1199 réponses à ce sujet

[Forbry]

No, we can't all agree upon that.
I think the way Bioware made the ME series end made them only even móre epic.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Nope. Sounds utterly amateurish and supposes that Paragon is the "right" way to play the game, screwing every Renegade player because their don't live up to YOUR vision of "morality".

Thanks, but no thanks.

That's why paragon/renegade wouldn't affect your survival, EMS would..... Fixed? =/

Math may be my weakest subject, but I'm pretty sure that 15,000 (and that's the very low estimate) Soverign class Reapers is more than the 100 (and that's the very high estimate) Galactic Alliance deadnaughts.

There is, simply put, no logical way that the Alliance can defeat the Reapes conventionally, and asking for one is to ask to abandon logic, lore, and narrative cohesiveness in the name of "but I wants it!"

[Vigilant111]

zambot wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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.  

That sounds poetically sadistic

So if you survive, then you are not Christ? like the death of Shepard becomes a rite of passage? a rite of passage to what exactly?

Definitely the control and the synthesis endings fit well with Shepard as a Christ, refusal somewhat, Destroy you'd have to view it symbolically.  Yes, he survives, but for all intents and purposes the story is over after Shep made the sacrifice (without knowing whether he/she'd live).

As far as could Shep be a Christ figure?  I think it's very arguable.

Similarities
1. Name = "Shepard"
2. In ME2 Shep dies, and rises.
3. Shep reguarly performs miracles and impossible feats throughout the series.
4. Ascension into the citadel at the end

Differences
1. There is no betrayal by either his/her disciples (squad mates) or the people he/she is trying to save (though they come close in ME1 and ME2).
2. There are no mystical circumstances surrounding Shep's origin or implications of a godlike nature, though arguably he/she achieves this after rebirth in ME2.

That is one way of looking at it, a way of which I do not particularly like

I view that Shepard is the symbol of galactic unity whether he / she dies or not, he / she is the representative of people, he /she is not the representative of God (okay now I have lost track at where I am going with this)

My point is, I refuse to view Shepard as someone above everyone else, he / she is a person just like you and me, he / she needs support from other people.

It is implausible for Shepard to be able to control the reapers or have enough energy reserve to make synthesis possible, like many people said, it's space magic, Shepard has already exerted enough influence in the galaxy, it is time to retire

Modifié par Vigilant111, 29 juin 2012 - 06:55 .

[Renmiri1]

I would understand killing a franchise and an universe for some great artistic vision. But for this half baked story that has been strangled by tight resources ? And has been made dozens of times ?

Just use the Indoctrination Theory cop out and say Space Brat didn't happen, Sheppard is still looking for solutions and worlds are still dying.

Then make tons of DLC for guerrilla with Reapers and take the proper time and resources to come with this great artistic vision you say you have. Launch it as ME4, and tell people the truth about it.

If people want to see their Sheppard die and be this "Christ" figure they buy it. If not they just ignore it. You want to make a bet with me on how many of your customers wil willingly buy a doom and gloom dramafest ?

[DukeOfNukes]

You had a point? I believe I made the point that, regardless of Shepards choices, there are events that are beyond his control. The Universe isn't static, and doesn't wait for him to take action. Shepard sacrificing himself, whether paragon or renegade, is the only happy ending to the story that doesn't make it seem like they tried to crap out a rainbow.

[Menagra]

To Allan Schumacher :

In a 2-4 hour movie an ambiguous ending is fine, but for a 200 hour game trilogy it's just insulting. I am sorry I love bioware and I can understand maybe why you wouldn't realize it would seem insulting, but when you sit through it, follow it and play it---it's really really frustrating.

Really it's nice an all having these tragic endings and discussions on "artistic integrity" and so on and so forth. It's all intellectual and offers great opportunities for discussion. Yet I think that it's misleading to believe that ambiguity (and therefore open interpretation) allows for more reason to play. It doesn't, it just makes the different shepards you create with vastly different choices seem less diverse and therefore less of a reason for replay. It seems you are trying to preserve the wariness of decision making and not reason to replay. Just because a person might blow past the destroy ending on their second playthrough doesn't mean they wouldn't have fully experienced the anticipation the first time through, and smirk at the remembrance of this anticipation the second time through.

