1199 réponses à ce sujet

[luzburg]

it should be in the refuse opption with super high ems. but im not gonna cry about it

[VendettaI154]

Maybe with refusal and high EMS you beat the Reapers conventionally but with extremely high losses, I don't like the idea of a super happy Hollywood ending for Mass Effect, it just doesn't fit.

[Raging Nug]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This is completely the opposite for people who read modern speculative fiction, and I think that's the disconnect. For people who don't read, who only play certain very limited types of video games, the ending seems fresh and new. For anyone who reads a lot of modern SF, it seems tired, boring, and cliche. I keep having to post this, but here's a funny and insightful essay on the omnipresence of grimness in modern Science Fiction by multi-hugo-winning author Elizabeth Bear.

I think that's what I was getting at - for a video game, this is almost unprecedented. At least it is for me. I don't read a whole lot of modern fiction. But even in literature, say with the Ender series, they sometimes have to pull a Deus Ex Machina to solve everyone's problems, and the solutions aren't always ideal.

For me, I'd be fine with the ending of Mass Effect if it'd been advertised from the start. "A Grimdark world of tomorrow where genocide is the only means of survival!" it could have said on the tin.

I felt that most of the game felt that it was leading up to a fight you'd only survive by the skin of your teeth, and in the Synthesis and Control endings where Shepherd's mind is really the only thing that survives, it feels consistent.

The problem with the ending is that Mass Effect actually allowed people to hope and feel good about themselves for the entire game, until the end. At the end, most of the people who hope and feel good about themselves are people comfortable with shrugging off genocide. 

I think this might have been rectified if you couldn't make peace between the Geth and Quarians, or if you suffered more casualties during the game. It only feels inconsistent if you've played a perfect game... which I think might argue for a perfect ending, but then there's the issue of "Should you play a game, an RPG title, with the intention of making a perfect playthrough?".

Edit: Fixed tag

Modifié par Raging Nug, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:38 .

[Klijpope]

The thing that, for me, somewhat spoiled the otherwise well structured end of ME2 was the fact it was so easy to make it so everyone survives. A suicide mission shouldn't have no casualties; there should at least have been some random deaths in the last stand group while you face the reapinator.

This in turn partly (only partly) sets up the expectation for a total-winning ending to ME3.

[PinkysPain]

Klijpope wrote...

The thing that, for me, somewhat spoiled the otherwise well structured end of ME2 was the fact it was so easy to make it so everyone survives. A suicide mission shouldn't have no casualties; there should at least have been some random deaths in the last stand group while you face the reapinator.

This in turn partly (only partly) sets up the expectation for a total-winning ending to ME3.

That's a bit myopic. In every conflict where one side wasn't just being outright ****s you could broker a peace as well ... the entire series sets up an expectation of triumph against all odds, and not because of choices Shepard made ... but because his strength (or charm/intimidate/interrupts) tipped the balance.

Ultimately up till the end we had it under control ... and then an author insert janked it away from us to fuel his ego ...

Modifié par PinkysPain, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:07 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Raging Nug wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This is completely the opposite for people who read modern speculative fiction, and I think that's the disconnect. For people who don't read, who only play certain very limited types of video games, the ending seems fresh and new. For anyone who reads a lot of modern SF, it seems tired, boring, and cliche. I keep having to post this, but here's a funny and insightful essay on the omnipresence of grimness in modern Science Fiction by multi-hugo-winning author Elizabeth Bear.

I think that's what I was getting at - for a video game, this is almost unprecedented. At least it is for me. I don't read a whole lot of modern fiction. But even in literature, say with the Ender series, they sometimes have to pull a Deus Ex Machina to solve everyone's problems, and the solutions aren't always ideal.

Except you know, for (WARNING: ALL THE SPOILERS EVER.)

Final Fantasy VII, and Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy X, Persona 3, some Silent Hills, Bioshock 2, COD:4, Red Dead Redemption, at least one Medal of Honor game, the original ending for Fallout 3, paragon Infamous 2, LA:Noire.

