6432 réponses à ce sujet

[AndreasShepard]

Here's my issue with it all, you create a fantastic universe with amazing characters that you can't help but fall in love with and then you just shut it all down in the last five minutes of your series and say "sorry we're not going to tell you what happened to the most important character in the entire trilogy."

That relationship you might have spent years developing between Shepard and his/her love interest, guess what you'll never see it pan out. We'll just leave you with Shepard buried beneath rubble and you can use your imagination to figure out the rest.

It's like ending lord of the rings the minute after Frodo gets his finger bitten off and the ring is destroyed, yeah sure the ring is destroyed but what happened to Frodo? Is he gonna bleed out, will Sam survive too? Wont Gandalf and the rest of the crew want to try and save him? If you care at all about these characters you want to see this kind of thing resolved before being able to put a story to rest.

This game is about the characters for me, I never really cared what became of the alliance soldiers on earth or getting a higher N7 rating in multiplayer but Mass effect 3 just totally did away with the character focus at the end of this game, leaving many fans like me heartbroken at how Shepard was just tossed aside (especially pre-extended cut).

The whole thing just seems incredibly sadistic the way they provide the possibility for him to live and then vehemently deny that they'll ever show anything beyond the breath scene. 

And the simple fact is that Casey and Mac may have created this universe but remember how they forgot to show us what happened to the squad after harbringers beam or how the crew got off earth?  It makes me seriously question just how much they care about these characters to have had such a gross oversight take place and I just feel there's a certain lack of sympathy/understanding in regards to character closure.

Modifié par AndreasShepard, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:38 .

[CronoDragoon]

AresKeith wrote...

so the endings where Shepard is dead gets closure, but the one where he can live gets no closure but for us to use our imagination instead of getting what we paid for. That's not a valid way to end a story.

And here I thought we were past this. I thought we had realized by now that although BioWare is unlikely to do anything more with the endings, if they do it will be paid DLC. 

I think you have the wrong interpretation on what closure represents. Closure exists in order to complete character arcs. It is the final statement of what that character's arc represents. What Chris said is actually very true: he is either alive or dead. Either way, the closure is inherent in what you choose to believe. There is nothing more that BioWare needed to do with Shepard. His story was finished. Anything about marriage or celebrations or whatever is unnecessary to the story, and frankly more suited to fanfiction.net and deviantart anyway.

Stuff like that isn't integral storytelling, it's sap. Now, are you wrong for wanting sap? Of course not. But it also means you have no objective basis for your feelings. It's pure emotion. The post above mine admits as much.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[Lunch Box1912]

Agreed. Could not have said it better....AndreasShepard

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:30 .

[AresKeith]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

so the endings where Shepard is dead gets closure, but the one where he can live gets no closure but for us to use our imagination instead of getting what we paid for. That's not a valid way to end a story.

And here I thought we were past this. I thought we had realized by now that although BioWare is unlikely to do anything more with the endings, if they do it will be paid DLC. 

I think you have the wrong interpretation on what closure represents. Closure exists in order to complete character arcs. It is the final statement of what that character's arc represents. What Chris said is actually very true: he is either alive or dead. Either way, the closure is inherent in what you choose to believe. There is nothing more that BioWare needed to do with Shepard. His story was finished. Anything about marriage or celebrations or whatever is unnecessary to the story, and frankly more suited to fanfiction.net and deviantart anyway.

Stuff like that isn't integral storytelling, it's sap. Now, are you wrong for wanting sap? Of course not. But it also means you have no objective basis for your feelings. It's pure emotion. The post above mine admits as much.

This line I bolded that is not what I was talking about, and yes both Control and Synthesis gave a sense of closure where Destroy gave and ambigious ending, people who wanted Shepard to live should be able to actually see it not see some torse

[Lunch Box1912]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

so the endings where Shepard is dead gets closure, but the one where he can live gets no closure but for us to use our imagination instead of getting what we paid for. That's not a valid way to end a story.

