6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Snypy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm sure Hamlet , Romeo and Juliet wanted that happy ending option in there endings, too.

You mean the Hamlet in which you create a character called Hamlet and make all these choices, like whether to stab Polonius or not, and the story changes according to that, advertised with the phrase "Take Denmark back!", and certainly not as "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark".

Why that's almost as valid as comparing ME with the Teletubbies, but not quite.

As I said before...
So we need an easy way out of the virmire choice, citadel choice, geth choice, collector base choice, and tuchanka choice for them to be good choices given to the player? 

You're missing the point entirely. This is not about not having an easy way out of the final decision, this is about not having enough options to choose from. And you can't compare a scripted drama advertised as a tragedy with the the game in which player's decisions are supposed to completely shape the outcome.

It was never stated the player comletely shaped the outcome. That would mean we dicide what choices we have. ME never was like that. We were alway brought to an event were we are given choice to make. We as player react to what given to us not state what should be given to us. We don't pick what choices we face.

And this topic is about an easy way out. Rereadth eopening statement of the op.

You're wrong, actually. "EXPERIENCE THE BEGINNING, MIDDLE, AND END OF AN EMOTIONAL STORY UNLIKE ANY OTHER, WHERE THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE COMPLETELY SHAPE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND OUTCOME."
And no, it doesn't mean that we decide what choices we will face. The meaning of this statement is that we are supposedly given (enough) options in our decisions throughout the game so that we can completely shape our outcome, which isn't true, because we don't have enough options at the end of the game.

To address your second point. What do you mean with "an easy way out"? Having the possibility to achieve a happy ending isn't necessarily an easy way out of the final decision. In particular because to experience such ending, the player would have to spend countless hours playing multiplayer to raise the galactic readiness, as well as finishing all side quests. In my opinion, all that additional effort makes for a way out of the final decisions, but it's not an easy way.

That doesnot mean we get to pick the choices we face. We never did. That mean were don't get an easy way out because we want one. Asking for one is asking to pick the choices you face.

Man, read your previous post again so that you know what I commented on and then read your answer once again so that you see that you're not making any sense at all. Hopefully, you'll get it. If not, well, there's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't actually know what he's arguing over. I'm out of here for today.

Your not  getting my point. The end of the game  is based on the players choice, but the players choice don't change whta choice we face at the end of the game. The players choice effect what happen as a result of choosing the end choices.

Asking for a game the player has 100% decision of the out come means the player decieds the choice they face. 
That's not how game work. My point still stands

Having to work more to get an easy way out choiceis still geting an easy way out.

[dreman9999]

Icinix wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Holly-molly, I miss one day on BSN and it's 200 anniversary already!  Congrats, 3DandBeyond, on great thread. It doesn't even have to do anything with IT and it's getting huge, lol...

Ok, back on topic:
Dear pro-enders, we get the dark tone and moral sacrifices, etc. We are not dumb or shallow not to get it. But many of fans feel that technically, there are no choices for them, simply because all three endings are sad. And we can go in circles arguing how we delusion ourselves to believe that Shepard dies in Destroy, and universe is brainwashed in Synthesis and so on... we've been there before.

What you do not seem to understand somehow that there is also a happy tone that was present in all 3 ME games. And that tone was a key to motivation playing this game. People did not want to get depressed or angry because of the video game, they wanted to have fun and feel themselves superheroes (via Shepard, of course). It's like playing, I don't know, a Spiderman. Of course it is not like a real life (people don't climb the walls in real life in case you didn't know), of course boss battles are cheesy, of course it's good old happy end... but! People want to feel good and they play the game. They want to cry and they watch drama. They want to feel smart and they read Kafka. Each media suppose to serve its goal.

ME3 was marketed (at least in my opinion) as "Taking the Earth back". This created a vision of great battle and celebration afterwards as Shepard and the team kick the Reapers off the Earth. Instead I got a boring debate of how should I kill my Shepard for some totally bizarre reason that took me months to wrap my head around (you know, we kill organics so synthetics don't kill organics stuff). Plus I got a very annoying character that seems to be the main reason why my Shepard didn't kick butts and split drinks.
So, once again, yes, we do get the "highly intellectual and artistic" tone of ME3. We were just expecting something different from it.