That's a dozen, off the top of my head. I've played fewer games in the last few years that have protagonists that definitely live than die, but maybe you just play different video games.

Raging Nug wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

For me, I'd be fine with the ending of Mass Effect if it'd been advertised from the start. "A Grimdark world of tomorrow where genocide is the only means of survival!" it could have said on the tin.

I felt that most of the game felt that it was leading up to a fight you'd only survive by the skin of your teeth, and in the Synthesis and Control endings where Shepherd's mind is really the only thing that survives, it feels consistent.

The problem with the ending is that Mass Effect actually allowed people to hope and feel good about themselves for the entire game, until the end. At the end, most of the people who hope and feel good about themselves are people comfortable with shrugging off genocide. 

I think this might have been rectified if you couldn't make peace between the Geth and Quarians, or if you suffered more casualties during the game. It only feels inconsistent if you've played a perfect game... which I think might argue for a perfect ending, but then there's the issue of "Should you play a game, an RPG title, with the intention of making a perfect playthrough?".

Edit: Fixed tag

I think it would have been rectified if the "sacrifice" In destroy was anything but genocide. An equivalent loss of life, galaxy-wide, would have been very different than, specifically, a genocide. Loss of earth would have been even more poignant because, as everyone repeatedly fails to acknowled, for anyone who believe the geth are only toasters, the ending is unmitigatedly happy with no sacrifice whatsoever.

If a game has an ending that seems unremittingly happy if you're a bigot, that game endorses and reinforces the bigot's view. The problem isn't that there's no happy ending, it's that the endings are unbalanced in such a way that they completely vindicate and reward one style of player. Also, have you not seen the thousands of posts by people who think the Geth and EDI can just be "switched back on"? Obviously if their aim was to force everyone to feel a hit, they failed and failed miserably.

If their intent was to reward bigots and those who can shrug off genocide while punishing people with strong ethics, mission accomplished.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:12 .

[Caenis]

Raging Nug wrote...

I find it interesting that some of people who responded to Allan on the first couple pages cited narrative cohesion as the reason they didn't like it. That term doesn't mean what I believe they think it means.

Even more interesting were the posts that tried comparing the ME3 ending to other games. It's become expected that the hero wins, survives, gets the girl (or boy), and rides off into the sunset. It's become an expected ending, so much so that apparently now people are upset when it doesn't happen.

So today I was reading one of my Video Game Writing books, and I saw a lot of things in there the writers talked about that explained what players seek and what could happen when it's not there. There were many moments I put down the book and could literally circle where Bioware went gone. I didn't mark the pages though, so I'm gonna just paraphrase between the biggest thing that stuck in my mind.

In games the first thing people want is Control, if people can't have control they want predictablity as the next big thing. With the gameworld becoming more and more unpredictable Players desire Control. Bioware gives us CONTROL over our character (or at least the illusion of Control), and the more control a player feels the more happy they are. Anytime you get to customize your choice, your dialogue, bring about the ending you want...you are in control. By the end of this game not only are we facing unpredictable odds with an unpredictable ending, the player feels completely OUT of Control.

The game's job is to make us feel like the few choices we have in the game are infinite. Bioware FAILED to do this. There is no way around it. Towards the end we were presented with a finite set of choices, and the illusion was broken by not offering us anymore than that. Hence why so many people began to feel disillusioned by the game afterwards.

By throwing all of that out of the window Bioware was setting itself up for failure and backlash. They created this EC which sure, pleased a lot of people. But a lot of people have still expressed being satisified but wishing there was more. I understand that games are largely in the experimental phase, and each new game is a new experiment that determines how we move onto the next. I read in that book that we're still trying to stabalize the gaming ground. So I mean it's all forgivable, and it's all been a learning experience for Bioware who has been listening to the people. They might not change THIS ending, but I am pretty certain that when they make their next game they will consider what people felt and be more tactful about it.

