760 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Pitznik wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to show that Shepard is alive. Basic conventions of story telling tell you this.

"If it is shown, it has purpose."

The entire point is that Shepard WILL be rescued, but how and by whom is up to you.

The narrative ends by telling you that Shepard is ALIVE AND CAPABLE OF BEING RESCUED.

They just want poor ol' Shepard to die, so they can be miserable and angry at Bioware.

I can't help people who don't want to listen.

It sucks.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

I agree with 3D that, if you were comprehensive in your play through the trilogy, you shouldn't have to head canon the ending where Shepard lives. That was the whole point of the first two games. Like Saren and the Collectors, we know the Reapers are fallible and capable of making fatal mistakes. We should get to see the payoff for Shepard resulting from a well-played game.

While I wait for BioWare to address this (hopefully), at least I can look forward to Hitman: Absolution. The thought of Agent 47 (who came back to life out of a coffin!--hello BioWare!) back in action will give me something to look forward to if I can't see my Shepard emerge from the rubble pile.

[3DandBeyond]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to show that Shepard is alive. Basic conventions of story telling tell you this.

"If it is shown, it has purpose."

The entire point is that Shepard WILL be rescued, but how and by whom is up to you.

The narrative ends by telling you that Shepard is ALIVE AND CAPABLE OF BEING RESCUED.

They just want poor ol' Shepard to die, so they can be miserable and angry at Bioware.

I can't help people who don't want to listen.

It sucks.

Again this is very unhelpful.  The devs continually disagree on what it all means and all it would have taken was one scene. 

It's incredibly narrow-minded for them to feel it didn't matter and for others to join on the band wagon.  The narrative says nothing of the sort.  Where does it say Shepard is alive.  I choose t believe it's so, but since all the endings suck beyond all rational belief, I am left with even trying to consider any of this bunch of crap makes sense.

It's really funny to say anyone wants to be angry at Bioware.  You know where I'd rather be in my mind-looking forward to playing SP DLC and creating more new Shepards in ME1 because of the cool ways the war can be won or lost and how new content will open up new possibilities.  Since none of that exists, I will state categorically, I don't hate Bioware.  I am disgusted at what they have done and I cannot see how thinking people can conclude this is the best and only way to end Shepard's story arc by leaving people with the best thoughts and that really care about the happiness of Shepard stuck in the lurch and left like garbage.

Keep this in mind.  If I were pleased with the endings as they are and I read of all this real desire to see a happy hero or at least a rescued hero, I would be agreeing that people that want that should get that.

I've always wanted a happier ending-realizing nothing could be all bunnies and rainbows because of all the rebuilding needed and the death that has occurred.

If the endings had been different and there had been only happy endings with Shepard living and becoming the living ruler of the galaxy; I would have felt something was wrong with this.  That there needed to be dead Shepard ones as well-though I wouldn't play them often.

Also, if the only endings that had closure were happy ones with living Shepard and blue babies and rannoch and drunk Garruses, and there was one Shepard dies ending that just showed Shepard walking toward the beam or something and then that was it, I would still want closure for the dead Shepard one.  All endings needed closure and that doesn't mean blue babies, rannoch, and drunk Garruses, but had they released one simple, Shepard and friends are alive and they each know the other is alive too ending, then speculation could have sprung from that.  One scene where Shepard and the LI or if no LI, the friends see each other and can breathe again and that would have worked. 

Leaving it open just means people will start saying all the things they speculate happened later and others think we wanted the moon or something. 

[wright1978]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to show that Shepard is alive. Basic conventions of story telling tell you this.

"If it is shown, it has purpose."

The entire point is that Shepard WILL be rescued, but how and by whom is up to you.

The narrative ends by telling you that Shepard is ALIVE AND CAPABLE OF BEING RESCUED.

They just want poor ol' Shepard to die, so they can be miserable and angry at Bioware.

I can't help people who don't want to listen.

It sucks.

I can and do imagine Shep being rescued. However that doesn't stop me finding it appallingly cheap and tawdry that they didn't bother expanding and integrating Shep living and being rescued into the high EMS extended cut ending.  Every other ending got proper expansion of Shep's fate and yet in a peice of dlc that was supposed to provide closure and clarification they bottled out of it so they could keep their ambigious BS.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to show that Shepard is alive. Basic conventions of story telling tell you this.