1. There was ads for taking back earth but none of a happy end for Shepard.

2. I understand you don't want a sad end. I get that. A least you give a clear detail to what you want butthe thing is that not what BW wants. That may entire point of my arguement. I 'm not asking becasue it will mess up my game. I'm argueingbecasue I can see what bw wants to do with this ending. No ammount of asking is going to change there minds.
I just trying to getyou guys to consider what they want to do and giving an easy way out counters that.

So really, if you though ME3 was justgoing to be a game with a standard happy ending...Sorry, bw was never planning for that. They didn 't want it to just be a standard game.

Look up the original plan for the ending and you'll see you're never going to get that happy, easy way out ending.

I know what they were trying to do, but man did they fail. They dropped the ball hard on what they were trying to do - it ended up being a mismash of rubbish that left people scratching their heads as opposed to any sense of challenged morals.

The clear cut decisiveness of peoples decision making shows it didn't work. There are points and decisions in previous BioWare games where gamers were left crippled and unable to make a decision.....the ending didn't affect many people in that way - most people made a clear cut decision pretty easily.

I don't think there is too many people hear who don't realise what they were trying to do - its just that they did a very bad job of doing it.

That what happened per-ec...Post-ec that's no longer a problem

No, those problems are still there.

The only thing EC did was take some people away from other decisions and move them into refuse.

Base on the servay, most people switched more to other choices  then refuse.

[Icinix]

Well I've always found surveys on BSN pretty useless to be fair - but even if it was accurate - then people switching their moral choices based on meta-gaming is not a victory.

But the fact refuse still has a large number of supporters and required some interesting happy ending tie in's in all the endings in an attempt to make it a less compelling choice, is showing that the attempt to challenge morals failed.

[AresKeith]

Ozida wrote...

1. But why would anyone assume that ALL possible endings will lead to Shepard's death? All of them?
2. Well, BioWare has copyrights for their product, I understand. But really, they are not artists. It is a mistkae to consider them artists. They are the company that produces games. So excuse my language, but I don't give a damn about what they want. It's like saying: I've paid a farmer to grow me appleas and instead he got plumbs. When I asked why he did it, he replied because he wanted so. If ME3 was a painting in a gallery, nobody would dare to critisize it against creator's vision. ME3 is a product that is supposed to be sold. They should've done their research on what players really want better. Instead they: a) leaked original endings in Internet (a huge OOOPS!), tried to fix it with some "surprise!" ideas. Drew leaving didn't help either, but that's on another topic.

it actually went beyond Drew leaving to the Narrative Director who left after ME2

[dreman9999]

Ozida wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. There was ads for taking back earth but none of a happy end for Shepard.

2. I understand you don't want a sad end. I get that. A least you give a clear detail to what you want butthe thing is that not what BW wants. That may entire point of my arguement. I 'm not asking becasue it will mess up my game. I'm argueingbecasue I can see what bw wants to do with this ending. No ammount of asking is going to change there minds.
I just trying to getyou guys to consider what they want to do and giving an easy way out counters that.

So really, if you though ME3 was justgoing to be a game with a standard happy ending...Sorry, bw was never planning for that. They didn 't want it to just be a standard game.

Look up the original plan for the ending and you'll see you're never going to get that happy, easy way out ending.

1. But why would anyone assume that ALL possible endings will lead to Shepard's death? All of them?
2. Well, BioWare has copyrights for their product, I understand. But really, they are not artists. It is a mistkae to consider them artists. They are the company that produces games. So excuse my language, but I don't give a damn about what they want. It's like saying: I've paid a farmer to grow me appleas and instead he got plumbs. When I asked why he did it, he replied because he wanted so. If ME3 was a painting in a gallery, nobody would dare to critisize it against creator's vision. ME3 is a product that is supposed to be sold. They should've done their research on what players really want better. Instead they: a) leaked original endings in Internet (a huge OOOPS!), tried to fix it with some "surprise!" ideas. Drew leaving didn't help either, but that's on another topic.