And here I thought we were past this. I thought we had realized by now that although BioWare is unlikely to do anything more with the endings, if they do it will be paid DLC. 

I think you have the wrong interpretation on what closure represents. Closure exists in order to complete character arcs. It is the final statement of what that character's arc represents. What Chris said is actually very true: he is either alive or dead. Either way, the closure is inherent in what you choose to believe. There is nothing more that BioWare needed to do with Shepard. His story was finished. Anything about marriage or celebrations or whatever is unnecessary to the story, and frankly more suited to fanfiction.net and deviantart anyway.

Stuff like that isn't integral storytelling, it's sap. Now, are you wrong for wanting sap? Of course not. But it also means you have no objective basis for your feelings. It's pure emotion. The post above mine admits as much.

Not if you belive the entire ending should be scrapped. I'm not even going to get into the reasons...

[CronoDragoon]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

Not if you belive the entire ending should be scrapped. I'm not even going to get into the reasons...

Sure, if you have other issues with the ending, I can understand that. But in this particular case, with this particular reasoning, it is more difficult to ascribe weight to the argument.

[CronoDragoon]

AresKeith wrote...
This line I bolded that is not what I was talking about, and yes both Control and Synthesis gave a sense of closure where Destroy gave and ambigious ending, people who wanted Shepard to live should be able to actually see it not see some torse

I saw him live. Dunno what you saw. "There is no canon" right? I'm fine imagining what Tali's face will look like when she finds him alive. Err...I mean, her mask. Err....you know.

[Lunch Box1912]

It does raise the question though... Here comes the wigits!

If it is sap they still have whole heck of alot of people that are willing to pay for some sort of DLC for it so why not?

You have a hole bunch of gamers begging to buy wigits... Why not sell wigits?

I think thats what bothers me.

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:45 .

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

so the endings where Shepard is dead gets closure, but the one where he can live gets no closure but for us to use our imagination instead of getting what we paid for. That's not a valid way to end a story.

And here I thought we were past this. I thought we had realized by now that although BioWare is unlikely to do anything more with the endings, if they do it will be paid DLC. 

I think you have the wrong interpretation on what closure represents. Closure exists in order to complete character arcs. It is the final statement of what that character's arc represents. What Chris said is actually very true: he is either alive or dead. Either way, the closure is inherent in what you choose to believe. There is nothing more that BioWare needed to do with Shepard. His story was finished. Anything about marriage or celebrations or whatever is unnecessary to the story, and frankly more suited to fanfiction.net and deviantart anyway.

Stuff like that isn't integral storytelling, it's sap. Now, are you wrong for wanting sap? Of course not. But it also means you have no objective basis for your feelings. It's pure emotion. The post above mine admits as much.

That is the exact opposite of closure.  Did they say that the EC would be released so you could provide your own imaginary closure.  No, they said it was so that people could have closure.  And that means not ambiguous, not either or, not a guess or make up your own ending.  People want to know in real life if a missing person is alive or dead for closure.  It's so they have an answer to it. 

There is nothing more Bioware needed to do for you with Shepard.  You are now acting as if we all want weddings and babies and all of that and that's not primarily what any of this was ever about.  We want to see Shepard alive.

We always sit here and say it's important for us and for Shep's teammates and all to know s/he is alive, but so too is it important for Shepard to know that they are alive and who isn't and what all happened.  We wanted closure for the end of Shepard's story, not vagueness. And goody for you if you don't need that.  Many many others do and that is a valid and foreseeable desire-it's ridiculous that these people couldn't foresee what anyone could.  I seriously doubt that anyone that played ME1 and 2, ever truly thought Shepard would end up like that at the end in a pile of ambiguity.  No, every single person believed that it was the end of Shepard's story.  But since the die had been cast and they always showed a way out alive, I have little doubt that most thought it would be dead as one possibility and in one ending and alive and clearly alive as another possibility in another ending.

[Dragoonlordz]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

It does raise the question though... Here comes the wigits!

If it is sap they still have whole heck of alot of people that are willing to pay for some sort of DLC for it so why not?