"If it is shown, it has purpose."

The entire point is that Shepard WILL be rescued, but how and by whom is up to you.

The narrative ends by telling you that Shepard is ALIVE AND CAPABLE OF BEING RESCUED.

They just want poor ol' Shepard to die, so they can be miserable and angry at Bioware.

I can't help people who don't want to listen.

It sucks.

No. We get what you said. The problem is that the way they did it it doesn't work. Even you admitted that it failed. So if it failed it needs to back into the editing room. And when compounded with conflicting information from the "great BioWare team" itself the problem grows into a festering wound.

Then end scene now needs to change, especially after all other endings got further clarity and got closure in the EC.

Granted I'm just a working class person who happened to go to college back in the 70s when a college education was still cheap. I'm not as sophisticated as some folks. I do read a lot, or did more before the print started getting too small and it's hard to find large print versions of books that aren't too damned thick and heavy (laugh kids, this will happen to you too). To me this ending scene is like stopping in mid-sentence.

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...


Again this is very unhelpful.  The devs continually disagree on what it all means and all it would have taken was one scene.

Art (or product, if you prefer) speaks for itself. Don't ask devs what does it mean, see for yourself instead.

3DandBeyond wrote...
It's incredibly narrow-minded for them to feel it didn't matter and for others to join on the band wagon.  The narrative says nothing of the sort.  Where does it say Shepard is alive.  I choose t believe it's so, but since all the endings suck beyond all rational belief, I am left with even trying to consider any of this bunch of crap makes sense.

Dead people do not breathe. Shepard is alive. The whole point of this scene is to show you, the player, that he is alive.

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to show that Shepard is alive. Basic conventions of story telling tell you this.

"If it is shown, it has purpose."

The entire point is that Shepard WILL be rescued, but how and by whom is up to you.

The narrative ends by telling you that Shepard is ALIVE AND CAPABLE OF BEING RESCUED.

That.

[Thaa_solon]

The breath scene in my opinion shows only that BW didn't have anything planned

[blmlozz]

Art (or product, if you prefer) speaks for itself. Don't ask devs what does it mean, see for yourself instead.

If art speaks for itself, what was the rest of the triology when you were being told what it(whatever 'it' is) specificly was? 

You're told what everything means, constantly, and by all matter of medium,all of the games go into strict detail about the items bioware wanted to present to you as a consequence of your reaction to the enviroment in past games. Except for this last part, are you suggesting the only art in this game is this one scene? Or anything that's not striclty explained as well as every other decision you've made in the trilogy? I would find that a curious assesment for what ammounts to at best a lack of information.

Modifié par blmlozz, 18 juillet 2012 - 08:27 .

[AresKeith]

Pitznik wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


Again this is very unhelpful.  The devs continually disagree on what it all means and all it would have taken was one scene.

Art (or product, if you prefer) speaks for itself. Don't ask devs what does it mean, see for yourself instead.

3DandBeyond wrote...
It's incredibly narrow-minded for them to feel it didn't matter and for others to join on the band wagon.  The narrative says nothing of the sort.  Where does it say Shepard is alive.  I choose t believe it's so, but since all the endings suck beyond all rational belief, I am left with even trying to consider any of this bunch of crap makes sense.

Dead people do not breathe. Shepard is alive. The whole point of this scene is to show you, the player, that he is alive.

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to show that Shepard is alive. Basic conventions of story telling tell you this.

"If it is shown, it has purpose."

The entire point is that Shepard WILL be rescued, but how and by whom is up to you.

The narrative ends by telling you that Shepard is ALIVE AND CAPABLE OF BEING RESCUED.

That.

some of people at Bioware claim its Shepards last breathe, Half of Bioware didn't even want that ending and its sad for fan to Headcanon something that show have been in the game in the first place

ever since ME2 they have either been lazy or rushed and ended up Half-assing things

and I'm not angry or hate Bioware, I'm disappointed in them

[Pitznik]

blmlozz wrote...

