591 réponses à ce sujet

[Bfler]

fchopin wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Maybe in case of the ME3 destroy ending, we should be able to win with help of the Leviathans.

Leviathans are not our friends, they are the enemy.

In war the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
At that is why I wrote that at the end of destroy, a sequence which shows the Leviathans would be enough as a downer. They could show Shepard really alive and no forced EDI, Geth sacrifice.

Modifié par Bfler, 30 octobre 2012 - 07:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
Hypothetically, what if the Chantry ending was bittersweet and the mage ending was happy, at least for those who liked mages? You'd consider the mage ending inferior regardless so wouldn't feel as though you were handicapping yourself by picking the templar ending and would still get to enjoy that, and most of the people who want a happy ending seem to prefer the mage side, just as the ones who want a bittersweet one prefer the templar side, so everything'll work out.

It must be nice to have an endless supply of immaginary statistics up you hindquaters.
Seriously, how do you fit them all in there?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bfler wrote...
In war the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

At that is why I wrote that at the end of destroy, a sequence which shows the Leviathans would be enough as a downer. They could show Shepard really alive and no forced EDI, Geth sacrifice.

Tell it to the people who blow up the Collector Base.

That aside, I don't see what is so forced with sacrificing the geth. The reapers are synthetic. You have a weapon that destroyes synthetics...indiscriminately.

[fchopin]

Bfler wrote...

fchopin wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Maybe in case of the ME3 destroy ending, we should be able to win with help of the Leviathans.

Leviathans are not our friends, they are the enemy.

In war the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
At that is why I wrote that at the end of destroy, a sequence which shows the Leviathans would be enough as a downer. They could show Shepard really alive and no forced EDI, Geth sacrifice.

The Leviathans are happy for the reapers to continue as they have so they are not really enemies to the intelligence, for all we know they had planed this from the beginning and are just playing a game.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nerevar-as wrote...

zsom wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

The tone of ME, ME2 and ME3 until the beam shoots is more for blue babies than new galactic dark age as best possible outcome. It goes both ways, I doubt anyone would be happy if ASoF&I ends with the big everybody still alive happy, new era of everlasting peace and so on. The ending must match the tone of the story so far, but with the obsession some creators have to make the end memorable they seem to forget and forsake that to create a cheap emotional impact that will get fans angry, sad and wanting to forget they ever liked that show/game/whatever.

In ME yes, I agree, in ME2 not so sure maybe, but in ME3 absolutely not. During the entire game you are being beaten by the reapers, you are running away from them and helping your allies evacuate more effectively. By the time priority earth starts almost all the galaxy and virtually every major world we know of has fallen, those odds are not in your favor. But if that doesn't convince you think of the last battles, only in ME3 does Shepard show uncertainty. In ME2 he was ready to chew up the collectors and spit them out, in ME3 he needs pep talk from Joker. I think the tragic end was hinted at rather well.

But again this is a bit off topic. To take your point further a bit, do you think ASoF&I would lack heroism if John and Daenerys don't end up ruling all of Westeros in peace after an epic battle with the wrights but only after they killed every other psychopath (of which there are a lot since the last book...)

I cured the Genophage. I made peace between Geth & Quarians (and the former were trying to genocide the latter 5 minutes earlier). Balak gave me the surviving Batarian ships. The Krogan fought for the Turians. Everybody but that frakking Dalatrass put their animosities aside and followed me to defeat the Reapers. So IMHO, ME3 qualifies even more than ME & ME2 in overcoming impossible conflicts and threats and hope prevailing in dark times. Then the Diabolus Ex Machina happens and the galaxy goes to hell (at least the EC fixed that), Shepard dies for the sake of it in most of the endings, and there´s no emotinal pay-off or closure for a character we´ve been following for 100+ hours. It´s like RotJ ending the moment the Death Star blows or LotR when the ring falls in Mount Doom. That´s not bittersweet, that´s full Downer Ending.

Nope.

Shep gathering all those armies is like a bunch of shoolchildren gathering to fight off a proper army.

Comendable, brave, but ultimatively futile.

I actually gree with the poster that said Sheppard being vaporized by a beam would be a great ending.
Victory doesn't have to be won directly by Shepard. Made possible by him is enough.

[Bfler]

fchopin wrote...

The Leviathans are happy for the reapers to continue as they have so they are not really enemies to the intelligence, for all we know they had planed this from the beginning and are just playing a game.

