378 réponses à ce sujet

[xbb1024]

If I had to choose between the 2 arguments mentioned by the OP, I'd go with argument 1

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Truth time-show of hands.  How many people actually hoped this was the way the game would end-death death death and ? and ambiguity for all?  How many people thought there'd be a big reaper battle or at least and ending where we killed the reapers and that we'd have to work to get a win and get Shepard out alive?  Truth.

You mean people actively wanting Shep to die, right? As opposed to merely not having a problem with the game turning out that way.

I have seen a fair number of people take that position, usually because Shep dying is "thematically appropriate" or some such. Always struck me as kind of odd.

[Bill Casey]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Bill Casey wrote...

Explain to me Albert Fish's morality...

[/quote]It's his morality.[/quote]
You don't even know who Albert Fish is, do you?[/quote]

[quote]Remember morality is relitive.
[/quote]
Bull****...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 16 septembre 2012 - 05:55 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Red Dust wrote...

Nothing's wrong with it. It's just not a venue that Bioware chose to explore for their story.

Thread should've ended right there.

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

You don't even know who Albert Fish is, do you?

You expect people to? Serial killers from 75 years ago aren't very well remembered. Fish didn't quite get to the level of a Gilles de Rais.

Edit: level of notoriety, I mean. And of course, there's some speculation that Gilles was framed by the Church.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:06 .

[xbb1024]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has a disney ending...
Have you seen disney's "The Black Hole"?

I think I saw this movie, but Im fairly certain Disney didnt make it

[o Ventus]

xbb1024 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has a disney ending...
Have you seen disney's "The Black Hole"?

I think I saw this movie, but Im fairly certain Disney didnt make it

http://en.wikipedia..../The_Black_Hole

[xbb1024]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hmmm, it's funny that people actually do call a happier ending a Disney ending. What's implied by that is something bad. And yet, Disney has made a lot of people happy and sad with their stories and in doing so have made oodles of money along the way.

To the points here, I see the same things said often. It's not realistic too sappy not good-uh, you realize a lot of bad crap has happened though? Even a happier win type Shepard lives ending is not super happy and the endings now don't properly contain any shown real consequences to make them seem non-sappy. And if you'd hate a Disney ending it'd never become canon for you, but if it would become canon for most, that implies most people do not have the ending they'd like.

If it's not a good way to end the game then why would it be wrong to create one if most people would choose it? I'm not saying most people would, but that has been said a lot as a reason against it. Last time I looked companies generally want to do things most people would like in order to get them to buy stuff they sell.

My take on offering an all-win ending is that this game has always been about action-consequence, and if players want a particular ending then thdre should be a way to get there through the choices made, as long as the story remains intact ofcourse. 

Modifié par xbb1024, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[ddraigcoch123]

I personally like the dark themes in the story, if you want to engage with them, and not everyone will want to.  You can play ME as a scavenger hunt, shooter fly by if you want or get totally into it and read the whole codex, explore all possible conversations and play through on different morality choices.

The main premise of the game/trilogy is that the choices you make affect the storyline you take your avatar down, its debatable about how much of a difference is actually made when there are 'fixed points' in the storyline that we all have to reach and pass through but then this is a coded game and not an alternative universe controlled by the level of AI needed to generate personalised journeys and new content to match as we go along... but please can we get there as soon as possible

Bioware have said there is 'no canon ending' so it really shouldn't have mattered to Bioware what their 3 ending choices would be... and if there is one that allows Shepard to rock on and if the majority of players choose that ending everytime, well thats about the choice that BW said we could have in the game.  And i suspect if the ending had been a little more diverse and imaginative, discussed plenty elsewhere, then it wouldn't be such a stark choice.

If anything I have a problem with how 'happy' and 'Disney' the ending is after i have finished the game.  I know the total destruction and devastation of the galaxy that was first implied was, even to a dark gamer, a bit bleedin harsh, we seem to have swung completely the other way... and its only cathartic for BW because as the player I am nothing more than a passive observer of their vision of future of 'my galaxy'...

Yeah my galaxy for all you people who say its BW's, they may have put together the game elements, taken 'inspiration' from other sci fi games/stories and presented me with the product but i'm the one that brought it to life and spent the most prescious commodity in the universe on it... my time... my emotional engagment...