1. The same reason why someone  assume every game has to have a happy ending.
On a serious note, there is nothing to state or show on any expictation of the ending based on ads. It just left open to the person imagination. It up to the person. That does not mean it ha to meet the expictation of the person.

2.Games are a form aof art but thats not my arguement. Just because they make game does nto mean they have to have a easy way out choice.
Entertainment is not a strict service that has to be custom made to every user and viewer.

Added, in an art gallery people do question the creators vision.

[dreman9999]

Icinix wrote...

Well I've always found surveys on BSN pretty useless to be fair - but even if it was accurate - then people switching their moral choices based on meta-gaming is not a victory.

But the fact refuse still has a large number of supporters and required some interesting happy ending tie in's in all the endings in an attempt to make it a less compelling choice, is showing that the attempt to challenge morals failed.

The ending choice in ME 3 has nothing to do with meta gaming. They didn't change there choice becaus ethey wanted to see differnt endings.  Add if you really want to look at the issue , look at the serveys statement on replay pre and post -ec. Big differance.

[3DandBeyond]

Snypy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

[...]

There are many that say BW decides what the game should be like-would they then feel the same, if at the end when all DLC was released, there was a win with Shepard alive, the reapers dead, the kid's dialogue fully changed to support destruction of the reapers (with the crucible having been created for that purpose).  The synthetics that it spoke of maybe all along was the reaper machines and he'd attempted to stop them by putting his creators in control of them inside them.  But it didn't work.

So, what if the ending, once and for all, turned out to be an amalgamation of some of what we are asking for here and was at least in part intended all along?  I truly wonder if the same people who love their choices now would feel the same as they do about BW.  I've read where people say they truly wish the galaxy had been destroyed at the end and aren't happy the EC was released.  So, I wonder at what point fans decide that BW has gone past what they should be "supported" for doing.  Where do fans draw the line?

[...]

It would be great if the final DLC expanded on the ending. But there are a few problems with that. Firstly, BioWare would prove it can't be trusted, because its PR guys said the ending wouldn't ever be changed again. Secondly, many fans would be unsatisfied with the new ending anyway. Thirdly, if it was necessary to buy all previous DLCs to access the best ending, many customers would accuse BioWare of bad business practices. Lastly, all those pro-ending supporters would probably get mad.

The problem is with that, those pro-ending people are the ones that have repeatedly told me not to complain because it's Bioware's story to tell how they want.  So, if Bioware determined to make an ending that just so happens to finally fit the story, those pro-ending people must live with what they've said.  If BW had this in mind all along and say so (even if not totally true) at the end that this was intended, those people would have to deal with it.

The trust level is really something you can't speak about.  There's already a low level of expectation for what they do, rightly or wrongly.  Bad business practices?  Well, they've already been accused of that, sort of what with the Better Business Bureau speaking about what was done.  This isn't new ground anyway.  Other game companies have done things to alter endings already. 

And this is exactly what I was talking about as far as profit ratios and such.  As it is, a lot of people may not even consider another ME game or more DLC.  If the piles of used games at places like Gamestop and Best Buy are an indication, then a lot of people got rid of the game.  Games are expensive to make.  Developing for new systems is expensive.  We don't know how many people returned games, sold their game used (or tried to) or just don't play anymore.  But we do know a lot of people hated the original endings and weren't that excited about the EC ones.  A sizable number. 

Even more problematic might be the direction of the games from here.  Prequels have problems and would lead to this ending as well as reapers ending the cycle.  But, sequels without one certain ending would be very difficult to do-and that includes those just set at a future time with new people.  It's like BW must get off the fence and end this and hopefully will do it in a decent way.

[3DandBeyond]

Icinix wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Sure, it easy to shoot a tube, but it's hard to do it because you know that doing it causes a genocide. And picking the choices out side of syntheis is not submutting to the reapers at all. There goal is to force all life undercontrol in one view. Control and destory does not do that.
Add this is not the first time you have a choice to kill your allies to get to a goal. That what causes the moral conflict.
You problem here is that you want to win with out sacrificing your morality or self.

