177 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Anyone played Crysis 2? Remember when Alcatraz was revived by the Nanosuit 2.0's defibrillator on multiple occasions?

I tend to think of Shepard's implants in a similar fashion. Destroy may have caused Shepard's implants to malfunction, but Shepard was still breathing. In Crysis 2, Alcatraz is literally a dead man walking, since the Nanosuit is the only thing keeping him alive - it's completely infused into his body. The difference, of course, is this isn't quite the case with Shepard. The impalnts don't keep Shepard alive; they're only enhancers.

Bottom line: Shepard is in a coma state. Not dead, just severely incapacitated. And yes, she will be found eventually.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:51 .

[Mavqt]

CINCTuchanka wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

CINCTuchanka wrote...

Shepard reanimated in ME2 after being spaced

BSN: Yeah that makes sense.

Because We get to see him rebuilt and the process of him being rebuilt. It shows the narrative plot track instead of cutting to black. Imagine if you just see the Normandy blown up and then...Shepard is alive...Lets fight mechs!!

CINCTuchanka wrote...

BSN: OMG Biowaer that meks no sens, fix it1; omg even if he servives i bet he brain ded

I
exaggerate of course, but seriously, of all the things to gripe about
the ending, the ambiguity of whether Shepard is alive is not one of
them. You can want a reuninon, even if I disagree with that, but come
on folks he is alive.

Answer: Speculations...

Answer Pt 2: "Air Quotes"



Though a good reunio DLC in a Year to end ME3 formally would be nice.

It is true that it shows Shepard coming back to life.  My counter argument is that there isn't really a narrative to surviving an explosion.  You're either dead or not.  But I get your point.

They should release an Extended Extended Cut that shows Shepard being blown back onto some comfy pillows and before it dies the Catalyst gives him some Nutragrain bars so he doesn't starve before help arrives.

Laughed so hard when i read that.

[my Aim is True]

"A stubborn enough person can survive just about anything."
-Zaeed

[DMWW]

I find this a very strange concern.

You don't get shown everything that happens in the entire space/ground battle - obviously you don't, it would take thousands of hours. So you can reasonably infer that things you're seeing are in some way salient. Sure, in real life the fact that person X, who's just had a terrible accident, is currently breathing, in no way guarantees their survival. But in a game, or novel, or movie, where the information your given is determined by its significance, it's totally normal to be able to draw conclusions about the significance of what's shown from the fact that it's shown.

There's a fantasy novel I recall reading some while ago where one of the characters is buried beneath a rockslide and assumed dead. The last sentence tells you that some of the rocks moved. Of course in real life the fact that some rocks move tells you very little about whether he survived: it could be caused a squirrel! But the conventions of fiction make it completely clear that he has survived.

[Jadebaby]

OP speak the truth. I believe the ending is the way it is because Mac Walters wanted to kill Shepard in every ending but he knew he'd get ringed for it, so he did it in a way wherre only he knows that was Shepard's last breath.

Seriously, I honestly can't believe 4 months later I still hate these endings with as much passion as I did my first playthrough.

[vallore]

Yes, it is easy to connect the dots to know that Shepard survived but, here’s the problem: If Bioware has no problem with Shepard's survival anyway, as it seems to be the case, then why not show it explicitly in game?

It is clear a lot of people would like such an ending, and it is obvious that anyone preferring a dead Shepard already has such endings aplenty anyway. If you want your Shepard dead, your only problem is variety... But, despite all the trouble they went to create more clarity and closure for those who pick Control and Synthesis, (the later is now so sweet it can give you cavities), Shepard survival remains a mere hint. Why the half-hearted efforts with Shepard’s survival?

For the surprise? Would you be less surprised if, instead of a torso in the rubble you saw a clear image of Shepard awakening in a hospital bed? Or perhaps even that that her LI, or a friend was nearby? (implying that a long time passed).

Note: Edited for clarity

Modifié par vallore, 06 juillet 2012 - 02:47 .

[Reorte]

DMWW wrote...

I find this a very strange concern.