Modifié par Caenis, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:10 .

[incinerator950]

No.

[incinerator950]

No.

[Caenis]

So are people clear that people AREN'T asking for sunshine and bunnies, they are asking legitimately for the option to have 1 choice out of many that requires hard sacrifice, required LOTS of excruciating work maybe even been nearly impossible to achieve, and even potentially being VERY selfish for such an outcome? Like in DA:O, my character ALWAYS chose Sacrifice, she refused to sacrifice her best friends and wouldn't make the sketchy deal with the demon (until of course she was able to mod it so that Morrigan would sleep with her regardless of her gender XD). They threw a big funeral for her, and hoorah.

We're not asking for overthetop cheese, at least the majority of us aren't, we're just saying. Would have been nice...to have something like our choices pay off and not feel backed into the Corner of: Here are your choices, you can "Die, Die, Die, or oh hey DIE." the only difference is the effect your Death has on the world...it'll still lead to a happy ending for all in the long-scheme, but...you still DIE in every choice.

If it felt impossible to do with ME3, that's because the WRITING blocked it in making it impossible. When Writing becomes so rigid that it is unable to be changed or modified to offer any other choice but the overall choice of "DIE", then that IS bad form. Games need to be flexible. I imagine that perhaps there were so much going on, stress over gameplay, stress over narrative, that at some point they forgot what they were writing for, and had to recall 'The Vision", and ended up holding onto "The Vision" so much so that the vision of the game ended up overshadowing the Player.

Here is another problem Bioware had with this game. Not only did Bioware completely remove Control AND Predictability from the player, it did the big Bad. It turned the character into something REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE. Our Character is being told our options, and we are left to "REACT" to them rather than to be Proactive about them. We're treated like dumb players towards the end of the game.

There were many times I felt like I was playing a game that was more a 'movie' than an actual game. My character often felt possessed, there were too many times when I was not in control of my Character, and I felt like well I think I'm pretty much watching a movie right now. Albeit it was a good Movie, but at the end of the day it felt more like a movie than a game, and the ending only set that in stone for me.

Modifié par Caenis, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:22 .

[jules_vern18]

VendettaI154 wrote...

Maybe with refusal and high EMS you beat the Reapers conventionally but with extremely high losses, I don't like the idea of a super happy Hollywood ending for Mass Effect, it just doesn't fit.

See that's weird, because ME1 (Shepard comes out of the rubble) and ME2 (Shepard saves his entire crew despite it being a "suicide" mission) both have super happy Hollywood endings available to players who make the right choices.

ME3, on the other hand, tries to make every ending have a downside so as to make the choice difficult.  While that's not necessarily a bad way to go, the downsides are generally so extreme that they're hard for the player to live with - hence the Pyrrhic Victory.

You could just as easily make the choices difficult by toning down the bitter and balancing it with the sweet:

Destroy:  Bitter:  the cycle of synthetics vs. organics is likely to continue.  Sweet:  You survive and can reuinite w/crew.  Omit: There would have been no need to require you to kill EDI and the Geth if they had successfully reinforced the inevitability of synthetics vs. organics within the narrative.

Control: Bitter:  You lose your corporeal form.  Sweet:  But you live on as the catalyst, using the reapers to uplift the galaxy.  You get to appear to your LI once the dust settles for a final goodbye.  Omit:  creepy music and voicover to make the player wonder whether or not a now soul-less Shepard will inevitably repeat the cycle. 

Synthesis:  Bitter:  You die.  Sweet:  Sentient life is uplifted to a higher form of existence.  Omit:  Creepy human/synthetic hybrids.  Could have been implemented a hundred different ways.

Refusal:  Bitter:  You and presumably all of galactic civilization is wiped out.  Sweet:  you get to determine your own fate, sort of.  Add:  Options linked to EMS.  Maybe an option where Shepard, crew, and other refugees survive in stasis to warn the next cycle just as they are discovering the relays?  Or show them going down fighting, losing the war but doing so courageously because they know they are in the moral right.  Something.