No, it IS easy because the other ones are so ridiculous. It just feels like crap. What exactly is the point there? Did we learn some great moral lesson there? None that I can see. And even if we did, why would that make ME better than ending on some more inspirational note? "Because it's moar real!!!"? Wow, a more real space mecha-squid story. And why the hell would I need my reality lessons from a video game? I am not a child. I play these things to feel good stuff, not to flagellate myself over the angstiness of everything.

Win a video game without sacrificing my morality or my self? Well, what kinda nut would pay for that, right?

Yeah - I buy indie games to be confused about morality and feel terrible by the end credits.

I buy AAA $100 to be a big god damn hero.

Or at least get an ending that makes sense.

This is exactly right.

[GarvakD]

Snypy wrote...

zioninzion wrote...

Snypy wrote...

GarvakD wrote...

In regards to Shepard's cybernetics. In addition to Miranda's statements, Cerberus audio/video logs, discussions throughout the game, and the fact that Shepard is nowhere near an Adam Jensen level of modification, I feel safe to say his survival in destroy was justified.

I saw that video. I started researching IT a bit more. Started looking back on Bioware comments. Its got me worried now. What if this ME4 is basically ME3 revamped, but acknowledging the existence of IT in greater detail. Having him break free of it.  If the accepted indoctrination point for Shepard is where Arghos Rho interacts with him (rather than at the end of the ME3 Priority: Earth or something else), then all the events of ME3 would never have occurred. Everything I went through. All the story. The building of relationships and decisions. The relationship with my LI. Non-existent. Horrifying. But probably isn't true. Just as lame as synthesis canon though.

The Indoctrination theory is build upon speculations, not facts. Some people just couldn't understand that ME3 had such a terrible ending (pre-EC) so they've come up with their own explanations. It's fair to stay that the writers had never intended it. And just to point out, Arrival DLC is non-canon. If you haven't played it, your Shep has never interacted with the artefact and therefore cannot be indoctrinated.

Besides, BioWare can never acknowledge the IT. Such acknowledgement would be a suicide for the company. The backlash from critics and fans would be unimaginable.

Why would IT be suicide for the company and cause mass backlash? In my mind it would be the most incredible thing. Regardless of whether its true or not and without descending this thread into a massive IT argument, wouldnt the concept that at the end of the game that anyone who thought synethesis and control were the right decisions themselves were indoctrinated? The whole game there was the possibility of any of the characters to be indoctrinated but in the end they would have done such a good job that the player themselves could have been indoctrinated too (despite the evidence against listening to the reapers).

I just think that would make this the most incredible and revolutionary ending/continuing of a series. Who would be pissed? I am sure most of th people who got it "wrong" if it IT exists who have a more "whoa moment" than being mad.

BioWare's reputation is quite fragile, particularly after so much misinformation about ME3 before it was released. If the lead writer came out today and said that the ending was merely a hallucination and everything players did was absolutely meaningless, BioWare would have a very hard time convincing people to buy its products again, mainly because of mistrust. You can see for yourself that the sheer majority of ME3 players believe the destination is as important as the journey itself. After all, this is also one of the main reasons why the Extended Cut was released. Imagine for a second what would happen if everyone was told that the destination in ME3 is the death of everyone in the galaxy, regardless of the decisions the player made throughout the trilogy.

To address your opinion: would it be revolutionary? Sure, it would be. But few revolutions bear fruit in the end. Anyway, there's no concerete evidence to prove that the IT supporters are correct, only (far-fetched) speculations. (You can tell me the best reason why you think the IT is correct. I guess 3D won't like this discussion here, though.)

Plus a lot of the IT "evidence" is just stuff that is simply poor game design, oversight, and coincidence in my eyes.  Nothing really solid.  I almost accepted IT out of denial in hopes for something better.  But I got over that fast.  Maybe thats why so many believe it?  

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...


