247 réponses à ce sujet

[mjb203]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Well, but then that would be Bioware caving into the demands of the fan base, right?  And from what you (and others) seem to have been getting at is that Bioware shouldn't give fans a "happily ever after" choice, despite the fact that it would still be a choice.

I'm not denying they don't make decisions based on fan feedback. But there's also a difference between what they decided to do with the story prior to its release and afterwards. And if that wasn't the case and the demand was that high for further ending content, they'd release it. (ala the EC) And for the record, if that Quarian/Geth DID exist in game, I wouldn't like it if they added something to alter it so peace with both was possible.

But even if I didn't like it, I really couldn't do much about it. I'm not the one writing the game after all.

Maybe not, but you should still voice displeasure with the fact so that Bioware would know that it isn't what you want.  From what it seems, the endings weren't even peer reviewed by the others on the writing team (and I could be wrong on this).  If that is the case, then there were some serious errors made in judgement.  Bioware should know by now what fans expect from their endings.  Personally, I thought they did a great job with the ones in DA:O.  There was one that could fit everybody.  Hero lives, hero sacrifices, hero lets someone else sacrifice.

Please note that I'm not disagreeing with the point you brought up about choosing one or the other, I think that it would have made for a far more interesting plotline (even if I would have personally disliked it).  But they opened the can of worms at that point, which is getting the fanbase to expect the possibility of the "perfect" ending and then yanking the rug out from under them at the last second.  That is not cool.

I suspect the fans would have expected that type of ending because that's the type of ending that has always been available in Bioware games. But it's my suspicion. I can't verify it.

Clarification on this point, as it appears I misread your original statement.  First, I would argue that fans expect the possibility of the "perfect" ending.  DA:O, their first game with divergent endings (to my knowledge, I've never played Jade Empire or KotOR), had that opportunity with the Dark Ritual ending, but they also allowed for the player to sacrifice themself or sacrifice someone else.  This fit very well and offered, I would say, most everyone, an ending that would satisfy them.  The tacked on sacrifice of the geth and EDI, despite all the previous sacrifice Shepard and company (and the galaxy, for that matter) has given is more than enough at that point, makes it senseless.  Again, Bioware should know what their fans like. No sense in fixing what isn't broke.

Like I said, I would have taken the Catalyst much better had the geth stayed a hostile race, as then it's argument about synthetics always rebelling against their creators would have made some sense and had a basis in the previous stories.  And, with the addition of friendly EDI, it would have made for a far more difficult moral dilemma (i.e.: do I sacrifice the one A.I. who seems to break this trend and not take the chance, or do I take the chance that we can wipe out the geth and save EDI?).

It also doesn't help that all other A.I. rebellions that have been mentioned throughout the series seem to have happened due to Reaper meddling.  The heretic geth, the Zha'til, etc.  I'm not so sure about the A.I. in the "Metacon War" though, as Javik never really elaborated on it too much, and I haven't combed through that section of the codex yet.

I think the creator/created issue is a better one, because there's even more evidence for that in game. Beyond the Synthethic/Organic, you'd have had the Krogan/Salarians, the Protheans and the Rachni (and possibly the Leviathans and the Rachni), the Leviathans and their thralls etc. But given the explanations given, the Catalyst has a focus only on the Synthethic/Organic conflict is acceptable, in my opinion.

The creator/created as presented by the Catalyst was strictly organic/synthetic.  That was the basis of it's entire argument.  And then the fact that the Leviathans created a frickin' A.I., despite the fact that they saw A.I. rebelling against it's creators is just asinine.  Why would they even do that?  It makes no sense and only muddies up the waters.  (hopefully my quoting came out correctly, if not, I'll edit to fix!)

Modifié par mjb203, 24 septembre 2012 - 01:12 .

[Netsfn1427]

mjb203 wrote...

Maybe not, but you should still voice displeasure with the fact so that Bioware would know that it isn't what you want.  From what it seems, the endings weren't even peer reviewed by the others on the writing team (and I could be wrong on this).  If that is the case, then there were some serious errors made in judgement.  Bioware should know by now what fans expect from their endings.  Personally, I thought they did a great job with the ones in DA:O.  There was one that could fit everybody.  Hero lives, hero sacrifices, hero lets someone else sacrifice.

Again, Bioware should know what their fans like. No sense in fixing what isn't broke.

But then you get stagnation. If Bioware was making the same game they made back with KOTOR (the oldest Bioware game I've played) we'd have never gotten the shooter gameplay, voiced protagonist, dialogue wheel and whole lot of other cool features they've added since with ME. You have to try new things. Some will work, some won't. If the endings don't work, we'll see them either refine it or move away from this type of thing in the future.

The creator/created as presented by the Catalyst was strictly organic/synthetic.  That was the basis of it's entire argument.  And then the fact that the Leviathans created a frickin' A.I., despite the fact that they saw A.I. rebelling against it's creators is just asinine.  Why would they even do that?  It makes no sense and only muddies up the waters.  (hopefully my quoting came out correctly, if not, I'll edit to fix!)

I'm aware that the Catalyst is strictly based on the synthetic/organic conflict. I wish it went to created/creator, but I know it went more narrow minded.

