760 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Yes. A game with clear intentions in the way it was edited together.

You don't have to look at it like a film. You can look at it like a play, Chekov's gun comes into play here.

Or a book.

Hudson tried to close the gap between film and games. He failed for the most part.

I was told that they wanted an ending like this explicitly by a producer. We talked for twenty minutes.

So yeah.

[Iakus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes. A game with clear intentions in the way it was edited together.

You don't have to look at it like a film. You can look at it like a play, Chekov's gun comes into play here.

Or a book.

Hudson tried to close the gap between film and games. He failed for the most part.

I was told that they wanted an ending like this explicitly by a producer. We talked for twenty minutes.

So yeah.

"They" wanted.

So what the players wanted didn't enter into things, eh? 

Oh, and speaking of books, Stephen King pulled this garbage with his Dark Tower series.  Never read anything by him again.  Including his recent Wind in the Keyhole, a "Dark Tower DLC" as it were.  So...yeah...

[Hurbster]

It's a right old balls up of an ending and no mistake.

[Taboo]

Welcome to the world of art.

It works both ways though, it's come back to bite them in the ass, which is not suprising in the least bit.

The intention is to tell you that Shepard is alive, that's the point.

Everything else however, must be done in your head, which is not cool for some people. I can understand that.

Just because the curtain has fallen, the story need not end.

Which is what they keep telling me on Twitter.

So...yeah.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 18 juillet 2012 - 12:38 .

[Shaigunjoe]

iakus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's asking you to be a participant, that's all. Nothing more.

You're used to being passive, which is the problem.

If it doesn't work for you it never will unless you make an effort.

You';re looking at this like a film.  This is not a film.  It's a game

Look at it like an RPG.  When the GM shuts down and stops communicating with the player, the player has nowhere to turn.  Has no way of determining what happened or what to do next.  No context,   The world grinds to a halt just as certainly as if the players got up from the table and left.

In this case, with minutes to go, the GM got up to get a drink and never came back.

I'd say its more movie than pen and paper RPG though.  Be nice if we could have games that have the freedom of pen and paper, but we don't.

[Kanon777]

iakus wrote...
You';re looking at this like a film.  This is not a film.  It's a game

Look at it like an RPG.  When the GM shuts down and stops communicating with the player, the player has nowhere to turn.  Has no way of determining what happened or what to do next.  No context,   The world grinds to a halt just as certainly as if the players got up from the table and left.

In this case, with minutes to go, the GM got up to get a drink and never came back.

Did you ever play ME1 and ME2? Those games were full of filming tropes/techniqes...

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Taboo-XX wrote...

iakus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

OMFG this pizza is delicious.

Well that's the bum wrap for you. It sucks ass. All I can do to help you is tell you what things you could watch to make it a bit clearer.

Hudson is using film techniques here and he failed for the most part but that doesn't mean it can't be analyzed as such.

And instead of going "We were way too ambiguous with our ending.  People kept saying how depressing it was.  Let's make it clearer and add closure to it"  They doubled down and kept the breath scene.

Same mistake.  Twice

I was going to use it anyway because the intention was clear in the vanilla ending as well.

But it just doesn't work for some people.

Actually it worked better in the vanilla ending. When they showed more in the EC, they needed to change the breath scene. They showed more, all along, they need to drop the cinematic technique that worked in the vanilla ending and go with a different tactic. If they wanted Shepard alive in that ending, they should have actually shown that Shepard survived in the EC. They did not. We got the same s*** f*** of an ending.

In the EC the destroy ending was just a total cluster****. Get this... 7650 EMS (100% GR). Starjar: "I warn you that the crucible does not discriminate. Some of the technology you depend upon will be destroyed. (The Geth were not mentioned.) Your crucible is complete and is nearly intact. The technology you depend upon will suffer only minor damage and should be easy for your civilizations to repair in a short period of time." So I haven't watched the EC Destroy ending. I just heard the breath scene is still there. I'm thinking "okay, this isn't going to be too bad. A decade to rebuild the main relay infrastructure, Citadel should be fine. I'll fire it."

Then we see the fleet coming back past the severely damaged mass relays that have major chunks missing and look like they were hit by asteroids. The Citadel looks like it has for all practical purposes been destroyed. It looks like it will take thousands of years to rebuild. The mass effect universe in the destroy option is Destroyed. It's gone. 10,000 yr dark age w/ speculations from everyone!

