378 réponses à ce sujet

[V-rcingetorix]

There is nothing wrong with a happy ending. It is highly popular in most movie industries.

Why in blazes a "boss fight" or "happy ending" was considered "too video game" ish is beyond me. I, of course, put the two together myself, because it seemed logical.

Disney doesn't specialize solely in happy endings, that is true. However, the phrase "Disney ending" didn't come around because someone named Walt Disney specialized in Alfred Hitchock (sp) art.

Kill off a few squadmates, blow up a homeworld or two, have a happy ending; it worked for a certain Star Wars protagonist (rhymes with "Grincess Keia"). Why make all endings have Shep die? Or have Shep die...not quite?

[Netsfn1427]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Ozida wrote...

to BaladasDemnevanni and Netsfn1427...

Ok, I apologize in advanced, because it will sound cruel, but I just don’t see another way to explain my point.

Imagine this: your father is a policemen. His goal is helping people. One day he sees a drunk driver who is about to run over a little girl. You father pushes the girl but gets driven over. He dies as a hero, but would you really care? And before you answer, I would like you to really think about it for a moment. You will never have a chance to see him again. You will never have a chance to talk to your father again, to hug him, to apologize for those terrible things you said in past. He will never be around for your mother, who is now lost in her grief. You are now fully responsible to support your family and have to deal with burial arrangements. Worst than that, in couple years everybody pretty much forgets about what happened; the little girl grows up and doesn’t even know who the heck you are. Now, would you feel bitter-sweet about your father’s death and think it was victorious (I mean, he saved the girl, right?)?..

Certainly I would care. But that's not really relevant: my father made his choice and decided for himself that he would risk himself for the little girl, hence the point that some people do value certain things over their own existence. It's also besides the point because in ME3, it's either Shepard's life or everyone's lives. Shepard died so everyone else could live. I would prefer to at least honor that sacrifice. 

The argument also ignores one basic point: if everyone valued their own life absolutely over everything else, the person in question would not voluntarily join the military, fight for their beliefs, become firemen, etc. As it stands, Shepard became a career officer long before we had to worry about Reapers and rogue Spectres or any of that. For anyone really concerned about not dying above all else, they would not have found themselves on Akuze, Torfan, Skyllian Blitz, etc.

I agree with Baladas on this one. While the situation you described is tragic, it is tragic for reasons just beyond that someone's life was lost. It's also tragic because it's preventable, the driver didn't have to be drunk. There really isn't any indication what happens at the end of ME3 is preventable. In fact, you get the sense of the opposite; this cycle ended up doing far better than its predecessors. Shepard did all he/she could do. Incredibly it was enough.

The Shepard portrayed in the games is ready to accept death if it comes in the line of duty. There really isn't much debate about that. Now, there's a difference between seeking death (as Thane may have been in ME2 for a while, or Wrex is if you don't cure the Genophage) and being prepared to accept it if it comes. I'd say Shepard is clearly the latter. But listen to the conversation with Vega about the N7 program. You get into the N7 because you will do what it takes to get the job done. You get made a Spectre because you are willing to do what is necessary to get the job done. Implicit with that is sacrificing one's self to get the job done. Heck Shepard lectures Saren about giving up and not being willing to fight in ME1, even at the cost of the life of the galaxy, regardless if you go Paragon or Renegade.

[Rommel49]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Soul crushing darkness? You mean despite facing seemingly impossible odds, humanity, the asari, turians, salarians, and depending what you choose, the krogan, quarian, geth, rachni and all other galactic civilizations survive and get to build their futures? You mean all of your party members in ME3 which the possible exception of EDI, surviving despite being in the middle of it all? You mean Shepard surviving in high EMS destroy or becoming a god-like figure controlling the galaxy's most fearsome creatures?

Yeah, totally soul-crushing. Might as well have gone the way of the Protheans. Though I suppose if you love the Batarians above all else, you have a point.

Actually, I'd consider the control option soul-crushing too (for the commander atleast), potentially moreso than any other ending... unless the commander's a complete sociopath. Starkid doesn't even try sugarcoating it; all the people the good Commander might care about? He'll remember them, but he'll forever be isolated from them. Given the timespans we're talking about (i.e. in the billions of years), he's looking at watching everyone and everything he potentially saved die off and crumble to dust anyway no matter what he does, simply due to the slow decay of time - these are the sorts of timescales where you see vibrant planets like Earth crap the bed and get cooked by their own sun or whatnot. That's assuming it works exactly as advertised.

Control is what I'd consider a living hell, simply because of what it entails.

Modifié par Rommel49, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:07 .

