232 réponses à ce sujet

[jpraelster93]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Shepard didnt die in mine

Yeah I should have turned my console off after Anderson died too.

Im talking about destroy

[Felis Menari]

jpraelster93 wrote...

Shepard didnt die in mine

That's headcanon. The destroy ending only hints that Shepard could be alive. It's Bioware's way of leaving it open to bring Shepard back if they want, or leaving him dead for good. Usually I'm ok with a bit of ambiguity. But this...this is too much.

Modifié par Felis Menari, 20 octobre 2012 - 09:47 .

[revo76]

''Why we hate Shepard’s death so much''

-Because we spent more than 100+ hours to keep him/her alive in all games ?

And no matter what you do, BW's artistic integrity slaps the hell out your face because they forgot ME3 was an RPG NOT SOME FPS, therefore you can not dictate your 'integrity' to players because in RPG genre players shape the story ?

[Verit]

Bioware's "artistic integrity" argument was rendered invalid by the EC. Unless you're just not willing to see it, it should be clear to anyone that the EC is a significant retcon of the original endings. All that talk about how we were misinterpreting the endings is complete and utter nonsense. The destruction of the relays and the Citadel, the Normandy crash and the epilogue were all designed to show a galactic dark age. The EC tells an entirely different story. The best example of that is the Normandy crash: it's just a completely pointless event in the EC now. I'm not saying the original endings were any good, but at least the intent was clear in showing a nihilistic ending. The EC changes the ending to show a galaxy that's not entrely ruined (which is good), but it still keeps the Catalyst (that's bad).

As for the OP, I agree with your reasoning. The biggest problem I have with the ending is how much it tramples on (my) Shepard's ideals. I was stricking to me how Shepard's refusal speech was so reminiscent of things Shepard  said throughout the different ME game. Especially when Shepard says he/she wants to end it "on our terms", since Shepard mentioned that throughout ME2 and ME3. Paragon or Renegade, this had always been Shepard's goal. Shepard always showed a "don't tell me what I can't do" attitude when it came to dealing with seemingly impossible tasks, and the endings seems designed to intentionally break that resolve. It forces Shepard to accept failure. In the final minutes, the Catalyst reveals to Shepard just how pointless all their efforts have been. All you get is a "at least you tried, so here's three ways you can end the game on the Reapers' terms. If you refuse, everyone dies".

That's also why I find Refuse so revolting. I can't see it as anything other than Bioware's message to the player of what would happen if you want to have Shepard actually act like him/herself. Mike Gamble's "clarification" on Twitter how Refuse is supposed to imply that a later generation used the Crucible anyway really seals the deal for me.  That really makes Refuse meaningless.

I don't know what meaning that Bioware's writers think the ending has. And I don't care. These are after all the same people that thought including the Normandy Evac in the EC was a good idea. All I could think of as I saw Shepard stop in the middle of the run to call the Normandy is "are you kidding me?". And that question applies to the entire ending, EC or not.

[jtav]

Shepard living in Destroy is not headcanon. The LI smiles and refuses to put his name on the wall. He takes a sharp intake of breath, which signifies regaining consciousness. He's. Alive. Anything else is just willful pessimism, one writer's trolling aside.

[Samtheman63]

mine lived, you must have done something wrong

[Samtheman63]

Felis Menari wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Shepard didnt die in mine

That's headcanon. The destroy ending only hints that Shepard could be alive. It's Bioware's way of leaving it open to bring Shepard back if they want, or leaving him dead for good. Usually I'm ok with a bit of ambiguity. But this...this is too much.

"Shepard_Alive_Male.bik"
Is the name of the video file for that cutscene, dont be stupid

[Nightwriter]

*reads OP in its entirety*

[SpamBot2000]

Yet again, the problem with "Shep lives!" is that it was included by people other than the writers of the ending, who refuse to endorse it. That's why there's all the confusion. Its authority is questionable. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 octobre 2012 - 01:54 .

[Nightwriter]

jtav wrote...