The 'no consequences' ending is also a little difficult to stomach given that I can choose to be completely cavalier with my characters losing all of them at the end of ME2, killing Mordin, Wrex etc... choosing to Geth or Quarian... so my consequences, as BW promised, are available to me throughout the game.. the only place I don't get any 'real' options is at the pinnacle of my achievemen, the absolute zenith of my hours and hours of gameply... I get the set meal rather than the, allbeit limited but nonetheless, 'al a carte' menu I have been used to.

The galaxy is a mess, rife for unscrupulous merc's, remnants of cerberous, batarians and vorcha to take advantage of its weakened state... who knows what trouble lies in the 99% of the galaxy that is still unexplored or locked away... even if BW don't want to continue making games in the ME universe it would be nice to leave the door open both on our imagination's and for someone else to pick it up and run with it. 

And ask youself this question.... all of the best, engaging, successful series that start with an individual as their prime focus and story driver find it difficult if not inmpossible to keep the 'world' going without the character... what would the Dirty Harry movies be without Harry.. just another copy story based in....

So OP I deny the premise of your proposition becasue this argument shouldn't be about the 'disney' ending but rather why BW is determined to kill Shepard

Modifié par ddraigcoch123, 19 septembre 2012 - 11:27 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

They've already said Arrival is non-canon. Since there is no canon ending to ME3 then Arrival and ME3 are non-canon. The story in reality ends in ME2 with the suicide mission. We stopped the reapers right there. They can't get into the galaxy. I don't care what is on twitter. Twitter isn't canon. That's the end.

[Ridwan]

"Sir!"

"yes?"

"Sir our studies have shown that late teenagers and early twenties crowd as well as the pretentious hipster crowd are the ones that are most dominating in story relating forums. And they demand bad, horrible, sad and dark endings. They find it to be bleak, deep and more meaningful in todays world"

"But... this is a story, about three bears on adventure to gather honey for their village.. and they want it to end bad?"

"I'm as baffled as you are sir, but yes, that's what they are craving for."

"Well, if that's what they want. Get a team to rewrite the ending and the rest, make the papa bear a child abusing alcoholic and the mama bear a **** with low self esteem and the little bear a sexually confused drop out or something. I don't know how we're gonna profit from this, but if that's what the people want then that's what they're gonna get"

Modifié par M25105, 16 septembre 2012 - 10:51 .

[Cheesesack]

I think the major issue people have with the endings is Shepard's forced sacrifice (and yes, I know you live in high-EMS refuse, but since they provide no real closure on that and you have to headcanon everything, it's almost like he didn't survive). Regardless of anything else, this was put in simply because they wanted to make things 'grimdark; and because they think that emotional=depressing, which it doesn't.

Let's face it, the manner in which the Crucible works and how you enact your choice are entirely arbitrary. There was no logical reason or foreshadowing for it working that way. yeah, ideas like Control and Destroy were emntioned before, but not the specific mechanism you use forenacting these goals (I'm pretty sure TIM didn't want to vaporize himself). Bioware just decided that these devices would kill Shepard simply because they wanted Shepard to die. There is no logical reason why Control, Destroy or Synthesis should lead to Shepard's death.

Destroy could have been press a button, flip a switch, or even shoot somthing but not have a massive explosion. Control could have just taken an imprint of Shepard or something, it didn't have to electrocute him. Same for Synthesis; why not just take a DNA sample from a drop of blood. The same is true for the other consequences like damaging the mass Relays. The point is, a dark tone is appropriate because of the nature of the enemy we're facing, but none of thse consequences are a result of that. They are completely arbitrary and are that way simply because the writers decided to force a dark ending on everyone, not because of a logical follow-on from the story. Shepard dying due to the overwhelming power of the Reapers he/she is fighting would make sense. Shepard dying because some device happens to require that when it could just as easily not have done makes no sense.

People play the game for the characters and the emotions. The war is the backdrop; it's the thing which enables these deep emotional scenes and drives the motivations ofthe dynamic characters you interact with. People care a lot more about the people on their crew and their Shepard than they do about the nebulous 'fate of the galaxy'. That's something impersonal. Therefore, it's logical that Shepard sacrificing him/herself for this 'fate' is unsatisfying, especially when it's so blatantly forced for no logical reason.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

1) Mistakes make him an idiot, particularly with how the Suicide Mission is set up. It's hard to buy the whole mistake argument if I have to pretend that Jacob is an acceptable Biotic candidate when I also brought along two biotic specialists for the job.