[Ozida]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Well, considering the aftermath shows that Shepard has lived on as a legend, I can't exactly say I'm buying the argument that he's going to be forgotten. We remember the stories of Achilles, Hercules, etc, how long past when those stories were formulated? Besides that, do you really believe that when people risk their lives whether as a fireman, police officer, whatever, it's only so they can live on forever as a hero?

Well, let me ask you this: do you remmeber a krogan statue on Citadel? How many humans/ salarians/ turians are aware of that statue? How many know the name of krogan who the statue is for? Heck, even krogans don't know about this statue! People do forget, and ancient legends... well, they are just pretty fairy-tales, nothing more.

As for fighting just for the merits, it depends on each "Shepard", right? Sure, Paragon is picked by default, but my Renegade Shepard was actually fighting just to be a bad-ass. If I ever to replay ME3, he would pick Control, and I am fine with him being dead. My poor Paragon... not so much.

Once again, to summarise all my points, here is what I would like to say:
1. Shepard deserves to live at least in one ending, in my opinion.
2. Not all Disney movies were 100% happy, so this argument is irrelevant and amature.
3. Current endings' dramatic theme is cheesy and appeals only to those who has never had experience of loosing someone close in real life. There is nothing pretty or "sweet" about death, and person dying is always a tragedy, no matter what pretty words you put around it. That what makes ME3 a tragedy for me.

And I honestly don't feel like arguing about it any further. I respect your opinions and I am glad you find current endings satisfying; however, I still do not see a single valid reason of not having a "rainbow and unicorns" happy-ending as an option, despite "it is not cool enough to be art" and "it has to be like real-life despite the fact it is fiction".

ETA: to Netsfn1427,
Thank you for your post. It actually makes sense and I agree to some degree with what you say. Maybe if endings were executed better, I would accept them better. However, at this point, I find that we loose more than we gain.

Modifié par Ozida, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[Hexley UK]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Ozida wrote...

to BaladasDemnevanni and Netsfn1427...

Ok, I apologize in advanced, because it will sound cruel, but I just don’t see another way to explain my point.

Imagine this: your father is a policemen. His goal is helping people. One day he sees a drunk driver who is about to run over a little girl. You father pushes the girl but gets driven over. He dies as a hero, but would you really care? And before you answer, I would like you to really think about it for a moment. You will never have a chance to see him again. You will never have a chance to talk to your father again, to hug him, to apologize for those terrible things you said in past. He will never be around for your mother, who is now lost in her grief. You are now fully responsible to support your family and have to deal with burial arrangements. Worst than that, in couple years everybody pretty much forgets about what happened; the little girl grows up and doesn’t even know who the heck you are. Now, would you feel bitter-sweet about your father’s death and think it was victorious (I mean, he saved the girl, right?)?..

Certainly I would care. But that's not really relevant: my father made his choice and decided for himself that he would risk himself for the little girl, hence the point that some people do value certain things over their own existence. It's also besides the point because in ME3, it's either Shepard's life or everyone's lives. Shepard died so everyone else could live. I would prefer to at least honor that sacrifice. 

The argument also ignores one basic point: if everyone valued their own life absolutely over everything else, the person in question would not voluntarily join the military, fight for their beliefs, become firemen, etc. As it stands, Shepard became a career officer long before we had to worry about Reapers and rogue Spectres or any of that. For anyone really concerned about not dying above all else, they would not have found themselves on Akuze, Torfan, Skyllian Blitz, etc.

I agree with Baladas on this one. While the situation you described is tragic, it is tragic for reasons just beyond that someone's life was lost. It's also tragic because it's preventable, the driver didn't have to be drunk. There really isn't any indication what happens at the end of ME3 is preventable. In fact, you get the sense of the opposite; this cycle ended up doing far better than its predecessors. Shepard did all he/she could do. Incredibly it was enough.

The Shepard portrayed in the games is ready to accept death if it comes in the line of duty. There really isn't much debate about that. Now, there's a difference between seeking death (as Thane may have been in ME2 for a while, or Wrex is if you don't cure the Genophage) and being prepared to accept it if it comes. I'd say Shepard is clearly the latter. But listen to the conversation with Vega about the N7 program. You get into the N7 because you will do what it takes to get the job done. You get made a Spectre because you are willing to do what is necessary to get the job done. Implicit with that is sacrificing one's self to get the job done. Heck Shepard lectures Saren about giving up and not being willing to fight in ME1, even at the cost of the life of the galaxy, regardless if you go Paragon or Renegade.

Shepard doesn't fight though, his last words are "I....I don't know" before going out like a B**ch.