Shepard living in Destroy is not headcanon. The LI smiles and refuses to put his name on the wall. He takes a sharp intake of breath, which signifies regaining consciousness. He's. Alive. Anything else is just willful pessimism, one writer's trolling aside.

The statements of writers bear authority. I've also asked repeatedly for evidence that it was joking or trolling, but no one will give me so much as a sound bite.

[jtav]

Statements of writers bear no authority whatsoever. They are irrelevant, powerless to add or take away without revising the work itself. And if we must resort to metagame: "Shepard_Alive"

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

jtav wrote...

Shepard living in Destroy is not headcanon. The LI smiles and refuses to put his name on the wall. He takes a sharp intake of breath, which signifies regaining consciousness. He's. Alive. Anything else is just willful pessimism, one writer's trolling aside.

The statements of writers bear authority. I've also asked repeatedly for evidence that it was joking or trolling, but no one will give me so much as a sound bite.

Good heavens!  Are you suggesting the EC failed to provide Clarity and/or Closure on something as trivial as the survival of the main character?

[o Ventus]

Grubas wrote...


Just to think of your Li's reaction. Ash: "Sheps dead? What? Not..  again!"   

"Shep's dead, baby. Shep's dead."

/obligatoryjoke

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

Statements of writers bear no authority whatsoever. They are irrelevant, powerless to add or take away without revising the work itself. And if we must resort to metagame: "Shepard_Alive"

If the author makes a definitive statement, and depicts a scenario in which the definitive statement comes to fruition, that leaves no room for interpretation whatsoever.

For example, I write "Johnny bites into an apple". You can't take that as to mean "Johnny stole his mother's car and beat up some gangbangers".

[Little Princess Peach]

Shepard: "Death was fine the first time round but the second time got a bit boring, yeah not a fan of death"

I found shepards death pointless it just seemed as though bio threw it in last minute

[AlanC9]

-Draikin- wrote...

Bioware's "artistic integrity" argument was rendered invalid by the EC. Unless you're just not willing to see it, it should be clear to anyone that the EC is a significant retcon of the original endings. All that talk about how we were misinterpreting the endings is complete and utter nonsense. The destruction of the relays and the Citadel, the Normandy crash and the epilogue were all designed to show a galactic dark age.

Of course, even if that was the writers' intent, that interpretation didn't make any sense. Relays gone? OK, so now we're stuck with using ships that are only about twice as fast as the ones in Star Trek. Oh, noes!

One of the amusing things about this board pre-EC was watching people make stuff up --novas, electronics no longer working, Normandy in some unknown corner of the galaxy, etc. -- to support the idea of a dark age when they actually didn't like that interpretation in the first place.

[Han Shot First]

Brhino wrote...

Often the hero has a great, true love.  This pleases us, but the thought of that love being left alone, abandoned by the hero in death, is an extremely bitter pill to swallow, threatening to negate even the triumph of the hero’s victory in his
quest.  How do good films handle this?  By ensuring that there is no grieving lover left behind at all.

*snip* 

The trend is clear: These films spare us from the pain of a weeping widow(er) mourning his or her lover’s death.  We are not made to contemplate the life they could have lived together if the hero had only survived his ordeal. 

That doesn't always happen, actually.

Braveheart I think would be a good example of that, even if Wallace's true love the dead wife whose spirit comes for him at the end. He nevertheless still had a romance of sorts with Isabela, who is left to mourn him and raise the child she had with him.

Spartacus is another good example of a film where the hero dies and leaves a 'widow' behind. In the end the slave revolt is brutally crushed by the Romans, and the captured Spartacus is crucified by his enemies. He fails in achieving freedom for himself or most of the slaves who fought under his banner, but as he hangs dying on a cross he is visited by his lover Varinia and their infant son, whose freedom had been purchased by a somewhat sympathetic noble.

Titanic is another example of a film where the protagonist dies and leaves behind a woman to mourn him.

Likewise Neo dies at the end of the Matrix trilogy leaving behind Trinity, Tristan dies in Tristan and Isolde, and King Arthur dies while fighting Modred. (leaving Guinevere behind)

In video games, perhaps the biggest example is Red Dead Redemption. John Marston dies heroically while buying time for his wife and child to escape.