As far as I know they created the Reaper AI and the AI misinterpreded their intentions and started to harvest them.

[fchopin]

Bfler wrote...


As far as I know they created the Reaper AI and the AI misinterpreded their intentions and started to harvest them.

They still consider the intelligence to be doing it's job as it was planed and are happy with this to continue until a better solution is found.

Modifié par fchopin, 30 octobre 2012 - 09:57 .

[Bfler]

fchopin wrote...

They still consider the intelligence to be doing it's job as it was planed and are happy with this to continue until a better solution is found.

Nevertheless they help the lesser races with with their mind control bubbles to sabotage the Reapers, so they are the allies. And when the Reapers are destroyed they could reclaim their state as gods. And as I stated two times before, that would be, in my opinion, enough for destroy.

[The Elder King]

fchopin wrote...

Bfler wrote...


As far as I know they created the Reaper AI and the AI misinterpreded their intentions and started to harvest them.

They still consider the intelligence to be doing it's job as it was planed and are happy with this to continue until a better solution is found.

I doubt they were happy of bring nearly extrerminated millennia ago, and they certainly didn't plan all this (they believe to be the apex race of the galaxy, and they'd be fine of being massacrated and forced into oblivion to escape the Reapers?). They understand that there's a problem with the organics-synthetics relationship, and that the Intelligence is somehow doing what it was programmed to do. The main reason they're fine with the Reapers's cycle, I believe, is because they coudn't care less about other organics.
Not that I'm not agreeing with you about the fact that they're enemies. The fact that Bioware introduced them makes me fear about the next ME game, if this will be set in the future. I don't think it'll be really original to have as the main enemy the organic version of the Reapers.

[The Elder King]

Bfler wrote...

fchopin wrote...

They still consider the intelligence to be doing it's job as it was planed and are happy with this to continue until a better solution is found.

Nevertheless they help the lesser races with with their mind control bubbles to sabotage the Reapers, so they are the allies. And when the Reapers are destroyed they could reclaim their state as gods. And as I stated two times before, that would be, in my opinion, enough for destroy.

It's true that after Destroy the Leviathan are far more dangerous than in Control and Synthesis, but I don't agree that it'd be enough as a con for balancing the endings.

[fchopin]

And how do you know if the creators of the catalyst are in fact the Leviathans and are waiting for a race to build and use it, it is exactly like them to use races in any way they like as we are not important to them.

As the Leviathans said there is no war, this is just a game the Leviathans are playing with the intelligence they created and we are just cattle to be used for their experiments.

[Tokion]

I find ME3's destroy ending is the only one that makes sense for me, even as my Paragon Shepard. I set out to destroy the reapers from the beginning, that is what I did.

It is the other 2 endings(green and blue) I strongly disagreed with. I think the game would have been better off without those endings where events could take a 180 turn because of space magic.

[The Elder King]

fchopin wrote...

And how do you know if the creators of the catalyst are in fact the Leviathans and are waiting for a race to build and use it, it is exactly like them to use races in any way they like as we are not important to them.

As the Leviathans said there is no war, this is just a game the Leviathans are playing with the intelligence they created and we are just cattle to be used for their experiments.

That was said by the Catalyst too. The Reapers don't consider what they're doing in the various cycle, or in ME3, as "war". For both of them, it's not. For the Leviathans the Catalyst (and the Reapers) is working on solving the issue for which they created it.
The fact that organics are experiments for find a solution to the problem,  doesn't mean that the Leviathans are playing with the Intelligence. Why would the Leviathans play a game where they were supposed to be exterminate. The Reapers and the Catalyst didn't even know that the Leviathans survived. The Leviathans went to hiding because they know they'd be killed by the Reapers. They're not playing with the Catalyst. They believe that the Catalyst is still doing the purpose for which it was created. The fact that they believe in the "solution" the Catalyst was doing doesn't mean they're happy about it, or they're playing with it. Because in this "solution" they were supposed to be exterminated long time ago.
And about the first part of your post, the Leviathans created an Intelligence which has the purpose to solving the organics-synthetics issue. The Intelligence betrayed them and massacrated a lot of Leviathans, and created the first Reaper, and then the others for other species's genetic materials. The Catalyst was created to solve the issue, and the Reapers are his solution to the problem. It created them. There was a dialogue option with the Catalyst after-Leviathan that was confusing, but it's probably an error from Bioware, since they introduced two dialogues in which the Catalyst said that the Leviathans were its creators.