Ironic that you should also bring up Saren at the end there when it was Saren who wanted Synthesis to begin with which as we all know is one of the ending choices.

[Hexley UK]

Rommel49 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Soul crushing darkness? You mean despite facing seemingly impossible odds, humanity, the asari, turians, salarians, and depending what you choose, the krogan, quarian, geth, rachni and all other galactic civilizations survive and get to build their futures? You mean all of your party members in ME3 which the possible exception of EDI, surviving despite being in the middle of it all? You mean Shepard surviving in high EMS destroy or becoming a god-like figure controlling the galaxy's most fearsome creatures?

Yeah, totally soul-crushing. Might as well have gone the way of the Protheans. Though I suppose if you love the Batarians above all else, you have a point.

Actually, I'd consider the control option soul-crushing too (for the commander atleast), potentially moreso than any other ending... unless the commander's a complete sociopath. Starkid doesn't even try sugarcoating it; all the people the good Commander might care about? He'll remember them, but he'll forever be isolated from them. Given the timespans we're talking about (i.e. in the billions of years), he's looking at watching everyone and everything he potentially saved die off and crumble to dust anyway no matter what he does, simply due to the slow decay of time - these are the sorts of timescales where you see vibrant planets like Earth crap the bed and get cooked by their own sun or whatnot. That's assuming it works exactly as advertised.

Control is what I'd consider a living hell, simply because of what it entails.

I agree with you...essentially Shepard will become like Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen who is a very tragic character.

[Netsfn1427]

Rommel49 wrote...

Actually, I'd consider the control option soul-crushing too (for the commander atleast), potentially moreso than any other ending... unless the commander's a complete sociopath. Starkid doesn't even try sugarcoating it; all the people the good Commander might care about? He'll remember them, but he'll forever be isolated from them. Given the timespans we're talking about (i.e. in the billions of years), he's looking at watching everyone and everything he potentially saved die off and crumble to dust anyway no matter what he does, simply due to the slow decay of time - these are the sorts of timescales where you see vibrant planets like Earth crap the bed and get cooked by their own sun or whatnot. That's assuming it works exactly as advertised.

Control is what I'd consider a living hell, simply because of what it entails.

I can understand that intepretation. In fact, one of the reasons I won't choose control is that I feel like once those attachments are gone, what's to stop Shepard from becoming the Catalyst 2.0? But that's my own headcanon and it's based on my human emotions, which Shepard has supposedly moved beyond. So if someone wants to argue that Control doesn't result in that and its the ideal choice of the three, I can't really say they're wrong.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

I agree with Baladas on this one. While the situation you described is tragic, it is tragic for reasons just beyond that someone's life was lost. It's also tragic because it's preventable, the driver didn't have to be drunk. There really isn't any indication what happens at the end of ME3 is preventable. In fact, you get the sense of the opposite; this cycle ended up doing far better than its predecessors. Shepard did all he/she could do. Incredibly it was enough.

Well said, also something that I hadn't considered. Best case scenario with the above situation is: no drunk driver = no dead father. WIth less stupidity, it's completely preventable. The set-up of the Reaper cycle is far more final. Characters who live in this universe couldn't exactly have done much to prevent the cycle of extinction: it began long before we ever existed.

And this also goes back to the Javik point that as bad as the people who care about Shepard might have it, watching your entire species burned to the ground before your eyes is far worse. It's the comparison between losing just my father or my entire family. From that outlook, even if it doesn't feel like it, Shepard's loved ones should be grateful that they even have a galaxy to rebuild. There's definitely going to be sadness, but also time for hope.

[NS Wizdum]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

There is nothing wrong with a happy ending. It is highly popular in most movie industries.

Why in blazes a "boss fight" or "happy ending" was considered "too video game" ish is beyond me. I, of course, put the two together myself, because it seemed logical.

Disney doesn't specialize solely in happy endings, that is true. However, the phrase "Disney ending" didn't come around because someone named Walt Disney specialized in Alfred Hitchock (sp) art.

Kill off a few squadmates, blow up a homeworld or two, have a happy ending; it worked for a certain Star Wars protagonist (rhymes with "Grincess Keia"). Why make all endings have Shep die? Or have Shep die...not quite?

This.
Billions of people die throughout Mass Effect 3, the galaxy is fracked, infastructure is gone, etc. I don't think it would hurt the story much to give us an option with a little fracking hope at the end.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Ozida wrote...

And I honestly don't feel like arguing about it any further. I respect your opinions and I am glad you find current endings satisfying; however, I still do not see a single valid reason of not having a "rainbow and unicorns" happy-ending as an option, despite "it is not cool enough to be art" and "it has to be like real-life despite the fact it is fiction".

