1199 réponses à ce sujet

[LaughingDragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Allan, 

If Shepard had gone down fighting, a true warrior, a soldier...then his death would be acceptable. But the way in which shepard does die is not acceptable.

He A) becomes a magic reaper space god

turns the universe into whack green eyed zombies

C) uses red lightning space magic to destroy the reapers, gets exploded upon up on the citadel, then magically appears in some rubble gasp for air then fade to black.

None of these are how Shep should have gone out imo. 

[ThePasserby]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

The tragic heroes in tragedies need to be properly set up. Such protagonists have a fatal flaw, or had commited a crime so grave in their eyes that when they die, the audience feels a sense of catharsis. As pointed out by another poster months ago, Mordin's death is a good example of a tragic hero who is properly set up. His involvement in the Genophage Modification project haunted him years after the team's dissolution. His story arc in ME3 being one of the best moments in the game is something I'm sure many will agree.

Shepard, however, is not an tragic hero and never set up to be one. Especially Paragon ones.

Shepard's story belongs more in the Hero's Journey genre of stories. 

[OblivionDawn]

wantedman dan wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

The purpose of amassing that fleet was to deliver the Crucible. The entire fleet is a desperate attempt to punch through the wall of Reapers and activate the one thing capable of defeating all of them.

If you take away the need for the Crucible, then you are left with a vastly outnumbered fleet that decides to Leeroy-Jenkins the enemy where they are most fortified (and that's disregarding that Reapers have taken over every other system by that point).

That kind of success in that situation is MUCH more lame than using a McGuffin.

Never said it was a perfect strategy, but then again, the Reapers have never faced such a force in known cyclical-based history.

Known cyclical-based history isn't that far reaching. There have been hundreds of cycles (at least), and the current one barely has information on the previous one.

Modifié par OblivionDawn, 29 juin 2012 - 05:59 .

[LaughingDragon]

warlock22 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Thats fine if you feel that way, you got your ending. But 80% of your fan base didn't want Shepard to die, because we are Shepard. We wanted to be with our LI and crew in the end.

Exactly. We are Shepard. We don't wanna die. And if we HAVE to die, we want to go out like a boss...epic death with reapers getting owned and our love interest vowing to become a virgin again till they meet shep in the afterlife.

[warlock22]

mnomaha wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Personally, I would find this to be a cheap out given the sacrifices you and others make along the way. You might as well rewrite the whole story so that Mordin lives, both of Samara's daughters live, Legion doesn't have to sacrifice himself, you get to save Koris AND his crew, etc.

On the other hand, it's not as if I have some sort of vociferous objection to a "happy" ending. It's BW's story and if for some reason they chose to add it, I wouldn't care one way or the other. I might even choose it to see the big old wedding that would presumably be a part of it.

After I started replaying ME3 from the beginning again today, I did pay attention when Hackett definitely said that we can't win the war conventionally (and that the Crucible amounts to our only hope, more or less) during the trip to Mars.

Even if you factor in gathering all the fleets of all the races...I just don't get the impression that any of it would ever be enough and find the idea that we'll be able to win to be somewhat unrealistic. With the other endings I can at least envision technological/scientific scenarios that make them acceptable.

And that's where I disagree. This is supposed to be *our* story with *our* Shepard. That's what we've always been told and, until recently, they have been true to it. ME3 changed everything that was good about the Mass Effect universe.

Agreed. Casey Hudson always said ME is about "your" story not "a" story.

[zambot]

ThePasserby wrote...


Shepard, however, is not an tragic hero and never set up to be one. Especially Paragon ones.

No, but you could make a valid argument that (the) Shepard has been set up to be a Christ figure.  

[wantedman dan]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Known cyclical-based history isn't that far reaching. There have been hundreds of cycles (at least), and the current one barely has information on the previous one.

Agreed, yes.

We're dealing with three--four, if we're lucky (considering probability of the Protheans knowing anything of those preceding the Insannon).

However, it stands to reason that, if the cycles are... well, cyclical, and history does tend to repeat itself, our cycle would be more apt to being anomalous.

[Renmiri1]

Playing ME1 and ME2 can be spoiled by ME3. Knowing no matter what you do the Geth will die and / or Sheppard will die saps the fun out of it. ME3 already has billions of lives lost on the planetary attacks, why add to the disgrace ?

I think my Sheppard will chose Synthesis. It is creepy but at least the Geth and EDI survive and Kasumi can meet her LI. Too bad that bit of space magic only works for Kasumi. My Sheppard would love to meet Thane. As it is, she doesn't care about living or dying after she lost him. Literally. I stopped playing the game a bit after that scene. The death was bad enough but having all the female LI trying to "hook up" while no one else even mentioned his death was just too much. And I knew the ending was awful.

