760 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

wright1978 wrote...

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.

People weren't jumping to the darkest conclusions, they were jumping to the most likely possibilities given the limited information we had. Even when the most likely conclusion is a positive one if there's even the smallest hint of ambiguity there's still that nagging doubt at the back of the mind that prevents complete satisfaction for many people.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Here's what's happening at these conferences. Take this quick listening test. Do this then read the rest of the post which I'm pretty much writing with as much as I can.

http://youtu.be/i8z7NC5sgik?t=1m48s

This is why they need to show and not leave this breath scene up to the imagination. It's because there are going to be any number of interpretations of what this means. I've read posts here where someone has said this is not how a person breathes when they're dying. I've read another post that said it's a gasp like a fish out of water. I died once and took a gasp from pain before letting go - this is what I was told, but the emts were able to get me revived with the paddles. That gasp is also similar to someone who has sleep apnea taking a gasp after stopping breathing. It is also similar to someone who has had the wind knocked out of them. But it is such a short shallow gasp. They did a real ****ty job on the scene itself. It is very ambiguous.

This is the reason they need to show something more. I really would like to see some commitment from the author of how they want their story to end. They're in my opinion trying to have it both ways, and it isn't working. You can't have a scene that can be either or in this situation where a group gets together and says "do you think this is too bleak for people who worked the game and gathered every bit of the assets?" "Well maybe we should toss them a bone. You think?" "Yeah, but let's keep it as ambiguous as possible, because if we don't, no one is going to take a swan dive or electrocute themselves." "But we did throw in killing the Geth and EDI." "Seriously, you think anyone wouldn't sacrifice them to live?" "No." "Ambiguous."

And I fully agree that Tali and Garrus' implied starvation was ambiguous by mistake. Someone who did the cutscene didn't think about it. However, I think the same logic doesn't hold for Shepard's breath scene. It is ambiguous by design because they don't want to commit to a canon. Yet even this logic is flawed. Why? Because they've committed to the canon that Shepard died in the other two endings, and the other three endings now if one includes the refusal ending. This is what leads me to the conclusion they wanted Shepard dead, but that they didn't have the guts to kill Shepard outright. Why? I've said it before. If they killed Shepard outright, who would buy SP DLC?

There's your reason. There's your art.

Now for part II of the listening test.

http://youtu.be/i8z7NC5sgik?t=18m18s

How many got the test right?

[3DandBeyond]

Lord Goose wrote...

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.

So where is self sacrifice at the end and point me to the paragon ending because it does not exist.

Self-sacrifice is done for the goal.  The goal was never to control  and become god of all reapers nor to perform internal molecular surgery on people against their will.

A paragon Shepard that might sacrifice his/her life would never kill EDI and the geth---you don't condemn a race to extinction based on what might happen--you don't kill some over here to save some over there.

A paragon Shepard would not want to control the reapers (condemns all people to life under the auspices of the reapers and god Shepard says very non-paragon things).

A paragon Shepard would not choose synthesis since it is done to people without consent.

Where exactly does a paragon Shepard go for closure in this game---certainly not refuse or reject since this requires one apparently give up and not even try to do anything at all.?  While rejecting the kid makes the most sense it is just as unsatisfying as the others.

[devSin]

wright1978 wrote...

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.

I'm pretty sure those conclusions were actually what was intended.

You don't get your new galactic dark age without them. You don't get your 10,000-years-later "some day we'll return to the stars" scene without them.

Some people refused to see just how bleak it was, or felt that it wasn't intended to be taken at face value. It absolutely was intended to be exactly what it appeared to be—the end of galactic civilization as we know it, for a very, very long time.

3DandBeyond wrote...

So where is self sacrifice at the end and point me to the paragon ending because it does not exist.

Indeed. This is not sacrifice but simply death.

Sacrifice would have been something like being able to trade Shepard's life for EDI and the geth.

Modifié par devSin, 18 juillet 2012 - 10:03 .

