1199 réponses à ce sujet

[KLGChaos]

For me, it's mostly about choice. In the end, there should have been options for everyone and having one perfect ending where everyone survives doesn't mean it's going to be the only one chosen. True, it may get chosen more than the others, but not everyone likes the same thing. Heck, I've got 7 different characters and depending on their attitude and how I've played the last few games, they'd probably choose different endings. My ultimate Paragon would go for the happy ending, my Renegade would probably want to take over as God, my Paragade who doesn't trust AIs would gladly take Destroy. It's all about options-- which leads to replayability.

I'm the kind of player who enjoys earning his happy ending. If I screw up the first time, I'll gladly play through the game multiple times until I get it right. Some say that a victory is only satisfying if there's sacrifice. I say that's untrue. A victorious scene of everyone alive and well standing amidst the rubble of the threatening force will bring a tear to my eye just as much as one where the main character dies to save everyone, especially considering there was already a lot of sacrifice throughout the games to get to that point. To me, that's the ultimate reward for sticking with the games all these years and through all the playthroughs. Plus, it's even more rewarding if that ending came about due to all the decisions I made in the previous three games as it would show the culmination of hundreds of hours of work to get that happy ending. Saved the Rachni? Saved Zhu's Hope? Wrex Alive? Managed to save everyone from the suicide mission, including your ship's crew and have their loyalty? Made peace with the Quarian and Geth? Cured the Genophage and Eve lives? All that would factor into getting the best ending you could for your Shepard and his friends.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 29 juin 2012 - 04:26 .

[Alex_Dur4and]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

[quote]ph34r-X wrote...


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

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

[/quote]

To answer your question, in my humble opinion;

This is the most satisfying way for fans to end their adventure with Shepard's story which has for many, ironically, became THEIR story... It just needs to be an option. This still respect "artistic integrity" since the writers will ultimately decide which ending they will choose to build upon in a possible upcoming sequels or any derived product that they could come up with.

The beauty in all this is that we don't even need to know which one is the true ending until it is revealed as part of a future story only "IF" it is deemed appropriate and necessary. You have given us 3 wonderfull "bittersweet" endings, 1 ultimate FAIL ending... I think it would be very rewarding for the fans to have 1 "ultimate happy ending" for the ones who need it... And who knows... After viewing this "happy ending" and gaining some perspective, maybe many will prefer the original endings and understand the writter's view with more lucidity and openmindness. At the very least, everyone will be happy!

Modifié par Alex_Dur4and, 29 juin 2012 - 04:30 .

[KeraWildmane]

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.

[ChuckieJ]

Bterr wrote...

This is absurd. It doesn't matter what ending anybody wants, beyond the people who created the game. Your wallet and/or desires don't dictate what plot you'll receive. Forcing companies to conform to your uber-cliche ending hurts originality in a game market that is getting more and more repetitive and narrow minded.

Whether or not the ending is good is entirely irrelevant. Enjoy your gaming experience and move on. Whatever ending they gave you initially is the only genuine one anyway.

Then make a linear game like Halo or Call of Duty. Give us even limited choices like Mass Effect did and yes we aren't going to be happy with a weird Deus Ex Machina at the end.

Do you not play games to win?

[Kmead15]

crimsontotem wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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?

Isn't that the position he's already in?

[Warrior Craess]

KingZayd wrote...

No. I want plotholes to be gone. I don't care about the happy endings thing.

A conventional victory is difficult enough. A conventional victory without losing any friends is even tougher. I would go as far to say that as long as you don't mind it not finishing so quickly on Earth, then yes that would be okay.

But saving the Earth, the galaxy and your friends all in one conventional battle would be ridiculous.

Personally I think it should have been like the start of the one of those epic galactic struggles we've heard of.

Krogan Rebellion lasted decades.
Rachni Wars lasted 300 years.

First Contact War lasted 3 months.

Surely the Reaper war should be more like the first 2?