After the EC I think I'll muddle trough it and try to finish it at least once. I'm starting a new ME1 play-through then going into a mE2 playthrough, to see if it helps me endure the ME3 doom and gloom. It is painful. Feels like a chore to play something you disagree with so much. But the EC at least made ME3 ending bearable.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

 Umm, sort of. I sort of want destroy with a better reunion scene.

[zambot]

Renmiri1 wrote...
 and Kasumi can meet her LI. Too bad that bit of space magic only works for Kasumi.

I dunno...if Synthesis magic can turn a Kenji VI into a Kenji, what do you think happens to the Shepard VI?  With Synthesis, literally anything is possible.  

[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 .

[xxnickx45xx]

I would like that ending. Shepard lives EDI safe, because I feel for her and joker, save the geth, because I felt something when Legion sacrifices himself, and give Shepard his beers so many people have said they would give him. That's for ultimate paragon.

Shepard dies but the reapers are gone. Garrus and Joker try to save him ,almost get killed in the process but when they find out he's died Garrus almost kills himself or kills himself but depending on your paragon and renegade options you've selected during the game and if you went up and shot cans with him he gets stopped by Joker , Ashley, Or Liara. The conversation goes something like this:

"Garrus don't do this!"
"Why? Tell me why? I've followed him so long why not follow until death?!?
"He wouldn't want that. He would want you to live your life."
"What more is in my life? C-Sec wouldn't want me back. All I know how to do is follow him."

Something like that. And finally the ultimate renegade option where he kills everyone.

Modifié par xxnickx45xx, 29 juin 2012 - 06:07 .

[BadgerladDK]

OP, faced with the original endings, I'd have agreed with you, but I don't anymore. Granted, the destroy ending could have had Shepard blatantly surviving and reuniting with crew, but this was *never* going to be a flawless victory.

I like a happy ending too, but against these odds, there was always going to be a price to pay. And if you're being honest, even massive losses to the fleets won't be sacrifice to you, because you won't be personally invested in Random Asari Pilot #69-6000 kicking the bucket on a cruiser here and there. For it to mean anything, it has to be someone you've fought for, and with.

[warlock22]

wantedman dan wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Known cyclical-based history isn't that far reaching. There have been hundreds of cycles (at least), and the current one barely has information on the previous one.

Agreed, yes.

We're dealing with three--four, if we're lucky (considering probability of the Protheans knowing anything of those preceding the Insannon).

However, it stands to reason that, if the cycles are... well, cyclical, and history does tend to repeat itself, our cycle would be more apt to being anomalous.

Agreed, Shepard shows that are cycle is different.

[LaughingDragon]

Allan I think it's cool you take the time to read and post here. I appreciate you.

I wish more Bioware would chat on the forums like you do. We are homies. I will seriously buy DA3 because you were so cool on these boards. Even if it is OMGWTFAWFUL like DA2 was

The Arishok was really badass, and the characters were ALL GOOD, all of them were great.

The killer for the game was the entire thing in 1 city, the re-used dungeons etc and the wave combat of epic fail

Modifié par LaughingDragon, 29 juin 2012 - 06:09 .

[Allasae]

wantedman dan wrote...

I want this to be an option.

[DukeOfNukes]

wantedman dan wrote...

Have you cared to read my opinion on this, or are you trying to justify some ill-begotten sense of moral superiority of which there is no basis?

I'm saying there should be an option.

Y'know, like there was in the past two installments.

Nope, I haven't cared enough to read your opinion beyond our conversation. Who said anything about moral superiority, though? I'm not claiming I'm more ethical than you...just a better story teller

You all are operating on false pretenses, that frankly, I'm not sure where you got them from. Mass Effect had options, but you were always stuck in a story. You were always going to stop Sovereign and Saren, but you didn't have the choice of whether or not to go to Virmire. No matter what you chose, Saren was always going to go to Ilos, and you were always going to chase after him. On Eden Prime, a squadmate always activates the beacon, and you get your brain fried as a result. After the death of Sovereign, his shrapnel always comes through...and Garrus (or another teammate) always gives that look that just breaks my heart every time when he thinks Shepard is dead.

I personally would prefer there were NO option for Shepard to survive, but have varying degrees of success. His last mission...a suicide mission, that turns the war in their favor, or ends it altogether. His love interest shown later...a "pregnant" Liara, a show of what the future CAN hold for those left behind.

[Armass81]

I think some of you people have degenerated into bawling babies now. "We continue to complain until baby gets exactly what it wants! Waah! Waaah!"