The Leviathans were victims of their own arrogance. They believed that they programmed an A.I. that would police the lesser beings but leave them untouched. Basically, they thought they had programmed it perfectly. They hadn't.

My own headcannon/speculation is that the Leviathans intentionally narrowed the Catalyst's programming to focus on Synthetic and Organics because they figured the real problem was the Leviathans themselves, playing god and driving the thrall races towards synthetics in an attempt to be free. But if it just asked the AI to figure out the problem, it would have blamed the Leviathans. So they asked it to solve the Synthetic/Organic problem, figuring that since the Leviathans didn't build the A.I.s they wouldn't be part of any solution the Catalyst thought up. Of course they were wrong. But that's just my own speculation.

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Those examples aren't under criticism. The ending is. The genophage and geth/quarian arcs are widely praised.

I can't think of a single criticism for the other choices in the game.

The genophage plotline conveniently tosses the foundation of Wrex's cultural reform away with a replacement of 'two good leaders will make everything alright', and the Geth-Quarian conflict gets increasingly one-sided face-palm worthy as the Geth are increasingly white-washed and the Quarians are presented as not only solely responsible for the conflict but also as bone-headedly stupid?

The writing of the genophage arc was so good that it really leaves little room for complaint from me. I hadn't even realized Wrex's reforms were tossed aside until you mentioned it; I was too interested in Eve's writing. Wrex himself was given enough great dialogue that it really wasn't intuitive for me to shake my fist at them for his lost reforms, then or now. They paid respect to his character, and I still felt like he was an innovative leader taking initiative.

As implausibilities go, the "two good leaders" fix really isn't any worse than a lot of other positive outcomes you can achieve throughout the series, and because you have to struggle to achieve it, the outcome feels earned and hard-won. Plus, it feels good so I'm willing to overlook it. What's that? Your disdain is piquing? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY HEART SINGING.

They could've eased back on the geth innocence, no doubt. But that's like guaranteed to annoy you more than it does me, you were always kind of irritated about people treating the geth as the cute innocent robots. It's like they took your worst irritation and said, "Yeah we'll go with this." The quarians were idiots, but the ending was rewarding for me and the writing flaws didn't harm my overall experience of the arc. So, still no complaints really. Just flaw acknowledgment.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

When the dark and light are flat even, you don't get to say that the ending has to be dark, anymore than I get to say it has to be light. ME3's ending should've delivered the tasteful mix of flavors that the rest of the game did.

That someone has to die for good things to happen for others?

Well, sadly some people don't want their Shepard to be as noble as Mordin or Legion...

Hey hey hey. I said that, not Nstfnf9494whatever. I'll thank you to remember that my name is Nightflower.

Mordin and Legion's sacrifices (though I'm not sure why precisely Legion had to die) were much better written. Simple. The Warden sacrifice in DA:O was better written. The flaws of the ending are numerous and people's objections are tied up into them.

If you're doing that whole "it seems other characters dying is okay but Shepard dying isn't, such amusing hypocrisy" thing you dry intellectual types like to carry on with, then hells yeah. Shepard's death is a bigger deal, don't get why people are afraid to admit it, let that opinion strut about dancing nekked and shameless. Photograph it and show it to your friends, man. Lupin dying isn't the same as Harry dying, Rory dying wouldn't be the same as Doctor Who dying, Benedict dying wouldn't be the same as Corwin dying -- the list goes on. The protagonist is our window into the universe. Their demise is going to mean more than the demise of characters who are simply observed through the window. In cases like Shepard, we actually have a window we have personalized and invested ourselves in.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You do not get to cherry pick which parts of the creative material are sacrosanct and which are for sale, and you don't get to compartmentalize a series' artistic integrity.

Sure you do. All things are relative, and the amounts of compromise also depend on the nature and scale of what's to be compromized.

There is only so much fanservice you can dish out before you lose your ability to play the artistic integrity card.

You can't go from saying "it's your game" to "it's our game" simply because the ending backlash is overwhelming. Say "we're not gonna change it" or "yeah we're sticking by this one."

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Nightwriter wrote...

People continue to say that the mere existence of an ending that would make me happy is a threat to their personal ease of play. This is lame. You are LAME, sirs and madams.

BioWare has satisfied us both in the past. It really isn't hard. I'm tired of hearing that the only way for me to get the good feelz is for you to feel stupid. It's crap. Crapola. Crappalingalong. Crappa dappa doo. It's a crap candle sticking in a crap cake.

None that I've played. Prior to Mass Effect, the design philosophy behind the choices was very different. With KotOR, Jade Empire, and Baldur's Gate, for the most part you weren't choosing different moral philosophies, your character was choosing whether he wanted to make the world a better place...or watch it burn. Hence why we had evil alignments, dark side, and closed fist. Ex: Choosing whether to enslave the wookies or allow them to fight for freedom. Both can be considered equally valid within the goals of their protagonists.