So while I'm not asking for a hollywood happy ending, I do think that the imbalances between the endings' pros and cons is part of what ruins them. 

tl;dr:  Choices were too overladen with caveats.  Keep it simple, stupid.

Modifié par jules_vern18, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:28 .

[Rasofe]

No, I won't agree to this.
I want a variety of endings. As of now, that's what I have.

[Rasofe]

jules_vern18 wrote...

VendettaI154 wrote...

Maybe with refusal and high EMS you beat the Reapers conventionally but with extremely high losses, I don't like the idea of a super happy Hollywood ending for Mass Effect, it just doesn't fit.

See that's weird, because ME1 (Shepard comes out of the rubble) and ME2 (Shepard saves his entire crew despite it being a "suicide" mission) both have super happy Hollywood endings available to players who make the right choices.

ME3, on the other hand, tries to make every ending have a downside so as to make the choice difficult.  While that's not necessarily a bad way to go, the downsides are generally so extreme that they're hard for the player to live with - hence the Pyrrhic Victory.

You could just as easily make the choices difficult by toning down the bitter and balancing it with the sweet:

Destroy:  Bitter:  the cycle of synthetics vs. organics is likely to continue.  Sweet:  You survive and can reuinite w/crew.  Omit: There would have been no need to require you to kill EDI and the Geth if they had successfully reinforced the inevitability of synthetics vs. organics within the narrative.

Control: Bitter:  You lose your corporeal form.  Sweet:  But you live on as the catalyst, using the reapers to uplift the galaxy.  You get to appear to your LI once the dust settles for a final goodbye.  Omit:  creepy music and voicover to make the player wonder whether or not a now soul-less Shepard will inevitably repeat the cycle. 

Synthesis:  Bitter:  You die.  Sweet:  Sentient life is uplifted to a higher form of existence.  Omit:  Creepy human/synthetic hybrids.  Could have been implemented a hundred different ways.

So while I'm not asking for a hollywood happy ending, I do think that the imbalances between the endings' pros and cons is part of what ruins them. 

tl;dr:  Choices were too overladen with caveats.  Keep it simple, stupid.

I am so not agreeing to this. The creepy music (Saren OST -similar) fits perfectly with control and those creepy hybrids justify the fact that transhumanism is creepy, which it is. And since all that cycle stuff was the Catalyst have haywire circuits, I'd rather acknowledge the sacrifice than have to accept its so called "inevitability".

[Caenis]

Rasofe wrote...

No, I won't agree to this.
I want a variety of endings. As of now, that's what I have.

Your choices are basically limited to, How do you want to die? The type of Death you choose determines the type of ending, which all come out 'Happy' when you think about it, at the end of the day you are actually only given one choice and have been tricked into thinking that you have Choices...they're still the same with the exception in none of the choices, even with a very large amount of work, blood, sweat, and sacrifice of yourself and others do you get at least ONE option to Live. There are sacrifices but no 'real' consequences to any of your actions beyond who you had to sacrifice, the 'Stakes' you were willing to pay to 'Save the Galaxy'. What people wanted though was one option even if it came at a really STEEP price to reunite with their LI, even if they had to step on faces to get that to happen. Having just that choice alone makes the option for chosing "Sacrificing yourself" all the more meaningful.

How do you want to die?

• With a Knife in your eye? - Leads to a Happy Ending
• A spoon in your intestine? - Leads to a Happy Ending
• Bleed to death while your friend Swallows the bomb? - Leads to a Happy Ending
• Eating Shards of glass you then must ****? - Ultimately...Leads to a Happy Ending

Modifié par Caenis, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[jules_vern18]

Rasofe wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

VendettaI154 wrote...

Maybe with refusal and high EMS you beat the Reapers conventionally but with extremely high losses, I don't like the idea of a super happy Hollywood ending for Mass Effect, it just doesn't fit.

