247 réponses à ce sujet

[Bacteriophage]

Adressing the original question:

For all that I feel that Bioware flubbed the original ending choices and resolutions, I believe they really do try to write their stories such that players feel they have meaningfull choice (or at least the illusion of meaningfull choice given the limitations of the medium). I respect the company for this. Thus, the question itself is somewhat misleading. The 'best' option is supposed to be the one chosen by the player. Frequently, the question as stated is a stand-in for the more specific "Why not buff the Reject option?"

I'm a fan of Reject. I am gratefull that we were given the option to Reject the Starchilds logic. However, I feel this option, arriving as an emergency addition, was not concieved with the same enthusiasm and creative power as the originals. It could have been so much more. If I may quote myself from a diffrent thread:

Bacteriophage wrote...
The Starchild has developed a very specific, rigid, and self-reenforcing understanding of how the universe
works. Shepard isn't just a threat to the Child's existence, Shepard is a threat to its ideology and worldview (galaxyview?). For the first time in at least 37 million years, someone has the oppertunity to challenge
it directly. To force it to confront any and all inconsistencies, circularisms, conciets or other erata in the very reason for its existence.

Imagine what could have been and could yet be if, through a series of conversation interupts backed by previous player choices, Shepard speechified the Brat into logical meltdown, forcing it to confront any and all inconsistencies, circularisms, conciets, and errata to the point where it couldn't hide from its own cognitive
dissonence.

I don't know what would happen at that point. Maybe the Child's program would crash (apropriate given the crash issues I've had playing the game). Maybe it would come to the conclusion its purpose was complete or unfulfillable and shut down. Maybe all the Reaper ships would lose their (implied) AI shackles at once and detonate, or commit stellar suicide out of horror, or start fighting each other and everything else.

The closest we get to this is the Reject option. I like Reject for its meta-level implications, but I think Reject can
work as a rational, though very dangerous, stratagy. It's a gamble of sorts that you can break the Catalyst through Force of Will, with the stakes raised to everything or nothing. No comprimise. No half-measures. Of course, it only works if you play the game 'in the moment' and ignore what you the Player already know abot the endings.

The problem with this is that for this idea to be implemented while still providing meaningfull difference in choice, you'd need to somehow buff or enhance the original three options as well. At the very least, there needs to be a longer dialog concerning them philosophically. There is definatly an affirmative argumant to be made for all of them, but we hear barly a hint of this in the vanilla game.

The additions to the basic game aleviate this problem somewhat. Javic, in his DLC, has a LOT to say in defence of Destruction of all synthetics. The Leviathan DLC touches somewhat on the topic of Controling Reapers and Control in general through the Leviathans' power of domination. We may see the topic of Synthesis touched on in future DLC. I hope they go this rout. I hope we all get our Ending for One and All.

-Edit Formatting-

Modifié par Bacteriophage, 24 septembre 2012 - 05:18 .

[Iakus]

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?

You never let Alistair or Logain slay the archdemon, have you?

[Nightwriter]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

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. [/quote]
*strokes chin*

This is the first I have considered this. In what way was Wrex's development dropped? More focus is certainly put on Eve as the catalyst of change, but if anything, she seems to support Wrex's opinion that it's the krogan who are killing the krogan, and even acknowledges that he is the best hope the krogan have. Without his reforms, the krogan wouldn't even be ready for that change.

Perhaps it's that in ME2, Wrex was the one who sat in judgment over the krogan's flaws and spoke the wise words, but in ME3, Eve sort of takes that over, and suddenly Wrex comes to represent the merits of the male krogan and Eve takes the judge's position and the wise words?

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

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...[/quote]
Mass Effect's take on paragonism is definitely more escapist-friendly than cynic-friendly. As an escapist, I am lucky in this regard most of the time. I tend to want only as much realism as it takes to preserve my immersion and make triumphs feel earned.