It was never stated the player comletely shaped the outcome. That would mean we dicide what choices we have. ME never was like that. We were alway brought to an event were we are given choice to make. We as player react to what given to us not state what should be given to us. We don't pick what choices we face.

And this topic is about an easy way out. Rereadth eopening statement of the op.

I'm sorry but just because you have an inability to comprehend what has been written in my OP and in 200 plus pages by now, you never will.  I can't fix what is wrong with your lack of understanding.  I can't force you to try and for one second to stop just assuming you know what's being said, stop writing pyramids, and read.  If we were talking, actually speaking to one another, an old "saying" might apply-you have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason, that you should listen twice as often as you talk.

I never wanted an easy way out ever.  I have stated this to you in about a thousand different ways, but you refuse to see anything that does not make it possible for you to argue.  I can't change you because you are determined to only make up things to be able to argue.  It's like if I said the sky was a beautiful blue, you'd accuse me of saying it was red and ugly and then argue about how ignorant I am for saying that.

I can't fix what's wrong with you and I don't care to try.  I am asking BW to try and fix this game.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


It was never stated the player comletely shaped the outcome. That would mean we dicide what choices we have. ME never was like that. We were alway brought to an event were we are given choice to make. We as player react to what given to us not state what should be given to us. We don't pick what choices we face.

And this topic is about an easy way out. Rereadth eopening statement of the op.

I'm sorry but just because you have an inability to comprehend what has been written in my OP and in 200 plus pages by now, you never will.  I can't fix what is wrong with your lack of understanding.  I can't force you to try and for one second to stop just assuming you know what's being said, stop writing pyramids, and read.  If we were talking, actually speaking to one another, an old "saying" might apply-you have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason, that you should listen twice as often as you talk.

I never wanted an easy way out ever.  I have stated this to you in about a thousand different ways, but you refuse to see anything that does not make it possible for you to argue.  I can't change you because you are determined to only make up things to be able to argue.  It's like if I said the sky was a beautiful blue, you'd accuse me of saying it was red and ugly and then argue about how ignorant I am for saying that.

I can't fix what's wrong with you and I don't care to try.  I am asking BW to try and fix this game.

This is what you wrote in your open....

3DandBeyond wrote... 
What I wish you would do is use DLC to add onto the endings to make one ending that will achieve the goal of destroying the reapers, viable and attainable.  Along with that, I wish you would make it possible for Shepard to be alive in the end and have a true, even if quick reunion with friends and LI, and cutscenes, an epilogue of Shepard helping in the unity needed for rebuilding and for the galaxy to get its heart and soul back again after the reapers nearly destroyed all that. 

 

That means easy way out being the if you had it you way Shepard would lose nothing.

What I have been saying is  bw does not want to go this direction with their story.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 septembre 2012 - 11:16 .

[3DandBeyond]

ld1449 wrote...

I'm not sure what's sadder anymore. Your methodology of arguing or the fact that you believe at least half the crap you type.

He constantly cuts and pastes the same old stuff.  I take that back.  Someone else occasionally comes and inserts a random off topic idea here and he will grab onto that and for the next several posts that's the new genius thing.

The whole thing is the endings do not represent a wide variety of choice and they should not even be choices to begin with.  They should have been the natural outcomes of what you've done all along.  And why EMS opens up what choices you have to begin with should tell people something here-or it should be something BW actually uses to make a meaningful ending. 

The endings are not about doing good, they are about trying to avoid bad without thinking of the consequences.  I actually think this may be why they didn't include an epilog to begin with-they may have thought people needed more to consider the consequences and each one had a bad one and the relays and the galaxy was destroyed.  Why?  Because none of the choices was a good thing to do.  Each one screwed the galaxy.  The failure is as it always was, that there is no good choice to make.  There's an awful one that does some good and that's the best you can hope for.

The choices are similar to mistakes the galaxy has always made.  Synthesis is like using the genophage.  It is like the whole Krogan experience wrapped into one tidy ball-the mistakes of too early artificial advancement, before the Krogan were ready for it, to fight a seemingly unstoppable foe.  And the genophage is used to mitigate the effects of that advancement.  Synthesis is the Krogan story in one package.