2) It's still beside the point. The appeal of a moral dilemma is not simply to see "what might happen".  I'm just pointing out that what might happen in ME3's case isn't significant. The appeal of moral dilemmas is recognizing that the player is at a crossroads where they have to make an impossible decision. I prefer that games focus on implementing gray solutions than clear examples of correct/incorrect.

3)  Shepard's death is not the key point of the argument. You stated earlier that the game should not "force tragedy". I would regard the death of a companion character (assuming the player likes them) as tragic, even if you choose the companion. Hence my point that scenarios like Virmire (which demand tragedy) are far more interesting than scenarios like the Suicide Mission which is exceptionally easy to figure out and even if not straightforward, loses all dramatic tension once you know the relevant variables. The fear of the unknown is what gave the SM it's power.

1) Depends on the mistake.  Jacob sure.  Miranda claims to be a strong biotic though.  Garrus has also been known to die running the vents.  But this is getting into ME2 territory.

2) The appeal of making a choice is seeing what the consequences of that choice are.  SO yes it is "to see what might happen"  Putting the player in a quandary is to make them think about the possible positive and negative repercussions.  If Bioware fails to provide those repercussions, that's on them,

3) The point of this arguement is what's wrong with a "disney" ending.  Typically, that derogatory comment comes around whenever people argue that Shepard should be able to survive (not just hinted at surviving) the choice at the end of ME3.    I strongly believe it should at least be possible.  You'll notice I have not mentioned EDI, the geth, the Reapers, or any other group in the galaxy regarding the chocies.  

You said yourself the Suicide Mission loses all dramatic tension once you know the variable.  Well, I know th variables of ME3:  Shepard's not getting off the CItadel alive.  Where's the dramatic tension there?

1) Sure, she "claims to be". But a quick look at the character entries and realizing why you brought Jack and Samara in the first place nullifies any hope of her as an ideal candidate. As I said, I can role-play just as easily in a game with hard decisions as with right and wrong answers without having to pretend my character is an idiot, so why should I ask for the latter when I could have the former?

2) Sure, for some. But most Bioware games, even outside of ME, have failed to produce anything dramatic from this. Kill the Iron throne Councilors? Go to prison. Spare them? Sarevok kills them and you go to prison. Instead, I want video games to take the next step forward in developing thought experiments. Making a player enjoy both Ashley/Kaidan, then forcing you to choose between them is an excellent form of this. Now, take this concept, and extend it on a whole new level. That's what I want from gaming.

3) I do not believe Shepard surviving would be a Disney ending. If anything, I would prefer he survived since in effect you are now weighing his life against Edi/the Geth. I simply was explaining why I prefer forced tragedy in gaming. A forced tragedy does not necessarily mean that you cannot choose the form of the tragedy, only that all choices have a positive and negative association.

Although, I should point out that when a role-playing game says that it takes your choices into account, that does not necessarily indicate that it will do so in the form of the protagonist surviving. You (incorrectly) point out Shepard's survival in ME1 and ME2 as evidence for why he should survive in ME3. In designing a story around Commander Shepard, you can't exactly kill off your protagonist (Lazarus Project aside) before the point where his story is done being told. Perfect example? ME2 Shepard can die, but no playthrough of ME3 takes that seriously.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 septembre 2012 - 01:23 .

[Mimitochan]

There's nothing wrong with it.
It just depends on with what type of storytelling and intent you're going with.
A dramatic ending is very much more realistic, but nobody ever said a video game had to teach players lessons about what real life is.

Modifié par Mimitochan, 16 septembre 2012 - 01:05 .

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Truth time-show of hands.  How many people actually hoped this was the way the game would end-death death death and ? and ambiguity for all?  How many people thought there'd be a big reaper battle or at least and ending where we killed the reapers and that we'd have to work to get a win and get Shepard out alive?  Truth.

You mean people actively wanting Shep to die, right? As opposed to merely not having a problem with the game turning out that way.

I have seen a fair number of people take that position, usually because Shep dying is "thematically appropriate" or some such. Always struck me as kind of odd.

No, not just Shepard dying, but dying in that way through that way.  I saw things as having a variety and variety was based in how good we did in actually achieving the goal and how the galaxy came out at the other end of the fight.  I figured there would be varety from a truly horrid no win death where you actually fight and lose and see everyone die.  As well as a true full on win where the people that you fought with and were immediately important can live and the galaxy would be shown rebuilding in some meaningful way.