If they can make more money from spending their time on other DLC, then pretty sure the smart move is catering to the biggest monetary gain for time they invest in creation of the DLC for group B over group A.

Going by their stance I would consider it safe to assume there is not enough demand for the DLC some are asking for vs alternative DLC demand (in regard type of DLC such as the silly conventional or unconventional alternative ending DLC as example), as well as idiology behind the DLC conflicts with the story they want to tell vs what you want to see.

With regard to an additional slide for reunion, the money or time to create I do not think is the issue. It is the story they want to tell vs story you want to see I think is the issue for that type of DLC.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:56 .

[CronoDragoon]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

It does raise the question though... Here comes the wigits!

If it is sap they still have whole heck of alot of people that are willing to pay for some sort of DLC for it so why not?

You have a hole bunch of gamers begging to buy wigits... Why not sell wigits?

I think thats what bothers me.

Oh, I agree. If they came out with Reunion DLC or something I'd be ecstatic and leave 1,000 bucks free on my CC just in case. 

But I also recognize that this wish is more personal gratification than an objective criticism. As for why they won't do it, it's not fair for me to speculate on things I really have no clue about. I don't know their work schedule, their future plans, or anything like that. It's clear many people would buy a Reunion DLC, but a crapload of people bought Leviathan, too, and a lot of people are looking forward to Omega.

Personally I want DLC that explains the Crucible's origins and workings more than Reunion DLC, because I believe it has a better shot at improving the quality of the story.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
This line I bolded that is not what I was talking about, and yes both Control and Synthesis gave a sense of closure where Destroy gave and ambigious ending, people who wanted Shepard to live should be able to actually see it not see some torse

I saw him live. Dunno what you saw. "There is no canon" right? I'm fine imagining what Tali's face will look like when she finds him alive. Err...I mean, her mask. Err....you know.

There is no canon is the biggest pile of horse pucks I've ever heard.  There is canon all over the place.  Guess what's canon-in ME1 Shepard lives and you see it, after thinking Shepard might have died.  Guess what else is canon-Shepard died in ME2 and then lived again and you saw that too.  Oh, and you know what else is canon-Shepard living in ME2 at the end and you saw that too.  Guess what else is canon-choose green eyes and Shepard dies and gets flailed alive.  And in control, Shepard dies. 

Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it does for everyone else.  And the game should have allowed for the obvious.  We spent hours making Shepard's face for this to be the ending? 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[Lunch Box1912]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I seriously doubt that anyone that played ME1 and 2, ever truly thought Shepard would end up like that at the end in a pile of ambiguity.  No, every single person believed that it was the end of Shepard's story.  But since the die had been cast and they always showed a way out alive, I have little doubt that most thought it would be dead as one possibility and in one ending and alive and clearly alive as another possibility in another ending.

NEVER thought he would end up like that. The story and details throughout the series where so rich and complex I could never have imagined them going this route.

I think thats why were here saying wtf.

[Iakus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

But Chris already said if you want him to live then he lives in that ending. If want him to die then he dies in that ending. They did not stop you believing is alive by having him left in the rubble, it merely means if you want him to live he just has to be found by anyone you feel like imagining find him. The way it was handled you can have it end the way you want, you have been given that freedom to do so.

Heck I could have played all of ME3 that way.  What'd I spend all this money for?

/sarcasm

[Dragoonlordz]

iakus wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

But Chris already said if you want him to live then he lives in that ending. If want him to die then he dies in that ending. They did not stop you believing is alive by having him left in the rubble, it merely means if you want him to live he just has to be found by anyone you feel like imagining find him. The way it was handled you can have it end the way you want, you have been given that freedom to do so.

Heck I could have played all of ME3 that way.  What'd I spend all this money for?

/sarcasm

Why you spent your money is your business not mine. I am just running you through a logical interpretation of Chris's answer and what was presented in the game.

[Lunch Box1912]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

It does raise the question though... Here comes the wigits!

If it is sap they still have whole heck of alot of people that are willing to pay for some sort of DLC for it so why not?