It'd be like george lucas deciding not to have Darth Vader being Lukes father because he knew so many people would know about the twist eventually. It's a story, the viewer will know the outcome.

Throughout the discussion I am afraid it has seemed that giving a happy ending would be to go against the endings as is or that they would be a mark of inferior artistry. Both comedies and tragedies have been around before ancient greece, so a comedy ending (happy) wouldn't go against bioware's artistry (no matter how many people compare the style of ending to Disney) because both tragedies and comedies are conventional (Sorry, we live in a post-modern era). Bioware has already set up a possibility for a semi happy ending. I think because it's alluded to and not elaborated upon some people feel that bioware specifically withheld what made the destroy ending special. And in all honestly the Destroy ending makes even less sense with the EC (memorial wall scene and breath scene follows?).

But really the reason I want a happy ending is it would add diversity to the endings and with that reason to replay. Because my decisions don't affect what ending is available to me the current endings aren't enough to replay. Example if perhaps you gave cerberus all the resources (legion, reaper) then you can only choose reject or control ending. That sort of consequences would make replayabilitly amazing. Yet if you tagged that on now it would only be frustrating. So alternative versions of current endings that take choices into consideration would be the best option such as shepard surviving destroy ending with the high EMS.

Course many know that if bioware was unwilling to give us more than what's in EC dlc than it's probably too little too late.

Modifié par infraredman, 29 juin 2012 - 07:05 .

[wantedman dan]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You had a point? I believe I made the point that, regardless of Shepards choices, there are events that are beyond his control. The Universe isn't static, and doesn't wait for him to take action. Shepard sacrificing himself, whether paragon or renegade, is the only happy ending to the story that doesn't make it seem like they tried to crap out a rainbow.

So we're back to square one with you being the iHitler with your ideas.

[plfranke]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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!

Everything you're saying is true, but the problem is those strings should have never been attached to the choice to begin with. Many of us spent hours working towards building a future for the geth and speaking with EDI. We believed that it was possible for synthetics to have a future and lives of their own. To be forced into either killing them or abandoning our goal for 3 games straight is terrible, especially when there was very little foreshadowing of it, and what was there was questionable. Do I believe we should get a happy ending if we pick refuse? In the scheme of how the writers made this game no. Just as there was no foreshadowing that control or synthesis should be a viable option by characters that the protagonist trusts there was none saying that we should be able to defeat the Reapers conventionally. However, I believe this game is as the final message says "becoming a legend" and you should be able to make your mark on the galaxy. We should get to see Shepard and his squad fighting until their last breath and then allow us to contemplate whether the choice was all worth it. Did we truly become a legend? Did future cycles go on to end the Reaper threat by conventional means using the knowledge we passed on? What we got on the other hand was... well this thread isn't about that. However, I believe that at the very least we deserve a refusal ending that shows Shepard and his squad battling it out with the Reapers one last time in the name of freedom.

[Benny8484]

Allan,

I think the reason so many of us are disappointed this was not an option was because there was so much overwhelming support for it & it was still not added.  If I spend 300+ hours playing the trilogy over & over to achieve absolute best circumstances, readiness score, making all paragon choices etc then I kind of expect a happy conclusion.

Obviously victory can not be achieved without sacrifices, but we already lost thane, mordin, like 95% of every races population, almost all infastructure etc isn't that enough? 

While the synthesis/control endings were very unique & different I just cannot bring myself to accept them.  Synthesis more or less grants the reapers what they have wanted all along "ascension".  Cannot pick control because we spent all of ME2 & ME3 opposing Illusive Man's views on control only to become a hypocrit & accept his solution in the end?

Destroy is acceptable, although the breath scene at the end left more questions than answered.

[prizm123]

no

[zambot]

Vigilant111 wrote...

zambot wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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.  

That sounds poetically sadistic

So if you survive, then you are not Christ? like the death of Shepard becomes a rite of passage? a rite of passage to what exactly?

Definitely the control and the synthesis endings fit well with Shepard as a Christ, refusal somewhat, Destroy you'd have to view it symbolically.  Yes, he survives, but for all intents and purposes the story is over after Shep made the sacrifice (without knowing whether he/she'd live).