Modifié par Armass81, 29 juin 2012 - 06:11 .

[Vigilant111]

ThePasserby wrote...

The tragic heroes in tragedies need to be properly set up. Such protagonists have a fatal flaw, or had commited a crime so grave in their eyes that when they die, the audience feels a sense of catharsis. As pointed out by another poster months ago, Mordin's death is a good example of a tragic hero who is properly set up. His involvement in the Genophage Modification project haunted him years after the team's dissolution. His story arc in ME3 being one of the best moments in the game is something I'm sure many will agree.

Shepard, however, is not an tragic hero and never set up to be one. Especially Paragon ones.

Shepard's story belongs more in the Hero's Journey genre of stories.

I like this

Paragon Shepard is not an Anti-hero, Shepard's death is unnecessary to complete the story

Modifié par Vigilant111, 29 juin 2012 - 06:13 .

[Menagra]

I really do want this! I just don't want it to be treated as "cannon" rather an option. I also don't want it to be the hardest ending to get (like you need so many ems) because then it would seem to be the "ultimate" ending which would ruin the other endings for those who want a tragedy.

[Cutlass Jack]

I think the problem I have with the current endings is they all have very arbitrary sounding riders on them so that none will be percieved as the 'optimal' one.

Catalyst: "Picking 'puree' will save the universe, but your grandmother will be pecked to death by penguins."
Shepard: "Huh?"

EDI and the Geth die on the 'Destroy' option not because it makes sense, but because if they didn't, most would pick it. Because of those riders all three options are equally unsatisfying. But To give the EC well deserved credit, it does make those riders sound far less arbitrary. The EC also added some really great moments around those endings that make them more tolerable.

My wife said it best about the original endings. They weren't bad on their own, they just felt like they were attached to the wrong story. In the last 10 minutes, the game forgot what its own theme was.

Because of this, there really should have been a military victory option as well. By that I mean an option where Shepard's actions in the crucible weaken the Reapers and remove their plot armor so that it becomes more of a fair fight. A victory that may come at an extremely heavy price but validates all the work Shepard did uniting the galaxy for one shining moment. A victory everyone actually earns, instead of being decided by random button pushing. A victory where this cycle proves it deserves to exist.

If Shepard had to die to give everyone that chance, say using his body to destroy the Catalyst I would be fine with that. And obviously as a player you'd need to have a very high readiness rating.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldnt love the happy ending the OP described, but I'll admit it feels too easy. I'm fine with Shepard giving up the one thing he really wanted for himself (Building a home with Tali on Rannoch) in order to buy the universe a chance.

Catalyst is the closest ending to that, but you do have to swallow alot to make sense of it. And again, it doesnt feel like the right ending for a military space opera.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 29 juin 2012 - 06:11 .

[ThePasserby]

zambot wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...


Shepard, however, is not an tragic hero and never set up to be one. Especially Paragon ones.

No, but you could make a valid argument that (the) Shepard has been set up to be a Christ figure.  

1. It'll take some convincing. 

2. If I create a poll to ask if players knew they were playing a Shepard that's set up to be a martyr, even by the game's midpoint, I doubt many would say yes.

3. And if players knew beforehand that their Shepard will die as a martyr, the game will not sell as many copies as it did.

[KeraWildmane]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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....

Your response to my initial comment was written with an implied  tone similar to Sparatus' 'Ah yes, "Reapers"' bit. If that was not your intent, then I apologize.

 

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.

You compared our desire to have a happy conclusion to magical dancing flamingos with laser eyes. If that's not a giant "F*ck you", then I don't know what is.

[OblivionDawn]

wantedman dan wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Known cyclical-based history isn't that far reaching. There have been hundreds of cycles (at least), and the current one barely has information on the previous one.

Agreed, yes.

We're dealing with three--four, if we're lucky (considering probability of the Protheans knowing anything of those preceding the Insannon).

However, it stands to reason that, if the cycles are... well, cyclical, and history does tend to repeat itself, our cycle would be more apt to being anomalous.

Even so, the fact remains that the entire fleet is gathered in one system and surrounded by Reaper forces.  Also, the Admiral of that fleet doesn't have confidence in its ability to defeat the Reapers conventionally. When the guy leading your military says that your military isn't strong enough to do something, you start looking for a Plan B. Or a Plan A, in this case.

Unless Bioware were willing to go into a 20-30 minute ending, explaining exactly how the Victory fleet managed to kill all the Reapers in the Sol system, and then save the rest of the galaxy with the remaining forces, we would be left with a bigger plothole than the ones found in the original endings.

[Mcfly616]

Haha kids are such trolls because there was "realistically" No victroy, without sacrifice"