard would stand up to the Starchild, as she stood up to every enemy before, Saren, TIM, Sovreign, Harbinger and tell them 'NO!' that they're angry we didn't like their ending. 

Starchild's angry 'SO BE IT!' comes across as the writers' anger that we found their ending insufficient. 

To put it bluntly: If this were in here to satisfy players then the ending would be based on EMS. Low EMS and you're wiped out by the Reapers without hope. High enough, though and you win your conventional victory. And either way you'd get more than Liara's time capsule in a cave there's no logical reason for it to be in saying 'it didn't work, we died, hope you guys do better'. 

Honestly, this is my problem with the EC. It actually makes the other three endings endings I can accept, if not truly like. The closure slides I like. I'd have walked away disappointed but no longer angry. Now, though, I just feel like Casey and Mac have offered me a 1.9GB insult trashing my belief in Shepard as a character. 

Thanks, guys. 

[Allan Schumacher]

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

[Allan Schumacher]

spacefiddle wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?

False choice.

You cannot be unaware of every issue brought up with the ending by now.  It is very telling that your first question is "well if it was that or nothing, would you really want nothing?" instead of addressing why a large number of people could interpret such a thing as a cheap shot.  Would you prefer I ignore you, or kick you in the nuts?  That's no kind of choice at all, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

It's not a false choice.  It's a direct question to help me understand the poster's position.  I am specifically asking him if he'd prefer the choice not be presented rather than what was given.

It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

False logic.  "If we were going to insult you, wouldn't we have done a more efficient job of it?"  Again, sidestepping the issue of the content of the 4th ending and deflecting it to "huh? what? why would we do such a thing?"  But let me answer your question: yes, it is dismissive.  You sucker us in to thinking, holy crap, they've really pulled off something amazing here.... Harby is Godboi like the Indoc folks said he was!  Shep's rejecting the IM and Saren choices, and refusing to commit genocide on the Geth!  And then, you just pull the rug out.

Are you really proud of this?  Will you look back on this moment in your career, and think, you know, we really did something worthwhile there?

Your attempt to deflect this, and the entirety of the 4th choice ending, does not stand up to the slightest amount of logical scrutiny.  Just like the original endings.  So no; nothing has been achieved other than a very expensive slap delivered to people who actually cared about your company and your story.  Well done.

Well then.  At the same time I think people just see what they want to see.  Frankly your post was rude and pretentious, magnified by the fact that you demonstrated you actually didn't actually understand what I was asking and tried to be witty about it with "False <point>" to open your statements.  If you wish to be dismissive of me trying to talk with the fans (as a fan myself, since most posters here are quite understanding of the fact that I don't work on the Mass Effect team), you're free to not respond to my posts.

If you feel that this was an attempt by the Mass Effect team to flip you the bird, I do not feel there is anything I can say to you to convince you otherwise.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 27 juin 2012 - 07:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

wryterra wrote...

Hey Allan, thanks for adding the BioWare tag on one of my threads, heh.

I've already answered this earlier in the thread but I'll answer again happily: Yes I would have preferred no refuse option at all compared to what was provided. 

My reason for saying that is because what was added, as I think I've made clear by now, I find insulting. Especially now I've learned that it doesn't actually count as a game completion for the purposes of achievement. That seems to be a deliberate comment that it is a way to end the game, not complete it. As it wasn't in the original ending that means this insult has been deliberately added. 

We actually did get an 'oh well you lose'. Liara's ideo, talking about our past experience, said nothing about our past experience. It reenforced the 'oh well you lose'. Correct me if I'm wrong but she covers the points: we built a crucible, it didn't work, we died. I'd have loved to hear how she described Shepard's history on the time capsule but all we got was 'Shepard failed'. Is that not dismissive? We know that 'archive' contains our entire history but the only bit BioWare chose to include in the ending was 'Shepard failed'.

It is indeed a shorter conclusion.  Would it have been more easily accepted if it was expanded upon, but ultimately the consequences still the same?  I'm referring to Liara speaking more positively (rather than just Shepard failed) and having it fleshed out more with a fight of the fleet going down in a heroic, principled blaze of glory - willing to die than compromise who they are?

The Stargazer isn't dismissive, I'll give you that but then the Stargazer scene is a couple of lines and I'm sure it was included to maintain the structure of the ending, not because the fans demanded a better Stargazer scene. That said I was interested that the Stargazer looked a little Asari like, as described in the original leaked ending.