If they can make more money from spending their time on other DLC, then pretty sure the smart move is catering to the biggest monetary gain for time they invest in creation of the DLC for group B over group A.

Going by their stance I would consider it safe to assume there is not enough demand for the DLC some are asking for vs alternative DLC demand (in regard type of DLC such as the silly conventional or unconventional alternative ending DLC as example), as well as idiology behind the DLC conflicts with the story they want to tell vs what you want to see.

With regard to an additional slide for reunion, the money or time to create I do not think is the issue. It is the story they want to tell vs story you want to see I think is the issue for that type of DLC.

Yeah but that is the problem in itself right there, you built an RPG and amassed a fan base. Give them what they want. Your only shrinking that base by not.

It’s why I ask the Wigit question let’s be honest business is business this art baloney is bologna.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
This line I bolded that is not what I was talking about, and yes both Control and Synthesis gave a sense of closure where Destroy gave and ambigious ending, people who wanted Shepard to live should be able to actually see it not see some torse

I saw him live. Dunno what you saw. "There is no canon" right? I'm fine imagining what Tali's face will look like when she finds him alive. Err...I mean, her mask. Err....you know.

There is no canon is the biggest pile of horse pucks I've ever heard.  There is canon all over the place.  Guess what's canon-in ME1 Shepard lives and you see it, after thinking Shepard might have died.  Guess what else is canon-Shepard died in ME2 and then lived again and you saw that too.  Oh, and you know what else is canon-Shepard living in ME2 at the end and you saw that too.  Guess what else is canon-choose green eyes and Shepard dies and gets flailed alive.  And in control, Shepard dies. 

Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it does for everyone else.  And the game should have allowed for the obvious.  We spent hours making Shepard's face for this to be the ending? 

Firstly, "there is no canon" has been part of the battlecry for disgrunted fans who feel that ME3 did not give their choices ample weight. If you never believed that was true about Mass Effect, then okay.

Obviously it doesn't work for everyone else. The question is whether or not you have anything more than personal gratification as a reason for wanting Shepard lives in Destroy to be canon. I would like to see more, but only because I'd like some sap. But I'm not arrogant enought to believe it's anything more than that.

In any case, believe it or not there were people who wanted Shepard to be dead in Destroy, feeling that it was fitting for him to sacrifice himself. That you want Shepard lives to be established is selfish.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

And here I thought we were past this. I thought we had realized by now that although BioWare is unlikely to do anything more with the endings, if they do it will be paid DLC. 

I think you have the wrong interpretation on what closure represents. Closure exists in order to complete character arcs. It is the final statement of what that character's arc represents. What Chris said is actually very true: he is either alive or dead. Either way, the closure is inherent in what you choose to believe. There is nothing more that BioWare needed to do with Shepard. His story was finished. Anything about marriage or celebrations or whatever is unnecessary to the story, and frankly more suited to fanfiction.net and deviantart anyway.

Stuff like that isn't integral storytelling, it's sap. Now, are you wrong for wanting sap? Of course not. But it also means you have no objective basis for your feelings. It's pure emotion. The post above mine admits as much.

And here I thought we were past  "You just want a reunion with your waifu"

No, that's not it.  What we want to to see Shepard get out of the rubble.  We want to see Shepard live.  Not just be "not dead yet"  And we want to see it, not just headcanon it.  

You don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in control
We don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in Synthesis
We don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in refuse
We don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in Low, Medium, or High EMS Destroy.

We get to see Shepard die all we want in any of these endings.  We just want it balanced with seeing Shepard live!  Destroy+ should not have to share with yet another dead Shepard ending.

[AresKeith]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Firstly, "there is no canon" has been part of the battlecry for disgrunted fans who feel that ME3 did not give their choices ample weight. If you never believed that was true about Mass Effect, then okay.

Obviously it doesn't work for everyone else. The question is whether or not you have anything more than personal gratification as a reason for wanting Shepard lives in Destroy to be canon. I would like to see more, but only because I'd like some sap. But I'm not arrogant enought to believe it's anything more than that.