Mass Effect and Dragon Age (to a lesser extent) began to mix things up a bit. The PC's goal is more clearly to save the respective universes, but how they're willing to go about it and what lines they are (or are not) willing to cross becomes more considered. In essence, the goals for the player characters is more homogenized. This is seen with Garrus' "cold calculus of war" dialogue. Shepard generally-speaking wants to make the world a better place, but circumstances don't allow it to be so easy.

But off the top of my head, practically every instance in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect where a "good" scenario and "bad" scenario have been attempted has failed rather badly.  Ex: Redcliffe issue with Connor. Here we have a potentially beautiful thought experiment all set up and abruptly cleaved in half by the fact that the Mages are sitting across the lake, just waiting to make everything perfect. There's no added cost with traveling while a demon possess a child, no unexepected tragedy. What heart-warming lesson do we learn? If you get the Mages then everyone makes it out okay. Or just look at ME2's suicide mission, variables which are obvious even on first playthroughs, especially the tech/biotic decisions.
 
I guess you could point to the Dark Ritual as evidence, but then there are a number of issues there ranging from how DA:O doesn't really drive home that you've potentially performed the Faustian deal with the devil, as well as potential implementation problems which could arise in DA3.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 septembre 2012 - 01:36 .

[mjb203]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Maybe not, but you should still voice displeasure with the fact so that Bioware would know that it isn't what you want.  From what it seems, the endings weren't even peer reviewed by the others on the writing team (and I could be wrong on this).  If that is the case, then there were some serious errors made in judgement.  Bioware should know by now what fans expect from their endings.  Personally, I thought they did a great job with the ones in DA:O.  There was one that could fit everybody.  Hero lives, hero sacrifices, hero lets someone else sacrifice.

Again, Bioware should know what their fans like. No sense in fixing what isn't broke.

But then you get stagnation. If Bioware was making the same game they made back with KOTOR (the oldest Bioware game I've played) we'd have never gotten the shooter gameplay, voiced protagonist, dialogue wheel and whole lot of other cool features they've added since with ME. You have to try new things. Some will work, some won't. If the endings don't work, we'll see them either refine it or move away from this type of thing in the future.

I agree, you would get stagnation.  But if you are going to change things up, do it either in a new IP or centered around a new Mass Effect protaganist (since it seems that they want to make more ME games).  I loved that they added the dialog wheel with ME.  It was new and refreshing, and the fact that they first put it in a NEW IP helped make it work.  They tried it in DA2, and it worked there too (although not as well), but it had a different protaganist than DA:O.  If you go with new stuff, then you should try it with either a new protaganist or a new IP, not an existing one that people have expectations on.

The creator/created as presented by the Catalyst was strictly organic/synthetic.  That was the basis of it's entire argument.  And then the fact that the Leviathans created a frickin' A.I., despite the fact that they saw A.I. rebelling against it's creators is just asinine.  Why would they even do that?  It makes no sense and only muddies up the waters.  (hopefully my quoting came out correctly, if not, I'll edit to fix!)

I'm aware that the Catalyst is strictly based on the synthetic/organic conflict. I wish it went to created/creator, but I know it went more narrow minded.

The Leviathans were victims of their own arrogance. They believed that they programmed an A.I. that would police the lesser beings but leave them untouched. Basically, they thought they had programmed it perfectly. They hadn't.

My own headcannon/speculation is that the Leviathans intentionally narrowed the Catalyst's programming to focus on Synthetic and Organics because they figured the real problem was the Leviathans themselves, playing god and driving the thrall races towards synthetics in an attempt to be free. But if it just asked the AI to figure out the problem, it would have blamed the Leviathans. So they asked it to solve the Synthetic/Organic problem, figuring that since the Leviathans didn't build the A.I.s they wouldn't be part of any solution the Catalyst thought up. Of course they were wrong. But that's just my own speculation.

Well, that may be all well and good, but now you're bringing headcanon into it.  It is something that should have been elaborated on in game either through dialog or codex entries.  Forcing people to come up with their own conclusions never works for a story (just look at the original endings for evidence).

I'll be the first to admit, I can live perfectly fine with the Catalyst in the destroy ending with my own headcanon attached, but it won't be the same for everyone.  For example, in my destroy headcanon, the geth all FTL out of the Sol system before the red destroy beam makes its run, and since I never physically see the beam strike the Normandy, I headcanon that EDI was only knocked out for a short period of time, Joker put her name on the memorial wall since he got overemotional about it, and came back online by the time the Normady ups and leaves Gilligan's Planet.

Works for me, but others shouldn't be forced to headcanon something like that.  If you're going to give people the opportunity to get optimal outcomes in all other story arcs in the game, offer an optimal outcome for the ending as well, otherwise they will just feel cheap.

As an aside, I do appreciate the friendly debate and the fact that neither of us has resorted to name calling and snide remarks, but have put forward arguments on the subject matter!  I'll probably be getting off of here before too awful long, but feel free to continue replying!  I'll be checking this thread for as long as it is active!

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

The replayability is the state of the galaxy. Depending on your choices, the place ends up pretty different.

And how is that choice and situation any more meaningful than the Destiny Ascension or the rachni queen?  If there's no way Shepard can participate in this new galaxy, what was the point?