I will say that in ME3 they started making you pay a heavier cost for your victories, but it was written well and didn't bother me in the least, until the endings.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

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. )[/quote]
I got more symbiosis vibes than anything. They were sharing Rannoch. Perhaps this seemed like a compromise to you on the quarians' part because the geth currently occupied that world and were "letting" them come back?

I think it probably didn't strike me that way because the geth had made more conciliatory noises up until that point than the quarians had -- I didn't feel a compromise on their part was especially needed. 

I'm not sure what you mean by needing an aspect of learning/understanding -- the geth had seemed curious to me since as early as ME1, hungry for an understanding of organic life.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Hey hey hey. I said that, not Nstfnf9494whatever. I'll thank you to remember that my name is Nightflower.[/quote]Ah, my bad. My sincere apologies.[/quote]Quote mishaps happen.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
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. [/quote]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.[/quote]BioWare writers have been able to give me satisfying options in the past despite Shepard's blank slate status, though the third paragraph of this BioWare statement seems to support your argument. Still, I don't think that's it. For me, anyway. They had satisfied me too easily in prior decisions.

The distinctions had more to do with:

- The buildup.
- The situation from which the decision arises.
- The decision source (Mordin and Legion's decisions come from within themselves; ours are presented by the Starsquirt and thus tainted).
- The sense of choice ownership and player agency (character consistency can probably be filed here, but the problem has more to do with a lack of the illusion of self-determination rather than a lack of broader choice variety addressing all possible Shepard personalities).

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.[/quote]
The symbolism in and of itself isn't wrong.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.[/quote]
Tali should have been sacrificed, the geth should have left Rannoch -- sounds like you're hungry for some compensation for the way things are tilted in the geth's favor. Since things most certainly are tilted in their favor sympathy-wise, I can't really fault this.

I suspect Tali was not sacrificed to achieve peace because she is Tali. I'm unclear on whether or not a fully sentient Legion is copiable (I had thought sentient AIs were unique and needed a special bluebox of some form) but if he was copiable before, he isn't now.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
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. [/quote]Not really the hypocrisy angle.[/quote]
Oh? I've heard people call it that. Perhaps there is another name.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
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. [/quote]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.[/quote]Control isn't a live option. Your will lives on, but you don't get to stay a person.

If you survive in DA:O, you live on in the world you've helped define, making your goodbyes, enjoying the relationships you have forged. I believe Casey Hudson even said the same thing of ME3 -- "part of it is saving the world so you can live in it." This is what I wanted, and this is apparently what is so completely beyond what it was reasonable to ask for, despite Casey's remarks indicating it's a desire they understand and are aware of.

Destroy forces you to kill EDI and the geth, which wouldn't be near as bad if their deaths were handled as well as any of the other deaths. Instead they snuff it off camera and are completely uninvolved in their sacrifices. It also wouldn't be near as bad if we hadn't spent several games developing EDI and the geth, even achieving that climactic and rewarding geth/quarian peace. It's like an ending where we wipe out Eve, Wrex, and all the krogan after that great genophage arc.

Then there is the fact that Destroy is the closest you can come to telling the Starturd that you don't believe this cycle is going to be like the last one, that you do not believe the geth will rise up against organics -- and yet ironically, it is also the only option wherein you kill the geth and EDI.

So to stop the "cycle" and spare your synthetic friends (while avoiding forcing an alarmingly enormous evolutionary leap on the galaxy) you're left with just paragon Control. Big bummer. Can't very well save the galaxy so you can live in it when you're a great big spaceship with debatable sentience.

Really, I don't mind a bit of sacrifice, but it needs to be done well, and I don't believe it was. The genophage arc did it well. DA:O did it well. BDtS did it well. Virmire did it well.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
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."
[/quote]Er, they did.[/quote]
If it were the only thing they'd said, it would be fine.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.[/quote]
But that's obvious. It still doesn't mean this artistic integrity stuff flies.

"And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as much as we are anyway."

"Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens."

"... You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback."

"We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is."

They go from an attitude of some happy creative partnership with fans to an attitude of intense exclusive ownership. They go from "I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people" to talking about sticking to their art "rather than trying to change and adapt what's there to, to you know -- reach out to broader audiences looking for something that just was never ended."