I mean, how many people thought when they bought ME3 they'd be given a choice at the end and not determining the outcome through actions and how well they did throughout at least ME3, if not ME1 and 2?  That's one big part of the outcry in the first place.  I can't see how anyone that played ME1 (Shepard's dead, oops no s/he isn't), ME2 (Shepard's dead at the beginning, oops no s/he isn't, suicide mission someone's dead-nope, not if you go back and do it right and get the canon ending), would think that a full on win as well as a full on loss (and Shepard lives and Shepard dies) endings would not be included.  And that in between there might be a sacrificial bittersweet death where Shepard or the LI or another friend or all of the above, might have to give all to save the galaxy.  Most everyone thought that this would be the variety in the endings, not which choice you get to make to end it at the end. 

No one expected a Disney ending-the implied Disney ending.  And people really don't understand Disney movies and their tendency to follow a formula of tragedy with a happy outcome, built upon learning to overcome.  I grew up on things like Bambi and Dumbo.  They were very sad-I was small and cried at certain parts.  And Disney rarely varies from this in their cartoons, especially.  The Lion King-dad dies, cub is lost and must find a way back to become the king.  He gathers friends along the way, a motley group of misfits-does that sound familiar?  And, Disney makes a heck of a lot of money on this formula because people like it.  Tell them that a Disney ending is a bad thing because too many people like it.

[o Ventus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

They've already said Arrival is non-canon. Since there is no canon ending to ME3 then Arrival and ME3 are non-canon. The story in reality ends in ME2 with the suicide mission. We stopped the reapers right there. They can't get into the galaxy. I don't care what is on twitter. Twitter isn't canon. That's the end.

When did they say Arrival isn't canon? If it isn't canon, then why is it mentioned in ME3 (more than once, I might add)?

[Little Princess Peach]

it all comes down to headcanon thing, people just don't want to use it, when you buy a game you 100% of the time expect to get the whole story without having to think about a way for you're char to have a happy ever after, the problem is the gamers these days are to used to having things handed on a silver plate just like that click my fingers and poof ending no imagination needed.

[AresKeith]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

it all comes down to headcanon thing, people just don't want to use it, when you buy a game you 100% of the time expect to get the whole story without having to think about a way for you're char to have a happy ever after, the problem is the gamers these days are to used to having things handed on a silver plate just like that click my fingers and poof ending no imagination needed.

thats because you shouldn't really have to headcanon seeing Shepard actually alive than a body in rubble, thats a lazy BS way to end Shepards story and being able to see what happens after would be like a bonus lol

[Robhuzz]

geceka wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

 As one of multiple options, what's the problem with it?

There are 2 major arguments against it, and they conflict with each other.

1 .. Sappy, stupid, no disney ending in war. Hate disney endings.

And

2 .. If you have a golden disney ending, everyone will pick it.

Which is it?

Nothing wrong per se, but you can't deny the fact that the presence of an all-white no-sacrifices ending would greatly diminish the impact of the existing endings. Consider there was a way of saving both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire – Wouldn't this take away from the impact of that decision as well? Same goes for the endings...

Dragon Age Origins is proof that this statement no longer applies. There's a way to save your warden and every single one of your companions and it requires no sacrifice. It doesn't diminish the ultimate sacrifice ending at all since that one is beautiful in its own right and many people still choose it even though there's a 'better' option available.

[Sousabird]

ShepnTali wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

There was plenty of Shepard and Miranda LURVING in my ending.

The ending is as happy as you want it to be.

I'd like to think that Shepard being with Miranda is happy enough for me.

I absolutely get that.

It's the two biggest arguments against a golden ending in full view that makes little sense with each other.

If there was just a win with no loss it would really devalue everything, if they hadn't done the crucible a disney end could have worked I think.

[tonnactus]

geceka wrote...


Nothing wrong per se, but you can't deny the fact that the presence of an all-white no-sacrifices ending would greatly diminish the impact of the existing endings. Consider there was a way of saving both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire – Wouldn't this take away from the impact of that decision as well?

For some people this decision didnt had any impact. Quite the opposite, an opportunity to get rid of either Kaidan or Ashley. Same with destroy: Some people dont care about the Geth or Edi.