That's acceptable, but allow me to make one point clear: I do not consider the endings in their current incarnation to be satisfying.

Edit: I should also point out that I find your assessment that the only people who approve of the endings are those who have never had to face loss in real life to be offensive, particularly as you have no knowledge of who I am and so are not even remotely qualified to make that judgment.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:38 .

[Netsfn1427]

Hexley UK wrote...

Shepard doesn't fight though, his last words are "I....I don't know" before going out like a B**ch.

Ironic that you should also bring up Saren at the end there when it was Saren who wanted Synthesis to begin with which as we all know is one of the ending choices.

Really? Because in mine he walked up a shot the tube, getting stronger with each step. I made the choice because despite the losses, (I didn't want to sacrifice the Geth and EDI) I wanted the galaxy to have the right to make their own decisions. The Catalyst certainly didn't like that choice; sounded like he wanted Synthesis like Saren. But he couldn't stop it.

Not everything has to be spoken. My Shepard did what he set out to do. Dead Reapers. His actions spoke louder than his words.

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

iakus wrote...

And in my interpretation, my own SHepard would hate the outcome of the events.

He mucst make  a chocie presented to him by an insdane AI  that inflicts something horrible on the galaxy as a price to stop the Reapers.  Then die, leaving Ash (whom he had finally reconnected with after her heart was broken the first time he died) bereft once again.

Yeah the Reapers were stoped.  The galaxy didn't die.  If this was "real" sure I guess it's worth it.  But this is a game.  a story where we get to be the hero.  In the end, we're a hero that compromises.  Then dies, never seeing the galaxy we helped create.  

That's just depressing.  Is it any wonder people aren't happy?

Because the options were let Ash and everyone else he cared about die or take one of the three options. Given where the situation was at Thessia, or after Harbinger's beam, or when the Crucible didn't fire, I think Shepard would be okay with that. Because Shepard is a soldier who knows and understands that he might have to die to allow others to live. That's what makes him a hero.

And high EMS destroy, he lives. There isn't a reunion scene or specifics as to what follows for him because who's to say what happens after that point? It largely is irrelevant to Shepard's narrative anyway. The end goal was saving the galaxy. We don't need to know if he married Ashley, Liara, Jack or if he couldn't handle sacrificing the Geth and EDI and ate his own gun. Or if he decided to team up with Javik and Garrus to become the galaxy's greatest bounty hunter team.

The Mass Effect series was about Shepard's journey in stopping the Reapers. That's completed, one way or another, at the end of ME3. It's completed successfully, albiet with losses, making it bitter sweet.

Those are the option's Bioware put in front of us.  That's the only reason we have them.  They could just as easily have been different chocies.  Heck they could have decided to let Shepard live in any High EMS ending.  But chose not to.  And p*ssed off a bunch of loyal fans becuase of it.

Speaking of living, no Shepard doesn't "live" in Destroy+.  Shepard is hinted to survive.  It's ambiguous.  It was designed to be ambiguous.  The devs said so themselves.  An unambiguous survival doesn't need a reunion, a wedding, or anything of the sort.  But it needs more than we got..


I can think of very few games that have ended their story in a less satisfying way than ME3.  Heck Planescape: Torment, another game where the hero is pretty much required to die, had a more satisfying conclusion.

Not to mention all three Deus Ex games, which the endings bear an uncomfortable resemblence end in a more satisfactory way.

[Netsfn1427]

iakus wrote...

Those are the option's Bioware put in front of us.  That's the only reason we have them.  They could just as easily have been different chocies.  Heck they could have decided to let Shepard live in any High EMS ending.  But chose not to.  And p*ssed off a bunch of loyal fans becuase of it.

Speaking of living, no Shepard doesn't "live" in Destroy+.  Shepard is hinted to survive.  It's ambiguous.  It was designed to be ambiguous.  The devs said so themselves.  An unambiguous survival doesn't need a reunion, a wedding, or anything of the sort.  But it needs more than we got..


I can think of very few games that have ended their story in a less satisfying way than ME3.  Heck Planescape: Torment, another game where the hero is pretty much required to die, had a more satisfying conclusion.

Not to mention all three Deus Ex games, which the endings bear an uncomfortable resemblence end in a more satisfactory way.

Yes, they're the options Bioware put in front of us. That's the case with any work of fiction. Could they have gone in a different direction? Sure? Would it have been satisfying? Maybe. I have a friend, a sci-fi junkie, who told me before ME3 came out, he was dreading the stupid cliches they would have to resort to get the hollywood ending. He was a fan of the original endings, before the EC, and liked that Bioware didn't go Hollywood. You don't have to agree, but understand that any choice Bioware would have made was going to have detractors.