As far as could Shep be a Christ figure?  I think it's very arguable.

Similarities
1. Name = "Shepard"
2. In ME2 Shep dies, and rises.
3. Shep reguarly performs miracles and impossible feats throughout the series.
4. Ascension into the citadel at the end

Differences
1. There is no betrayal by either his/her disciples (squad mates) or the people he/she is trying to save (though they come close in ME1 and ME2).
2. There are no mystical circumstances surrounding Shep's origin or implications of a godlike nature, though arguably he/she achieves this after rebirth in ME2.

That is one way of looking at it, a way of which I do not particularly like

I view that Shepard is the symbol of galactic unity whether he / she dies or not, he / she is the representative of people, he /she is not the representative of God (okay now I have lost track at where I am going with this)

My point is, I refuse to view Shepard as someone above everyone else, he / she is a person just like you and me, he / she needs support from other people.

It is implausible for Shepard to be able to control the reapers or have enough enough energy reserve to make synthesis possible, like many people said, it's space magic, Shepard has already exerted enough influence in the galaxy, it is time to retire

Not to belabor the point (because I don't think it was Bioware's intent to made Shepard a Christ figure, though I do think they wanted us to make the comparison), but it is an important part of Christian mythology/philosophy that Christ is a person just like you and me.  This is even more apparant in literary works that have a Christ figure in them, such as Casey in Grapes of Wrath or even Frodo in LOTR.  They aren't literal gods, but the author makes it clear they are not so much tragic figures, but martyrs.

And yes, synthesis is space magic.

[Forbry]

 
...

And in all honestly the Destroy ending makes even less sense with the EC (memorial wall scene and breath scene follows?).
...

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense to you... Every character in the game thinks Shepard died, but the player itself receives a message that maybe Shepard survived after all...

[zambot]

wantedman dan wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You had a point? I believe I made the point that, regardless of Shepards choices, there are events that are beyond his control. The Universe isn't static, and doesn't wait for him to take action. Shepard sacrificing himself, whether paragon or renegade, is the only happy ending to the story that doesn't make it seem like they tried to crap out a rainbow.

So we're back to square one with you being the iHitler with your ideas.

It is always so refreshing to know that Godwin's law still holds up after all these years.

[zambot]

Forbry wrote...

 
...

And in all honestly the Destroy ending makes even less sense with the EC (memorial wall scene and breath scene follows?).
...

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense to you... Every character in the game thinks Shepard died, but the player itself receives a message that maybe Shepard survived after all...

Not just the player.  The LI somehow "knows"

[DukeOfNukes]

wantedman dan wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You had a point? I believe I made the point that, regardless of Shepards choices, there are events that are beyond his control. The Universe isn't static, and doesn't wait for him to take action. Shepard sacrificing himself, whether paragon or renegade, is the only happy ending to the story that doesn't make it seem like they tried to crap out a rainbow.

So we're back to square one with you being the iHitler with your ideas.

WOW, ok. Grow up. I'm trying to explain why a happy ending where everyone gets back together and picks flowers while riding on a unicorn doesn't work.

[wantedman dan]

zambot wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You had a point? I believe I made the point that, regardless of Shepards choices, there are events that are beyond his control. The Universe isn't static, and doesn't wait for him to take action. Shepard sacrificing himself, whether paragon or renegade, is the only happy ending to the story that doesn't make it seem like they tried to crap out a rainbow.

So we're back to square one with you being the iHitler with your ideas.

It is always so refreshing to know that Godwin's law still holds up after all these years.

Godwin tends to add a little spice to these conversations that you simply can't find with generic communist comparisons.

[Father_Jerusalem]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You had a point? I believe I made the point that, regardless of Shepards choices, there are events that are beyond his control. The Universe isn't static, and doesn't wait for him to take action. Shepard sacrificing himself, whether paragon or renegade, is the only happy ending to the story that doesn't make it seem like they tried to crap out a rainbow.

So we're back to square one with you being the iHitler with your ideas.

WOW, ok. Grow up. I'm trying to explain why a happy ending where everyone gets back together and picks flowers while riding on a unicorn doesn't work.

While you and I have disagreed before, I hope you are willing to take a piece of advice. Just ignore him, report him, and move on with your life.