Art (or product, if you prefer) speaks for itself. Don't ask devs what does it mean, see for yourself instead.

If art speaks for itself, what was the rest of the triology when you were being told what it(whatever 'it' is) specificly was? 

You're told what everything means, constantly, and by all matter of medium,all of the games go into strict detail about the items bioware wanted to present to you as a consequence of your reaction to the enviroment in past games. Except for this last part, are you suggesting the only art in this game is this one scene? Or anything that's not striclty explained as well as every other decision you've made in the trilogy? I would find that a curious assesment for what ammounts to at best a lack of information.

I didn't mean that. What I wanted to say, the information in game is all that is important, what Mr Hepler said at San Diego isn't. Game says that Shep is alive.

[Taboo]

He actually said it could be.

"Could".

But that's just one man.

And he isn't Shepard.

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

Art (or product, if you prefer) speaks for itself. Don't ask devs what does it mean, see for yourself instead.

Dead people do not breathe. Shepard is alive. The whole point of this scene is to show you, the player, that he is alive.

One gasp is not breathing and one dev says it is Shepard dying.  It is a gasp in for air however and not the release of air, but it is one single gasp.

Have you ever seen anyone die?  I have a few times.  Different things can happen and there can be (depending on pain and even the need for oxygen) an attempt to get air.  It's a fish out of water kind of gasp.  I do choose to believe that was not Shepard's dying gasp, but....

No art does not speak for itself.  In order to have some relevance at all and then to be successful if intended to be so, it must appeal and be recognizable as something to someone in a way that they like.

Go watch a David Lynch movie - try Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive.  Tell me what either one is saying since it should be by your definition, obvious.  And Lynch is considered artistic and the ME3 ending is more like something he'd write than an ME game.

[vallore]

robertthebard wrote...



So since it means nothing to you, they shouldn't have done it?  It means something to some people, there are posts in this thread that support that.  It means nothing to me, since all my Shepards die in London.  However, I guess I should start a petition to get that ending supported, right?  It's just add a Critical Mission failure option after the beam after all, and then I couldreuse more than one of my Shepards for a subsequent playthrough.

No. since it means too little to me,(and many others like me) they should have shown MORE instead of less.

It is clear that those to whom the scene means something, that they have no problem with Shepard surviving or with having her reuniting with her crew. So what, exactly, is the problem of actually showing a little more than what they need anyway? Why should only those that are content with less than the bare minimum have a chance to enjoy the ending?

In my book, even if “you,” or someone else, need less, showing more than what “you” need would still provide what “you” need anyway, so why shouldn’t others also have a chance of enjoying the ending of ME trilogy? It certainly would not deprive “you” the chance of headcanon away whatever long term future you may desire for your Shepard, but would allow others to get their closure also. Win-win, if you ask me.

As for the dead Shepards, if many players desired to have more closure for them than the one provided, why on earth should I, or you, oppose it? If a large group desired to see –say – Sheppard’s funeral, how would that affect negatively what you already got?

Modifié par vallore, 18 juillet 2012 - 08:34 .

[wright1978]

Taboo-XX wrote...

He actually said it could be.

"Could".

But that's just one man.

And he isn't Shepard.

And before EC people were speculating that Tali and Garrus Could starve to death. Yet for some reason they expanded this and many other aspects of the endings to get rid of the ambiguity and tie them into the epilogue. Yet the Shep lives clip gets no expansion, is left detached and tacked onto the end of the epilogue and is still completely open to this ambiguity. SHep lives scene should have got equal treatment.

[FemmeShep]

I disagree with those that say it was "Shepards" story. It was, don't get me wrong. But I also think this is where the final game went wrong. Because while Shepard was the hero, and was the person that brought it all together, the game (thematically) wasn't about ONE person, it was about people in general, and finding a way to put aside differences to work for a common goal. This thread has been built since Mass Effect 1.

That's what pisses me off so much about the ending, is that in the final moments - none of that **** mattered. All that mattered was that Shepard was some god like person that got to decide the fate for everyone. All the plot about bringing various races and planets together really meant nothing. The War assets and the final fight meant nothing. It all came down to Shepard, and the Crucible. And I think the writers really missed the point about what the series was about.