The galaxy gets rebuilt in Control and Synthesis ---> this means that Destroy is not the canon ending, and that it was BW's intent to kill off Shepard. They wanted to kill off Shepard at the end of ME1, but then decided not to because they decided at the last minute to continue the series. So they killed off Shepard at the beginning of ME2. They originally were going to have us roll up new characters, then due to outrage changed their minds. So now at the end of 3 they finally can do what they always planned. Shepard is dead. That could be one of Shepard's last breaths. Shepard could die on the way to the hospital if the find Shepard in time. There is no closure. Destroy is a big middle finger. They forgot one last option for Shepard on the Crucible... suicide, that would have been more grim and dark than Hudson imagined.

And for this reason I've decided now that I'm going to finally get closure by going back to save game and pick Synthesis just to end this ****ing nightmare. Hudson, Walters you ****ing win. Okay? I ****ing give up! To hell with ethics. I'll accept fascism with delight now just to end it. You want Shepard dead? Fine. Shepard is dead.

I've considered Control, but I don't like the idea of being shocked to death. Going like Superwoman in to a deathray via swan dive beats electrocution. Swan dive over no closure. With synthesis, anything is possible. There will be a little piece of Shepard in everyone and every living thing now. Isn't that nice?

Then I can move on.

Still your ending sucks. And I give this game a 6.5/10 for the single player campaign. The multiplayer? 8.0/10. Just don't expect me to buy DA3.

[Iakus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Welcome to the world of art.

It works both ways though, it's come back to bite them in the ass, which is not suprising in the least bit.

The intention is to tell you that Shepard is alive, that's the point.

Everything else however, must be done in your head, which is not cool for some people. I can understand that.

Just because the curtain has fallen, the story need not end.

Which is what they keep telling me on Twitter.

So...yeah.

A quote I've seen attributed to Maya Angelou:

Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold , but so does a hard-boiled egg.

[Iakus]

Kanon777 wrote...

iakus wrote...
You';re looking at this like a film.  This is not a film.  It's a game

Look at it like an RPG.  When the GM shuts down and stops communicating with the player, the player has nowhere to turn.  Has no way of determining what happened or what to do next.  No context,   The world grinds to a halt just as certainly as if the players got up from the table and left.

In this case, with minutes to go, the GM got up to get a drink and never came back.

Did you ever play ME1 and ME2? Those games were full of filming tropes/techniqes...

They also had endings where Shepard climbed out of the rubble.  IE The GM stayed at the table until the adventure had concluded.  

[Taboo]

The Galaxy is rebuilt in all of the endings...

This is stated...

WTF is everyone watching?

Did I miss the party with the cocaine?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Galaxy is rebuilt in all of the endings...

This is stated...

WTF is everyone watching?

Did I miss the party with the cocaine?

It's rebuilt. It's just a matter of when it's rebuilt and how long it takes to rebuild. A few decades in Control and Synthesis. Homeworlds a few decades. The mass relays and Citadel in the Control and Synthesis endings a couple of decades with the help of the reapers.

A few thousand years in the Destroy ending. The Citadel on my TV looked like NYC would have after getting hit with a couple of nukes. In destroy we don't have the reapers to make that material. We have to figure out how to make that material, then we have to figure out how to assemble the damned thing and get it to work. That doesn't happen in a few decades. "All that happened so long ago. The universe is filled with billions of stars, and around those stars are billions of worlds." "When can I go to the stars?" "One day my sweet." "Will you tell me another story about The Shepard?" "Alright. One more story."

[CronoDragoon]

I have no idea where you are getting thousands of years. All they have to rebuild is the ring and a chunk of the lower structure. The rest is intact and thus those can be reverse engineered. And the Citadel's interior is largely intact as we know by the fact that the arms can seal themselves off when needed.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I have no idea where you are getting thousands of years. All they have to rebuild is the ring and a chunk of the lower structure. The rest is intact and thus those can be reverse engineered. And the Citadel's interior is largely intact as we know by the fact that the arms can seal themselves off when needed.

What arms? Those are the wards. There was one arm intact on my screen. The rest were in pieces floating around. Some probably knocked into a decaying orbit from the explosion. Now the only thing I can think of is that my game lost connection with the server just before but I got the breath. Or the game glitched. But it looked really bleak.