See that's weird, because ME1 (Shepard comes out of the rubble) and ME2 (Shepard saves his entire crew despite it being a "suicide" mission) both have super happy Hollywood endings available to players who make the right choices.

ME3, on the other hand, tries to make every ending have a downside so as to make the choice difficult.  While that's not necessarily a bad way to go, the downsides are generally so extreme that they're hard for the player to live with - hence the Pyrrhic Victory.

You could just as easily make the choices difficult by toning down the bitter and balancing it with the sweet:

Destroy:  Bitter:  the cycle of synthetics vs. organics is likely to continue.  Sweet:  You survive and can reuinite w/crew.  Omit: There would have been no need to require you to kill EDI and the Geth if they had successfully reinforced the inevitability of synthetics vs. organics within the narrative.

Control: Bitter:  You lose your corporeal form.  Sweet:  But you live on as the catalyst, using the reapers to uplift the galaxy.  You get to appear to your LI once the dust settles for a final goodbye.  Omit:  creepy music and voicover to make the player wonder whether or not a now soul-less Shepard will inevitably repeat the cycle. 

Synthesis:  Bitter:  You die.  Sweet:  Sentient life is uplifted to a higher form of existence.  Omit:  Creepy human/synthetic hybrids.  Could have been implemented a hundred different ways.

So while I'm not asking for a hollywood happy ending, I do think that the imbalances between the endings' pros and cons is part of what ruins them. 

tl;dr:  Choices were too overladen with caveats.  Keep it simple, stupid.

I am so not agreeing to this. The creepy music (Saren OST -similar) fits perfectly with control and those creepy hybrids justify the fact that transhumanism is creepy, which it is. And since all that cycle stuff was the Catalyst have haywire circuits, I'd rather acknowledge the sacrifice than have to accept its so called "inevitability".

As I said, the "inevitability" would have needed to be better woven into the narrative instead of presented to the player in the last few minutes. 

But seriously, you don't think those cons would have been enough to make you think twice about the pros?  I think it would have allowed players a lot more justification for each of the endings as opposed to just Destroy > everything else.

As they stand, there's not a single ending that the Shepard I played could ethically pick/live with.

[SirRaven10]

BW should have embraced Indoctrination Theory and made the ending to ME3 the ultimate test of indoctrination on the player. Things somehow felt way better when that was a possible conclusion.

[vallore]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Your hand waving at this point, the trilogy was Shepards story but if had been 2 part story he could of been killed in second game just like now, if was one single game not trilogy he could of been killed off in that. Where you pulled that "could of had different protaganist in every game" is simply hand waving as far as I am concerned, a slight movement of the goal posts as a form of distraction. My point being he was killed in ME2, he could of been killed in ME2 your companions could all die in ME2 and some had to die in ME1, this is repeated in ME3 with some have to die and Shepard potentially dying (you had option of alive in one ending).

You do notice that those companions that follow you in the suicide mission are not covered by the supposed necessity of keeping Shepard alive, don’t you? If sacrifice was so important, surely a few of them, at least, could have been killed, as a reminder of that grim theme, no? Instead, you can save all, and even your fish.

Likewise you do realize that in ME1, Bioware could have killed at least one of the companions that follow you in the final mission to the citadel. If the theme of Sacrifice was so important, after all, surely that would be fitting… but that doesn’t happen.

So no – if the impossibility of the task and the theme of sacrifice was that important, Shepard would have been sacrificed, as the story could easily have picked other protagonist. That is the point I’m making.

Your making the mistake of just because the trilogy is based on Shepard and his role in the war that it means he can survive anything including the finale. If finale was ME2 they could of killed him off then and might have same with ME1 if one was the only game and was not going to be a trilogy. He was never a god, never mean't to be invincible and only was required to survive till the end of the trilogy which is where his story ends. It is like a TV series, the main character is alive through entire series after series but in the final series he dies, it is not because all previous series makes him always immortal and always win, it is just to keep the money rolling in until the series is cancelled or they end it at which point they kill off the character.

