221 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

ld1449 wrote...

Key words being. DONE WELL.

OK. How about an outline of your revised ME3 ending. Kill Shep. Do it well.

[blueumi]

no i start playing and have to stop it's just not that fun when you know just how badly this game ends even with ec

bioware did a bad job they set up reapers are bad kill them at any cost for 2 games and most of the 3rd game

i hate this ending and i'm tired of bioware and games media making out the fans are wrong when it was biowares job to make sure we all got what story they were telling

they made me and i'm sure lots of other people want 2 things or one of those 2 things

1 destroy the reapers and win

2 get back with the li

we don't get to do that and it's such an unsatisfactory ending and that is biowares fault no fan should be blamed for the mess they made of the ending

[MythicalStick]

ld1449 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Gaming as a medium is maturing. And that means the types of stories being told are diversifying. We have movies that have depressing endings. Some of these are blockbuster hits. So why not gaming?

In fact, I enjoy the emotional rollercoaster that is a good story. You know what: when Thane died, I felt really bad. But that was good. That I was affected in such a way is a sign of an effective storyteller.

If you want all stories to end in happy endings, then good for you. But I think that heavily restricts authors and is rather close-minded.

You can have depressing endings in gaming that are tasteful, and well done. Look at Halo Reach, Heavy Rain, or some of the endings in the way of the Samurai games since way back when.

Key words being. DONE WELL.

Mass effect 3 is not a cathartic or well done ending by any stretch of the imagination to people with even the most basic literary knowledge and quite a few people without it.

You're impugning my literary knowlege?  Can I take a test first or provide credentials?  Do I get any points for slugging it out through War and Peace in what can only be described as a campaign of attrition? 

[AlanC9]

blueumi wrote...
bioware did a bad job they set up reapers are bad kill them at any cost for 2 games and most of the 3rd game

Ummm.... ever look into the Dark Energy plot? Bio was never telling a story about "reapers are bad kill them at any cost."

[blueumi]

AlanC9 wrote...

blueumi wrote...
bioware did a bad job they set up reapers are bad kill them at any cost for 2 games and most of the 3rd game

Ummm.... ever look into the Dark Energy plot? Bio was never telling a story about "reapers are bad kill them at any cost."

the game should tell the story well and so i should not need the books they make to know whats going on

as i said biowawre made a lot of people want to destroy the reapers which is why lots of people pick that

if they did it so well why did loads of people send the game back it's not my fault or any fans

i will  never like that ending

[AlanC9]

blueumi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

blueumi wrote...
bioware did a bad job they set up reapers are bad kill them at any cost for 2 games and most of the 3rd game

Ummm.... ever look into the Dark Energy plot? Bio was never telling a story about "reapers are bad kill them at any cost."

the game should tell the story well and so i should not need the books they make to know whats going on

Who said anything about the books? I'm talking about the original plan for the games. The series never was what you thought it was. Apparently, there was always going to be some reveal where the Reapers' purpose was arguably a good thing. ( Although this might have come up after ME1; it's not obvious Bio thought at all about where they were going with things when they made that game.)

[blueumi]

well they did not use that idea in the end why do people keep going on about this when it's no longer in the game

[ld1449]

AlanC9 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Key words being. DONE WELL.

OK. How about an outline of your revised ME3 ending. Kill Shep. Do it well.

I wouldn't revise the ending in that case. I'd revise half of the ME3 plot. Just by the induction of the crucible they already put the game on a wobly foundation.

[AlanC9]

@ blueumi: Well, this time I brought Dark Energy up because you said Bioware "set up reapers are bad kill them at any cost." and that was never where the series was going to go.

Of course, I guess that just means that Bio was always going to make you feel bad about the endings

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:33 .

[ld1449]

MythicalStick wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Gaming as a medium is maturing. And that means the types of stories being told are diversifying. We have movies that have depressing endings. Some of these are blockbuster hits. So why not gaming?

In fact, I enjoy the emotional rollercoaster that is a good story. You know what: when Thane died, I felt really bad. But that was good. That I was affected in such a way is a sign of an effective storyteller.

If you want all stories to end in happy endings, then good for you. But I think that heavily restricts authors and is rather close-minded.