Anyway, no ending is happy anyway regarding how many individuals the Reapers killed and how many worlds are devastated.

[geceka]

Robhuzz wrote...

Dragon Age Origins is proof that this statement no longer applies. There's a way to save your warden and every single one of your companions and it requires no sacrifice. It doesn't diminish the ultimate sacrifice ending at all since that one is beautiful in its own right and many people still choose it even though there's a 'better' option available.

I can't really comment on that, since I never played Dragon Age (I don't like the "fantasy" setting too much), but what I can say is that, just by it being there as an option, it definitely changes the impact. Look at it the other way around: In ME2, Shepard could die – Yet nobody complained about it or even had those emotional issues that some people seem to be having. You could try it once, then reload if you didn't like it. In the same vein, people here ask for a happy ending to be *added*, rather than *replacing* the current endings – They say it all the time, e.g. "no, we don't want to take away the endings the way some people currently like them, we just want an additional one for us". Thus, all the emotional let-down goes away for them just by having that as an additional option, completely disproving your point, e.g. that having an all-happy alternative doesn't take away from the current endings. You can debate whether the endings were done well, succeed at evoking whatever emotions you think they aim to evoke, etc..., but you can't claim that just the presence of an all-happy ending wouldn't change the impact they currently have.

tonnactus wrote...

For some people this decision didnt had any impact. Quite the opposite, an opportunity to get rid of either Kaidan or Ashley. Same with destroy: Some people dont care about the Geth or Edi.

Sure, but what is your point? Of course people have different tastes and all that, and I've read lots of people here claiming that this was one of the key decisions in ME for them. It was definitely one where there was no "best" solution or easy way out, much like with the endings.

[Netsfn1427]

geceka wrote...

I can't really comment on that, since I never played Dragon Age (I don't like the "fantasy" setting too much), but what I can say is that, just by it being there as an option, it definitely changes the impact. Look at it the other way around: In ME2, Shepard could die – Yet nobody complained about it or even had those emotional issues that some people seem to be having. You could try it once, then reload if you didn't like it. In the same vein, people here ask for a happy ending to be *added*, rather than *replacing* the current endings – They say it all the time, e.g. "no, we don't want to take away the endings the way some people currently like them, we just want an additional one for us". Thus, all the emotional let-down goes away for them just by having that as an additional option, completely disproving your point, e.g. that having an all-happy alternative doesn't take away from the current endings. You can debate whether the endings were done well, succeed at evoking whatever emotions you think they aim to evoke, etc..., but you can't claim that just the presence of an all-happy ending wouldn't change the impact they currently have.
 

I would say that adding a happy ending would largely invalidate the other endings. It would present a clear "right" choice and give no one any reason to select the other endings. All the endings currently have a drawback, positives and potential long term draw backs. Ask yourself, if Bioware retroactively allowed you to save both Ashley and Kaiden, wouldn't you and most players do it? Sure, there will be the rare players who wouldn't, just like there are probably a few players who intentionally kill characters on the Suicide Mission. But by and large, most players will take the "save everyone" tact.

That doesn't make the players bad gamers for wanting a happier ending where Shepard lives and no one of consequence to the player dies. But it defeats the purpose of what Bioware was trying to accomplish by their end decision. They wanted a decision with no clear cut right answer (and Synthesis isn't the clear cut right answer, no matter what some may say) which is why they've been adamant against changing the endings further.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Robhuzz wrote...

geceka wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

 As one of multiple options, what's the problem with it?

There are 2 major arguments against it, and they conflict with each other.

1 .. Sappy, stupid, no disney ending in war. Hate disney endings.

And

2 .. If you have a golden disney ending, everyone will pick it.

Which is it?

Nothing wrong per se, but you can't deny the fact that the presence of an all-white no-sacrifices ending would greatly diminish the impact of the existing endings. Consider there was a way of saving both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire – Wouldn't this take away from the impact of that decision as well? Same goes for the endings...

Dragon Age Origins is proof that this statement no longer applies. There's a way to save your warden and every single one of your companions and it requires no sacrifice. It doesn't diminish the ultimate sacrifice ending at all since that one is beautiful in its own right and many people still choose it even though there's a 'better' option available.

I wouldn't call that proof. The Dark Ritual is one of the most poorly implemented cop-outs to an otherwise interesting thought experiment Bioware presented us. And it's because the lack of solidly defined consequences.