In any case, believe it or not there were people who wanted Shepard to be dead in Destroy, feeling that it was fitting for him to sacrifice himself. That you want Shepard lives to be established is selfish.

how is it selfish that people wants an ending where there character can live, in a game thats built around choices. Its selfish to force the player to do self-sacrifice in every single ending, you don't do that in a RPG type game

And our choices from the past game should have ample weight, but most of them didn't for people

Modifié par AresKeith, 29 septembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[Iakus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Why you spent your money is your business not mine. I am just running you through a logical interpretation of Chris's answer and what was presented in the game.

And I'm just showing how that's an illogical and ill-advised business philosophy for a video game company

[Dragoonlordz]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

It does raise the question though... Here comes the wigits!

If it is sap they still have whole heck of alot of people that are willing to pay for some sort of DLC for it so why not?

If they can make more money from spending their time on other DLC, then pretty sure the smart move is catering to the biggest monetary gain for time they invest in creation of the DLC for group B over group A.

Going by their stance I would consider it safe to assume there is not enough demand for the DLC some are asking for vs alternative DLC demand (in regard type of DLC such as the silly conventional or unconventional alternative ending DLC as example), as well as idiology behind the DLC conflicts with the story they want to tell vs what you want to see.

With regard to an additional slide for reunion, the money or time to create I do not think is the issue. It is the story they want to tell vs story you want to see I think is the issue for that type of DLC.

Yeah but that is the problem in itself right there, you built an RPG and amassed a fan base. Give them what they want. Your only shrinking that base by not.

It’s why I ask the Wigit question let’s be honest business is business this art baloney is bologna.

Personally as I have stated I have no issues with reunion DLC slides etc. Simple reason is would not take long and I think not cost much to produce half dozen slides. The alternative ending stuff though would take a lot longer and a lot more money despite what others proclaim in here. That time and money given the limited timeframe between each game and the DLC period between them is better spent (imho) and probably profit wise Bioware's too on other DLC.

[Lunch Box1912]

iakus wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Why you spent your money is your business not mine. I am just running you through a logical interpretation of Chris's answer and what was presented in the game.

And I'm just showing how that's an illogical and ill-advised business philosophy for a video game company

Exactly what I’m trying to say.

[Lunch Box1912]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Personally as I have stated I have no issues with reunion DLC slides etc. Simple reason is would not take long and I think not cost much to produce half dozen slides. The alternative ending stuff though would take a lot longer and a lot more money despite what others proclaim in here. That time and money given the limited timeframe between each game and the DLC period between them is better spent (imho) and probably profit wise Bioware's too on other DLC.

I get what your saying......

would you like a wigit with that??

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

And here I thought we were past  "You just want a reunion with your waifu"

See the Romance DLC thread? Or the Blue Babies thread? I have good reason for believing this.

No, that's not it.  What we want to to see Shepard get out of the rubble.  We want to see Shepard live.  Not just be "not dead yet"  And we want to see it, not just headcanon it.  

You don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in control
We don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in Synthesis
We don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in refuse
We don't get to choose to believe Shepard survived in Low, Medium, or High EMS Destroy.

We get to see Shepard die all we want in any of these endings.  We just want it balanced with seeing Shepard live!  Destroy+ should not have to share with yet another dead Shepard ending.

You want to screw people who would prefer a sacrifice Destroy ending.

[CronoDragoon]

AresKeith wrote...

how is it selfish that people wants an ending where there character can live, in a game thats built around choices. Its selfish to force the player to do self-sacrifice in every single ending, you don't do that in a RPG type game

And our choices from the past game should have ample weight, but most of them didn't for people

It's selfish because by seeing Shepard get out of the rubble, you've now eliminated a possible interpretation of that scene that *gasp* some people actually like. Now, if we had two separate Destroy scenarios that had led to two unique endings, that would obviously be preferable. Then both people could have the endings they want without having to share.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 septembre 2012 - 04:15 .