You can have depressing endings in gaming that are tasteful, and well done. Look at Halo Reach, Heavy Rain, or some of the endings in the way of the Samurai games since way back when.

Key words being. DONE WELL.

Mass effect 3 is not a cathartic or well done ending by any stretch of the imagination to people with even the most basic literary knowledge and quite a few people without it.

You're impugning my literary knowlege?  Can I take a test first or provide credentials?  Do I get any points for slugging it out through War and Peace in what can only be described as a campaign of attrition? 

Nope, no points. This has already been discussed ad-nauseum and I really really really lack the energy or desire to fully get into the exact same conversation for the tenth time with the tenth person.

[AlanC9]

ld1449 wrote...
I wouldn't revise the ending in that case. I'd revise half of the ME3 plot. Just by the induction of the crucible they already put the game on a wobly foundation.

Hell, if we're rewriting stuff I'd go back to ME1.

[ld1449]

AlanC9 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...
I wouldn't revise the ending in that case. I'd revise half of the ME3 plot. Just by the induction of the crucible they already put the game on a wobly foundation.

Hell, if we're rewriting stuff I'd go back to ME1.

Hmm, such as? Genuine question.

For myself, the other two games were fine. ME2 did little to advance the ME plot but that's more due to walters incompetence at retaining a cohesive narrative rather than a failing of the game itself. IMO

[RenegonSQ]

10110001110100 wrote...

I have found a fun way to play ME3. Assume Shepard is indoctrinated, and play to get the Reapers the best ending. Not only is it more challenging to sabotage allied efforts and get all your squad killed you and your Reaper allies can actually WIN in the end.

With ME1, this is almost impossible.

But in ME2 and ME3 you can agree with most of Illusive Man's thoughts and play as an indoctrinated Shepard.

[chasemme]

10110001110100 wrote...

I have found a fun way to play ME3. Assume Shepard is indoctrinated, and play to get the Reapers the best ending. Not only is it more challenging to sabotage allied efforts and get all your squad killed you and your Reaper allies can actually WIN in the end.

Um. This is honestly a pretty cool idea.


Edit: To the poster above me: I would say it would be fine to play ME1 normal, since if you were playing indoctrination, it would be reasonable to assume the effects wouldn't set in till ME2 at the earliest anyway.

Modifié par chasemme, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:14 .

[clarkusdarkus]

Mass Effect 3 was a big dissapointment and i didnt enjoy it, i then played Dragons Dogma and enjoyed it immensly with no expectations.....

Make of that what you will but i Play games to enjoy and Mass effect 3 took itself to a level outside of gaming and what it entails......twitter crap, apps i didnt care for, comics, no end boss as its too videogamey etc etc......When a developer says silly things like " too videogamey " for a videogame then there wasnt much hope for ME3.

[Gruntburner]

I liked Silent Hill 2. It depressed the hell out of me, but I still enjoyed it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Cainne Chapel]

ld1449 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...
I wouldn't revise the ending in that case. I'd revise half of the ME3 plot. Just by the induction of the crucible they already put the game on a wobly foundation.

Hell, if we're rewriting stuff I'd go back to ME1.

Hmm, such as? Genuine question.

For myself, the other two games were fine. ME2 did little to advance the ME plot but that's more due to walters incompetence at retaining a cohesive narrative rather than a failing of the game itself. IMO

You do realize the game was only Co-wrote by Walters right?

You guys really gotta stop blaming the man for ALL the issues with the plot.

hell i've seen people blaming him for Anderson not being a councilor anymore.... and that took place in DREWs book.

[Cainne Chapel]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Mass Effect 3 was a big dissapointment and i didnt enjoy it, i then played Dragons Dogma and enjoyed it immensly with no expectations.....

Make of that what you will but i Play games to enjoy and Mass effect 3 took itself to a level outside of gaming and what it entails......twitter crap, apps i didnt care for, comics, no end boss as its too videogamey etc etc......When a developer says silly things like " too videogamey " for a videogame then there wasnt much hope for ME3.