Control is the story of TIM and how he was corrupted by an all-consuming idea that started with a somewhat more noble (as he saw it) purpose; he wanted to help the Many that was humanity.  He wanted to save those that he saw were under threat and to do that he wanted to take control of others to make it happen and then to control the reapers.  The only difference is the scope of the Many that is humanity (TIM's Many) and the Many that is Shepards, the galaxy as it now is.

Destroy is the story of the geth and the quarians.  It's deciding that in order to avoid the problem of bad tech, or bad sentient synthetics, they all must be destroyed.  It is what the quarians tried to do and even what Shepard could do when it was just the geth, but now it's far more than the geth.  And just as the quarians nearly killed themselves in destroying the geth, Shepard partly killed him/herself in destroying the reapers.

It really is like all of these choices are parts of the story that you already played and made decisions about, but on much larger scales.  They seem to be corollaries. 

It's kind of why I can actually see this sometimes as being part of a nightmare or IT even.  I'm not fully convinced of this and I don't want this to be a place to argue the merits of IT or hallucinations or what have you.  I really just want people to consider opening their minds to anything.  And hope for some good things to happen.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote... 
What I wish you would do is use DLC to add onto the endings to make one ending that will achieve the goal of destroying the reapers, viable and attainable.  Along with that, I wish you would make it possible for Shepard to be alive in the end and have a true, even if quick reunion with friends and LI, and cutscenes, an epilogue of Shepard helping in the unity needed for rebuilding and for the galaxy to get its heart and soul back again after the reapers nearly destroyed all that. 

 

That means easy way out being the if you had it you way Shepard would lose nothing.

What I have been saying is  bw does not want to go this direction with their story.

And that is not all that I wrote nor all that I've written in this and other threads.  Nor is it all that I've ever written in reply to you specifically.

You have no idea what direction Bioware wants to go with their story-I don't think you've been invited to management sessions with them.  And BW has stated a lot about where they want to go and most of that has not come true or been in their stories.

Please read for comprehension.  I also have stated that none of the above was to be made easy and in fact said that the complete opposite should also be true, that you could totally lose everything or partly lose things or die and all, but that there would be one possible way to win it all and have Shepard and all the rest survive.

I can't state that any more clearly.  Please stop mischaracterizing what I've said-it only creates a rather sad impression of you.

I've said it before, but will repeat this.  I've played Demon's Souls and Dark Souls and those are incredibly hard games to win, dying happens repeatedly and when you die you lose everything and have to try to reclaim it all without dying again.  They are the most difficult games I've ever played, but you can win and survive them. By your understanding of what I'm saying, those games feature easy wins, but they don't.  Go play one of them and in a couple of months of daily playing, come back and tell me if you won yet. 

What was so difficult about getting those choices at the end?  I have triple the EMS needed for them.  I got enough EMS for the torso scene in the original endings since I'd played MP before getting to the end.

As far as them being difficult moral choices-no they aren't.  They're immoral to me.  And none of them achieve anything that is worth doing the immoral thing required of you-destroy is the only one that achieves anything that is at least partly really good, but the description of it is so ambiguous that it's impossible to know what other things are all destroyed in choosing it.  It is also the one that features the most obvious horrific cost if you valued the geth and EDI.  The others are intrinsically bad because of what you must do to achieve them (force things into people's bodies), force people to live with nightmarish creatures that were about to destroy the galaxy.  The outcomes are not good enough to make the choices worth it.  The easy thing would be to just act as if these are all super cooool awesome looking choices and ignore what they are and what they do.  It's far more difficult to have to read your posts trying to defend them.  If I wanted something easy, I wouldn't be here.

[3DandBeyond]

And even if I did want an easy way out, so what? That hurts no one for me to ask for anything. And after enduring months of listening to all the reasons (mainly one or two) as to why people like the endings (not too many really raving about them), I'd say that it's only fair that at some point the rest of us get an ending we can like too. Especially, if we are asking to pay for it and for it not to impact anyone else's game.