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

If the outcome of the Dark Ritual is irrelevant because the Warden doesn't have to deal with it, why shuld the outcome of any of the endings in ME3 matter either?

[Rudy Lis]

[quote]mjb203 wrote...

Well, in the case of rigging something up, I just meant since the salarians rigged the nuke from their drive core (if I'm remembering correctly), they may not have had time to also rig up a longe range detonator.  I'm just trying to argue from a story perspective, but I certainly see where you are coming from in that regard. I'm just saying from my POV, the game made it seem like there was a tight enough deadline that doing such never really crossed my mind at that point in the game.  However, had the choice been present, I would have been all for allowing that option to happen![/quote]

Isn't army, especially special forces, like N7 or STG should teach their "students" to think even in such situations? Plus talent - ability to do things nobody taught you to do?

Regardless, since Alliance is "spherical human soldier in vacuum" (well, some say spherical soldier in vacuum is volus, but regardless), they should have standard equipment (At least I hope they REALLY have standard and interchangable equipment, there are ~ 330 mlns of soldiers, after all). So no longer you should hear yelling "oh, crap, my Rosenkov armour housing is not compatible with Hanne-Kedar filters since they both has proprietary jacks!"
Not sure for intergalactic interchangability (I mean between humans/salarians, for example), but from what I know about military and explosives, when it comes to sympathetic detonation, explosive doesn't give a damn to where it was manufactured. I mean regardless of past relations between Germany and Russia, Russian explosive will (in case of proper conditions, of course) cause SYDET on German and vice versa. Simply put, salarians should have zero problems rigging humans' booby traps and/or remote detonator and even additional gaine/booster charge to existing one - Normandy should have more explosive on board, since she was stocked up before flying to Virmire and just arrived, unlike Salarians' who already been there for some time and may deplete their resources.


[quote]mjb203 wrote...

As for the third point, yeah, I didn't like that the "copy/paste" Reaper code not working, but it still fell within my suspension of disbelief and didn't distract from the overall story as much.  But I do agree with your premise that since the geth A.I. works differently than others in the ME universe that it could have been presented better.  [/quote]

Copy/paste didn't working?
I'm afraid I'll be that concrete block that'll brake your suspension. How the hell Legion did spread his Reapers' upgrades if not by copy-paste?


[quote]Netsfn1427 wrote...

But wouldn't that just result in most people meta gaming anyway? If the ending was hard to achieve most people won't get it on their first shot. [/quote]

Well, I don't know whether "syntheschiz" is hard to achieve, but I managed to do that in my very first playthrough. The only thing I didn't get, was "breathe scene", since it required multiplayer to achieve and I won't playing it. There were no guides, because it was during day one (heh, non-stop playthrough in 25 hours, took day off, specially for that. who knew...).


[quote]Netsfn1427 wrote...

They'll only find out about it after the fact, look up how to do it and then follow the instructions. It's some sort of meta gaming, role playing mix, where people are meta gaming to get their ideal scenario for their role play. [/quote]

Well, as it happens to be, during my first playthrough (and others), I made few "mistakes" in terms of small "assets" gain, like that video surveillance records on Citadel. Not sure why, languare barrier or natural stupitidy, but by the way choice was presented, I thought (still think, btw), that correct variant is to support C-Sec officer and request evidence from store clerk. Why that resulting in negative income, I don't know, but given size of that income, I don't think it really matters. Of course, maybe C-sec decide to concentrate on petty crimes, but in this case I need to quite Bailey about kicking someone's arse from one end of Citadel to another and myself, about joining Cerberus.


[quote]Netsfn1427 wrote...