So you're saying you played a game with no expectations and enjoyed it, but went into a game WITH expectations and didnt.  Intriguing

Oddly enough Dogma was a great game, but if it had been made by BW oh the backlash they would have received....

and all that stuff, Twitter, Books, comics, started after ME1, so you cant hold taht against 3.  Also people said the "Boss" fight in two was lame and hamfisted as well ya know.

Just goes to show that "fans" dont always know what they want exactly, but have no problems complaining about it

[Wesker1984]

Aren't people supposed to play games for enjoyment and not to feel depressed?

It because many peoples take video games as a way of life or life itself and see Shepard as a part of themself, thats the problem. It not just about passion in what we love but also a psychological problem for others.

A game rushed or not is dedicated to be played and enjoyed not to maintain our lives. And Mass Effect 3 with all its flaws is still a ******* awesome game. But just because of the endings many peoples seems to forget how good the rest of the game was.

Modifié par Wesker1984, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Ferah84 wrote...

Apologies if there's another thread like this (please redirect me if there is).

As I've stated in another thread: http://social.biowar...1922/1#13936151
I didn't really enjoy playing the new Leviathan DLC mainly because it would not have much impact on Shepard's outcome in the end (though I really loved finding out more about the reapers and the whole DLC looked amazing). And it got me thinking more about the purpose of games in general.

If you buy a game, it's likely you want to feel overall enjoyment from it. Though Mass Effect is a strong narrative piece of work as much as it's a game, it is primarily seen and sold as a game, and in my opinion, games are overall meant to be enjoyed (to be played over and over again, especially if you've spent alot of money on them). So why do I feel depressed when I "try" to play Mass Effect 3 again? I should "want" to play the game again, not "try" to play the game again.

If you're like me, you'd like a good balance of gameplay and story (which Mass Effect does for the most part). The ME story itself gave me drive to complete the missions because I wanted to see how it ends. While I respect Bioware's creativity, artistic vision and the choices they made to produce their work, I think the given endings are all too bittersweet and it's the lack of positive outcome for the player's character, that destroys my willingness to re-play my Shepard (the "refusal" ending in the EC only really adds more to this) .

If Mass Effect was purely a movie, I honestly wouldn't have complaint about the ending. But, because I'm playing it as a game, the end of the series felt like a really damp and heavy blanket over whatever enjoyment I had from it. Overall, I just felt zoned out by it and when I try playing Shepard again, I feel like she's already dead =__= .

How does everyone else feel? Do you still feel enthusiastic about playing ME3 after knowing how it ends?

P.S. Just so you know I'm not trying to kick up a fuss about the endings again. I just want to know if people still enjoy playing their Shepards as they did the first time round

I'm probably going to do another ME playthrough after I finish my current DA playthrough. Just made a Dalish Elf that looks like Kristen Kreuk.(Took me over an hour to do it.)

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Sion1138 wrote...

No, I don't play ME anymore.

If your game manages to make players feel bad afterwards, something went wrong.

I'll just add to this a little..................the ending of ME3, has unintentionally caused me to stop playing any game, in my extensive library.

Yeah i'd say something went wrong.

[Eryri]

I agree with you OP. I just can't summon the enthusiasm to replay the game with the endings as they currently stand.

Depressing endings are all very well in passive media like films and novels. However when it happens in a game, where you control the decisions and actions of the protagonist, having it end in death feels as though you failed somehow. I can't escape the nagging feeling that's Shepard's death is somehow my fault.

I know that's irrational, as we really can't prevent Shepard's death (unless you count getting that one ragged breath in high ems destroy), but it's the way I feel.

Perhaps it's because in most tragic stories, the hero's death is due to some sort of character flaw that brings his fate upon himself. Or maybe it's because Mass Effect 2's suicide mission conditioned me to think that if I made all the right decisions I could bring everyone out alive. Sorry I can't really explain it better than that.

Modifié par Eryri, 02 septembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[robertthebard]

ld1449 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...
I wouldn't revise the ending in that case. I'd revise half of the ME3 plot. Just by the induction of the crucible they already put the game on a wobly foundation.

Hell, if we're rewriting stuff I'd go back to ME1.

Hmm, such as? Genuine question.

