10 réponses à ce sujet

[ph34r-X]

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

[Allan Schumacher]

ph34r-X wrote...

I mean look at the refusal ending. Why can't we have that in the refusal ending, but if you're readiness is too low you get the current refusal ending.

I'm just asking this to facilitate discussion, so I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound or anything (my that sounds ominous...).


I see your opinion come up, and I often state my opinion and perspective.  I want to try something a bit different.  Many feel "why can't we have that in the refusal ending?"

Which is a fair enough point.  The writers/designers could have easily allowed that to be an option (what happens in the game is literally whatever they put in).


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

[Allan Schumacher]

I say because the game can go nuts on different endings. SO many little changes that people would have to youtube a lot to see many little things that change cause of peoples choices over the trilogy. They consistatny said it was the end of Shep's story, so have at it for whatever the player wants. Happy, Sad, Medium and variants in between, people would find something to complain about but I think you have an 80/20 "it was awesome" instead of the meh and its horrible now.

So it should allow variation because it's the end of Shepard's story, so we should let the players wrap it up however they see fit?

You mention that the game is set up to have a variety of options for endings. I think there could be a lot more endings without actually having an ending that involves: "Shepard Lives, reapers defeated conventionally, Geth/EDI live, and Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest."  So there must be more to it than simply the number of available endings.

Because it would be a satisfying, happy ending. We would still have had to pay a high price for our victory, but the cost would not have been our soul and we'd actually win. In all the current endings we lose and in three of the four the Reapers win. Players should be rewarded for rejecting the logic of the monsters known as Reapers, not punished.

Just to be clear, you seem to be equating losing simply with whether or not Shepard survives? Am I correct in understanding this. What does it take to "win" this conflict then? Is the only "winning" condition one that has Shepard living, reapers defeated conventionally, Geth/EDI living, and Shepard walking off with love interest?

Umm, because it is narratively cohesive? I mean, come on, Allan, I respect you, but that question shouldn't even need to be asked.

It should be in the ending because self-determination and the impact of our choices have always been key themes of the Mass Effect series. Why should the trilogy-capper be any different?

Narrative coherence requires a happy ending where Shepard lives, the reapers are defeated conventionally, Geth/EDI lives, with Shepard walking off into the sunset?

If there was an ending that didn't involve the Catalyst, you do not feel it could have maintained narrative coherence without those elements? The ending must have a happy choice?


Why should self-determination require any of those elements? Is narrative coherence not maintained with the ultimate Pyrrhic Victory, where the Reapers are killed (conventionally or otherwise) but this current cycle is so devastated that they're effectively wiped out as well? And ending like this contains none of the elements that are mentioned. How is it an example of a lack of narrative cohesion? It certainly contains an element of self-determination and there's a definite impact to that particular choice.

Even with the current endings, why is narrative cohesion not upheld with, at the very least, the destroy and the refusal endings. Both allow for self-determination (in one case that self-determination isn't enough, but it's still an example of self-determination). Both cases require players to assess the impact of their choices.

So why should have a decidedly happy ending, if the requirements for narrative cohesion are self determination and the impact of your choices.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 29 juin 2012 - 04:18 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Greylycantrope wrote...

OP this is pretty much what I've been asking for the whole time.

Allan I'll answer your question with a question "Why shouldn't it?"

Since I was already asking my question in response to the OPs question, we could really go in circles all day with this if we play it this way.

He's gathering our responses.

To be clear, I'm not "gathering" anything.  I'm simply curious, because it's a perspective that is different than mine and hence intrinsically is more difficult for me to understand.

Do NOT respond to me if you're attaching any sort of expectation that it will change anything.  I do not want people feeling hopeful for more endings because of this thread.  I have no control over anything like that.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 29 juin 2012 - 04:40 .

[Allan Schumacher]

vivaladricas wrote...

The back of the box says 16 endings or in an ad.  Wasn;t it advertised as a choice game?  You're bolding "should"  so I am guessing you are getting at the player should not have choice in the manner you are implying the word should there?  

I'm bolding the word "should" because many people are just saying "why not?"  In a completely fictional world, we could have had pink flamingos materialize doing the macarena while shooting laser beams out of their eyes as the way the game wraps up.  So yeah, they could have done it.  I'm asking why should it?

For instance, some people have simply just stated "I play games for escapism and I loved being the hero."  That's a valid reason.  And if that's the way that person really feels, kudos to them for just telling me like it is.

Some people feel that there shouldn't be.  Some people feel that the game's definition of choice is more along the lines of "drive the narrative the way I want it to go" instead of "give me choices that have consequences, be and I'll deal with those consequences."

I'm stressing the idea: "Because something CAN be done, does that mean it SHOULD be done?"  If you think it should be done, then why?  Some have written up some very interesting responses and I enjoy reading them.

A large part of this stems from the other common threads (also mentioned here) about how BioWare could have totally made the refuse ending a happier one.  