I just can't get worked up about choices being contrived, because I was so surprised to have a choice actually be worth something at the end of the game.(Galaxy wise, and Shepard wise, since I do feel Shepard ends up in three different scenarios)  I was annoyed when I learned you didn't actually lose anything by choosing the save the Council in ME1, despite all the warnings that you would. I don't mind choices, but I hate choices that are just lies to get you to tempt you to take the other option. The ME1 ending choice, the Redcliffe "choice" in DA:O are the ones that stand out the most in that regard.

Neither one ruins my experience when I play the game. I just shake my head in a bit of disgust when I hear the character tell me the negative ramifications, know there really aren't any in game.

And in every closing choice here you do lose something.  The same thing, every time:  Shepard.  

If I had to choose between a non-choice where stuff still works out and a non-choice where you're screwed no matter what, I'll take 'stuff works out"  One might be annoying, but the other is just a "frak you" from the game's designers.

[Nightwriter]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Those examples aren't under criticism. The ending is. The genophage and geth/quarian arcs are widely praised.

I can't think of a single criticism for the other choices in the game.

The ending gives you choices. Pre-EC, there were implications were that the galaxy was a different place, but it really wasn't shown or told. Post EC, it's told. Right now the complaint isn't the variety of the ending, it's that one particular scenario (Shep lives with no Synthetic death) wasn't implemented. The choices are there. But the choice that many want isn't.

Yeah, probs. My main complaint with the ending at the mo is simply that Shepard dies in 3.5/4 of them. Like, wat.

Oh, and also that EDI and the geth's sacrifices weren't as meaningful as the others.

Netsfn1427 wrote...

ME3 isn't dark. It mixes too many colors for such generalizations. It's sobering, grave, emotional, exciting, funny, and frequently uplifting. At best -- at best -- the dark-to-light ratio is flat equal. There is a counterexample for every instance you just put forth, and several of the ones you mentioned are optional and avoidable.

When the dark and light are flat even, you don't get to say that the ending has to be dark, anymore than I get to say it has to be light. ME3's ending should've delivered the tasteful mix of flavors that the rest of the game did.

The game is bittersweet at best. It has it's moments of humor, but I wouldn't call it cheery. And the endings reflect that. There's plenty to cheer about if you survived the Reapers post EC. There's plenty to be sad about as well.

It made me feel way too good to be bittersweat. Parts of it were bittersweet, but as a whole? That just isn't the experience I got. It was more of a roller coaster ride. There were great, triumphant, uplifting, against-all-odds moments in there.

Netsfn1427 wrote...

It's true, but you're misusing it badly. When a fan sues BioWare because they couldn't play an elf in DA2 like they demanded, then you can remind them it's not their game and BioWare wanted to go in a different direction with the Hawke family. When someone puts forth a well-articulated criticism, however, I see no reason why you feel the need to remind people that they aren't the boss of BioWare. An unfavorable review is not a declaration of ownership.

Cause it still comes down to a matter of choice. Bioware chose to go in this direction. They've since said that the EC is as far as they're going. Maybe they change that because they want to canonize an ending for ME4, but they're still well within their rights to say "We're done with the endings." Which they have. Multiple times.

Except, I'm not faulting them for saying that. I'm faulting you for saying this:

"And Bioware doesn't have to satisfy you this time. They chose to go in a different direction. Sometimes, stories don't end the way you want them to. You don't like it? Write your own story and then end it as you please."

simply because I said that I don't need to be miserable for sacrifice fans to be happy.

Netsfn1427 wrote...

They most certainly didn't, but I think you're forgetting the original argument:

Argument: Fans have no right to ask BioWare to compromise its artistic integrity.
Counterargument: BioWare has compromised its artistic integrity countless times in the past to appease fans.

Instances where they disregarded a fan request have no bearing on the validity of this counterargument.

You do not get to cherry pick which parts of the creative material are sacrosanct and which are for sale, and you don't get to compartmentalize a series' artistic integrity.

Oh, you can do as you please. I don't have the power to stop you from requesting the endings be changed, nor would I use it even if I did. I'll debate the merits of your argument in regards to the story. But you can keep on requesting whatever you like.

But Bioware can tell you what they consider important and what they don't. And they have with the repeated "We're done with ending content." Will it blow up in their face? Maybe. But if ME4 turns out to be a pretty good game, I suspect they'll do fine.

I'm not quite deluded enough to request that the endings be changed. It's not happening. I'm just deluded enough to keep coming back to the forum to defend the position that the endings weren't okay.

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

None that I've played. Prior to Mass Effect, the design philosophy behind the choices was very different. With KotOR, Jade Empire, and Baldur's Gate, for the most part you weren't choosing different moral philosophies, your character was choosing whether he wanted to make the world a better place...or watch it burn. Hence why we had evil alignments, dark side, and closed fist. Ex: Choosing whether to enslave the wookies or allow them to fight for freedom. Both can be considered equally valid within the goals of their protagonists.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 had it's own verion of "Destroy and "Control" concerning the Bhaalspawn essence.  You ucould destroy it, and live the rest of your life a mortal (albiet a powerful one) or take control of the essence, and ascend to become a god of good or evil, based on your alignment.  