You know what? I would have liked it if Shepard is the one who gave us hope. And then we played as an Asari/a Krogan (long lifespan), in the sequel (s) as we purge the Reapers from the galaxy.

If they could have fitted in a manner of protecting some sort of infrastructure somewhere secretly... then I could buy into what your saying rather easily.

heck the next game play could even have been the decendants of Shepard, Asari, Krogan or Geth and reating ties to the orginial series.

[The RPGenius]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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, not his opposition.  And because one of the defining characteristics of the Mass Effect series is that Shepard can SUCCEED at this.  Yes, he's not God, a perfect victory is not in all situations possible, such as with Virmire.  But it's hard to argue that these are anything but exceptions to the rule that Shepard can refuse to bow to his opposition, and do so successfully, in nearly every circumstance, and certainly every galaxy-hanging-in-the-balance occasion, throughout the entire series.  It's only this one, final part of the Mass Effect series where Shepard is robbed of his heroic ability. 

If he chooses Destroy, he makes a horrific sacrifice, sizable both by scale (Geth) and by personal measuring (EDI).  The theme that he can, when the chips are completely down and everything hangs in the balance, find a way to pull through and win by his own rules (which would at least for a Paragon, mean not winning through sacrifice), a theme that has consistently stayed with us through the series, a theme which is frankly one of the biggest draws to the series and reason for Shepard being a memorable figure in gaming history, is as destroyed as the Reapers.  
If he chooses Control, the theme that humanity (and all other species) should earn its progress, that such power is more than mankind (and all other species) is ready for, a theme reflected many times through the actions and speeches of Paragon Shepard, the words of Legion, and the history of the Krogan uplift, is forfeit, and the theme's relevance to the game is deeply confused, since choosing Control, no matter how ideal the ending makes it seem, essentially tells us that The Illusive Man, the antagonist of ME3 (well, the closest thing it has to an antagonist) was, in fact, correct--and if that's the case, why would the game have spent so much time in communicating the idea that The Illusive Man was wrong through having Shepard and company staunchly oppose him and repeatedly express disgust for his works?
If he chooses Synthesis...well, Synthesis is just immensely stupid, silly, and unethical, for so many reasons I just don't want to get into here.  I can write pages and pages about why Synthesis is as morally repulsive as it is incomprehensibly ridiculous and completely out of place in the game, and I guess I will if you really, really want me to, but this is already a TL;DR post as it is.
And if he chooses Refusal, well, see my first paragraph.

There is no way to win this game and stay true to the core values and themes of the Mass Effect series.  The happy ending idea you have quoted, which so many unthinkingly dismiss because it actually dares to be positive, represents an ending possibility that does not contradict the most important aspects of the Mass Effect series's overall story and characters.  It also does NOT lack for the theme of Sacrifice that ME3 carries, since Shepard's making it to this decision has been made possible by the tremendously moving sacrifice (more moving even than Shepard's potential sacrifice) of Anderson only moments before.  That is why it absolutely should be a possibility.  Not because it would make me happier on a personal level (I don't deny it would, of course), but because it would actually be true to the game, to the series, fans, themes, ideals, and heart and soul of Mass Effect and Shepard.

[Jadebaby]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

Because I feel as though after the previous two games, we've been conditioned to believe that if you worked hard enough, you could have the best possible outcome. While currently the best possible outcomes are presented to us not by our choices, but by someone else's options given to us. Worst of all, the enemies.

And also because Bioware owes it to Shepard to give her/him an ending she deserves.

I'd like to know how you feel about this also. Do you see it a different way?

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 29 juin 2012 - 04:28 .

[KeraWildmane]

vivaladricas wrote...

Kerasth wrote...


I'll help.

Yay rewrite the whole thing FTW!! 

The ME series as directed by the Talis!