And Shepard lives in high EMS destroy. Bioware's ambiguity over it came after fans pestering them so some writers decided to get cute about it. Instead of cursing at them and saying "We've answered this question 50 million times already", they said it could be his last breath. But come on. The file is titled Shepard lives for a reason. It's not title "last breath" or "Shepard dies". Why isn't it there in low EMS or medium EMS destroy if Shepard is dying, since he is clearly dead in those versions? More importantly, a character thought dead, being shown as taking a breath at the end , is universally meant to mean the character is alive. If the character was meant to be dead, there isn't a need to show the scene, since we assume he died. The narration assumes he died. (Though the LI does not, another hint which is admittedly cliche)

Bottom line, there's no reason, nor real precedent for Bioware to show the scene if it's Shepard's last breath. Shepard's alive in high EMS destroy. If you wish to be negative about it because you want to demand a reunion scene, that's your choice.

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Yes, they're the options Bioware put in front of us. That's the case with any work of fiction. Could they have gone in a different direction? Sure? Would it have been satisfying? Maybe. I have a friend, a sci-fi junkie, who told me before ME3 came out, he was dreading the stupid cliches they would have to resort to get the hollywood ending. He was a fan of the original endings, before the EC, and liked that Bioware didn't go Hollywood. You don't have to agree, but understand that any choice Bioware would have made was going to have detractors.

And in this case, they have a lot of detractors.  Probably has something to do with the so-called variety of endings all being the same in regards to the protagonist.

And Shepard lives in high EMS destroy. Bioware's ambiguity over it came after fans pestering them so some writers decided to get cute about it. Instead of cursing at them and saying "We've answered this question 50 million times already", they said it could be his last breath. But come on. The file is titled Shepard lives for a reason. It's not title "last breath" or "Shepard dies". Why isn't it there in low EMS or medium EMS destroy if Shepard is dying, since he is clearly dead in those versions? More importantly, a character thought dead, being shown as taking a breath at the end , is universally meant to mean the character is alive. If the character was meant to be dead, there isn't a need to show the scene, since we assume he died. The narration assumes he died. (Though the LI does not, another hint which is admittedly cliche)

Because it was an easter egg, which EC lowered the EMS to get.  As you pointed out, the narration assumes Shepard is dead.  None of the ending slides involve Shepard.  The breath and the Force-sensistive LI are the only differences between that ending and the standard High EMS Destroy.  The breath is meaningless without context, whatever the intentions

And trolling the fans about the scene being ambiguous even if it's true is a PR bomb.  Imagine if it was, in fact, a joke?

Bottom line, there's no reason, nor real precedent for Bioware to show the scene if it's Shepard's last breath. Shepard's alive in high EMS destroy. If you wish to be negative about it because you want to demand a reunion scene, that's your choice.

ME2 had an entire ending sequence involving Shepard dying on the Suicide Mission.  I believe the breath scene is simply a new take on that.

[Netsfn1427]

iakus wrote...

And in this case, they have a lot of detractors.  Probably has something to do with the so-called variety of endings all being the same in regards to the protagonist.

Because it was an easter egg, which EC lowered the EMS to get.  As you pointed out, the narration assumes Shepard is dead.  None of the ending slides involve Shepard.  The breath and the Force-sensistive LI are the only differences between that ending and the standard High EMS Destroy.  The breath is meaningless without context, whatever the intentions

And trolling the fans about the scene being ambiguous even if it's true is a PR bomb.  Imagine if it was, in fact, a joke?

ME2 had an entire ending sequence involving Shepard dying on the Suicide Mission.  I believe the breath scene is simply a new take on that.

Bioware's writers are human and can respond poorly. They're human, not machines after all. And I've lurked on these boards for a while. One thing that's constant is that there is no set thing ending detractors want. Some want a reunion. Some want a Reaper win ending. Others want a choice where casulties are spread out equally, opposed to the Geth and EDI in destroy. Heck, some just want to off Liara. It's varied and doesn't have to do with Shepard's death in all cases.

From a storytelling perspective, why else would the breath scene exist except to show Shepard is alive? As we've agreed, everything except the LI indicate Shepard is dead. Bioware is trying to show us something. Why put that in if they wanted us to believe he's definitely dead? (Especially since it was in pre-EC when supposedly Bioware was in its dark-age galaxy kick) Why put in a file, title it Sheplives, and only put it in the ending that's the hardest (in theory) to get? Do you really believe that they did all of that just to say "oh look, you get one last breath from Shepard before he dies!- haha!". I can be cynical, but that's some hardcore cynicism if that's what you think man.