Of course, destroying the essence, didn't genocide Faerun's elves...

[mjb203]

iakus wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

None that I've played. Prior to Mass Effect, the design philosophy behind the choices was very different. With KotOR, Jade Empire, and Baldur's Gate, for the most part you weren't choosing different moral philosophies, your character was choosing whether he wanted to make the world a better place...or watch it burn. Hence why we had evil alignments, dark side, and closed fist. Ex: Choosing whether to enslave the wookies or allow them to fight for freedom. Both can be considered equally valid within the goals of their protagonists.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 had it's own verion of "Destroy and "Control" concerning the Bhaalspawn essence.  You ucould destroy it, and live the rest of your life a mortal (albiet a powerful one) or take control of the essence, and ascend to become a god of good or evil, based on your alignment.  

Of course, destroying the essence, didn't genocide Faerun's elves...

Excellent point!

[Nightwriter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

People continue to say that the mere existence of an ending that would make me happy is a threat to their personal ease of play. This is lame. You are LAME, sirs and madams.

BioWare has satisfied us both in the past. It really isn't hard. I'm tired of hearing that the only way for me to get the good feelz is for you to feel stupid. It's crap. Crapola. Crappalingalong. Crappa dappa doo. It's a crap candle sticking in a crap cake.

None that I've played. Prior to Mass Effect, the design philosophy behind the choices was very different. With KotOR, Jade Empire, and Baldur's Gate, for the most part you weren't choosing different moral philosophies, your character was choosing whether he wanted to make the world a better place...or watch it burn. Hence why we had evil alignments, dark side, and closed fist. Ex: Choosing whether to enslave the wookies or allow them to fight for freedom. Both can be considered equally valid within the goals of their protagonists.

Mass Effect and Dragon Age (to a lesser extent) began to mix things up a bit. The PC's goal is more clearly to save the respective universes, but how they're willing to go about it and what lines they are (or are not) willing to cross becomes more considered. In essence, the goals for the player characters is more homogenized. This is seen with Garrus' "cold calculus of war" dialogue. Shepard generally-speaking wants to make the world a better place, but circumstances don't allow it to be so easy.

But off the top of my head, practically every instance in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect where a "good" scenario and "bad" scenario have been attempted has failed rather badly.  Ex: Redcliffe issue with Connor. Here we have a potentially beautiful thought experiment all set up and abruptly cleaved in half by the fact that the Mages are sitting across the lake, just waiting to make everything perfect. There's no added cost with traveling while a demon possess a child, no hidden cost. Get the Mages and everyone makes it out okay. Or just look at ME2's suicide mission, variables which are obvious even on first playthroughs, especially the tech/biotic decisions.
 
I guess you could point to the Dark Ritual as evidence, but then there are a number of issues there ranging from how DA:O doesn't really drive home that you've potentially performed the Faustian deal with the devil, as well as potential implementation problems which could arise in DA3.

But it isn't a "good" and "bad" scenario that I'm saying can coexist happily.

[Netsfn1427]

mjb203 wrote...

I agree, you would get stagnation.  But if you are going to change things up, do it either in a new IP or centered around a new Mass Effect protaganist (since it seems that they want to make more ME games).  I loved that they added the dialog wheel with ME.  It was new and refreshing, and the fact that they first put it in a NEW IP helped make it work.  They tried it in DA2, and it worked there too (although not as well), but it had a different protaganist than DA:O.  If you go with new stuff, then you should try it with either a new protaganist or a new IP, not an existing one that people have expectations on.

In an ideal world, I would agree, keep all titles in the same series the same. If for no other reason it makes replaying the earlier games in the series easier. But technology moves forward and expectations move forward. I've already seen people rag on Bioware's moral system, calling it simplistic compared to games like the Witcher. (Which admittedly, I have yet to play) I think games like DA2 and ME3 (and to a lesser degree ME2) are a response to that. They want to move beyond simple "good/bad/netural". And they didn't feel like they could wait until a new IP to do it. Gameplay wise, Bioware has moved forward. Their story telling has been moving much slower. Maybe they felt they couldn't wait any more to start pushing things forward.

I liked the harder choices in this game. But I fully admit that's my opinion.

Well, that may be all well and good, but now you're bringing headcanon into it.  It is something that should have been elaborated on in game either through dialog or codex entries.  Forcing people to come up with their own conclusions never works for a story (just look at the original endings for evidence).

I'll be the first to admit, I can live perfectly fine with the Catalyst in the destroy ending with my own headcanon attached, but it won't be the same for everyone.  For example, in my destroy headcanon, the geth all FTL out of the Sol system before the red destroy beam makes its run, and since I never physically see the beam strike the Normandy, I headcanon that EDI was only knocked out for a short period of time, Joker put her name on the memorial wall since he got overemotional about it, and came back online by the time the Normady ups and leaves Gilligan's Planet.

Works for me, but others shouldn't be forced to headcanon something like that.  If you're going to give people the opportunity to get optimal outcomes in all other story arcs in the game, offer an optimal outcome for the ending as well, otherwise they will just feel cheap.

Geth/Quarian is the only one where you can get the ideal outcome, though I get your point since nobody really cares that much about the Salarian fleet anyway.