[oracle343gspark]

In Bioware's mind, we have already been given more information than we deserve. We are given hope than Shepard might be alive. It means nothing else, unless EA decides to dig up Shepard in the hopes of making more $.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

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.

So where is self sacrifice at the end and point me to the paragon ending because it does not exist.

Self-sacrifice is done for the goal.  The goal was never to control  and become god of all reapers nor to perform internal molecular surgery on people against their will.

A paragon Shepard that might sacrifice his/her life would never kill EDI and the geth---you don't condemn a race to extinction based on what might happen--you don't kill some over here to save some over there.

A paragon Shepard would not want to control the reapers (condemns all people to life under the auspices of the reapers and god Shepard says very non-paragon things).

A paragon Shepard would not choose synthesis since it is done to people without consent.

Where exactly does a paragon Shepard go for closure in this game---certainly not refuse or reject since this requires one apparently give up and not even try to do anything at all.?  While rejecting the kid makes the most sense it is just as unsatisfying as the others.

Paragon ending: Shepard raises the pistol to her temple and shoots herself in the head. Screen goes instantly black and dead silent, then to credits. Dead silent through the credits -- no music. No stargazer scene.

See I can be grimmer and darker than BioWare. Take that for ART.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 juillet 2012 - 10:21 .

[Pitznik]

devSin wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

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.

I'm pretty sure those conclusions were actually what was intended.

You don't get your new galactic dark age without them. You don't get your 10,000-years-later "some day we'll return to the stars" scene without them.

Some people refused to see just how bleak it was, or felt that it wasn't intended to be taken at face value. It absolutely was intended to be exactly what it appeared to be—the end of galactic civilization as we know it, for a very, very long time.

There was no "some day we'll return to the stars" scene. The kid asked when he can go to the stars. I'm not saying your intepretation is impossible, but again, it was not all as bleak as you make it to be.

Modifié par Pitznik, 18 juillet 2012 - 10:24 .

[Justin2k]

I think people need to stop listening to Bioware and start going with their own opinions.

The fact of the matter was this was one hell of an easy story to end. Shepard fights Harbinger, shepard kills harbinger, reapers surrender/are blown up due to links to harbinger etc etc.

This whole starchild thing was the biggest... In music we call it "wanking", playing show off solo's for the sake of it. Thats what this starchild was, they were trying to be pretty, trying to be cute.

Then once everyone told them what a joke it was, rather than just agree, they go on about art and what not.

Starchild isn't art. Starchild is a writing error and the people responsible should lose their jobs as I would if I were terrible at it.

[devSin]

Pitznik wrote...

There was no "some day we'll return to the stars" scene. The kid asked when he can go to the stars. I'm not saying your intepretation is impossible, but again, it was not all as bleak as you make it to be.

All I have to judge the ending by are the statements Casey and Mac made prior to release and the interviews and information released with the Final Hours app.

If there's some contradictory information that you have, by all means, share it with us.

(You're right that the Stargazer scene is not entirely for that purpose—it's more a message to the player than a story element—but the function of the statement is not that the kid is going to be traveling to the active galactic community, which doesn't exist in that scene by design.)

[Pitznik]

devSin wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

There was no "some day we'll return to the stars" scene. The kid asked when he can go to the stars. I'm not saying your intepretation is impossible, but again, it was not all as bleak as you make it to be.

All I have to judge the ending by are the statements Casey and Mac made prior to release and the interviews and information released with the Final Hours app.

If there's some contradictory information that you have, by all means, share it with us.

(You're right that the Stargazer scene is not entirely for that purpose—it's more a message to the player than a story element—but the function of the statement is not that the kid is going to be traveling to the active galactic community, which doesn't exist in that scene by design.)