The failed suicide mission makes it abundantly clear. There's no breath. There's no sign of Shepard; she/he just delivers his final message to Joker. It's Joker facing the Reapers and the message "you're screwed." It makes Refuse look positively uplifting.

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

iakus wrote...

And in this case, they have a lot of detractors.  Probably has something to do with the so-called variety of endings all being the same in regards to the protagonist.

Because it was an easter egg, which EC lowered the EMS to get.  As you pointed out, the narration assumes Shepard is dead.  None of the ending slides involve Shepard.  The breath and the Force-sensistive LI are the only differences between that ending and the standard High EMS Destroy.  The breath is meaningless without context, whatever the intentions

And trolling the fans about the scene being ambiguous even if it's true is a PR bomb.  Imagine if it was, in fact, a joke?

ME2 had an entire ending sequence involving Shepard dying on the Suicide Mission.  I believe the breath scene is simply a new take on that.

Bioware's writers are human and can respond poorly. They're human, not machines after all. And I've lurked on these boards for a while. One thing that's constant is that there is no set thing ending detractors want. Some want a reunion. Some want a Reaper win ending. Others want a choice where casulties are spread out equally, opposed to the Geth and EDI in destroy. Heck, some just want to off Liara. It's varied and doesn't have to do with Shepard's death in all cases.

The point of having multiple endings is to have multiple outcomes.  Making the fate of the protagonist the same in all of them pretty much defeats the purpose.  It is, in a sense, the same ending with different colors.

From a storytelling perspective, why else would the breath scene exist except to show Shepard is alive? As we've agreed, everything except the LI indicate Shepard is dead. Bioware is trying to show us something. Why put that in if they wanted us to believe he's definitely dead? (Especially since it was in pre-EC when supposedly Bioware was in its dark-age galaxy kick) Why put in a file, title it Sheplives, and only put it in the ending that's the hardest (in theory) to get? Do you really believe that they did all of that just to say "oh look, you get one last breath from Shepard before he dies!- haha!". I can be cynical, but that's some hardcore cynicism if that's what you think man.

Because Bioware developers specifically said it was "a ray of hope"  It's not confirmation that Shepard lives, it's just saying 'Maybe"  And pre-EC it was impossible for anyone who didn't do MP or one of the iOS devices to get anyway.  So I'm betting quote a few people never saw it anyway.

Of course, I find the fact that after all the horrific things seen and done in the final moments of the game, to leave Shepard's fate dangling like that is nearly as depressing as the idea of Shepard unavoidably dying anyway...

The failed suicide mission makes it abundantly clear. There's no breath. There's no sign of Shepard; she/he just delivers his final message to Joker. It's Joker facing the Reapers and the message "you're screwed." It makes Refuse look positively uplifting.

You said there was no precedent for Bioware to show a scene of Shepard's last breath.  I've pointed out they've done it in an easter egg before.

I could also point out Shepard's post SM "death by snu-snu" with Morinth, but that's just a standard "critical mission failure" screen.

[capn233]

Synthesis is the happy ending. The Reapers are the protagonists of the series.

[V-rcingetorix]

There is nothing wrong with a happy ending. It is highly popular in most movie industries.

Why in blazes a "boss fight" or "happy ending" was considered "too video game" ish is beyond me. I, of course, put the two together myself, because it seemed logical.

Disney doesn't specialize solely in happy endings, that is true. However, the phrase "Disney ending" didn't come around because someone named Walt Disney specialized in Alfred Hitchock (sp) art.

Kill off a few squadmates, blow up a homeworld or two, have a happy ending; it worked for a certain Star Wars protagonist (rhymes with "Grincess Keia"). Why make all endings have Shep die? Or have Shep die...not quite?

EDIT: @iakus, very true. Having Shepard barely alive with no resolution/team is almost as bad as having Shep dead outright.

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:57 .

[Netsfn1427]

iakus wrote...

The point of having multiple endings is to have multiple outcomes.  Making the fate of the protagonist the same in all of them pretty much defeats the purpose.  It is, in a sense, the same ending with different colors.

 

The galaxy is in a far different place depending on your choice. The EC does a far better job at explaining this than the original endings. To say that destroy is the same as control or synthesis just isn't true. And Shepard's fate is different in at least a couple of the endings. You may not like Control, and I don't really either, but I there are people who do.

Because Bioware developers specifically said it was "a ray of hope"  It's not confirmation that Shepard lives, it's just saying 'Maybe"  And pre-EC it was impossible for anyone who didn't do MP or one of the iOS devices to get anyway.  So I'm betting quote a few people never saw it anyway.