I think for me, it was rather telling that every cycle before them, always fell because they never worked together. Planets would keep up their differences, and would try to fight the reapers on their own planet. But in this cycle, Shepard was able to bring everyone together, and have a fighting chance.

But in the end I just felt like NONE of that mattered. Or at least, there wasn't enough pay off for it all.

[AresKeith]

FemmeShep wrote...

I disagree with those that say it was "Shepards" story. It was, don't get me wrong. But I also think this is where the final game went wrong. Because while Shepard was the hero, and was the person that brought it all together, the game (thematically) wasn't about ONE person, it was about people in general, and finding a way to put aside differences to work for a common goal. This thread has been built since Mass Effect 1.

That's what pisses me off so much about the ending, is that in the final moments - none of that **** mattered. All that mattered was that Shepard was some god like person that got to decide the fate for everyone. All the plot about bringing various races and planets together really meant nothing. The War assets and the final fight meant nothing. It all came down to Shepard, and the Crucible. And I think the writers really missed the point about what the series was about.

I think for me, it was rather telling that every cycle before them, always fell because they never worked together. Planets would keep up their differences, and would try to fight the reapers on their own planet. But in this cycle, Shepard was able to bring everyone together, and have a fighting chance.

But in the end I just felt like NONE of that mattered. Or at least, there wasn't enough pay off for it all.

yes your right, nothing we did mattered at the end, and Javik himself said his cycle didn't come together to face the Reapers

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Art (or product, if you prefer) speaks for itself. Don't ask devs what does it mean, see for yourself instead.

Dead people do not breathe. Shepard is alive. The whole point of this scene is to show you, the player, that he is alive.

One gasp is not breathing and one dev says it is Shepard dying.  It is a gasp in for air however and not the release of air, but it is one single gasp.

Have you ever seen anyone die?  I have a few times.  Different things can happen and there can be (depending on pain and even the need for oxygen) an attempt to get air.  It's a fish out of water kind of gasp.  I do choose to believe that was not Shepard's dying gasp, but....

No art does not speak for itself.  In order to have some relevance at all and then to be successful if intended to be so, it must appeal and be recognizable as something to someone in a way that they like.

Go watch a David Lynch movie - try Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive.  Tell me what either one is saying since it should be by your definition, obvious.  And Lynch is considered artistic and the ME3 ending is more like something he'd write than an ME game.

No, one dev didn't say that Shepard is dying. He said that ending is open, and that it COULD be his last breath. Still the way it is shown I'm certain it is not what the author of the cutscene meant to say.

I didn't see anyone die, like probably most of ME3 players. That is why I rely on established conventions it is usually shown in movies, books and games too. Person dies: he breathes, then suddenly stops. Person turns out to be alive: he suddenly gasps for air, like a nearly drowned man after CPR. That is the obvious interpretation. People who create cutscenes are well aware of that. You as a culture consumer should be aware of that.

And again, I said art speaks for itself, not that is always obvious. What I mean is that when dev says something what isn't reflected in, or even is contradicted by, the game itself, I will stick to what I see for myself.

Modifié par Pitznik, 18 juillet 2012 - 08:58 .

[Pitznik]

wright1978 wrote...

And before EC people were speculating that Tali and Garrus Could starve to death. Yet for some reason they expanded this and many other aspects of the endings to get rid of the ambiguity and tie them into the epilogue. Yet the Shep lives clip gets no expansion, is left detached and tacked onto the end of the epilogue and is still completely open to this ambiguity. SHep lives scene should have got equal treatment.

Because Tali's and Garrus' implied starvation was ambiguous by mistake. Someone who did the cutscene just didn't think about it. On the other hand Shepard's breathing is either clear (in my interpretation) or ambiguous by design, on purpose.

Modifié par Pitznik, 18 juillet 2012 - 08:57 .

[wright1978]

Pitznik wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

And before EC people were speculating that Tali and Garrus Could starve to death. Yet for some reason they expanded this and many other aspects of the endings to get rid of the ambiguity and tie them into the epilogue. Yet the Shep lives clip gets no expansion, is left detached and tacked onto the end of the epilogue and is still completely open to this ambiguity. SHep lives scene should have got equal treatment.