My point is, that during the Stargazer scene there may a galactic community, and kid is simply asking when he can go to the stars, meaning himself, and not "us", like the whole human community on whatever planet he is. I'm actually not sure if relays being repaired in EC is a blatant retcon compared to original ending, or original ending was just sloppy - as we all know, original endings were awfully cheap and probably very rushed, mistakes could happen. Is there any outside confirmation that price for destroying Reapers were indeed "dark ages", or is this all players' interpretation?

[devSin]

The flowchart in Final Hours has all ending choices lead to a new galactic dark age IIRC. It laid out the major story elements in the plot, and they all led to the same spot, which is the death of the current galactic community.

Modifié par devSin, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:06 .

[Taboo]

And they retconned it.

And said **** on Twitter to confirm that Shepard was alive.

And named the files Shepard Alive.

And kept it in.

But you'd have to be smoking some crazy **** to think that it's there just to troll you.

[devSin]

Taboo-XX wrote...

And said **** on Twitter to confirm that Shepard was alive.

Nobody said that who would be in a position to have made the decision.

Mike gave some speculatory runaround, and everybody else works for community and will simply say anything to make people happy. I think Patrick may have claimed that the extended cut would make it clear, the load of bull that turned out to be.

Taboo-XX wrote...

And named the files Shepard Alive.

Shepard survives the explosion. We know this. It was in the script, even.

Taboo-XX wrote...

But you'd have to be smoking some crazy **** to think that it's there just to troll you.

Nobody really thinks it was put there to troll you.

But it also doesn't mean it's there to tell you anything. You make huge leaps in the suggestion that it somehow tells you Shepard will be rescued. It tells you Shepard could be rescued, perhaps, but it leaves it up to you to try to figure out how that's even possible (because it truly shouldn't be, with the information they've deigned to provide us with).

You keep saying it's participatory. It's not. It's mandatory, because they decided not to do any of the work required themselves. You just get to do it all in your head. You're not participating—you're making it all up on your own. And somehow they thought that it was appropriate for this to really be the only place in the trilogy where they would pull this garbage.

Modifié par devSin, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:17 .

[Thore2k10]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

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.

So where is self sacrifice at the end and point me to the paragon ending because it does not exist.

Self-sacrifice is done for the goal.  The goal was never to control  and become god of all reapers nor to perform internal molecular surgery on people against their will.

A paragon Shepard that might sacrifice his/her life would never kill EDI and the geth---you don't condemn a race to extinction based on what might happen--you don't kill some over here to save some over there.

A paragon Shepard would not want to control the reapers (condemns all people to life under the auspices of the reapers and god Shepard says very non-paragon things).

A paragon Shepard would not choose synthesis since it is done to people without consent.

Where exactly does a paragon Shepard go for closure in this game---certainly not refuse or reject since this requires one apparently give up and not even try to do anything at all.?  While rejecting the kid makes the most sense it is just as unsatisfying as the others.

Paragon ending: Shepard raises the pistol to her temple and shoots herself in the head. Screen goes instantly black and dead silent, then to credits. Dead silent through the credits -- no music. No stargazer scene.

See I can be grimmer and darker than BioWare. Take that for ART.

u mad, dont give bioware ideas!!!

[Taboo]

You're ignoring dramatic conventions in favor of emotional nonsense.

The scene is pretty bad, but it exists for the sole purpose of containing the open ended nature that Bioware originally wanted, and giving the fans a reunion.

It is there solely to tell you that Shepard survives and will be rescued.

Talking with a producer for twenty minutes might help. You're supposed to discuss what happens next with your friends, making it unique to you.

This is entire ****ing point.

[robertthebard]

Justin2k wrote...

I think people need to stop listening to Bioware and start going with their own opinions.

The fact of the matter was this was one hell of an easy story to end. Shepard fights Harbinger, shepard kills harbinger, reapers surrender/are blown up due to links to harbinger etc etc.

This whole starchild thing was the biggest... In music we call it "wanking", playing show off solo's for the sake of it. Thats what this starchild was, they were trying to be pretty, trying to be cute.