Admittedly, the Leviathan thing is reading between the lines a bit. The key points about the Leviathan thinking themselves above the thralls and thus immune to whatever plan the Catalyst came up with is in game. It's their reasoning behind it that, and the reasons why their thralls felt the need to Synthetics, that  I headcannon.

With any work of fiction, there's always room for some fun speculation and headcanon. For me, the majority of key points were answered. The endings resolved Shepard's goal, which was stopping the Reapers. I think Shep lived in Destroy+, so I can imagine what he does next. I'm kind of glad Bioware left it open. Your own headcanon is your own deal. It's valid, unless shown otherwise.

As an aside, I do appreciate the friendly debate and the fact that neither of us has resorted to name calling and snide remarks, but have put forward arguments on the subject matter!  I'll probably be getting off of here before too awful long, but feel free to continue replying!  I'll be checking this thread for as long as it is active!

As do I. A civil discussion on the internet! What's next? Turians and Krogans getting along?

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 24 septembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Nightwriter wrote...

But it isn't a "good" and "bad" scenario that I'm saying can coexist happily.

Damn. Well, that was a bit pointless.

[mjb203]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

As an aside, I do appreciate the friendly debate and the fact that neither of us has resorted to name calling and snide remarks, but have put forward arguments on the subject matter! I'll probably be getting off of here before too awful long, but feel free to continue replying! I'll be checking this thread for as long as it is active!

As do I. A civil discussion on the internet! What's next? Turians and Krogans getting along?

Or the geth and quarians? lol! Well, I'm off of here for the night! Got to get up a bit earlier than usual for Grand Lodge tomorrow, and I want to finish watching National Treasure before heading to bed!

Anyway, good night and it was a pleasure to discuss this with you!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Baldur's Gate 2 had it's own verion of "Destroy and "Control" concerning the Bhaalspawn essence.  You ucould destroy it, and live the rest of your life a mortal (albiet a powerful one) or take control of the essence, and ascend to become a god of good or evil, based on your alignment.  

Of course, destroying the essence, didn't genocide Faerun's elves...

Ah, blast, I did forget about the give up your Bhaal essence ending. My bad on that.

Still, I think it's outside the scope of the issue. With BG2 choosing either to ascend Bhaal's Throne or live as a mortal doesn't really spell out a good or bad ending for the universe of Faerun (from what I remember). Whether you choose to become a good/bad deity might have a role, but then it's more similar to my KotOR point: does your PC even care about Faerun? In large part, it's a personal choice. What I'm getting at is that there haven't been Bioware games which imo have adequately allowed the player the satisfaction via tragedy or choosing a happy ending.
 
Indeed, the only game off the top of my head that can really claim that is Heavy Rain.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 septembre 2012 - 01:56 .

[Netsfn1427]

Nightwriter wrote...

Except, I'm not faulting them for saying that. I'm faulting you for saying this:

"And Bioware doesn't have to satisfy you this time. They chose to go in a different direction. Sometimes, stories don't end the way you want them to. You don't like it? Write your own story and then end it as you please."

simply because I said that I don't need to be miserable for sacrifice fans to be happy.

I apologize. That was harsh on my part. What I should have said was that there isn't anything wrong that they didn't give that option this time. That's my primary point; the endings aren't evil or wrong. They're just different from what was expected. I get some people wanted a more traditional happy ending, but I don't feel as though that's required for an ending to be good.

[Netsfn1427]

mjb203 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

As an aside, I do appreciate the friendly debate and the fact that neither of us has resorted to name calling and snide remarks, but have put forward arguments on the subject matter! I'll probably be getting off of here before too awful long, but feel free to continue replying! I'll be checking this thread for as long as it is active!

As do I. A civil discussion on the internet! What's next? Turians and Krogans getting along?

Or the geth and quarians? lol! Well, I'm off of here for the night! Got to get up a bit earlier than usual for Grand Lodge tomorrow, and I want to finish watching National Treasure before heading to bed!

Anyway, good night and it was a pleasure to discuss this with you!

Likewise sir. Good debate.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Those examples aren't under criticism. The ending is. The genophage and geth/quarian arcs are widely praised.

I can't think of a single criticism for the other choices in the game.

The genophage plotline conveniently tosses the foundation of Wrex's cultural reform away with a replacement of 'two good leaders will make everything alright', and the Geth-Quarian conflict gets increasingly one-sided face-palm worthy as the Geth are increasingly white-washed and the Quarians are presented as not only solely responsible for the conflict but also as bone-headedly stupid?

The writing of the genophage arc was so good that it really leaves little room for complaint from me. I hadn't even realized Wrex's reforms were tossed aside until you mentioned it; I was too interested in Eve's writing. Wrex himself was given enough great dialogue that it really wasn't intuitive for me to shake my fist at them for his lost reforms, then or now. They paid respect to his character, and I still felt like he was an innovative leader taking initiative.

Oh, I agree that it was very well written. Tuchanka remains one of my favorite parts of the series. Eve is a wonderful addition to the cast.