Because Tali's and Garrus' implied starvation was ambiguous by mistake. Someone who did the cutscene just didn't think about it. On the other hand Shepard's breathing is either clear (in my interpretation) or ambiguous by design, on purpose.

Nope the original endings were meant to be ambigious. Because most people started jumping to the darkest conclusions and the fans raged they promised to provide an extended cut that would provide added closure and clarification. Yet in high EMS destroy ending they were too cheap to clarify the Shep breathes scene and provide additional closure to this ending.

[SteffiSyndrom]

I am not very big on the breath scene. I understand Shepard lives but it is almost a little too vague. Sure it would be great if Shep would live, but honestly? Give that man/woman her/his rest! They've been through so much, dealt with so much, swore their life to protect and secure, rescue and save. It is okay for them to now have their peace. It's sad they cannot be with their LI (if you don't choose Destroy) but you know what, life goes on. There can't ALWAYS be a utterly happy ending, it was a WAR! after all. How many other people besides Shep had to die for it? How many soldiers, scientists, Krogans, Asari, Quarians? They had families. They had hopes, dreams, goals. But there has to be sacrifices in a war.
I really don't understand all that hatred towards BioWare. They try, do their best, develop really deep, intense, emotional games. They try to please everybody, which is really hard since (especially) these days nobody ever IS happy and satisfied. They complain about one thing, then once it's changed, they complain that it's been changed.
Also, they do have deadlines, you know. They are a big company, they do put lots and lots of time and money in their game making. If some people think they fail so badly, why not try make a better game yourselves? In my opinion ME was the best trilogy ever, the plot was great, the characters were extremely well developed, the LIs were interesting, there was fun, laughter, tears, anger, you could make your own choices. I think there was nothing wrong with the endings whatsoever. Everybody had their choice whether to control the Reapers, to Destroy them or to connect synthetics with biotics. Now, what's so bad about that? Because Shepard didn't live (or ... well ... you know, in most cases didn't.) ? Because ... I really can't even think of any fundamental reasons. If you chose to control them, you take off into space, endlessly keeping them away from civilization. They are save. The threat of the Reapers is gone. There can be peace, cities can be rebuilt.
Then there is Destroy. You chose to destroy the Reapers, you wipe them out. They are killed, dead, gone. Synthetics as well, okay but they do say they can be rebuild. Everything can be restored. The planets are save. And Shepard might even still be alive.
Now, then there's Synthesis (it's what I chose). You choose to connect biotics with synthetics. Every race already depended on synthetics in almost every case, they were already part of them. But they lacked the understanding and knowledge of human emotions. Now humans (& aliens) still needed synthetics to do many things, but now that they are connected, they have the advantage of doing all this by themselves. Also, synthetics and biotics now can live peacefully side by side. The Reapers even help rebuild the cities, the damage that's been done. The races go a step further in evolution, they gain enlightenment. (And EDI lives, yay!!) Shepard gave their life for a better purpose, for a better life, a better ending! In my opinion it's the most beautiful and ethically correct choice.
Now, that is just my opinion about the game trilogy itself and how it ended.
ME4 - I would DEFINITELY want to see more of Mass Effect. I am not sure if having Shep in the game would be necessary to make it a good one. As I mentioned earlier I think Shep deserves their peace. Shep's story is over. It's come to an end. They fought for what they believed in, for their main goal (to save the planets) and succeeded. I also don't know how they would do it. Have Shep back I mean. What if several people did not manage to save him/her? Will it simply continue with a new character? Or even though Control and Synthesis did not get a breathing scene, is there a chance Shepard may still be alive? I don't know.
I loved Shepard. I cried so badly when he/she died. They became some sort of alter ego, a friend. A sister/brother. Shepard became YOU! YOU became Shepard. But I would also be very interested in seeing a new hero, a new character who meets other new characters, faces other new challenges, enemies but might meet some of our old friends during their journey.
Either way, I am sure BioWare will not fail to impress again, if they are working on a ME4. Now, that is just my opinion. I understand not many will agree and respect that many also were not satisfied with the game, the ending, whatever. I just hope that they might have a better experience with an upcoming new ME, or simply a different game in general.