Eh, sorry no. No mistake. What you are actually doing is ignoring what the game tells, shows and hints about Shepard. She is not an average Jane, never was. I don’t need to headcanon that she is supposed to be one of a kind; the game keeps repeating it, over,and over, and over, and over again.

She is put into impossible situations and gets away, not because of dumb luck (that could have been scripted into the game, to reinforce how this wasn’t to be expected) but by sheer skill and determination. Even ME3 recognize this by hinting that she might have survived. So no, she wasn’t “supposed” to die, which is not the same as saying that she wasn’t supposed to be able to die. either.

The only reason they gave you the opportunity to save him in ME2 was due to always being a trilogy intended and Shepard was always intended to be the main character of the trilogy. As for the always win, no that was not a theme of the series, he had the potential to win because that was part one and two of a trilogy. They wanted him merely to survive into the third game because it was a trilogy, they never once said he would survive the third. Consider their ability to kill him off in previous titles once forced and second time if did not get everything right an example of foreshadowing. Letting the player know he is not god, he is not invincible and that he could die of which ME3 pre-release information backed up the idea of there will be extreme loss and no happy ever after due to scale of threat plus taking on board the end of Shepards story a longside this darker than previous games plot emphasis.

Let me rephrase this:

If you want to make a trilogy about vanquishing an old terrifying galactic evil where survival is impossible in the end for the hero, you better make sure you don’t portray her as someone that keep vanquishing enemy after enemy, despite impossible odds. Better yet, have a different hero in each installment, as that reinforces the theme of Sacrifice, if that is really the theme you want to convey.

If you want to portray a hero that has to capitulate and must accept the enemies’ terms, don’t portray her again and again, as someone that refuses to do so, and wins on her own terms. Make some important victories impossible along the way and bitter compromises a necessity.

If you want to portray a hero that is doomed to die, don’t show her as someone that cheated death itself.

And so on.

[Caenis]

vallore wrote...

Let me rephrase this:

If you want to make a trilogy about vanquishing an old terrifying galactic evil where survival is impossible in the end for the hero, you better make sure you don’t portray her as someone that keep vanquishing enemy after enemy, despite impossible odds. Better yet, have a different hero in each installment, as that reinforces the theme of Sacrifice, if that is really the theme you want to convey.

If you want to portray a hero that has to capitulate and must accept the enemies’ terms, don’t portray her again and again, as someone that refuses to do so, and wins on her own terms. Make some important victories impossible along the way and bitter compromises a necessity.

If you want to portray a hero that is doomed to die, don’t show her as someone that cheated death itself.

And so on.

+1

People were led to believe and conditioned into that belief, shown time and time again that they had the power to Survive Despite the Odds (keep in mind that in this game YOU can survive despite the odds, but you're left to speculate on how they find you, if they find you, and what happens after)--- In ME2 you knew you could die, and after cheating death ONCE there was nervousness that hey I might not live this. But there were lots of things you could do to prevent that death beforehand, in ME1 you are shown surviving and climbing out of the rubble, in ME3 after surviving death in ME2, you feel more confident but the tone you are allowed to select forces you to think as you can only say, "I don't know if we'll survive" and your Renegade options seem more like 'You' are in denial and lying to yourself. So you're forced to believe I might not survive death again just based on the limited options you are forced to choose.

But yeah you have been previously set up with the idea that with hard effort, work, sacrifice...you can survive--and that is the case in the Destroy ending with High EMS, but they never elaborate on that. Hackett is shown speaking NOT your High EMS character who just lived...What did SHEPARD learn after surviving all that, and why does Hackett get to speak if we're supposed to assume Shepard is alive in that ending? And why didn't they elaborate on that? To leave it up to our imagination I suppose...but as has been noted, there is a clear divide where some people don't like having it left up to their imagination and wanted to see their choice played out like all the other endings were... (and up until recently leaving it up to the imagination hasn't exactly been Bioware's trend...so why suddenly turn around and change it now?)

