591 réponses à ce sujet

[Palipride47]

David7204 wrote...

It has nothing to do with being a video game. It would have been just as bad in any other medium.

Really?

So every book that ends with this "bittersweet ending" you dislike is "cheap writing"?

Modifié par Palipride47, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:00 .

[David7204]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What exactly do you suggest? Just take out Renegade options for half the choices? Because having a 'smart and evil' option for every choice is ridiculous. Because it's a ridiculous premise.

You said right in your post that's "how I think he ought to be." Seems pretty clear to me.

No, I am in fact suggesting the entire series ought to have been rewritten based on a coherent idea for Renegade that isn't completely all over the map.  My suggestion for that coherent idea is one that makes tough calls. The problem is that renegade!Shepard is incoherent, and tries to hold together the three kinds of actions I describe in that post.

Saying you're going to save all the babies and still get the bad guy and being able to save all the babies and still get the bad guy sucks, dramatically speaking, and it doesn't give me any feeling of accomplishment as having made that decision.  Such choices are ruined because they aren't "save the babies or get the bad guy" they're "save the babies and get the bad guy or let the babies die and get the bad guy."  That's not a choice, that's a burlesque.  

Call it what what you want. End of the day, it's the 'good' option and the 'smart' option being the same thing. Which is outstanding writing. If you want contrived 'tough calls' that force you to be helpless and make a lose-lose choice, there's plenty of games out there that do it.

Modifié par David7204, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:00 .

[David7204]

Palipride47 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It has nothing to do with being a video game. It would have been just as bad in any other medium.

Really?

So every book that ends with this "bittersweet ending" you dislike is "cheap writing"?

Every book series that has the themes and content of heroism that Mass Effect does, yes.

And there really are very few, so it's hardly an issue. But the principals are the same regardless of the medium.

Modifié par David7204, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Iakus]

I am a fan of Earn Your Happy Ending.

But that assumes there's a happy ending to earn

[upsettingshorts]

David7204 wrote...

Call it what what you want. End of the day, it's the 'good' option and the 'smart' option being the same thing. Which is outstanding writing. If you want contrived 'tough calls' that force you to be helpless and make a lose-lose, there's plenty of games out there that do it.

This is nonsense, as "the good guys win and everything is always all right" is probably the cheapest, least-fulfilling stuff one could possibly imagine.

Your assumption that all such calls need be contrived, and that good is always smart, fly in the face of reality and dramatic examples in all media beyond counting.  

iakus wrote...

I am a fan of Earn Your Happy Ending.

If good and smart are always the same thing, you'll never have to!

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:02 .

[Palipride47]

David7204 wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It has nothing to do with being a video game. It would have been just as bad in any other medium.

Really?

So every book that ends with this "bittersweet ending" you dislike is "cheap writing"?

Every book series that has the themes and content of heroism that Mass Effect does, yes.

And there really are very few, so it's hardly an issue. But the prinicpals are the same regardless of the medium.

I think you not playing the DA series doesn't help your case. Frankly, you coming over here to complain about ME3's ending to people who play a different game although (and one, you admittingly, have never played) is silly. 

You guys got free "Happy Ending" DLC. We'll get a third game. The two franchises are different, the stories are different, and to state that "the brand of heroism" that Mass Effect portrayed requires the ending you want is pretty childish. 

[Maria Caliban]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

(Empasis mine.)

I mentioned the issue of tragic heroes in my second post, above, on this thread. Technically I'm not sure if Shepard fulfils this role. I have not played ME3 yet, but for Shepard to function as a tragic hero, he would need to exhibit a fatal flaw that leads directly to his demise. It would be interesting to see whether or not the Paragon/Reneade personalities would fulfil the function of operating as tragic flaws.

A tragic hero can also have no flaw per se and simply be a victim of fate.

For example, Oedipus is the archetypical tragic hero of ancient Greece, but he never does anything wrong. He's just fated to murder his father and marry his mother, and that's that.