If you want to role play, there's nothing stopping you from role playing right now. Role playing isn't getting to rewrite the story to fit the ending you want, it's playing role in a given situation. If the given situation is four choices with major positives and major negatives, then it's up to you to play the role based on how you see fit.
[/quote]

Actually there is a lot of things which stopping you from role-playing. For example, joining Cerberus. Go role-play that.
Or playing smart Shepard, or, at least, trained military Shepard. I understand, dozen of blows in head during only ME3 course, no surprise he seeing hallucinations, but being THAT stupid and without any chance to not to be one?
Or Shepard who was taught not to trust his enemy - what he should role-play? Muzzle to temple and pull the trigger? Oopsie, no such option.


[quote]Netsfn1427 wrote...

I understand that people had enough of the sacrifice. But Bioware decided that they'd continue the theme to the end. It fits in the story, whether it is liked or not. Besides, it isn't all bad times. After listening throughout the game about how much everyone is suffering and the realization that everyone will be wiped out if we don't succeed, I felt pretty good when I beat the game again last night. I mean the galaxy was saved, billions survived when they would have died and my party (except EDI) all got out without getting killed. Given what Shep faced, can't really complain with that result.

[/quote]

Good for you. For me that "everybody suffering and will be wiped out" look a way too far-fetched, unnatural and enforced. Plus so badly made, so I feel more sympathy toward ED-E (not to mess with EDI), second one, from Lonesome road, than to "all those, who suffer" in ME3. ME3 didn't brought any emotions (minus Garrus and Glyph(btw, I dig that thing, anybody knows who made VO?)) other that "WTF?" for most of the game. And I'm not persuaded they were even trying.


[quote]Nyoka wrote...

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.
[/quote]

What's the difference between Hackett, who sacrificed one fleet to let others retreat and Shepard? Scale. (not itch). That's all.


[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

Once for each ME game (dialogue wheel, not enough RPG, betraying the earlier games)[/quote]

Well, just for record - I thought bioware were in dive since BG2 and ME1 was their successful attempt to level their dive.


[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

Once for NWN1's OC (terrible 3D instead of beautiful 2D, lame plot, no party system, horrible 3E rules implementation, excessive focus on MP, paid DLC).

By my count that's six -- unless BG2 removing BG1's open map makes it seven.
[/quote]

Yay! I thought I'm the only one who think that way!


[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

So if you've got 3100 EMS you can still be really stupid and die?
[/quote]

Why stupid, it's his choice - maybe he can't stand those little boy hallucinations anymore. Or his loved one is dead. Or something. People mind is pretty complicated thing. Or so I'm told.


[quote]mjb203 wrote...

And it is the third time Shep could have possibly died (although the "death" at the beginning of ME2 is suspect, and as a story device I wasn't a big fan of it either).[/quote]

So you propose we should have Orlesian Shepard?


[quote]Nightwriter 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. [/quote]

I guess we'll be in disagreement. Yes, there are few funny moments, couple of emotional ones (ironically both are Garrus related from my perspective), but I notice nothing dark, dire, grim, grave, sobering (other than Ashley lying on the floor) or exciting. ME3 in overall is fairly bleak, blend and savourless. Or tasteless, if you like.


[quote]mjb203 wrote...

Countless sacrifices have already been made by the time Shepard reaches the Catalyst. Losses have already been made by ALL races. Several squadmates are already dead regardless of whether or not a "perfect" ME2 playthrough was imported. Ash/Kaidan, Mordin (possibly, and let's face it, most likely), Wrex (possibly), Thane, Legion. Why add on the geth and EDI in Destroy? It is a choice that pulls you right out of the game "just because". [/quote]

Problem is presentation. Or lack thereof.
I have no feeling there is a war going on, hard battles card battle occurs, millions, if not billions lost. If it's "implied" it's implied very poorly, death by mail and twitter included. Even those losses which should be personal (team-mates), looks bleak and enforced. Thus pale and emotionless.

[KLGChaos]

iakus wrote...

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?

You never let Alistair or Logain slay the archdemon, have you?

I loved using Loghain to slay the Archdemon. It was a great way to keep Alistair alive (despite losing him from the party), while keeping the Warden alive and keeping the future safe from the (possibly) evil god baby of Morrigans. Plus, I saw it as a redemption for Loghain for what he had caused.