I'm just disappointed that they more or less turned their backs on two games of development of Wrex. Wrex was the one who really put it best: the genophage isn't killing the Krogan, it's the Krogan themselves. 

As implausibilities go, the "two good leaders" fix really isn't any worse than a lot of other positive outcomes you can achieve throughout the series, and because you have to struggle to achieve it, the outcome feels earned and hard-won. Plus, it feels good so I'm willing to overlook it. What's that? Your disdain is piquing? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY HEART SINGING.

Well, my disdain kind of spreads to most of those other positive outcomes as well. As a cynic, the Paragon-repition of cost-free triumph of idealism is kind of a flaw as far as I'm concerned.

I've got no problem with idealist options, and even times when idealist options work out for the best, but when idealism triumphs over cost-aversion almost every time...

They could've eased back on the geth innocence, no doubt. But that's like guaranteed to annoy you more than it does me, you were always kind of irritated about people treating the geth as the cute innocent robots. It's like they took your worst irritation and said, "Yeah we'll go with this." The quarians were idiots, but the ending was rewarding for me and the writing flaws didn't harm my overall experience of the arc. So, still no complaints really. Just flaw acknowledgment.

Honestly, I'd have forgiven the Geth a lot more if peace came from the Geth getting off Rannoch (giving the Quarians what they want, and demonstrating the Geth willingness to compromise), rather than the Quarians basically submitting themselves to the Geth's good graces forever more.

As far as centuries-old-grudge-matches go, the Quarians haven't really demonstrated a willingness for enduring peace and the Geth haven't really demonstrated that much-needed aspect of learning to understand the perspectives of others.


(But yeah: cute innocent robots. )

Hey hey hey. I said that, not Nstfnf9494whatever. I'll thank you to remember that my name is Nightflower.

Ah, my bad. My sincere apologies.

Mordin and Legion's sacrifices (though I'm not sure why precisely Legion had to die) were much better written. Simple. The Warden sacrifice in DA:O was better written. The flaws of the ending are numerous and people's objections are tied up into them.

Arguable. I think they worked better in the sense they were character-consistent, which can never be done for a player-character with inherently unknowable motivations and effectively schizophrenic characterization potential.

Still, I'm one of the few to actually appreciate the symbolism of the endings. Leap of Faith vs. Destruction vs. Control? I felt the actions were a pretty appropriate way of conveying a choice, much better than a button or dialogue wheel.



As for Legion, they still haven't given a reason why Geth code copy-pasting doesn't work for him a second time, considering his ME2 quotes. If anyone had to sacrifice themselves, it really should have been Tali: Legion makes a much better candidate as a squad-mate, since Legion exists in some form regardless.

If you're doing that whole "it seems other characters dying is okay but Shepard dying isn't, such amusing hypocrisy" thing you dry intellectual types like to carry on with, then hells yeah.

Not really the hypocrisy angle.

Shepard's death is a bigger deal, don't get why people are afraid to admit it, let that opinion strut about dancing nekked and shameless. Photograph it and show it to your friends, man. Lupin dying isn't the same as Harry dying, Rory dying wouldn't be the same as Doctor Who dying, Benedict dying wouldn't be the same as Corwin dying -- the list goes on. The protagonist is our window into the universe. Their demise is going to mean more than the demise of characters who are simply observed through the window. In cases like Shepard, we actually have a window we have personalized and invested ourselves in.

And at some time, that window is going to close. It's a pretty definitive way to mark 'this is the end of Shepard's story', because, hey, that was A Point. Shepard gets a noble self-sacrifice for the greater good, which is worthy of most heroes of Shepard's caliber, and two of the options even allow 'outs' for going on. Control continues Shepard is some form or fashion, while Destroy outright lets you live.

There is only so much fanservice you can dish out before you lose your ability to play the artistic integrity card.

You can't go from saying "it's your game" to "it's our game" simply because the ending backlash is overwhelming. Say "we're not gonna change it" or "yeah we're sticking by this one."

Er, they did.

Mass Effect is a collaborative experience (your choices shape your experience differently than mine), but that doesn't change that it's also in a context dictated by the creators. For the same reasons we had to become enforcers for a racist oligarchy, work with terrorists, or abandon a war effort to play a diplomat we aren't qualified to be, all choices and scenarios have always existed within the scope of what they provided.

[Nightwriter]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Except, I'm not faulting them for saying that. I'm faulting you for saying this:

"And Bioware doesn't have to satisfy you this time. They chose to go in a different direction. Sometimes, stories don't end the way you want them to. You don't like it? Write your own story and then end it as you please."

simply because I said that I don't need to be miserable for sacrifice fans to be happy.

I apologize. That was harsh on my part. What I should have said was that there isn't anything wrong that they didn't give that option this time. That's my primary point; the endings aren't evil or wrong. They're just different from what was expected. I get some people wanted a more traditional happy ending, but I don't feel as though that's required for an ending to be good.

An apology? On the BSN?

I'm not prepared for this.

... Thank you?

And... I'm sorry for the crap cake thing?

This is weird.