[David7204]

Palipride47 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It has nothing to do with being a video game. It would have been just as bad in any other medium.

Really?

So every book that ends with this "bittersweet ending" you dislike is "cheap writing"?

Every book series that has the themes and content of heroism that Mass Effect does, yes.

And there really are very few, so it's hardly an issue. But the prinicpals are the same regardless of the medium.

I think you not playing the DA series doesn't help your case. Frankly, you coming over here to complain about ME3's ending to people who play a different game although (and one, you admittingly, have never played) is silly. 

You guys got free "Happy Ending" DLC. We'll get a third game. The two franchises are different, the stories are different, and to state that "the brand of heroism" that Mass Effect portrayed requires the ending you want is pretty childish. 

Wanting meaningful conflict is hardly childish.

[upsettingshorts]

David7204 wrote...

Wanting meaningful conflict is hardly childish.

Your definition of meaningful conflict is useless to anyone besides yourself, and this whole thread is evidence of it.

[Palipride47]

David7204 wrote...


Wanting meaningful conflict is hardly childish.

Then write an ME fanfic or make your own game. Bioware wants to tell the story they will tell. 
You have every right to return the game if you don't like the result, or take advantage of the constant barrage of FREE DLC to calm people like you (who complained about the ending) down. 

Considering what they have done to make overtures to people like you who disagreed with the "artistic vision" of Bioware, I would say you are indeed being childish to come to the DA3 forum and complain about it 6 months later.

Did I mention all that FREE DLC you are getting for your ending to not suck (in your eyes)

We didn't get that same luxury, and we've complained about the ending since March 2011. 

Modifié par Palipride47, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:13 .

[David7204]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Wanting meaningful conflict is hardly childish.

Your definition of meaningful conflict is useless to anyone besides yourself, and this whole thread is evidence of it.

If we're at a point where having a hero who is both good and smart is such awful writing to the point of being "the cheapest, least-fulfilling stuff one could possibly imagine," then we're done here.

[David7204]

Palipride47 wrote...

David7204 wrote...


Wanting meaningful conflict is hardly childish.

Then write an ME fanfic or make your own game. Bioware wants to tell the story they will tell. 
You have every right to return the game if you don't like the result, or take advantage of the constant barrage of FREE DLC to calm people like you (who complained about the ending) down. 

Considering what they have done to make overtures to people like you who disagreed with the "artistic vision" of Bioware, I wold say you are indeed being childish to come to the DA3 forum and complain about it 6 months later.

This is kind of the same thing...if we're at a point where thinking a story should have meaningful conflict is 'childish,' then there's really just not much to say to each other, is there? 

[Palipride47]

David7204 wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

David7204 wrote...


Wanting meaningful conflict is hardly childish.

Then write an ME fanfic or make your own game. Bioware wants to tell the story they will tell. 
You have every right to return the game if you don't like the result, or take advantage of the constant barrage of FREE DLC to calm people like you (who complained about the ending) down. 

Considering what they have done to make overtures to people like you who disagreed with the "artistic vision" of Bioware, I wold say you are indeed being childish to come to the DA3 forum and complain about it 6 months later.

This is kind of the same thing...if we're at a point where thinking a story should have meaningful conflict is 'childish,' then there's really just not much to say to each other, is there? 

You're trolling.....<_< You are retwisting other people's arguments to get everyone mad at everyone (or everyone mad at just you). 

Modifié par Palipride47, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:19 .

[David7204]

Not in the least. I think a good story needs meaningful conflict. Period. If it doesn't have it, then it isn't a good story.

[upsettingshorts]

David7204 wrote...

If we're at a point where having a hero who is both good and smart is such awful writing to the point of being "the cheapest, least-fulfilling stuff one could possibly imagine," then we're done here. 