You don't get shown everything that happens in the entire space/ground battle - obviously you don't, it would take thousands of hours. So you can reasonably infer that things you're seeing are in some way salient. Sure, in real life the fact that person X, who's just had a terrible accident, is currently breathing, in no way guarantees their survival. But in a game, or novel, or movie, where the information your given is determined by its significance, it's totally normal to be able to draw conclusions about the significance of what's shown from the fact that it's shown.

There's a fantasy novel I recall reading some while ago where one of the characters is buried beneath a rockslide and assumed dead. The last sentence tells you that some of the rocks moved. Of course in real life the fact that some rocks move tells you very little about whether he survived: it could be caused a squirrel! But the conventions of fiction make it completely clear that he has survived.

My opinion, and perhaps that's all it is, has always been that relying on that sort of thing, above and beyond what is shown as fact, is a failure. Should the viewer have to consider the purpose of every scene, every line or should they simply be there because they are what contains the succient, necessary information to move the story on? What gets left out is the stuff that's completely mundane and unimportant, or duplicates.

The best stories are the ones that hook you in so well that you can put your brain on hold a bit by suspending disbelief enough to imagine that you are really witnessing events but if you're at that stage then you react to those events more closely to how you would in reality. Hence the "breath" scene provides no subconcious, emotional satisfaction to a lot of people even if the rational part of the mind can join the dots of what we've seen with good guesses about what the devs were intending to come to the "Shepard is alive" conclusion.

In summary: It works intellectually but doesn't emotionally, at least for me. I don't think that that's good for fiction , which should aim to do both.

[Love Sherri]

 “Too many composers become involved in intellectual speculation which seems to matter more to them than the sound that comes out of all this speculation."

Apparently what makes a good ending is something that causes "speculation", "implications", or requires the use of "imagination", this backing up Biowares claim of "Artistic Integrity".  The new 21st century video game standard require us to look at them like art.

**** yeah.

Modifié par Love Sherri, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:21 .

[chemiclord]

In This Thread:

A group of perpetually dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners demanding teacher explain to them how 1+1=2.

[CronoDragoon]

If you choose to ignore the general tone of the memorial scene and the purpose of the Shepard breathing scene in order to continue to be miserable, then there's nothing I can do to help you that hasn't been explained - patiently - over and over again. If you won't take BioWare's word for it, you won't take mine. Some people just want to be miserable.

[Reorte]

chemiclord wrote...

In This Thread:

A group of perpetually dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners demanding teacher explain to them how 1+1=2.

If all you've got to say are insults it's better to keep your mouth shut.

[Love Sherri]

chemiclord wrote...

In This Thread:

A group of perpetually dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners demanding teacher explain to them how 1+1=2.

We all understand Shepard is alive.  We know it equals 2.

What us dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners are ****ing about is since when did Mass Effect turn into a "you'll have to speculate on this one" type of game.  ME has never been about speculations or implications.  It's entire being has never had qualms about showing you the facts and the results of your choices.  Control, Synthesis, and Refusal endings have no speculation and you know the after-effects with 100% clarity: Shepard dies.  Why all of a sudden we need to "get the implications" out of the one ending where he might live? That idea is out of place with this whole series. 

This is not Inception and it went Christopher Nolan on us and tried to be cool.  Cliffhangers and "use your imagination to end this story" is the new-thing.  It's emotional.  

I can use my imagination.  I can "imagine" my Shepard living. But I didn't fork over hundreds of dollars and hours of gameplay to image the end of this story.  Sorry, but Shepard deserves a little better than that.

Modifié par Love Sherri, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[NM_Che56]

You're either trolling or you just have an exceedingly pessimistic view of life.

[Chewy2nd]

Love Sherri wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

In This Thread:

A group of perpetually dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners demanding teacher explain to them how 1+1=2.

We all understand Shepard is alive.  We know it equals 2.

What us dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners are ****ing about is since when did Mass Effect turn into a "you'll have to speculate on this one" type of game.  ME has never been about speculations or implications.  It's entire being has never had qualms about showing you the facts and the results of your choices.  Control, Synthesis, and Refusal endings have no speculation and you know the after-effects with 100% clarity: Shepard dies.  Why all of a sudden we need to "get the implications" out of the one ending where he might live? That idea is out of place with this whole series. 