I'm not trying to say my opinion is anything other than subjective; I certainly don't think the endings are evil. But I would've personally preferred an ending on par with the last two games, or DA:O. I'm not sure I wanted a "traditional" happy ending per se -- something built as well as the culmination of the genophage arc would've been great.

[AntiChri5]

I think the Genophage arc is a good example of what to do. No matter what you do, there is pain and terror and loss and sacrifice. But there is also joy and triumph and victory. There is precious little joy and triumph in the ending to ME3, at least for me.

[Nightwriter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

But it isn't a "good" and "bad" scenario that I'm saying can coexist happily.

Damn. Well, that was a bit pointless.

No, I should've been clearer.

I meant that, as in cases like DA:O, it is possible to create a reasonably satisfying "protagonist lives" ending and a reasonably satisfying "protagonist dies" ending without one compromising the legitimacy of the other. I'll concede your point about the dark ritual being merely foreboding as opposed to observably doom-wreaking, but making a demon god baby is still pretty dark stuff and in some cases you even need to send your love interest to sleep with Miss Rags for Blouses.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

And how is that choice and situation any more meaningful than the Destiny Ascension or the rachni queen?  If there's no way Shepard can participate in this new galaxy, what was the point?

I kind of care what happens in the world after I'm gone. This isn't true for Shep?

[AlanC9]

Nightwriter wrote...

I meant that, as in cases like DA:O, it is possible to create a reasonably satisfying "protagonist lives" ending and a reasonably satisfying "protagonist dies" ending without one compromising the legitimacy of the other.

But the way DA:O did that was by having the consequences of the DR be unknown. Is that applicable to the final part of a trilogy?

[Bourne Endeavor]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

iakus wrote...

Its not even that EDI and the geth die that bugs me.  It's that their death is so meaningless.  their hostages to the story and nothing more.  They don't die doing something heroic like Mordin.  They don't get a final farewell speech like Anderson.  They just...die... and are discarded like so much rubbish

Even as hostages, their deaths are ineffective, as people overwhelmingly choose Destroy anyway.

The reason nobody cares about edi and the geth is that people notice the trick. It's just a trick to make destroy harder. People realize it's Bioware trying to make the choice difficult, which pulls them right out of the required suspension of disbelief we willingly fall into when we go watch a movie, read a book or play a game.

It's the same thing as when you're watching a horror movie. If you "get out of the movie" then it's not scary anymore. If you notice a change in the makeup or in the hairstyle of a character between scenes for example and that pulls you out of the movie, then the scary scenes look just silly or plain boring. You're not invested in what's happening in that moment so it doesn't have any effect on you. In the case of edi and the geth, what breaks the spell is the realization that it's just a trick, not the natural flow of events.

For this reason people not so much hate edi&geth's death as they roll their eyes at it.

If it's a trick, how come EDI's name shows up on the memorial wall in the epilouge?

A trick by the writers, better characterised as artificial. EDI's and the Geth's sacrifice comes so far out of left field that it feels tacked on, thus breaking the suspension of disbelief for many people. I have no qualms with their death because it does make sense in the context provided however the absence of any relevance makes it feel as though BioWare purposely did so simply to dissuade players from choosing Destroy. In fact, I further argue their obsession with Synthesis is proof of this. Regardless, unlike every other major death in the series, EDI and the Geth become an afterthought.

[Nightwriter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I meant that, as in cases like DA:O, it is possible to create a reasonably satisfying "protagonist lives" ending and a reasonably satisfying "protagonist dies" ending without one compromising the legitimacy of the other.

But the way DA:O did that was by having the consequences of the DR be unknown. Is that applicable to the final part of a trilogy?

The results don't need to be unknown, merely swallowable. A foreboding ritual with an unknown outcome is one example of a swallowable sacrifice. There are many other examples. 

The sacrifice needs to be significant enough that it actually feels like a sacrifice, but palatable enough that it doesn't ruin the game/series/story.

But sure, they could've done the unknown. An example: Make Destroy the only outcome where you ****** on the Catalyst and the cycle, but also the only outcome where the mass relays are destroyed along with the Reapers. Whether or not the war-ravaged galaxy can band together, construct its own mass relays, and rebuild itself on its own terms is left a complete unknown, and because the Reapers aren't around to help rebuild, things look much more dire. You get one final dialogue option that lets Shepard express doubt about the future ("I honestly don't know if I just saved us or destroyed us") or a positive affirmation ("whatever happens, it will be on our terms -- and we will build our own future").

[jkflipflopDAO]

I think really the fact of the matter is that things were just mis-handled and that's the end of it. What's done is done.

I had envisioned WILDLY different branches of the game depending on how you played the last two. The first games needed to start and end at the same point, but part three didn't have the restriction of having to end in one place. I would have made four or five big "corridors" of story kind of like the suicide mission, then started branching off into them about 1/2 way through the game.

We could have had everything. How about Shep saying "you know what? These big squids got the right idea!" and talking humanity into becoming a reaper - and getting special "upgrades" from the reapers for joining them in the process? How about a total BAMF ending where you get the galactic fleet + the rachni + the Leviathans + some DeM uber-weapon and take it to the big squids? Our current endings could have been one of the paths.

Arg so much potential just flushed down the crapper in a single stroke.