[3DandBeyond]

FemmeShep wrote...

I disagree with those that say it was "Shepards" story. It was, don't get me wrong. But I also think this is where the final game went wrong. Because while Shepard was the hero, and was the person that brought it all together, the game (thematically) wasn't about ONE person, it was about people in general, and finding a way to put aside differences to work for a common goal. This thread has been built since Mass Effect 1.

That's what pisses me off so much about the ending, is that in the final moments - none of that **** mattered. All that mattered was that Shepard was some god like person that got to decide the fate for everyone. All the plot about bringing various races and planets together really meant nothing. The War assets and the final fight meant nothing. It all came down to Shepard, and the Crucible. And I think the writers really missed the point about what the series was about.

I think for me, it was rather telling that every cycle before them, always fell because they never worked together. Planets would keep up their differences, and would try to fight the reapers on their own planet. But in this cycle, Shepard was able to bring everyone together, and have a fighting chance.

But in the end I just felt like NONE of that mattered. Or at least, there wasn't enough pay off for it all.

Great point - it was the galaxy's story and one of unity.  It wasn't about one person being more important than all the rest.  Shepard kept saying that.  It was just about the one that decided or that could bring them all together.

The thing is in saying it's Shepard's story that doesn't take away from all the rest, because Shepard is inextricably linked to all those faceless people that mattered to him/her and also to all those close friends that found purpose and reasons for being something better because of Shepard.  Those friends and Shepard at least deserved to see each other again and  we deserved to see it.  But, yeah the other stuff is garbage-Shepard would never have made the choices as is.

[revo76]

I dont give a d**m about Council.

I dont give a d**m about Alliance.

I dont give a d**m about Earth, they can die.

I only care my character, because in real life i wont kill myself to save others. Because you're usefull as long as you exist.

So, yes, i picked Destroy in first gameplay, possibly will pick it in next playthroughs (if i ever play again, i wanted to pick Control but it wasnt real Shep so...)

And yes, my LI, my character is priority in the game, since i spent 100+ hours of gameplay to keep my squadmates, char alive in ME1, ME2.

If Bioware didnt understand that there are some renegade or paragon players who'll never sacrifice their characters, that's authors' fault.

[FemmeShep]

I think ambiguous endings are a bit of a cop out, from a writing perspective too. It's like you either don't know how to end it, or you didn't want to commit to something.

Not even LOST was that bad with its ending. Because while there were a lot of things about that show that were left ambiguous, the shows central focus was always the characters and the theme tied to them. Not defending the ending, or saying that means it's good. Just saying, with Mass Effect they didn't end it with the characters, they ended it with ONE character, and the main central conflict. So you can't really be too ambiguous when the main central conflict is what you are centering the end plot about.

The crucible and all of that was way too ambiguous (and still makes no sense). But that would have been okay if they shifted the ending to the characters. But they didn't do that either. So you get this really tip toe/ dipping the toe in the water kind of ending. It's just not fitting for this kind of trilogy. And it really undercuts everything else. It made the main central/conflict feel underwhelming (the fight against the reapers). And it also made the characters portion feel underwhelming.

Modifié par FemmeShep, 18 juillet 2012 - 09:23 .

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to show that Shepard is alive. Basic conventions of story telling tell you this.

"If it is shown, it has purpose."

The entire point is that Shepard WILL be rescued, but how and by whom is up to you.

The narrative ends by telling you that Shepard is ALIVE AND CAPABLE OF BEING RESCUED.

They just want poor ol' Shepard to die, so they can be miserable and angry at Bioware.

I can't help people who don't want to listen.

It sucks.

Maybe we can form our own "Shepard is alive" club and eat junk food while everyone argues whether or not he/she is alive. 

[Lord Goose]

If Bioware didnt understand that there are some renegade
or paragon players who'll never sacrifice their characters,
that's authors' fault.

Self-sacrifice is one of the major themes of Paragon playthrough.