Well, be careful when you say the words "and I'm sure."  If you already feel as though the decision was done as a slight to fans, it becomes easy to interpret reasoning for why things are done to support your perspective.


If people are curious why I might be taking this discussion a bit more personally, is that frankly - based on the feedback I had read from the fans - this is very much in line with what I would have done and if you find any of my posts on the matter from a few months ago you'll see that that was the case.

I absolutely agreed with many fans that it was lacking to be able to refuse the Catalyst's premise, especially as I found the Catalyst to be unreliable myself.  I told them straight up that if it was my say (and no, I had no influence haha) though, it'd still result in a fail case.

The coles notes of it is along the lines of "providing a choice that is so clearly the best choice invalidates the choice at all."  I've actually stated that one thing I dislike about the ME2 ending, as interesting as it is from a reactivity standpoint, is that it doesn't actually reflect player choice but more whether or not the player played the game well.  Surviving the suicide mission is more akin to getting a higher score.  Choice for me is interesting when there becomes no obvious correct choice.  It also comes down to whether or not "choice" in games means "driving the narrative in the way that I want" or "providing alternative routes that each have their own consequences."

I stated then that I find it a more interesting choice if it doesn't result in success.

So when people say that they find this to be a gigantic middle finger to them, they're actually kind of saying that they feel that my idea is a middle finger to them, when I know for a fact that that is not at all the case.  I found it to be an interesting idea that provided an alternative choice that makes the player reflect on themselves and/or Shepard.  Even knowing the consequences, are you willing to die for what you believe in?

So yeah, reading up that fans feel that the direction I felt the game should go in is just insulting to them is a bit frustrating to read.  If you feel that I'm on this boards to troll the fanbase and mock and laugh at them, then I'm not sure where you're coming from.


It sucks that you feel this is an insult.  At this point there's not much I can do about it but try to talk with you.  I'm just trying to place some perspective on it because it's along the lines of what I would have done and I have zero interest in insulting fans with additional content.  Maybe if I was ultra decision maker master sergeant supreme I would have done some things differently, and at the same time there's still reconciling costs and time issues, but the general theme would still be "You're free to stick to your principles, but ultimately the Reapers are too much for us."  Why?  Because I feel it's more interesting.  It's perfectly valid for you to tell me you disagree with that premise.  Maybe it's not more interesting for you.  It is interesting for some though.

If it was me, I'd rather work a few less crunch days then work late making content that was designed to simply flip the fans the bird.  It'd be cheaper and faster.  Just keep the left over money and give the team some time off.


Anyways, no issue with your response specifically.  It's does help me understand your perspective.

Cheers.

[Allan Schumacher]

@wryterra

That's fine, and just to be clear I wasn't so much talking directly to you when I said that the idea that this is something done just to take a pot shot at the fans, because this sentiment is actually quite common on the boards.

The achievement thing may actually just be a bug. The events that fire for the other endings would have already been a part of the base game and already present. Achievements and trophies are also something that have Microsoft and Sony have some pretty tight controls over. I don't work directly with online, but I know we had to slash a ton of achievements for DAO consoles due to numbers requirements, and there are certain restrictions over what types of achievements can exist, what their values can be, and so forth.


Having said that, you are absolutely right that that ending could have been better fleshed out. I don't know what the decision process was (and trying to come up with explanations is nothing short of trying to make excuses), but in the end I still feel that providing this option is better and provides a more interesting choice for the player (I fully agree with all the posters that felt that the player should have been able to reject the premise suggested by the Catalyst).

It seems like it's more down to the execution of it, which sucks because obviously that means it missed the mark with you. Like I said there's not much I can do about it, but you felt strongly enough about it to make a thread so I opted to talk with you about it since it's about the only thing I felt I could do haha.

Anyways, I'm sorry that you feel it was a personal jab. It can be tough for myself to separate the details of what it is that people don't like about it. I know there are some that just distill it down to "I want to win conventionally and it's crap that I can't with this choice" and they feel insulted because things don't play out the way they want and in fact the losing outright regardless makes it feel like a snub. I am glad that you don't seem to feel this way, though it doesn't really help your situation haha.


Cheers.

Allan

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 28 juin 2012 - 09:00 .