And where is the money going to go? Fixing Earth first -- humanitarian crisis. Then fixing the relay. Then the Citadel last. You've got to build factories to build the equipment to manufacture the parts for the Citadel and relays. This is not going to be easy. Then you've got to move those massive pieces back into position. Those arms when constructed are 13 km long. The Mass Relays are big enough. Severely damaged was the term used and that from the look was an understatement.
 

[3DandBeyond]

Reorte wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

A thought that's just occured to me - if you accept "Shepard lives" because that's obviously the intention of the writers then presumably you accept that Synthesis is perfect and has no downsides whatsoever, because that's clearly the intention of the writers.

Other than (a) you're dead, ( everyone's DNA has been rewritten against their will, and © the diversity of the galaxy has been adulterated.

Also, everything is green.

I know, stupid isn't it? That's why I don't think much of the "it's clearly the author's intent" argument. The same authors who clearly intended to show Shepard alive also clearly intended Synthesis to be absolutely perfect, and little things like being dead and fundamentally changing everyone else aren't a problem. Whatever their intent I don't buy all of that as plausible so reject that perfection.

These are the same ones who clearly intended that Joker dropped the Normandy down in London in front of Harby in order to retrieve your 2 teammates (not the other badly injured marines and all) while Harby takes a coffee break, giving you time to say goodbye.  You know one of many scenes we in our ignorance didn't know was implied when we were shown nothing to imply it.

They are the same ones who clearly intended a badly damaged stranded Normandy would find a dying torso of Shepard that had fallen to Earth from space without using a destroyed mass relay in time for said torso to live.  And then they changed the scene and still decided to leave it muddied and nonsensical with no explanation as to where and why and how that torso might be a living Shepard.

They are the same ones who clearly wrote in many places that destroyed or ruptured relays would have catastrophic effects on star systems, that could not understand why everyone assumed the galaxy was screwed if the relays were destroyed.

They are the same ones that thought we would know that the scene of Joker running away meant he was ordered to do so after people stated that it was not in Joker's character to run away.  Not ever again would Joker leave Shepard to die.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Reorte wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

A thought that's just occured to me - if you accept "Shepard lives" because that's obviously the intention of the writers then presumably you accept that Synthesis is perfect and has no downsides whatsoever, because that's clearly the intention of the writers.

Other than (a) you're dead, ( everyone's DNA has been rewritten against their will, and © the diversity of the galaxy has been adulterated.

Also, everything is green.

I know, stupid isn't it? That's why I don't think much of the "it's clearly the author's intent" argument. The same authors who clearly intended to show Shepard alive also clearly intended Synthesis to be absolutely perfect, and little things like being dead and fundamentally changing everyone else aren't a problem. Whatever their intent I don't buy all of that as plausible so reject that perfection.

They are the same ones who clearly intended a badly damaged stranded Normandy would find a dying torso of Shepard that had fallen to Earth from space without using a destroyed mass relay in time for said torso to live.  And then they changed the scene and still decided to leave it muddied and nonsensical with no explanation as to where and why and how that torso might be a living Shepard.

they also said that Shepard actually landed one of the Citadel arms in the Destroy ending, which also sounds stupid

[3DandBeyond]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes. A game with clear intentions in the way it was edited together.

You don't have to look at it like a film. You can look at it like a play, Chekov's gun comes into play here.

Or a book.

Hudson tried to close the gap between film and games. He failed for the most part.

I was told that they wanted an ending like this explicitly by a producer. We talked for twenty minutes.

So yeah.

But in creating the ending of ME3 as a whole and in not creating a true finale for the Shepard torso lives ending they have damaged, no destroyed exactly what they and many others claim to be adhering to-artistic integrity.  The art and the integrity were in the manner, setting, tone of the story.  I couldn't care less about what's in other stories-this is not them.  This is ME3 which has a 3 in the name for a reason.  In ME stories, you conclude the conflict through the will and determination of the key players.  And you show the full conclusion of the hero's story within that bigger story.  In ME1, Shepard is thought to be dead and rises from the rubble.  In ME2 the mission is a suicide mission (echoes from all that is said about it pre-mission can be heard in ME3).  Everyone thinks there is no return from it and even victory is feared to be uncertain.  But if you try hard, do well, do enough, you win and save everyone.  This is the furtherance of a rule created with ME1.  The hero returns and the hero can save all, if the hero does not give up.  And they all come home.