[Allan Schumacher]

crimsontotem wrote...

Put us in your perspective... you put about god knows how many hours into the game... and you yourself has become Commander Shepard. Now you want to see how this story of YOU come to an end and you only get a speculative ending... what do you think? YOUR story ends abruptly witout any direct end. How woudl you feel?

I first played ME1 in 2008, before I even started at BioWare, and I have kept my saved games and played through the whole series with two different characters.  At no point have I ever worked on a Mass Effect game, so I've only ever played them as a fan, and have suck well over 100+ hours into the games myself.


Now, I had already heard crazy rumors about the awfulness of the ending, so that likely made me go into it with a much more open mind.  But I did NOT mind the open endedness of the original endings.  An advantage of the, I found, is that it places more emphasis on the choice and what I feel about the choice, rather than seeing the validation of said choice with a detailed description of the consequence of my choice.

When you provide a more detailed epilogue, you validate, or worse invalidate, whether or not the thought process they used to make the decision was correct.  I think part of this is why many people feel the current refusal ending is an insult, because they really wanted it to go down in another way.  Even though it's not actually illogical that the Reapers ultimately win, there are more than one several page threads that basically say "This is stupid, we should be able to win conventionally" because really, it's what they want.

So I didn't mind the original endings (I didn't think they were great, but I didn't think they were bad.  I was still able to enjoy them), but I could certainly understand (in part by asking) why many did want more details and whatnot.

[Allan Schumacher]

Kerasth wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Because it would be a satisfying, happy ending. We would still have had to pay a high price for our victory, but the cost would not have been our soul and we'd actually win. In all the current endings we lose and in three of the four the Reapers win. Players should be rewarded for rejecting the logic of the monsters known as Reapers, not punished.

Just to be clear, you seem to be equating losing simply with whether or not Shepard survives? Am I correct in understanding this. What does it take to "win" this conflict then? Is the only "winning" condition one that has Shepard living, reapers defeated conventionally, Geth/EDI living, and Shepard walking off with love interest?

Wrong. I equate losing with the Reapers surviving. I would have been okay with Shepard dying to destroy the Reapers. Instead EDI and the geth die in the destroy ending and Shepard lives (if only for a few seconds). I went into ME3 accepting the fact that my Shep might not get to see the future she saved. I did not go into it accepting that the Reapers would survive in any of the alleged "win" scenarios.

If this was the case, you wouldn't have said that in all the current endings we lose.  Was that misspoken on your part?  The Reapers are definitively destroyed in the Destroy ending.  Yet you refer to the other endings as being the "win" scenarios.

[Allan Schumacher]

Because one of the defining characteristics of Shepard--possibly the ONLY defining characteristic, given the level of player choice to his personality and beliefs--is that he can engage any foe and any problem, and fight them on his terms, compromising when it suits him,

Like Ashley and Kaiden? Earth's fleet and the Destiny's Ascension? Or even Mordin on Tuchanka? Balak or the hostages? The Alpha Relay and the Bahak System?

Shepard isn't always able to get the optimal outcome and sometimes must make actual choices that aren't exactly ideal. I'm not saying the expectation of a happier ending is silly because of my examples, but it's more just a counterpoint to the idea that Shepard is always able to make the best out of the situation even if it doesn't seem obvious or even if it seems impossible.

Because in the best stories, the timeless ones that are cherished for generations, the ones that matter to people and keep them warm when the real world goes cold and give a glimmer of light when the darkness closes in, end in such a way, realistic or not.

I don't think so. Shakespeare's most famous works tend to be his tragedies. Most people are well aware of the story of Romeo and Juliet, even if they aren't familiar with the Shakespeare version. I haven't studied literary history so I can't comment if these types of stories are more or less common, but there's no shortage of tragic stories that are considered absolute gems of literature and have been passed down for many generations.

In terms of the Mass Effect series, yes, considering it's been done since the freaking beginning.

To be perfectly blunt, if you think that the Mass Effect series must provide an unequivocally superior ending in order to maintain narrative coherence, then I think you're misusing the term narrative coherence.

Shepard dying is definitely losing.

When you invest 3 entire games and years into one character, his death is a loss

Emphatically disagree. I think it's fine that you feel this way, but I definitely do not. Even with the original endings.

Because that's what I spent three games working for. I didn't go through Mass Effect 1 and 2 disappointed because I had the option of winning with minimal casualties. I enjoyed those games because it felt like my character made the difference.

When you get right down to it, the whole idea of the Geth/Edi dying in destroy just feels forced, like they threw in killing them because otherwise it's hands down the best option. Forcing the catalyst to be unable to discriminate between the reapers and everything else will never stop feeling like a cop out.

At it's core, any decision is essentially "thrown in" because it's determined by what the content creators want to do. I actually agree that the cost is probably put in to make the choice less of an obvious choice. But does it feel forced because you just don't want it to be the case, or does it feel forced because it just doesn't make any sense.