Then once everyone told them what a joke it was, rather than just agree, they go on about art and what not.

Starchild isn't art. Starchild is a writing error and the people responsible should lose their jobs as I would if I were terrible at it.

So you would treat Harbinger as a Reaper manufactured Crucible.  Why not do it with Sovereign then, and end that threat in the first game?  After all, Sovereign is the scout.  The only time I've seen the destruction of a Reaper end the total conflict going on was on Tachunka, where you do the hammers, and bang, all 5 of the Brutes that have been chasing you around mysteriously disappear.  Now maybe they go after the Thresher Maw, we don't know, as it's never shown, but that's the only time I've seen it be over just because the Reaper was dead.  Rannoch doesn't really count since it didn't have ground troops, which is probably a good thing, considering how that plays out.  So why would Harbinger be the off switch for the rest of them?

[Pitznik]

devSin wrote...


But it also doesn't mean it's there to tell you anything. You make huge leaps in the suggestion that it somehow tells you Shepard will be rescued. It tells you Shepard could be rescued, perhaps, but it leaves it up to you to try to figure out how that's even possible (because it truly shouldn't be, with the information they've deigned to provide us with).

My assumption: someone (Normandy or whatever) comes back from the rendezvous point (which imo is in FTL range from Earth, since what we see in the ending looks like ftl kicking in and not Relay jump) to check the Citadel and finds Shepard under the rubble. Why Shepard survived? Action hero's luck + medigel + implants. Why you think it shouldn't be possible?

[Taboo]

Do you honestly believe Shepard is going to lie there and wait for the Normandy crew to rescue him?

"Surprise! I wasn't dead after all! Now help me up, my legs have rotted off!"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Pitznik wrote...

devSin wrote...


But it also doesn't mean it's there to tell you anything. You make huge leaps in the suggestion that it somehow tells you Shepard will be rescued. It tells you Shepard could be rescued, perhaps, but it leaves it up to you to try to figure out how that's even possible (because it truly shouldn't be, with the information they've deigned to provide us with).

My assumption: someone (Normandy or whatever) comes back from the rendezvous point (which imo is in FTL range from Earth, since what we see in the ending looks like ftl kicking in and not Relay jump) to check the Citadel and finds Shepard under the rubble. Why Shepard survived? Action hero's luck + medigel + implants. Why you think it shouldn't be possible?

No one is saying it isn't possible.

Not everyone is subscribed to every writer's Twitter account. Perhaps that's a necessary thing these days especially at Bioware since they don't know how to write what they need to write in a game anymore. Remember the days before Twitter and Facebook and iOS stuff when they actually had to put all this stuff IN GAME? You know, when they actually had to write a fairly decent and complete plot?

What's the attitude now? Don't worry. We'll explain it later on Twitter if we need to. Or we can retcon it via Twitter or third party comic somewhere?

I miss the old days. (10 years ago)

[devSin]

Pitznik wrote...

My assumption: someone (Normandy or whatever) comes back from the rendezvous point (which imo is in FTL range from Earth, since what we see in the ending looks like ftl kicking in and not Relay jump) to check the Citadel and finds Shepard under the rubble.

When? And how do you explain the memorial?

The squad knows Anderson is dead, somehow. Why don't they know Shepard is alive? Enough time has passed for them to make repairs to the ship (so weeks or months after the crash), so that means Shepard is either still trapped in the rubble, with no food or water and gravely injured, has been found but is unrecognizable (apparently those dog tags don't have names) and will spend any remaining years as a vegetable, or the squad is just making nameplates for people and declaring them dead just for kicks.

Please explain how rescue and recovery is a logical consequence of the scenes we are shown.

[Taboo]

It's called cross cutting devSin. For the last ****ing time.

The point is to create an emotional response.

[devSin]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is to create an emotional response.

You keep saying the same thing as if it would somehow affect my response to the scene, even when I've repeatedly told you that it doesn't.