[Lunch Box1912]

 [/quote]

Oh no 3DandBeyond ! let me show you the light.

[quote]N7 Assass1n wrote...

Dreman, stop bringing out pointless arguments that people have already given ample support for their claims. I cannot count how many times before I joined this site while searching for Mass Effect related data and so many threads we derailed by your belligerent blabber that half the time you spell words wrong. Please stop. For everyone's sake.

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 25 septembre 2012 - 11:55 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

dreman9999 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm sure Hamlet , Romeo and Juliet wanted that happy ending option in there endings, too.

You mean the Hamlet in which you create a character called Hamlet and make all these choices, like whether to stab Polonius or not, and the story changes according to that, advertised with the phrase "Take Denmark back!", and certainly not as "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark".

Why that's almost as valid as comparing ME with the Teletubbies, but not quite.

As I said before...
So we need an easy way out of the virmire choice, citadel choice, geth choice, collector base choice, and tuchanka choice for them to be good choices given to the player? 

You're missing the point entirely. This is not about not having an easy way out of the final decision, this is about not having enough options to choose from. And you can't compare a scripted drama advertised as a tragedy with the the game in which player's decisions are supposed to completely shape the outcome.

It was never stated the player comletely shaped the outcome. That would mean we dicide what choices we have. ME never was like that. We were alway brought to an event were we are given choice to make. We as player react to what given to us not state what should be given to us. We don't pick what choices we face.

And this topic is about an easy way out. Rereadth eopening statement of the op.

You're wrong, actually. "EXPERIENCE THE BEGINNING, MIDDLE, AND END OF AN EMOTIONAL STORY UNLIKE ANY OTHER, WHERE THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE COMPLETELY SHAPE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND OUTCOME."
And no, it doesn't mean that we decide what choices we will face. The meaning of this statement is that we are supposedly given (enough) options in our decisions throughout the game so that we can completely shape our outcome, which isn't true, because we don't have enough options at the end of the game.

To address your second point. What do you mean with "an easy way out"? Having the possibility to achieve a happy ending isn't necessarily an easy way out of the final decision. In particular because to experience such ending, the player would have to spend countless hours playing multiplayer to raise the galactic readiness, as well as finishing all side quests. In my opinion, all that additional effort makes for a way out of the final decisions, but it's not an easy way.

That doesnot mean we get to pick the choices we face. We never did. That mean were don't get an easy way out because we want one. Asking for one is asking to pick the choices you face.

If I want a tragic story I'll read "Anna Karenina".

If I want to play an RPG with a deep grim/dark tragic ending I'll buy an indie game.

If I drop $$$ on a AAA rated title RPG I expect to play a big goddamned hero, as someone earlier in this thread put it.

After ME3's "make me want to slit my wrists" ending Borderlands 2 is working out just fine. I love the total lack of depth in the story line, the mindless shooting of psychotics, the ability to play a psychotic (Maya), and everyone loves Patricia Tannis aka Dr. Crazy. Roadkill for the win. Come getcha one! Catcha ride!

[AresKeith]

@ShotgunJulia hey Maya is not psychotic, she's a Siren lol 

Modifié par AresKeith, 26 septembre 2012 - 12:01 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AresKeith wrote...

@ShotgunJulia hey Maya is not psychotic, she's a Siren lol 

They do tend to laugh after kills.

[AresKeith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@ShotgunJulia hey Maya is not psychotic, she's a Siren lol 

They do tend to laugh after kills.

its that adrenaline rush lol

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Has dreman left yet?

And if not has he at least learned how to spell?

[darthoptimus003]

dreman is just trolling he does that in almost ever thread
this was a good thread now we got him he needs to stay out of this one

[Icinix]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

dreman is just trolling he does that in almost ever thread
this was a good thread now we got him he needs to stay out of this one

Dre is allright, he just has the blinkers on when it comes to ME3.

[N7 Assass1n]

3DandBeyond wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

I'm not sure what's sadder anymore. Your methodology of arguing or the fact that you believe at least half the crap you type.