For myself, the other two games were fine. ME2 did little to advance the ME plot but that's more due to walters incompetence at retaining a cohesive narrative rather than a failing of the game itself. IMO

My genuine answer, still a WIP:  Vigil would give us the file for the Citadel, and the Crucible plans.  ME 1 would end as it does, with the inclusion of the base discussion of the Crucible.  ME 2 would be most of what is now ME 3.  I'd leave Cerberus out save for a few missions here and there as in ME 1.  It would end with the completion of the Crucible, and getting our forces together for the final push.  ME 3 would be deploying the Crucible, and destroying the Reapers.  Details a bit sketchy, not in the best shape to try to write at this time.  It would totally eliminate the need for the DeM that is the Lazarus Project, eliminate the need for Cerberus as a secondary antagonist, and eliminate the DeM claim of the Crucible.

[blueumi]

AlanC9 wrote...

@ blueumi: Well, this time I brought Dark Energy up because you said Bioware "set up reapers are bad kill them at any cost." and that was never where the series was going to go.

Of course, I guess that just means that Bio was always going to make you feel bad about the endings

didn't  mass effect 2 with the plot being go to the collector base blow it up and  survive doing it was that not kill them at any cost

hell if shepard dies before he falls to his death he tells joker the reapers are still coming

i don't think i am mistaken when i say that the games lead me to believe we had to destroy the reapers

no matter what the devlopers intended we are not part of that all we know is what we see in the game itself
i feel that they did make the ending to make us feel bad and i don't see why any one would want a game to end like that

Modifié par blueumi, 02 septembre 2012 - 09:20 .

[Snoopy1955]

This is a deep question, but I think we might be able to answer it with the fact that video games are evolving as a media.

Have you ever watched a really sad movie? I'm sure you have. There are a whole lot of movies out there where things don't have fairy tale "And then no one died and everyone lived happily ever after" endings.

The fact is that the plot was a story, and not every story has a happy ending.

I remember my first real experience in a video game where things didn't really turn out well in the end. I was playing whatever that Robotech game for the Gamecube was. I was going awesome, shooting missiles at the bad guys, beating up villains. I got to that final boss fight, I hid behind buildings, I shot at the guy, and I won, and I was like "YES! I AM A WINNER!" and then I remembered "Wait. I am stranded in space." and the game informed me that yes indeed, I was stranded in space, and no one was going to come to save me. The hero dies. The end.

Sorry if I spoiled that for anyone who hasn't played it, but really, it was a gamecube game, were you going to unpack your wii and go out and find a copy at a thrift store if I hadn't said anything?

At the end of the game I found myself staring at the screen thinking to myself, "Well, that's not fair. I did everything right. I beat the bad guy. Why doesn't my guy get to keep living?" But at no point did I curse the game for not having a happy ending. It was an ending. The story was closed, and it was closed in a way that evoked and emotional response beyond the usual "Yay, I won!" response.

The game was pretty much just a fly around and shoot bad guys game. The plot didn't really break any barriers. There were only a handful of characters, and really only two or three conversations between each set of characters. It was a silly video game about shooting aliens from space in a jet that turned into a robot, and had it ended in any other way, I probably would not still remember it.

The point is, any video game can give us that "I am so awesome because I beat that video game!" experience at the end. I mean, really have a boss battle and a cinematic of people giving each other high fives, mission accomplished. Having a video game that makes you feel sad, while still offering closure is another thing.


Now, imagine that instead of Sheppard dying to save the universe, the game instead ended with the Crucible and Citadel turning into a giant space laser that shot Harbinger in his big stupid face, next cinematic is Sheppard high-fiving Joker and then sharing a hug with his/her romantic interest and looking up to the stars, fade to black roll credits.

We could have had an ending like that, but think about how hollow that would have felt after it was over. There was no emotional response. There was nothing that made the ending any different than anything else we have played before. The hero saved the day, everyone goes out for beers at the local bar. But would we have remembered that ending in five years?

It has probably been longer than the five years since I played that Robotech game, and I still remember that ending, and the game as a whole. It did something that a lot of games have tried to do since, not all of which have been successful. It made me feel.

And honestly, it was much worse than the ending we got here, because here, we die, and as a direct result of dying we save the universe. In the Robotech game, the character dies after having saved the solar system, and his death now ammounts to nothing.