The efficacy of the scene in relaying information designed to evoke an emotional response is what is being argued, at least in my posts (and it should be clear that I feel the scene is not successful).

Everybody gets the point. They've told you over and over that they get the point. What you don't seem to get is that for a lot of people it fails. Instead, it looks like you primarily want to argue that it can't fail, but that's not an argument I'm interested in having, sorry.

Modifié par devSin, 19 juillet 2012 - 12:05 .

[Pitznik]

devSin wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

My assumption: someone (Normandy or whatever) comes back from the rendezvous point (which imo is in FTL range from Earth, since what we see in the ending looks like ftl kicking in and not Relay jump) to check the Citadel and finds Shepard under the rubble.

When? And how do you explain the memorial?

The squad knows Anderson is dead, somehow. Why don't they know Shepard is alive? Enough time has passed for them to make repairs to the ship (so weeks or months after the crash), so that means Shepard is either still trapped in the rubble, with no food or water and gravely injured, has been found but is unrecognizable (apparently those dog tags don't have names) and will spend any remaining years as a vegetable, or the squad is just making nameplates for people and declaring them dead just for kicks.

Please explain how rescue and recovery is a logical consequence of the scenes we are shown.

Squad is informed Citadel exploded and that both Shepard and Anderson were there (or if nobody knows they were there, that they both died during the run to the beam). They decide to do a ceremony, before repairing the ship (is it crashed at all? or are those stones a cheap way to avoid creating Normandy's landing gear), and during the ceremony they got news that rescue team found Shepard. How long after they got info about Anderson and Shepard and deciding to do a "funeral"? Days, maybe two, maybe three. Communication between Normandy and Citadel must be intact, unless they would decide to do a funeral based on assumption alone, what is unlikely.

Modifié par Pitznik, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:51 .

[devSin]

Pitznik wrote...

Squad is informed Citadel exploded and that both Shepard and Anderson were there (or if nobody knows they were there, that they both died during the run to the beam). They decide to do a ceremony, before repairing the ship (is it crashed at all? or are those stones a cheap way to avoid creating Normandy's landing gear), and during the ceremony they got news that rescue team found Shepard. How long after they got info about Anderson and Shepard and deciding to do a "funeral"?

The Citadel didn't explode, though. And nobody knew where you were (the beam could have taken you to Zakera Ward for all anybody knows). (They had to know you didn't die in the beam, otherwise Joker wouldn't have been hesitant to leave without you.)

So rather than make repairs to the ship (there is damage in the landing shot, although a lot of that is because the footage was recycled, but there's also signs of damage in the memorial cutscene) and refusing to give up on Shepard, they instead make up nameplates for Anderson and Shepard and stand around mourning people they don't even know for sure are dead? (Which is assuming that they held a memorial for repairs, which isn't supported by anything in the sequence.)

[Pitznik]

devSin wrote...
The Citadel didn't explode, though. And nobody knew where you were (the beam could have taken you to Zakera Ward for all anybody knows). (They had to know you didn't die in the beam, otherwise Joker wouldn't have been hesitant to leave without you.)

So rather than make repairs to the ship (there is damage in the landing shot, although a lot of that is because the footage was recycled, but there's also signs of damage in the memorial cutscene) and refusing to give up on Shepard, they instead make up nameplates for Anderson and Shepard and stand around mourning people they don't even know for sure are dead? (Which is assuming that they held a memorial for repairs, which isn't supported by anything in the sequence.)

The Citadel exploded, this sequence is still in destroy ending - in the last shot showing Citadel there is a small explosion centered on Presidium and some of the wings are breaking off. Joker had to leave, so they couldn't be 100% sure Shepard made it to the beam. Considering the explosion they could just assume they will never find the bodies. Memorial is hown between landing and taking off, so it's hard to tell if they did it before or after repairs. Anyway, time to sleep, going to rewatch this whole piece of crap again tomorrow.