[Scolai]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

We live in a time plagued by a horrible, horrible fad that says to be "important" or "deep" you need to kill off the main character and wreck the world.  The theme always has to be sacrifice, and yet many authors seem to entirely forget that sacrifice isn't the only way to end a story. Why this is I don't know.  It flies in the face of the stories that people actually enjoy.  Real life has far too much doom and gloom as it is.  There is neither anything wrong with having a happier ending, nor are "sacrifice" endings somehow more poinent.  They're simply a sign of our times and a sad commentary on how little hope we collectively have.  If you can no longer believe in miracles, in overcoming the impossible, well...you don't really need heroes any more, just martyrs.

Look at the stories people consider to be classics of the fantasy and sci-fi genre.  Look at Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.  Do they end in darkness?  No.  They end with the hero conquering all, and receiving their just reward.  Want a more recent example?  Look at the Avengers.  Ants standing up to the boot, so to speak, and winning against impossible odds.  Why?  Because that's what heroes do.  It's what we need them to do, so that we can have that glimmer of hope in our own lives.  It's also, in the Star Wars case and somewhat in Mass Effect, the monomyth.  It's what we want as a people because it's our most basic of stories.

Ending on a sad note because it's trendy to do so means Mass Effect likely won't go on to have the sort of appeal that Star Wars does.  Sure, lots of people will like it...but consider this - which ending do you think people will remember most in 10 years...Mass Effect or Return of the Jedi?  Or Avengers?  Or Lord of the Rings?

[LaughingDragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Shepard dying is definitely losing.

When you invest 3 entire games and years into one character, his death is a loss. The pay-off was defeating the reapers, saving the galaxy, saving earth, getting to be with your love interest, saving your team/friends etc.

[wantedman dan]

Allan Schumacher

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?

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

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.

Umm, because, as I said, self-determination has allowed this to occur in both of the preceding installments of the Mass Effect series. As for your example, it should be a possibility, completely and wholly determinate upon your EMS, y'know, the thing we all spent the entire game building.

That's the thing. If Bioware had simply decided from the beginning of the series, "Y'know what? We want a game with reigns on it. Screw choices," I'd be completely fine with it, considering the notion I would have bought into that philosophy from the beginning. Changing to that philosophy at the very end--providing little cohesiveness with the narrative, i.e. Shepard's riveting speech to the Catalyst as to why he cannot choose any of the abominations, only to then hang his head in shame NO MATTER WHAT--after providing us an RPG-style, choose-your-fate game beforehand, is a key betrayal from the developers.

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.

Because they allow for self-determination in the future does not mean they are, in essence, self-determinate. They completely violate self-determination in the present, either by removing your ability to see your decisions matter, or by choosing to provide an equally riveting speech to the allied forces to galvanize them in the case of Refusal. In the case of Destroy, you are defacto removing self-determination by committing GENOCIDE upon synthetics.

[Bterr]

ChuckieJ wrote...

Bterr wrote...

This is absurd. It doesn't matter what ending anybody wants, beyond the people who created the game. Your wallet and/or desires don't dictate what plot you'll receive. Forcing companies to conform to your uber-cliche ending hurts originality in a game market that is getting more and more repetitive and narrow minded.

Whether or not the ending is good is entirely irrelevant. Enjoy your gaming experience and move on. Whatever ending they gave you initially is the only genuine one anyway.

Then make a linear game like Halo or Call of Duty. Give us even limited choices like Mass Effect did and yes we aren't going to be happy with a weird Deus Ex Machina at the end.

Do you not play games to win?

No, I play them because they're fun. But my point is that first, writers shouldn't be subject to what people want. Writers write things, and we buy them. It shouldn't be the case that we tell writers what to write, they write what we told them to, then we buy it and act surprised and pleased at the ending we knew was coming.  And second, that even if we all begged and pleaded for some happy ending, and bioware actually put it in, it's not a real ending. It wasn't what they intended, and it isn't the actual storyline. They're just adding animation and dialoue to your Shepard fantasy.