I suppose that's the real point, here. People do get that ending where it's possible they can ride off into the sunset, but it's not shown...at all...and I think that's where people are unhappy. They are shown giving a breath, but the choice isn't even elaborated on to the extent where we might as well just assume Shepard was left to die in the rubble.

EDIT: Note...I'm not exactly saying in that I want to ride off into the sunset now, they can gritty it up, just the impression you get is that yeap, now I can receive my award like in DA:O, where if you're alive, you get a medal, a big award, and can do what you want from there. The Warden's story was clearly over, but that didn't mean the player wasn't allowed to be satisfied with that coronation.

Modifié par Caenis, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:31 .

[Raging Nug]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Except you know, for (WARNING: ALL THE SPOILERS EVER.)

Final Fantasy VII, and Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy X, Persona 3, some Silent Hills, Bioshock 2, COD:4, Red Dead Redemption, at least one Medal of Honor game, the original ending for Fallout 3, paragon Infamous 2, LA:Noire. That's a dozen, off the top of my head. I've played fewer games in the last few years that have protagonists that definitely live than die, but maybe you just play different video games.

I'm not talking about the protagonist dying - saying that's unprecedented would also ignore Ocarina of Time, which is a big one. I was refering to the expectation for a success against the Reapers, and how you can't actually beat them. In FF VII you beat Sephiroth, in Bioshock 2 you get whatever ending you worked for. In ME3, no matter how hard you try, there's no success without use of the Catalyst, and that's what a lot of people are raging about.

I think it would have been rectified if the "sacrifice" In destroy was anything but genocide. An equivalent loss of life, galaxy-wide, would have been very different than, specifically, a genocide. Loss of earth would have been even more poignant because, as everyone repeatedly fails to acknowled, for anyone who believe the geth are only toasters, the ending is unmitigatedly happy with no sacrifice whatsoever.

I think that change would make the option a lot less appealing for people, but I'd like that change. It would fit the whole sacrifice theme, and make Joker's escape a bit more important.

The problem isn't that there's no happy ending, it's that the endings are unbalanced in such a way that they completely vindicate and reward one style of player. Also, have you not seen the thousands of posts by people who think the Geth and EDI can just be "switched back on"? Obviously if their aim was to force everyone to feel a hit, they failed and failed miserably.

Which player styles do you feel are being vindicated/rewarded?

[vallore]

Caenis wrote...



+1

People were led to believe and conditioned into that belief, shown time and time again that they had the power to Survive Despite the Odds (keep in mind that in this game YOU can survive despite the odds, but you're left to speculate on how they find you, if they find you, and what happens after)--- In ME2 you knew you could die, and after cheating death ONCE there was nervousness that hey I might not live this. But there were lots of things you could do to prevent that death beforehand, in ME1 you are shown surviving and climbing out of the rubble, in ME3 after surviving death in ME2, you feel more confident but the tone you are allowed to select forces you to think as you can only say, "I don't know if we'll survive" and your Renegade options seem more like 'You' are in denial and lying to yourself. So you're forced to believe I might not survive death again just based on the limited options you are forced to choose.

But yeah you have been previously set up with the idea that with hard effort, work, sacrifice...you can survive--and that is the case in the Destroy ending with High EMS, but they never elaborate on that. Hackett is shown speaking NOT your High EMS character who just lived...What did SHEPARD learn after surviving all that, and why does Hackett get to speak if we're supposed to assume Shepard is alive in that ending? And why didn't they elaborate on that? To leave it up to our imagination I suppose...but as has been noted, there is a clear divide where some people don't like having it left up to their imagination and wanted to see their choice played out like all the other endings were... (and up until recently leaving it up to the imagination hasn't exactly been Bioware's trend...so why suddenly turn around and change it now?)