Of course, I find the fact that after all the horrific things seen and done in the final moments of the game, to leave Shepard's fate dangling like that is nearly as depressing as the idea of Shepard unavoidably dying anyway...

Occam's razor here. Everything we're learned about storytelling indicates Shepard's alive. I don't know what to say beyond that. You may have wanted them to show more, but from a thematic perspective, it's pretty clear. You have to go through far more hoops to indicate Shepard's dying in that scene than living. Is it possible he's dying? Sure. But it's not at all likely, especially given what we know based on how the other endings are framed.

You said there was no precedent for Bioware to show a scene of Shepard's last breath.  I've pointed out they've done it in an easter egg before.

I could also point out Shepard's post SM "death by snu-snu" with Morinth, but that's just a standard "critical mission failure" screen.

The failed Suicide Mission wasn't an easter egg. It was a full on, legitimate ending. It wasn't canon, since you couldn't import. But it absolutely was an ending. Far different than the breath scene.

You're right about the death by snu-snu being an easter egg. However, given that it is a critical mission failure, which only shows up when you die, it's pretty clear what that easter egg means. Just goes to show that Bioware doesn't leave much doubt at all when it comes to offing Shep. If they're going to do it, they aren't going to leave any doubt. No doubt at the start of ME2. No doubt if you fail the Suicide Mission in ME2. No doubt if you do the deed with Morinth. There's no doubt in Synthesis. There's no doubt that Shep's body is dead in Control. No doubt in low/medium Destroy.

So why would they add doubt for high EMS destroy and only high EMS destroy? Because they intended him to survive that ending.

[Brass_Buckles]

There's nothing wrong with a happy ending, and I disagree with the general consensus that the extended cut endings are mostly happy.

Billions of people are still dead, regardless of which ending you choose. And so, I think it makes sense to have at least one ending where Shepard does not have to sacrifice him/herself, or any surviving allies, to succeed. This ending should be very difficult to obtain, but not impossible. Bear in mind, you're still losing so many people. Earth is in shambles. Palaven might even be worse. People you once knew are gone. It's still not a happy ending, and I don't think people are really asking for a "Disney" ending. Just an ending where it's all over, and rebuilding happens without having Shepard police the galaxy, or everyone being forced to be alike.

My favored ending is Destroy because even if Shepard does happen to die, at least he/she is dying for a reason. There's no reason, with the Reaper and organic tech available in ME3, that Shepard should need to die for the Control ending. And the Synthesis ending is space magic, and ridiculous, and takes away free will. It may usher in a golden age, but it does so by destroying the diversity that Shepard has encouraged. To choose Control means Shepard is giving up everything he or she is to become the Reaper overlord. And my Shepards wouldn't give up who they are.

So for me, it's Destruction. Because at least, even if you die, you're rejecting Reaper logic by destroying them. A new cycle? No, because organics have learned that they can be allies with synthetics. Next time they are created, things will be different. And maybe synthesis is inevitable, but better to come to that point on their own terms. The downside is that in order to build this kind of open-minded future, you've got to destroy your current synthetic allies, which is completely abominable.

And both Control and Synthesis endings can't be that happy--all that death and horror would reasonably traumatize most people. Reapers, no matter how benevolent they suddenly became, would be triggering panic attacks and PTSD. People would be committing suicide because they couldn't handle being around the Reapers. To be honest, though I don't think the geth deserve destruction, they'd probably trigger similar reactions in many people who'd been subject to geth attacks.

So no, none of the endings are 90% happy. I'm actually thinking of writing a fanfiction post-ME3, but... we'll see where that goes, if anywhere.

[Netsfn1427]

Brass_Buckles wrote...

There's nothing wrong with a happy ending, and I disagree with the general consensus that the extended cut endings are mostly happy.

Billions of people are still dead, regardless of which ending you choose. And so, I think it makes sense to have at least one ending where Shepard does not have to sacrifice him/herself, or any surviving allies, to succeed. This ending should be very difficult to obtain, but not impossible. Bear in mind, you're still losing so many people. Earth is in shambles. Palaven might even be worse. People you once knew are gone. It's still not a happy ending, and I don't think people are really asking for a "Disney" ending. Just an ending where it's all over, and rebuilding happens without having Shepard police the galaxy, or everyone being forced to be alike.

My favored ending is Destroy because even if Shepard does happen to die, at least he/she is dying for a reason. There's no reason, with the Reaper and organic tech available in ME3, that Shepard should need to die for the Control ending. And the Synthesis ending is space magic, and ridiculous, and takes away free will. It may usher in a golden age, but it does so by destroying the diversity that Shepard has encouraged. To choose Control means Shepard is giving up everything he or she is to become the Reaper overlord. And my Shepards wouldn't give up who they are.