[Kalyppso]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I really like the Refusal ending as it stands, truth be told, but as to why there should be an ending that contains the aforementioned: to fit the theme of the series. (As I played it. I guess strength / growth / understanding through diversity may not be an observed theme by a racist (/ speciest?) Shepard, though those dialogue options haven't really existed since ME1.)

It would not fit the themes of ME3. Maybe. Sacrifice is exemplified by Legion, Mordin, etc. However, the previous two ME games had endings which followed the flow of overachieving. ME2 especially, with a very Hollywood ending, where all the cast is lined up to smile at the main character. There was nothing wrong with this ending (well, I'm sure that's debateable too, but in any case).

The audience was led to believe Shepard would find a way to destroy the Reapers and perhaps it is only because we did not see the Crucible (though we knew we were sending war assets its way) until the end game that it did not feel as if Shepard had any hand in its discovery, construction or understanding. The NPCs kept saying they didn't know what it did, but did they even know how to turn it on? Why are the controls on the Citadel while nothing on the Crucible when before Kronos Station we did not know that the Catalyst wasn't just a jewel or something to be insert into a slot on the Crucible: did it really not have a power switch?

I'm getting off track.

To indicate why I feel it should be an option, I'd like to explore the other options we are presented with. In Destroy, Shepard is offered the chance to save organics at the cost of EDI and the Geth - after (possibly) just determining that they are alive, that they have souls. As an act of war to garner peace, this does make some semblance of sense (I have trouble saying war is justified in any case), but if a particular player wants to save these persons, currently they can choose to sacrifice themselves in one of two ways. In Control, Shepard immediately disavows any of the previous conversation with TIM. It is actually my favorite ending, but the morality of it is weird. In Synthesis, Shepard changes the matrices of all synthetics and organics to apparently dissolve conflict ... I feel this is the same as saying if we had the ability to genetically alter all children to be born with brown eyes, there would be no conflict. This is also morally ambiguous (among other things).

Okay, so I feel there is an established theme now of moral ambiguity. Another example of this in the same game is the trouble with the Genophage.

Now that I've dug myself into a hole, I feel that a conventional victory could fall into the same moral ambiguity by sacrificing war assets / fleets / troops to defeat the Reapers. I think of that gauge to break the arm of the Geth heretics ship on the side of that building on Feros in ME. Have a background number for how much must be sacrificed and extend dialogue to include decisions such as whether or not to save the Council in ME until the gauge of sacrificed is filled and that number is met. Perhaps make it necessary to sacrifice at least one major war asset to achieve victory so that people aren't just dropping the rachni and volus (what happened to the bomber fleet?) and keeping the favorites: the human ground troops (especially with Jack and Miranda), the quarians, the krogan, the turians, etc. This is a lot of extra work, but you were asking why we thought it should be possible, and it is because we have irrational faith in our war assets. They were not what was expected when the game was played, but they were made to be of great importance during the course of the game.

Actually, besides fitting the theme of the series, another reason that this could be an option is to take advantage of the multiplayer. I read through the community's comments (not official channels) that it was an error that one could not obtain the best possible ending through only the single player campaign, but why not, upon release of the EC, express that it is no longer an error to achieve this or certain endings. I had over 7000 galactic readiness in three of my four playthroughs and upon completing the game before the EC 100% EMS . I'm sure there would be other players in this field and though I did it for enjoyment, being rewarded with a victory embrace might be nice.

I don't know if I actually said anything coherent. I wanted to rise to the challenge of this question, because I understand wanting this ending. Living through the Destroy ending felt incomplete without a reunion. I can see why others felt dying in the Refusal ending felt that way.

Oh! And there is one last thing I want to add. I read a comment on these forums a good while back, before EC where someone in a military (supposedly, I guess) was saying that it may surprise some to hear that they would like to live long enough to retire (to a family or otherwise) and that they do not all need to die in a blaze of glory, which really seemed to be what the ending narrative was pushing him / her towards. It should be a possibility because s/he deserves it. That is a nonsequiter, just because s/he deserves it, doesn't mean it should happen, but whatever, it's 12:30 AM EST ... and that's the best I've got.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I'll bite.