[jtav]

How about this: the sacrifice of the protagonist must win a better future for his loved ones? It happens for Miranda, but not so much the rest.

[AlanC9]

Han Shot First wrote...
Likewise Neo dies at the end of the Matrix trilogy leaving behind Trinity, Tristan dies in Tristan and Isolde, and King Arthur dies while fighting Modred. (leaving Guinevere behind)

If we want to go back to Arthurian stories, might as well bring in Hector and Andromache. But this just avoids the question of whether games should look to those models in the first place.

OTOH, RDR is solid evidence that such an approach can work.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 octobre 2012 - 05:47 .

[AlanC9]

jtav wrote...

How about this: the sacrifice of the protagonist must win a better future for his loved ones? It happens for Miranda, but not so much the rest.

Why not the rest? Even Thane, who gets as good a death as he could have possibly had.

[jakal66]

o Ventus wrote...

jtav wrote...

Statements of writers bear no authority whatsoever. They are irrelevant, powerless to add or take away without revising the work itself. And if we must resort to metagame: "Shepard_Alive"

If the author makes a definitive statement, and depicts a scenario in which the definitive statement comes to fruition, that leaves no room for interpretation whatsoever.

For example, I write "Johnny bites into an apple". You can't take that as to mean "Johnny stole his mother's car and beat up some gangbangers".

When did they officially state he was dead? All I heard is people saying you could believe what you wante(Priestly) he either lived in the sequence or it was his lastbreath...

Although if you come to think of it that is the WORLD'S STUPIDEST IDEA EVER... that sequence was created to inspire hope, like in a way a horror movie does that a lot to inspire suspense, showing the baddie's eye open or body move in the last moment...why on eearth would you put a final breath scene like that?It is beyond dumb to think that.

The intention of the sequence is more than clear, the problem is the lack of balls from the company who made this terrible sequence to own it, and confirm he's alive because if they do, they would forced by a ****storm of fans to deliver a closure sequence after that scene. And since they don't want to waste time on that( yet), due to the delay the EC already cost them( think of all the dlc they could have worked on or sold during the making of ec)
it is cheaper and easier to just leave this stupid scene where it it is and have some Reps come and feed us that concentrated bull**** about " It's what you chose it to be"

DUMBEST OPEN ENDING EVER.

To put it this way, the delivered closure on Control.
They delivered closure on synthesis.
They DID not deliver closure on high ems destroy.At least closure on their main charachter.Poor writing there...and poor decision making too.

Modifié par jakal66, 20 octobre 2012 - 05:52 .

[o Ventus]

jakal66 wrote...

When did they officially state he was dead? All I heard is people saying you could believe what you wante(Priestly) he either lived in the sequence or it was his lastbreath...

I wasn't posting about the breath scene. Go and reread it.

[jtav]

AlanC9 wrote...

jtav wrote...

How about this: the sacrifice of the protagonist must win a better future for his loved ones? It happens for Miranda, but not so much the rest.

Why not the rest? Even Thane, who gets as good a death as he could have possibly had.

Well, the last you see of your squad is them mourning you on a strange planet. If she lived and EMS isn't absolute rock bottom, Miranda is always shown  with a good future. From what we see onscreen, if Shepard romanced Miranda, his sacrifice bought something significant for his LI, allowing the player to feel good about it. A Shepard who romances a crew member brings them pain, at leasy onscreen.

[AlanC9]

I did read it, o Ventus. What definitive statement are you talking about?

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 octobre 2012 - 06:04 .

[AlanC9]

jtav wrote...

Well, the last you see of your squad is them mourning you on a strange planet. If she lived and EMS isn't absolute rock bottom, Miranda is always shown  with a good future. From what we see onscreen, if Shepard romanced Miranda, his sacrifice bought something significant for his LI, allowing the player to feel good about it. A Shepard who romances a crew member brings them pain, at leasy onscreen.

Well, they're there with a ship that is either working or soon to be working, and no more Reapers. You can't feel good about that?