[wantedman dan]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You had a point? I believe I made the point that, regardless of Shepards choices, there are events that are beyond his control. The Universe isn't static, and doesn't wait for him to take action. Shepard sacrificing himself, whether paragon or renegade, is the only happy ending to the story that doesn't make it seem like they tried to crap out a rainbow.

So we're back to square one with you being the iHitler with your ideas.

WOW, ok. Grow up. I'm trying to explain why a happy ending where everyone gets back together and picks flowers while riding on a unicorn doesn't work.

And you've missed the point, yet again.

Shall I explain my premise to you, again, or do you want to go back and read it for yourself?

[MisterJB]

I do not want that ending.

[Forbry]

zambot wrote...

Forbry wrote...

 
...

And in all honestly the Destroy ending makes even less sense with the EC (memorial wall scene and breath scene follows?).
...

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense to you... Every character in the game thinks Shepard died, but the player itself receives a message that maybe Shepard survived after all...

Not just the player.  The LI somehow "knows"

Didn't mention that, but you're right, that too! That just gave it even more meaning in my eyes!

[Jadebaby]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Nope. Sounds utterly amateurish and supposes that Paragon is the "right" way to play the game, screwing every Renegade player because their don't live up to YOUR vision of "morality".

Thanks, but no thanks.

That's why paragon/renegade wouldn't affect your survival, EMS would..... Fixed? =/

Math may be my weakest subject, but I'm pretty sure that 15,000 (and that's the very low estimate) Soverign class Reapers is more than the 100 (and that's the very high estimate) Galactic Alliance deadnaughts.

There is, simply put, no logical way that the Alliance can defeat the Reapes conventionally, and asking for one is to ask to abandon logic, lore, and narrative cohesiveness in the name of "but I wants it!"

Which, incidentally, is what the writers did when they introduced RGB and the crucible.

I didn't say it'd would have to be conventional, there could always be something that gives us the upper hand. They could have used the crucible to do just that, bring down the Reapers barriers - their only defense - and finish the war out.

[Jadebaby]

Forbry wrote...

zambot wrote...

Forbry wrote...

 
...

And in all honestly the Destroy ending makes even less sense with the EC (memorial wall scene and breath scene follows?).
...

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense to you... Every character in the game thinks Shepard died, but the player itself receives a message that maybe Shepard survived after all...

Not just the player.  The LI somehow "knows"

Didn't mention that, but you're right, that too! That just gave it even more meaning in my eyes!

It really hurts that Bioware did so much to explain everything, yet they left that so damn vague!

[Jadebaby]

MisterJB wrote...

I do not want that ending.

Then don't choose it.

[wantedman dan]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

I do not want that ending.

Then don't choose it.

Thank you for getting to it before me.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Nope. Sounds utterly amateurish and supposes that Paragon is the "right" way to play the game, screwing every Renegade player because their don't live up to YOUR vision of "morality".

Thanks, but no thanks.

That's why paragon/renegade wouldn't affect your survival, EMS would..... Fixed? =/

Math may be my weakest subject, but I'm pretty sure that 15,000 (and that's the very low estimate) Soverign class Reapers is more than the 100 (and that's the very high estimate) Galactic Alliance deadnaughts.

There is, simply put, no logical way that the Alliance can defeat the Reapes conventionally, and asking for one is to ask to abandon logic, lore, and narrative cohesiveness in the name of "but I wants it!"

Which, incidentally, is what the writers did when they introduced RGB and the crucible.

I didn't say it'd would have to be conventional, there could always be something that gives us the upper hand. They could have used the crucible to do just that, bring down the Reapers barriers - their only defense - and finish the war out.

They could have. They could have also made the Normandy out to be a purple flying unicorn. They could have named the Reapers the Snugglebunnies instead. They could have made Shepard a deaf-mute who needs to rely on lip reading to know what people are thinking, leading to a series off screwball comedy misunderstandings with Tali.

They did none of those things. Within the framework of the story that exists, there is no way to defeat the Reapers without picking Destroy/Control/Synthesis. What you are asking for is a complete rewrite of the story, and that is something that BioWare said they were simply not going to do from the very first announcement of the EC.