Simple, choice and variety. A common assumption, especially in recent years, is the notion dreary and/or bittersweet conclusions to a story are the way to go; that they inspire a powerful emotional response, be it fury or sadness. There is no denial in this, they do invoke these emotions. In fact, as a writer myself, I have a particular penchant for tragedy. Unfortunately, the irony is now this has become a cliche. How often do stories end on a somber note these days? Far more than ever before to say the least. People have a tendency to prefer something uplifting or heroic. Perhaps, just to brighten their lives or to stand tall in an imaginative world. Shepard is the player avatar after all.

Normally, a writer has to choose the direction they wish to take their story because it follows a linear path. Mass Effect is unique because choice was always a hallmark of the franchise, and better still, the player could influence the direction to some extent. Therefore, ME can accommodate the preferences of its audience more than most stories can. If people fancy their "happy" conclusion, with Shepard alive and reunited with his/her crew. Why not give it to them? Make them earn it through EMS but provide the option simply for variety sake and fan request.

Earlier I mentioned my preference to tragedy. While that remains true, I still thoroughly enjoy finishing Lunar Silver Star Story Complete. It is as cliche an ending as can be, albeit the game is nearly twenty years of age, but just that sense of triumph and the enthusiasm from the characters, is enough to make my day.

Ultimately though, I believe most people's gripe is the Geth's destruction, should you choice Destroy, feels somewhat arbitrary, even more so considering all you could have potentially done for them. While the explanation makes sense, at least in theory, their sacrifice seems there just for the sake of it; to keep in line with the bittersweet theme.

In the end. It all comes down to choice, and people wanting to have more. We have bittersweet and now "bad." "Happy" is the only one still missing.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 29 juin 2012 - 04:34 .

[wantedman dan]

Bterr wrote...

No, I play them because they're fun. But my point is that first, writers shouldn't be subject to what people want. Writers write things, and we buy them. It shouldn't be the case that we tell writers what to write, they write what we told them to, then we buy it and act surprised and pleased at the ending we knew was coming.  And second, that even if we all begged and pleaded for some happy ending, and bioware actually put it in, it's not a real ending. It wasn't what they intended, and it isn't the actual storyline. They're just adding animation and dialoue to your Shepard fantasy.

I can understand where you're coming from, but demanding that writers provide a narrative that is cohesive and retentive of themes is not absurd.

[Zu Long]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


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.

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.

Players should have the option for Shepard to live without having to feel like they murdered a comrade and committed genocide against a race they spent a third of the game saving.

[Elite Midget]

Better than all the other endings. So sure.

[KingZayd]

Warrior Craess wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

No. I want plotholes to be gone. I don't care about the happy endings thing.

A conventional victory is difficult enough. A conventional victory without losing any friends is even tougher. I would go as far to say that as long as you don't mind it not finishing so quickly on Earth, then yes that would be okay.

But saving the Earth, the galaxy and your friends all in one conventional battle would be ridiculous.

Personally I think it should have been like the start of the one of those epic galactic struggles we've heard of.

Krogan Rebellion lasted decades.
Rachni Wars lasted 300 years.

First Contact War lasted 3 months.

Surely the Reaper war should be more like the first 2?

You know what? I would have liked it if Shepard is the one who gave us hope. And then we played as an Asari/a Krogan (long lifespan), in the sequel (s) as we purge the Reapers from the galaxy.

If they could have fitted in a manner of protecting some sort of infrastructure somewhere secretly... then I could buy into what your saying rather easily.

heck the next game play could even have been the decendants of Shepard, Asari, Krogan or Geth and reating ties to the orginial series.

Glad you approve

It would make both fans and EA happy (more Mass Effect, and more sequels to milk), without requiring such a huge Deus Ex Machina (maybe requiring just a little one) etc.