ME3 abandons that and then goes into it's impossible, really it is impossible mode.  And it devolves from there.  I don't know what movies they've been watching, but darned few are successful in appeal as mass media if the ending does not fit the whole story and if the hero dies or is left for dead for no good reason.  There may be some with critical acclaim but they are not very likely to have a 3 in the name.  ME was a series with that mass appeal-again it wasn't a David Lynch movie, but it turned into one at the end.  Bioware abandoned their lore and the "world" in which they created ME.  And in the end, they did it one better by abandoning the hero-that totally goes contrary to what they've done all along.  This wasn't a game about head canoning-it was a game that showed stories through to their conclusions and into epilogues. In ME, you bring the hero (Shepard) home.

[3DandBeyond]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Shepard being alive doesn't give you hope?

I choose to believe Shepard is alive-but the games that came before promised that in an ending where Shepard lives I would see that.  A torso left in rubble is not hope-but I guess I need to go to twitter to get the appropriate meaning for everything, because heaven help us we bought a game and expected content to be in the game and not concluded and explained on twitter.  Why actually write any story or create a game when it could all so easily be worked out with head canon and twitter?

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Shepard being alive doesn't give you hope?

Not in the condition he appeared to be in, no.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

ME3 abandons that and then goes into it's impossible, really it is impossible mode.  And it devolves from there.  I don't know what movies they've been watching, but darned few are successful in appeal as mass media if the ending does not fit the whole story and if the hero dies or is left for dead for no good reason.  There may be some with critical acclaim but they are not very likely to have a 3 in the name.  ME was a series with that mass appeal-again it wasn't a David Lynch movie, but it turned into one at the end.  Bioware abandoned their lore and the "world" in which they created ME.  And in the end, they did it one better by abandoning the hero-that totally goes contrary to what they've done all along.  This wasn't a game about head canoning-it was a game that showed stories through to their conclusions and into epilogues. In ME, you bring the hero (Shepard) home.

:slow clap:

[Lwyn]

I've seen the "authors intent" argument a few times now and find it somewhat hilarious since ME3 does not have a single author. It is also blatantly obvious that a part of the writing team had a different idea about where the story is going (see various codex entries that point out flaws in the Reapers' tactics). So, which of the authors gets to define the intent?

[3DandBeyond]

It's also great to know that at least one writer thinks that "beacon of hope" could be Shepard's dying gasp. Great. Yeah, that's exactly what you do with the hero of three games.

Chris Helper-apparently also believes the "real" kid was needed for players to know Shepard cared about Earth.  God, please new writers.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 18 juillet 2012 - 03:04 .

[wantedman dan]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Shepard being alive doesn't give you hope?

No, not really.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It's also great to know that at least one writer thinks that "beacon of hope" could be Shepard's dying gasp. Great. Yeah, that's exactly what you do with the hero of three games.

Chris Helper-apparently also believes the "real" kid was needed for players to know Shepard cared about Earth.  God, please new writers.

that doesn't even make sense for him to say that

[vallore]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes. A game with clear intentions in the way it was edited together.

You don't have to look at it like a film. You can look at it like a play, Chekov's gun comes into play here.

Or a book.

Hudson tried to close the gap between film and games. He failed for the most part.

I was told that they wanted an ending like this explicitly by a producer. We talked for twenty minutes.

So yeah.

But this wasn’t any of such.

An RPG is not a book or a movie, comparing it with such forgets that the storyteller’s player relation is different in it. It is the storyteller’s job to show the direct consequences of the character’s actions, not the player’s. If the storyteller doesn’t do so that is not an invitation for the player become a participant in the story; as the player already is so. What this is is a failure of storytelling at the most basic level:

By forcing the player to be both player and storyteller, it denies the very purpose of RPGs and, as such, it can only become frustrating. It is like playing a game of football by oneself, and just as satisfying.

If what you say is true, they clearly forgot about the player in their ending, and when that happens, “you” break trust with your audience. One of the main rules of RPG storytelling is that the story is not there just for the storyteller’s enjoyment, she must take into account the audience it was created for. Why would the audience want to play again “your” stories if you are only taking your desires into account when making them?