But you couldn't do it unless you made the right choices.

That's what I would have liked from Mass Effect, but sadly didn't get. I find the argument that having a "happy" ending dimishing all others is a load of bull. People aganst say "Hey, you can just use a strategy guide and get the best ending.", which isn't true. A happy ending may not be the best for everyone, as this thread clearly shows. And you could just as easily use a strategy guide to figure out how to get a more bitter-sweet or bleak ending as well. But if you're doing that, it means you want the happy ending. If you really are satisfied with the grim dark, you can easily ignore the path to the happy ending. Where the misconception that "happy" and "best" ending are one and the same came from, I'll never know. If Shepard dying or commiting genocide is your best ending, then there should be no compulsion to go for the happy ending.

It's supposed to be about roleplaying a character. If you've got a Renegade who hates synthetics, but for some reason you still feel compelled to work for a happy ending instead of taking Destroy.. then you're doing it wrong. You're not playing the game to role-play the character. You're only playing it to "win" and under the wrongful assumption that a happy ending is the only way to win. If the game only hands you 4 options all with bad consequences (dying, killing others, losing your humanity, etc) mixed in, it then becomes a choice that is forced upon you, not one you made for yourself.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 24 septembre 2012 - 10:32 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

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. 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.

Actually, that's the point I was trying to make: this was the aspect which I considered unsatisfying about DA:O's ending. It's about as headcanon as hoping that Shepard survives the wreckage via Destroy. Even the ominous overtones are confined to Morrigan's brief dialogue and lost once those five minutes are done. I didn't feel guilty once the Dark Ritual was completed, partially because the presentation failed to capture the inherent danger of Blood Magic. You (or Alistair) hook up with Morrigan (potentially an LI) and...that's it. If they wanted to make the Dark Ritual more ominous and threatening, the actual ritual should have been more, well, ominous and threatening. Think Melisandre from a Storm of Swords.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 septembre 2012 - 10:34 .

[Sajuro]

What is your best case scenario? Mine is shepard is alive, the reapers are dead, and he's gonna have sex
aww yeah

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

If the outcome of the Dark Ritual is irrelevant because the Warden doesn't have to deal with it, why shuld the outcome of any of the endings in ME3 matter either?

Well, partially because the endings still give a clear direction for the future of the Galaxy, even if we don't know every detail. Every story needs an ending point. But the Dark Ritual is far too vague, since it's not even guaranteed that the OGB is evil. Potentially, the cost for saving the Warden's life could be...absolutely nothing, which would be a complete waste of the scenario. Or even worse, we're confronted with another ME3 Rachni "import". Headcanoning the consequences of the Dark Ritual is about as fun as headcanoning Shepard's survival.

This is also why I would have liked less ambiguity in Destroy. Let Shepard survive instead of implying he will die, since with this choice you are now weighing his life against EDI's and the Geth's. Since the Catalyst is framing the choice as if Shepard dies no matter what, the player (in that context) has no reason to use his potential survival as a factor for weighing the different options. But then, if I were Bioware, I also would have given EDI/the Geth unique ending sequences instead of merely telling the player "Hey, you committed genocide but I'm not even going to bother showing you".  

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 septembre 2012 - 10:36 .

[Xilizhra]

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.

I fundamentally disagree. For this game series, a happy ending was required as an option for it to be any good. A total lack of such is horribly tone-breaking.

[Quething]

BaladasDemnevanni 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. 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.

Actually, that's the point I was trying to make: this was the aspect which I considered unsatisfying about DA:O's ending. It's about as headcanon as hoping that Shepard survives the wreckage via Destroy. Even the ominous overtones are confined to Morrigan's brief dialogue and lost once those five minutes are done. I didn't feel guilty once the Dark Ritual was completed, partially because the presentation failed to capture the inherent danger of Blood Magic. You (or Alistair) hook up with Morrigan (potentially an LI) and...that's it. If they wanted to make the Dark Ritual more ominous and threatening, the actual ritual should have been more, well, ominous and threatening. Think Melisandre from a Storm of Swords.