So for me, it's Destruction. Because at least, even if you die, you're rejecting Reaper logic by destroying them. A new cycle? No, because organics have learned that they can be allies with synthetics. Next time they are created, things will be different. And maybe synthesis is inevitable, but better to come to that point on their own terms. The downside is that in order to build this kind of open-minded future, you've got to destroy your current synthetic allies, which is completely abominable.

And both Control and Synthesis endings can't be that happy--all that death and horror would reasonably traumatize most people. Reapers, no matter how benevolent they suddenly became, would be triggering panic attacks and PTSD. People would be committing suicide because they couldn't handle being around the Reapers. To be honest, though I don't think the geth deserve destruction, they'd probably trigger similar reactions in many people who'd been subject to geth attacks.

So no, none of the endings are 90% happy. I'm actually thinking of writing a fanfiction post-ME3, but... we'll see where that goes, if anywhere.

In fiction, the dead are statistics unless we are introduced to them and got to know them. You're absolutely right in a real world sense; the endings are not truly happy. But in a fictionalized sense, the numbers are meaningless to most of the players. It's why I've seen people here asking for an ending where they sacrfice 90% of the Galaxy so that EDI can live. People will risk the effects of curing the Genophage because they like Wrex. I know it factored into my decision; even before I knew you had to kill Wrex, the thought of betraying him made me go against my better judgement. Legion is what changed many's opinions on the Geth. Heck Tali was probably the only thing saving the Quarians from extinction in a lot of games.

That's why I feel like Bioware made the endings the way they did. They wanted to make the players pause and not give them a right decision. Like it or not, if Destroy just offed the Reapers, most people would choose it, even if casulties were higher with that choice. They wanted to make players think about it.

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

The galaxy is in a far different place depending on your choice. The EC does a far better job at explaining this than the original endings. To say that destroy is the same as control or synthesis just isn't true. And Shepard's fate is different in at least a couple of the endings. You may not like Control, and I don't really either, but I there are people who do.

Low EMS Control:  Shepard dies
High EMS Control:  Shepard dies
Synthesis:  Shepard dies
Low EMS Destroy:  Shepard dies
Medium EMS Destroy:  Shepard dies
High EmS Destroy: Shepard dies
Refuse:  Shepard dies
Destroy+  Shepard might survive

In this sense, they are all largely the same.  Anyone who wants to see an ending where Shepard is alive (like we got in the first 2 games) is SoL.  No ending for you.

Occam's razor here. Everything we're learned about storytelling indicates Shepard's alive. I don't know what to say beyond that. You may have wanted them to show more, but from a thematic perspective, it's pretty clear. You have to go through far more hoops to indicate Shepard's dying in that scene than living. Is it possible he's dying? Sure. But it's not at all likely, especially given what we know based on how the other endings are framed.

In that scene, Shepard is:

alone:
In an area of the Citadel no organic has ever visited, or even knew existed
Is at least partly buried in rubble.
Was badly injured even before the explosion.  After the explosion, had stopped breathing at least momentarilly.

What does Occam's Razor have to say about Shepard's chances after that one breath?  At least ME1 ended with a search party on the Citadel.

So why would they add doubt for high EMS destroy and only high EMS destroy? Because they intended him to survive that ending.

They said why:  to leave "a ray of hope"  I didn't just make that phrase up.  That's the term used.

Modifié par iakus, 17 septembre 2012 - 03:23 .

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...


That's why I feel like Bioware made the endings the way they did. They wanted to make the players pause and not give them a right decision. Like it or not, if Destroy just offed the Reapers, most people would choose it, even if casulties were higher with that choice. They wanted to make players think about it.

They wanted the players to feel bad about the endings?

If this is art, I'll take entertainment.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...


That's why I feel like Bioware made the endings the way they did. They wanted to make the players pause and not give them a right decision. Like it or not, if Destroy just offed the Reapers, most people would choose it, even if casulties were higher with that choice. They wanted to make players think about it.

They wanted the players to feel bad about the endings?

If this is art, I'll take entertainment.

I as well.  That's the problem, in the end.  It's just not fun. For all the reasons already stated ad nauseam.

The decision is a head-scratcher considering the popularity of the happy endings in the previous two offerings. 
 

[Ticonderoga117]

iakus wrote...
They wanted the players to feel bad about the endings?

If this is art, I'll take entertainment.

Same. Good entertainment trumps art anyday, since it makes sense and all.