My first interpretation of the Geth being a victim of the blast is that the blast simply targets synthetic life form. There's already issues with the crucible itself (I don't think it's a strong aspect of the story), but given it is what's there, it was easy to logically deduce why the Geth would also fall victim.

At what point does a choice become challenging and interesting compared to just feeling forced?


@Bourne Endeavor
Your post was a bit lengthy so I didn't want to quote it outright, but thanks for your response and I appreciate your insights as an author yourself.

[Allan Schumacher]

Kerasth wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Do NOT respond to me if you're attaching any sort of expectation that it will change anything.  I do not want people feeling hopeful for more endings because of this thread.  I have no control over anything like that.

My only expectation is that you respond without condescension. Your reply to my comment failed to deliver on that.

At this point of the conversation, didn't I just ask for clarification over what it meant to win and lose?  The thread is moving fast so maybe I missed it, but I did go back and look and you're the one that mentioned in every choice you lose, with 3 out of 4 being wins for the Reapers.  Then mentioned

If you took my inquiry as condescending I'm sorry.  It wasn't meant to be the case.  Though I was more confused by your follow up because you mentioned that losing is the Reapers surviving, though the Destroy ending does destroy the Reapers....

wantedman dan wrote...

Why is this an either/or situation?

Someone driving the narrative in the way that they want it means that the consequences of any choice are the ones that they want.  In other words, they aren't really consequences.  It's more just progressing through a story and directing how you want it to go.

If you allow the player to have relatively complete control over the how the narrative plays out, you prevent yourself from providing a situation where the player must make a difficult choice.  Anyone that has control over the narrative is also choosing the consequences for their choices.

I think the best way to explain the clamoring for a happy ending is that
the previous two games were not tragedies and neither was Mass Effect 3

At the same time, due to the nature of being a tragedy Shepard effectively has plot armor.  While he can die at the end of ME2, it kills the story there and is provided more as an easter egg as opposed to a genuine ending.  Mass Effect is Shepard's story, so the possibility of Shepard dying prior to its conclusion is zero.

Did you not notice all the people in this thread who've been telling why it should have been done? Did you not see all the huge walls of text containing solid arguments for why it should
have been done? Is this what we're to expect from Bioware in the
future? Ignoring everything we say and responding to all grievances with
what amounts to "F*ck you, we know what we're doing"?

I have read every single post in this thread, so yes I have noticed.

If you think my posts are simply amounting to "**** you we know what we're doing," then I think it's best if I vacate this thread because that is not at all what I meant to do.


Sorry.


EDIT:  I'll continue to read people's responses but I will post more sparingly in this thread because I am not getting the impression that it's constructive.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 29 juin 2012 - 06:09 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Udalango wrote...

How can you decide how you feel on a choice if you dont know all the consequences of the choice though?

I do want to respond to this because I think it's a great question.


When you're not told the consequences of the choice itself, it shifts the emphasis to the choice itself, rather than the consequences.

We'll use the original destroy ending as an example.  Many people feel it's too much of a price to pay to sacrifice the Geth and EDI to destroy the Reapers.  Many people though, were curious if the Catalyst was being entirely honest or even fully knew the answer?  There was enough of an epilogue to show that this may be the case (how the Crucible's beam affects people on Earth, and whether or not Shepard surives).

Now, if we show a full epilogue that shows that the Geth and EDI actually survive, then the choice becomes purely about the consequence.  People will happily pick that option, in spite of the risk to the Geth and EDI, because they know it doesn't actually happen.

Not knowing for certain, or at least believing that it will happen, places the emphasis clearly on how the player (and through the player, Shepard) feels about the choice.  Some people are not interested in choosing it because the price is too high.  For some people the Geth are already dead (or they hate the Geth), so it's an easy choice.  Others think that the consequences suck, but ultimately it must be done, and do it with remorse.

It makes the player evaluate the choices as they stand, without any influence from the actual outcomes that may exist.  It also means that the player will not be put into a situation where the the game ends up telling them that the choice they made doesn't actually turn out they way they wanted it to when they made that choice.


I suppose I'm just speaking on behalf of myself (many people didn't like them obviously), but it made me evaluate the choices purely internally.  Each of the choices had a potential cost to them, coupled with some uncertainty over the reliability of the Catalyst, and each of the choices made me reflect on myself as a person.  At what point am I willing to bend on my ethical beliefs if I feel the end justifies the means?

This is also why I supported the fans' idea that there should be the option to refuse the Catalyst.  After the fact, I realized that providing these ethical considerations without providing the option for the player to say "I don't wish to compromise them" is less interesting.


Great question though!

[Allan Schumacher]

Publicly calling out an apology from me to RPGenius.

I misrepresented his post not maliciously, but more because I was starting to bounce around between other posts and the part of his post I quoted had become a common theme. Where he talks about how Shepard can't always make the choice was overlooked and I didn't mean to misrepresent his position specifically.

Doesn't excuse my mistake however.

Sorry.