The thing to remember about the Dark Ritual is that the game is written from the assumption that you're romancing either Morrigan or Alistair. Which, for much of your fanbase, pretty much makes the OGB window dressing. The sacrifice, the difficult choice, the loss, is in sending your lover to sleep with a woman he despises to save his life at the cost of a lie that will always lie between you, or in watching your lover walk out of your life forever with a child you'll never know. And if you're at all invested in the characters you've just spent forty to eighty hours with, that is cutting and personal and seriously bittersweet on a level that ME3's "oh yeah and EDI dies for no reason and stuff" can't even dream of.

If you don't really care much about Morrigan, have no particular concern about the future of Ferelden, always found Alistair kind of a putz, and waltzed off into the sunset with Zevran, then yeah, it's going to seem a little easy. But in that case why shouldn't it? You're roleplaying a jerk. It's perfectly appropriate for a jerk to get a happy ending, because the happiness isn't in an objectively better scenario, it's in the fact that he's a jerk and therefore the negative effects don't matter to him because they all apply to other people.

[Iakus]

Quething wrote...

The thing to remember about the Dark Ritual is that the game is written from the assumption that you're romancing either Morrigan or Alistair. Which, for much of your fanbase, pretty much makes the OGB window dressing. The sacrifice, the difficult choice, the loss, is in sending your lover to sleep with a woman he despises to save his life at the cost of a lie that will always lie between you, or in watching your lover walk out of your life forever with a child you'll never know. And if you're at all invested in the characters you've just spent forty to eighty hours with, that is cutting and personal and seriously bittersweet on a level that ME3's "oh yeah and EDI dies for no reason and stuff" can't even dream of.

If you don't really care much about Morrigan, have no particular concern about the future of Ferelden, always found Alistair kind of a putz, and waltzed off into the sunset with Zevran, then yeah, it's going to seem a little easy. But in that case why shouldn't it? You're roleplaying a jerk. It's perfectly appropriate for a jerk to get a happy ending, because the happiness isn't in an objectively better scenario, it's in the fact that he's a jerk and therefore the negative effects don't matter to him because they all apply to other people.

Funny, the one game I went with the Dark Ritual I was romancing Leliana.  And Morrigan used that fact against me in the argument.  Something like "Are you really willing to die and leave her heartbroken?"

Yeah that had me staring at the screen for a bit.  Ultimately passed a persuade check to get Alistair to do it.  But it was still a tough choice for me.  Never went with it again.  Like I said, DAO did ending chocies right.  ME3 just leaves me with a "choo-choo-ing" sound in my ears.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

If the outcome of the Dark Ritual is irrelevant because the Warden doesn't have to deal with it, why shuld the outcome of any of the endings in ME3 matter either?

But the outcome is relevant. It just isn't knowable.

What I wanted was for Bio to make the DR canon, and preferably a horrible disaster. Regrettably, Gaider's says I ain't getting that.

[RiouHotaru]

LucasShark wrote...

I don't get it: why do some people put it out there that "no one ending can be better than any other!"

The main reason put forward is that it would "make certain choices wrong".  Well I've got news: that was the case in ME2.

If you chose to launch your mission before you were ready, that was a bad choice, and the game punished you for it.  If you chose to leave your crew to die, that was a dick move, and the game told you so.  If you used your squad poorly, that was a bad move, and the game punished you for it.

For a generally grim game, ME3 really doesn't seem to like this particular idea.

This of course factors into the ending, and why all 3 endings were/are so very samey.  And why we never see our war assets in action.  It is basically insulated from all choices we could make, besides the EMS score.

Why were our choices not used?  Think about it: this would have been the series-long equivelant of upgrading the Normandy, or gaining crew loyalty.  You kill the rachni?  Well then there are no ravagers, but you get none of their help.  The rachni are spared: ravagers, but you get a massive space force.  One is short-term gain, the other is overall gain. 