I suppose that's the real point, here. People do get that ending where it's possible they can ride off into the sunset, but it's not shown...at all...and I think that's where people are unhappy. They are shown giving a breath, but the choice isn't even elaborated on to the extent where we might as well just assume Shepard was left to die in the rubble.

EDIT: Note...I'm not exactly saying in that I want to ride off into the sunset now, they can gritty it up, just the impression you get is that yeap, now I can receive my award like in DA:O, where if you're alive, you get a medal, a big award, and can do what you want from there. The Warden's story was clearly over, but that didn't mean the player wasn't allowed to be satisfied with that coronation.

Very much so. Shepards doubts are fitting, and don’t detract of the possibility of survival, they just reinforce the notion she may not survive, adding extra tension to the struggle. But likewise Shepard has moments of clear certainty in the inevitability of the outcome.

It would indeed be interesting to see how the EC would have been received with just a few minor changes:

What if, instead of the gasp, Shepard was seen awakening in an makeshift campaign hospital bed, broken but alive, with her LI standing near her?

What if only the synthesis option was proposed by the catalyst and the other two, Control and Destroy was something Shepard would find out only by refusing the Catalyst and walking to a console where, after activation, she would realize these were also options?

Ah well...

[gmboy902]

Just noticed another thing about OP's suggestion.

A simple paragon ending.

Sorry? How in the blazes should Shepard living = paragon? Are we now being punished for choosing to be Renegade? Is being Paragon the "better option" now?

Hell, if Shepard living was dependent on your moral path then it would certainly be a renegade choice. A renegade is much more likely to sacrifice others to save his own life. The paragon would be the one that makes the ultimate sacrifice.

[Edrick1976]

ph34r-X wrote...

 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? 

This would be a happy ending and what a lot of the fans want, and we all know how BioWare feels about happy endings.

[ph34r-X]

Raging Nug wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This is completely the opposite for people who read modern speculative fiction, and I think that's the disconnect. For people who don't read, who only play certain very limited types of video games, the ending seems fresh and new. For anyone who reads a lot of modern SF, it seems tired, boring, and cliche. I keep having to post this, but here's a funny and insightful essay on the omnipresence of grimness in modern Science Fiction by multi-hugo-winning author Elizabeth Bear.

I think that's what I was getting at - for a video game, this is almost unprecedented. At least it is for me. I don't read a whole lot of modern fiction. But even in literature, say with the Ender series, they sometimes have to pull a Deus Ex Machina to solve everyone's problems, and the solutions aren't always ideal.

For me, I'd be fine with the ending of Mass Effect if it'd been advertised from the start. "A Grimdark world of tomorrow where genocide is the only means of survival!" it could have said on the tin.

I felt that most of the game felt that it was leading up to a fight you'd only survive by the skin of your teeth, and in the Synthesis and Control endings where Shepherd's mind is really the only thing that survives, it feels consistent.

The problem with the ending is that Mass Effect actually allowed people to hope and feel good about themselves for the entire game, until the end. At the end, most of the people who hope and feel good about themselves are people comfortable with shrugging off genocide. 

I think this might have been rectified if you couldn't make peace between the Geth and Quarians, or if you suffered more casualties during the game. It only feels inconsistent if you've played a perfect game... which I think might argue for a perfect ending, but then there's the issue of "Should you play a game, an RPG title, with the intention of making a perfect playthrough?".

Edit: Fixed tag

agreed

[Xilizhra]

What if only the synthesis option was proposed by the catalyst and the other two, Control and Destroy was something Shepard would find out only by refusing the Catalyst and walking to a console where, after activation, she would realize these were also options?

Because that'd make Synthesis look unnecessarily worse? I really don't see why it inherently involves compromising your beliefs; I may not be typical, but I don't believe the ending makes me compromise anything.

[Biotic Flash Kick]

ph34r-X wrote...

 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? 

too bad biowaste just is not capable of such an easy thing