This is not Inception and it went Christopher Nolan on us and tried to be cool.  Cliffhangers and "use your imagination to end this story" is the new-thing.  It's emotional.  

I can use my imagination.  I can "imagine" my Shepard living. But I didn't fork over hundreds of dollars and hours of gameplay to image the end of this story.  Sorry, but Shepard deserves a little better than that.

The other endings have room for speculation

Control: Will Reaper-Shepard remain sane? I sincerly doubt that in a few millenia that he will still hold the same ideals as he did back then, the Control ending isn't an out and out "this is how things are now" ending. Also who says the Reaper's wont find some way to break the control?

Synthesis: There is a lot of creepy undertones with this ending, everything in the galaxy is now synthetic, is this a good thing? Machines can easily be broken, hacked or go haywire and EDI, she speaks in a somewhat creepy tone if you ask me, she's not the EDI we once knew. There's a lot of room for speculation.

[NM_Che56]

chemiclord wrote...

In This Thread:

A group of perpetually dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners demanding teacher explain to them how 1+1=2.

I have to agree.

Why would they show the breath scene?
Why could you only get it with high EMS?
Why is that scene coming right on the heels of your LI or squadmate triumphantly refusing to put your name on the memorial wall?

Story telling is an art.  Otherwise you have CSPAN; something mechanical and perfunctory, devoid of emotional content.

[Reorte]

Chewy2nd wrote...

The other endings have room for speculation

Control: Will Reaper-Shepard remain sane? I sincerly doubt that in a few millenia that he will still hold the same ideals as he did back then, the Control ending isn't an out and out "this is how things are now" ending. Also who says the Reaper's wont find some way to break the control?

Synthesis: There is a lot of creepy undertones with this ending, everything in the galaxy is now synthetic, is this a good thing? Machines can easily be broken, hacked or go haywire and EDI, she speaks in a somewhat creepy tone if you ask me, she's not the EDI we once knew. There's a lot of room for speculation.

And that's where speculation belongs. The answers to those questions lie beyond the scope of the Mass Effect trilogy. They close most of the things directly related to the Reaper war even if they raise questions for the future.

[Reorte]

Master Che wrote...

Story telling is an art.  Otherwise you have CSPAN; something mechanical and perfunctory, devoid of emotional content.

The best storytelling gets both the emotional content and the logical content right. Perhaps architecture is a better comparison. Design an ugly building and people will want to pull it down. Design a beautiful one but don't pay attention to the mechanics and it'll fall down.

[Crysis I]

i've said this before and i say it again, you lot look into all this ending stuff far too much. if i sat down and picked at any film and game ever made i could pick flaws and bad parts.

[Reorte]

Crysis I wrote...

i've said this before and i say it again, you lot look into all this ending stuff far too much. if i sat down and picked at any film and game ever made i could pick flaws and bad parts.

When a work of fiction leaves someone feeling rather unsatisified, particularly if they really like it for a good chunk of its time, they're going to pick away at the cause of what left them feeling let down. That's rather different from complaining about details for the sake of it.

I'm getting rather tired of people who are happy with what they've got demanding that everyone else should be and should shut up.

[Love Sherri]

Chewy2nd wrote...

Love Sherri wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

In This Thread:

A group of perpetually dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners demanding teacher explain to them how 1+1=2.

We all understand Shepard is alive.  We know it equals 2.

What us dissatisfied and nitpicking whiners are ****ing about is since when did Mass Effect turn into a "you'll have to speculate on this one" type of game.  ME has never been about speculations or implications.  It's entire being has never had qualms about showing you the facts and the results of your choices.  Control, Synthesis, and Refusal endings have no speculation and you know the after-effects with 100% clarity: Shepard dies.  Why all of a sudden we need to "get the implications" out of the one ending where he might live? That idea is out of place with this whole series. 

This is not Inception and it went Christopher Nolan on us and tried to be cool.  Cliffhangers and "use your imagination to end this story" is the new-thing.  It's emotional.  