I know this would mean a very limited type of choice set-up would get the "best" ending, but that makes sense!  A perfect storm of events needs to occur to get the best-case scenario.

I always thought of ME as a "choose your own adventure book" as it were, and you know how many not so great endings were in those books generally?  Answer: a lot.

To be honest, the endings of ME1 and 2 were insulated from your choices as well.  Nothing you did in ME1 or 2 changed the fact that you had the option to save/kill the Council, or save/destroy the Collector Base.  If anything, ME3 gave us the MOST choice in terms of what sort of ending we wanted.  Did you rush through the game to the finish?  You get a choice.  Spend a bit longer, you get some more choices with more variation.  Did you take the time to scour the galaxy to make sure you covered EVERYTHING?  Then not only do you get the best outcome for the first two choices, but you a THIRD option as well.

What you're asking for is something that would be ridiculously difficult and time consuming to program, and something that, while everyone wants, just isn't realistically possible in game design.  Remember, there were well over a thousand different flags for things done/not done from both ME1 and 2 that could affect things in 3.  If they made every single flag significant, the game would take longer than DNF and be just as underwhelming as a result.  What they gave us was a balance.  They made it possible for everyone to achieve the same conclusion as long as you were willing to work for it.

[CronoDragoon]

Quething wrote...
If you don't really care much about Morrigan, have no particular concern about the future of Ferelden, always found Alistair kind of a putz, and waltzed off into the sunset with Zevran, then yeah, it's going to seem a little easy. But in that case why shouldn't it? You're roleplaying a jerk. It's perfectly appropriate for a jerk to get a happy ending, because the happiness isn't in an objectively better scenario, it's in the fact that he's a jerk and therefore the negative effects don't matter to him because they all apply to other people.

The point is not whether or not you care about the future of Ferelden in picking the Dark Ritual. The point is that whether you care or not is ultimately irrelevant since the fate of Ferelden will never hinge on the DR. Now, Gaider has said that the DR will have some significance going forward for those who performed it, but how much significance can it really have? If it turns out that the DR leads to your LI's death in DA3, I will be impressed, because then you have a genuine dilemma when comparing the Warden's happiness with the DA3 protagonist's.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Quething wrote...
If you don't really care much about Morrigan, have no particular concern about the future of Ferelden, always found Alistair kind of a putz, and waltzed off into the sunset with Zevran, then yeah, it's going to seem a little easy. But in that case why shouldn't it? You're roleplaying a jerk. It's perfectly appropriate for a jerk to get a happy ending, because the happiness isn't in an objectively better scenario, it's in the fact that he's a jerk and therefore the negative effects don't matter to him because they all apply to other people.

The point is not whether or not you care about the future of Ferelden in picking the Dark Ritual. The point is that whether you care or not is ultimately irrelevant since the fate of Ferelden will never hinge on the DR. Now, Gaider has said that the DR will have some significance going forward for those who performed it, but how much significance can it really have? If it turns out that the DR leads to your LI's death in DA3, I will be impressed, because then you have a genuine dilemma when comparing the Warden's happiness with the DA3 protagonist's.

Pretty much this. An objectively better scenario is anything which results in an all-around better set of variables-everyone alive, whole, mostly happy. Utilizing the Mages in Red Cliffe is objectively better, since it features no down sides. Why? Less death/destruction, no killing of children, Alistair loves you, Eamon is less saddened. 

The problem is that if the Dark Ritual is really as fatal as some believe, DA:O really did a fail job of making it ominous or building confidence in Bioware's ability to effectively implement such a scenario. The protagonist's LI sleeping with Morrigan isn't really a "price" to pay if it's keeping them (or you) alive. It's the difference between losing an arm vs. getting a papercut. With a concept as the old God Baby, the ME3 Rachni treatment will not suffice. It's the kind of concept that really could have a game devoted to itself, which doesn't seem to be the case based on what we know of DA3 and Gaider's own comments. Hence why I'm interested if Bioware will actually make us pay a price for the Warden's happiness (which we should).  

AlanC9 wrote...