He constantly cuts and pastes the same old stuff.  I take that back.  Someone else occasionally comes and inserts a random off topic idea here and he will grab onto that and for the next several posts that's the new genius thing.

The whole thing is the endings do not represent a wide variety of choice and they should not even be choices to begin with.  They should have been the natural outcomes of what you've done all along.  And why EMS opens up what choices you have to begin with should tell people something here-or it should be something BW actually uses to make a meaningful ending. 

The endings are not about doing good, they are about trying to avoid bad without thinking of the consequences.  I actually think this may be why they didn't include an epilog to begin with-they may have thought people needed more to consider the consequences and each one had a bad one and the relays and the galaxy was destroyed.  Why?  Because none of the choices was a good thing to do.  Each one screwed the galaxy.  The failure is as it always was, that there is no good choice to make.  There's an awful one that does some good and that's the best you can hope for.

The choices are similar to mistakes the galaxy has always made.  Synthesis is like using the genophage.  It is like the whole Krogan experience wrapped into one tidy ball-the mistakes of too early artificial advancement, before the Krogan were ready for it, to fight a seemingly unstoppable foe.  And the genophage is used to mitigate the effects of that advancement.  Synthesis is the Krogan story in one package.

Control is the story of TIM and how he was corrupted by an all-consuming idea that started with a somewhat more noble (as he saw it) purpose; he wanted to help the Many that was humanity.  He wanted to save those that he saw were under threat and to do that he wanted to take control of others to make it happen and then to control the reapers.  The only difference is the scope of the Many that is humanity (TIM's Many) and the Many that is Shepards, the galaxy as it now is.

Destroy is the story of the geth and the quarians.  It's deciding that in order to avoid the problem of bad tech, or bad sentient synthetics, they all must be destroyed.  It is what the quarians tried to do and even what Shepard could do when it was just the geth, but now it's far more than the geth.  And just as the quarians nearly killed themselves in destroying the geth, Shepard partly killed him/herself in destroying the reapers.

It really is like all of these choices are parts of the story that you already played and made decisions about, but on much larger scales.  They seem to be corollaries. 

It's kind of why I can actually see this sometimes as being part of a nightmare or IT even.  I'm not fully convinced of this and I don't want this to be a place to argue the merits of IT or hallucinations or what have you.  I really just want people to consider opening their minds to anything.  And hope for some good things to happen.

Specifically this part, I never thought of that. Most people who support IT have actually never thought of that. Really you can also relate synthesis in part to Saren who thought he could force it upon the Galaxy with the help of Sovereign. But I agree, the Krogan analogy under these parameters is much more suitable.

[Lunch Box1912]

N7 Assass1n wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Destroy is the story of the geth and the quarians.  It's deciding that in order to avoid the problem of bad tech, or bad sentient synthetics, they all must be destroyed.  It is what the quarians tried to do and even what Shepard could do when it was just the geth, but now it's far more than the geth.  And just as the quarians nearly killed themselves in destroying the geth, Shepard partly killed him/herself in destroying the reapers.

It really is like all of these choices are parts of the story that you already played and made decisions about, but on much larger scales.  They seem to be corollaries. 

It's kind of why I can actually see this sometimes as being part of a nightmare or IT even.  I'm not fully convinced of this and I don't want this to be a place to argue the merits of IT or hallucinations or what have you.  I really just want people to consider opening their minds to anything.  And hope for some good things to happen.

Specifically this part, I never thought of that. Most people who support IT have actually never thought of that. Really you can also relate synthesis in part to Saren who thought he could force it upon the Galaxy with the help of Sovereign. But I agree, the Krogan analogy under these parameters is much more suitable.

Ooh and Leviathan can be shadowed as the Quarians.

.....Had to get the DLC in there.

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 26 septembre 2012 - 01:51 .

[AresKeith]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

Ooh and Leviathan can be shadowed as the Quarians.

.....Had to get the DLC in there.

I still want Bioware to use my Palaven DLC idea lol