I can use my imagination.  I can "imagine" my Shepard living. But I didn't fork over hundreds of dollars and hours of gameplay to image the end of this story.  Sorry, but Shepard deserves a little better than that.

The other endings have room for speculation

Control: Will Reaper-Shepard remain sane? I sincerly doubt that in a few millenia that he will still hold the same ideals as he did back then, the Control ending isn't an out and out "this is how things are now" ending. Also who says the Reaper's wont find some way to break the control?

Synthesis: There is a lot of creepy undertones with this ending, everything in the galaxy is now synthetic, is this a good thing? Machines can easily be broken, hacked or go haywire and EDI, she speaks in a somewhat creepy tone if you ask me, she's not the EDI we once knew. There's a lot of room for speculation.

Yes, speculation will always be there.  There is no such thing as a story with zero "speculation" (God, do I hate that word now).

But leaving speculation and implications about the survivability of your title character is cheap.  Are people really saying that good writing means you have to go to Twitter to ask a dev or look in the game files for verification?  Seriously?  This idea blows my mind.  When did this become an acceptable means to end a saga? 

[NM_Che56]

Reorte wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Story telling is an art.  Otherwise you have CSPAN; something mechanical and perfunctory, devoid of emotional content.

The best storytelling gets both the emotional content and the logical content right. Perhaps architecture is a better comparison. Design an ugly building and people will want to pull it down. Design a beautiful one but don't pay attention to the mechanics and it'll fall down.

You don't build buildings with the hope of the occupant "filling in gaps". 

The "cliffhanger" was done for dramatic effect, but bioware felt they gave you enough evidence to show that shep lives and you just kicked ass. 

Personally, I think it worked.  They gave me enough without having to show me a reunion.

[vallore]

Chewy2nd wrote...

The other endings have room for speculation

Control: Will Reaper-Shepard remain sane? I sincerly doubt that in a few millenia that he will still hold the same ideals as he did back then, the Control ending isn't an out and out "this is how things are now" ending. Also who says the Reaper's wont find some way to break the control?

Synthesis: There is a lot of creepy undertones with this ending, everything in the galaxy is now synthetic, is this a good thing? Machines can easily be broken, hacked or go haywire and EDI, she speaks in a somewhat creepy tone if you ask me, she's not the EDI we once knew. There's a lot of room for speculation.

But nothing like the one where Shepard lives:

In control, you don’t know how it will work on the long run, but you know on the short run.

In Synthesis you don’t know the details of how it works, but you can see it working.

But in survive you don’t even know if she actually survived; you are just guessing. For many of us, no matter how logical the guess is, it is not as satisfying as knowing, to have the image validating it, and there is no logical reason not to go that extra step. If it was, why even bother to show the other results, either?

[Reorte]

Master Che wrote...

You don't build buildings with the hope of the occupant "filling in gaps". 

You've never seen the flat I used to live in.

[vallore]

Master Che wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Story telling is an art.  Otherwise you have CSPAN; something mechanical and perfunctory, devoid of emotional content.

The best storytelling gets both the emotional content and the logical content right. Perhaps architecture is a better comparison. Design an ugly building and people will want to pull it down. Design a beautiful one but don't pay attention to the mechanics and it'll fall down.

You don't build buildings with the hope of the occupant "filling in gaps". 

The "cliffhanger" was done for dramatic effect, but bioware felt they gave you enough evidence to show that shep lives and you just kicked ass. 

Don’t think so. If that was the case, they could have focused on Shepard’s face: showing first her body laying in the rubble and then moving the camara to her face, and then showing her suddenly opening her eyes and painfully gasping. It would have far more impact that showing a torso that we just assume is from Shepard, imo.

[YouHaveAProblem]

 For me, the technical parts are the most important points for IT. First of; the Starchild's "solutions" make noe sense, scientifically. It's just really bad Sci Fi. And second; NO WAY Shep survives the Citadel Blowing up, survives the vacuum of space, atmospheric re-entry and crashing to the earth..
 
It's just too absurd for a studio like BioWare to fu*k up that bad..