But the outcome is relevant. It just isn't knowable.

What I wanted was for Bio to make the DR canon, and preferably a horrible disaster. Regrettably, Gaider's says I ain't getting that.

Yeah, that would have been my ideal scenario as well.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 septembre 2012 - 09:13 .

[Lunch Box1912]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Of course there is, its called synthesis and it is officially endorsed by EMS

The Breathe Scene and Shepard surviving has the highest requirement. Even in the EC...

Yeah but alot of players got this on there first runthrough. Even if they missed alot.... I did and I missed quite a few things within the game.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

You never let Alistair or Logain slay the archdemon, have you?

Yep. I got Loghain killed once, and had Alistair do the DR once.

[AlanC9]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...
Yeah but alot of players got this on there first runthrough. Even if they missed alot.... I did and I missed quite a few things within the game.

With a good ME3 save you have to blow off a fair amount of stuff to score below 3100.

[Lunch Box1912]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...
Yeah but alot of players got this on there first runthrough. Even if they missed alot.... I did and I missed quite a few things within the game.

With a good ME3 save you have to blow off a fair amount of stuff to score below 3100.

Yeah, exactly my point.

[Nightwriter]

Quething wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni 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. 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.

Actually, that's the point I was trying to make: this was the aspect which I considered unsatisfying about DA:O's ending. It's about as headcanon as hoping that Shepard survives the wreckage via Destroy. Even the ominous overtones are confined to Morrigan's brief dialogue and lost once those five minutes are done. I didn't feel guilty once the Dark Ritual was completed, partially because the presentation failed to capture the inherent danger of Blood Magic. You (or Alistair) hook up with Morrigan (potentially an LI) and...that's it. If they wanted to make the Dark Ritual more ominous and threatening, the actual ritual should have been more, well, ominous and threatening. Think Melisandre from a Storm of Swords.

The thing to remember about the Dark Ritual is that the game is written from the assumption that you're romancing either Morrigan or Alistair. Which, for much of your fanbase, pretty much makes the OGB window dressing. The sacrifice, the difficult choice, the loss, is in sending your lover to sleep with a woman he despises to save his life at the cost of a lie that will always lie between you, or in watching your lover walk out of your life forever with a child you'll never know. And if you're at all invested in the characters you've just spent forty to eighty hours with, that is cutting and personal and seriously bittersweet on a level that ME3's "oh yeah and EDI dies for no reason and stuff" can't even dream of.

If you don't really care much about Morrigan, have no particular concern about the future of Ferelden, always found Alistair kind of a putz, and waltzed off into the sunset with Zevran, then yeah, it's going to seem a little easy. But in that case why shouldn't it? You're roleplaying a jerk. It's perfectly appropriate for a jerk to get a happy ending, because the happiness isn't in an objectively better scenario, it's in the fact that he's a jerk and therefore the negative effects don't matter to him because they all apply to other people.

I'm going to agree in full with this. The sacrifices in DA:O depended largely upon your emotional investments in the characters and depending upon them, the DR could be quite a wrench.

And to that I'll add that your problem, Baladas, seems more like an execution flaw rather than an actual design flaw. The sacrifice was adequate, you just do not believe it was presented as gruesomely as it could've been.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

You never let Alistair or Logain slay the archdemon, have you?

Yep. I got Loghain killed once, and had Alistair do the DR once.

Then you know there are endings in which the Warden can live without doing the Dark Ritual.  Endings which are satisfying (I prefer the Redeemer ending myself) yet do not invalidate the Ultimate Scrifice ending.  Heck Loagain/Alistair get their own farewells before their deaths too.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

The best case scenario is already there. It's called high EMS destroy ending.

[drayfish]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The best case scenario is already there. It's called high EMS destroy ending.

Cool.  Committing genocide because your enemy told you too is the best.

[CaIIisto]

drayfish wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The best case scenario is already there. It's called high EMS destroy ending.

Cool.  Committing genocide because your enemy told you too is the best.

Best of a bad bunch.