You neglected to mention the consequence of everything working out. Considering, of course, that smart in this context means the decision pays off.  But you wouldn't be stripping terms I introduced into the discussion of the context I used them in, would you? 

In which case, yes, it would be cheap, non-fulfilling stuff, especially for narratives in which I have even a modicum of control.  It'd be like playing a story on easy mode, unable to alter the difficulty to something more compelling.

[Plaintiff]

David7204 wrote...

Not in the least. I think a good story needs meaningful conflict. Period. If it doesn't have it, then it isn't a good story.

If the hero is not at risk of failing and never has to make a difficult choice, or make any sacrifices, then how is the conflict meaningful?

[David7204]

Things don't happen to characters because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Heroes are at risk of failing. For every character like Shepard, there's ten million that come close and fail. But the story isn't about them. It's because they failed that the story isn't about them. It's about the one who succeeded.

Modifié par David7204, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Nashimura]

iakus wrote...

I am a fan of Earn Your Happy Ending.

But that assumes there's a happy ending to earn

By earn you mean do all them terrible side quests in ME3 to get a 3 second cutscene of Shepard breathing....

I think the loyalty aspect was better, if you invested time in the characters and made smart decisions in the final battle you they should survive. That's a nice way to have you "earn" a desired outcome.

[upsettingshorts]

David7204 wrote...

Things don't happen to characters because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Heroes are at risk of failing. For every character like Shepard, there's ten million that come close and fail. But the story isn't about them. It's because they failed that the story isn't about them.

That you think this way explains a lot.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:28 .

[David7204]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Things don't happen to characters because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Heroes are at risk of failing. For every character like Shepard, there's ten million that come close and fail. But the story isn't about them. It's because they failed that the story isn't about them.

That you think this way explains a lot.

This is a fundamental aspect of storytelling. It's the reason why things happen in stories.

[upsettingshorts]

David7204 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Things don't happen to characters because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Heroes are at risk of failing. For every character like Shepard, there's ten million that come close and fail. But the story isn't about them. It's because they failed that the story isn't about them.

That you think this way explains a lot.

This is a fundamental aspect of storytelling. It's the reason why things happen in stories.

If you say so.

[n7stormrunner]

... look up norse myths... no one gets a happy ending. not even the gods. the true core of heroism isn't power, it is fighting for what ever cause even if it kills you.

or if reading dusty old tales isn't your thing watch live free or die hard. pay attention to the part when they talk about what makes john "that guy"... now that I that I think about john and hawke would have alot to talk about

[JWvonGoethe]

Maria Caliban wrote...

A tragic hero can also have no flaw per se and simply be a victim of fate.

For example, Oedipus is the archetypical tragic hero of ancient Greece, but he never does anything wrong. He's just fated to murder his father and marry his mother, and that's that.

Good point. I was using theory of tragedy that probably dates largely from the 19th Century, or the Elizebethan age at the earliest, though would have been formulated with reference to Aristotle. This formalised idea of classical tragedy probably only exists in theory, or is applicable only to much later tragedies which deliberately sought a perfection in the ancient classical forms where there was none. It's just pretty amusing to hear people say 'no more hero deaths' or 'there are too many happy endings these days,' - it's like stepping back in time to ancient Greece.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:40 .

[Plaintiff]

David7204 wrote...

Things don't happen to characters because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Heroes are at risk of failing.

And so they should be. Invincible characters aren't interesting. They are the mark of cheap and lazy writing.

For every character like Shepard, there's ten million that come close and fail. But the story isn't about them. It's because they failed that the story isn't about them.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Your earlier complaint was that Shepard does fail. You are upset because he is not an invincible superman.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:36 .

[Nashimura]

David7204 wrote...

Things don't happen to characters because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Heroes are at risk of failing. For every character like Shepard, there's ten million that come close and fail. But the story isn't about them. It's because [/i]they failed that the story isn't about them. It's about the [i]one who succeeded.

David, What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Modifié par Nashimura, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:35 .