Modifié par hhh89, 30 octobre 2012 - 11:14 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Dave of Canada wrote...

This is frustrating me as someone who loves bittersweet endings, you have to stop using Mass Effect 3's ending as standard for bittersweet and being so traumatized by it. It was poorly written, it has little to do with the actual content of said ending.

Here's a minor list off the top of my head of bittersweet endings to compare with:
GTA4, Silent Hill series, Shadow of the Colossus, LA Noire, Max Payne 2 (didn't play 1 or 3), Shadow of the Colossus, Dragon Age: Origins, most Final Fantasy games and spinoffs, Planescape: Torment, Warcraft RTS series, Diablo 1 and 2, Starcraft 1, Metal Gear Solid series, Half Life series, The Darkness games, BioShock 2, Red Dead Redemption, NiER, Batman: Arkham City, God of War games.

Most of these are critically acclaimed and praised for their stories, you don't hear "BITTERSWEET SUCKS" every five seconds when there's discussion about these games and their stories, you hear about how the endings really touched the player and impacted them.

Yeah, ME3's ending is not disliked for being bittersweet, it's disliked for being bad. Also it wasn't really bittersweet imo, more like BITTERsweet, and that coupled with the overall poor execution made it a frustrating mess for many players. With most of the games you mentioned (those I know personally) the endings were not only bittersweet, they were also well written, well presented and, just as important, fit the game they were ending.


High five for mentioning Shadow of the Colossus twice (intentionally or nor not) - one of my top 5 favourite games of all times!

[Bernhardtbr]

Goddamit the 100000th discussion about ME? In DA3 forum nonetheless?

GTFO, do you people need a moderator to wake you up?

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 30 octobre 2012 - 11:39 .

[fchopin]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

Goddamit the 100000th discussion about ME? In DA3 forum nonetheless?

GTFO, do you people need a moderator to wake you up?

People are saying that they don't want an ME3 style ending for DA3 so what should we talk about then if not the ME3 ending to find out why they don't like it.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hypothetically, what if the Chantry ending was bittersweet and the mage ending was happy, at least for those who liked mages?

Considering equivalence, why would the mage one be considered the happy one? Why can't they both have their reasonings to take, rather than having one ending being the "superior" one?

You'd consider the mage ending inferior regardless so wouldn't feel as though you were handicapping yourself by picking the templar ending and would still get to enjoy that

I'd pick the Templar ending because it's what most of my characters would do, I'd pick the mage ending at times because it's what some of my other characters would do--I'd still absolutely loathe the damn differences between both endings.

I don't wish to be presented with "win" or "lose", I wish to be presented with "win under some conditions" and "win under other conditions". I want the game to confront me and tell me that my line of thinking might be wrong, that the other path would be superior.

I want the game to not make me feel pidgeonholed into one mentality of "lawful good = victory!" and "anything else = LOL HAVE FUN FAILING".

and most of the people who want a happy ending seem to prefer the mage side

Of course they do, they dismiss everything bad about mages and think all of society will simply accept them as is. The mage ending can't be happy or else it'll feel like modern Disney films which has everybody suddenly dismiss their interests and hatreds to live happily ever after.

just as the ones who want a bittersweet one prefer the templar side

Some of us do but not all, it's simply because the Templar side is harder to justify than "MAGES NEED FREEDOM, FREEDOM IS GOOD" and attracts a type of personality--like mine--which enjoys darker stories. 

Also, of the games you mentioned, the vast majority of them have preset characters, not characters that the player makes themselves and hence becomes personally invested in.

Becoming personally invested only in your creations practically dismisses most works of entertainment, be it literary / film or games. I'd wager to say that these people are the minority.

As for DAO, I never found the ending to be bittersweet at all, but pretty much straight-up happy

Options:
You die.
Your best friend / ally dies.
You do a dark ritual which spares the lives of both but ensures the Old God remains.

In addition, a lot of the epilogue cards would "get" the player.

[Estelindis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

Again, it's funny that people think that most of the outcry against the Mass Effect endings is because they're "dark" or "edgy."  They aren't.  They're just really, really poorly written with no thematic relevance to the series as a whole,

As someone that followed and talked with vast amounts of people regarding this, I'd just like to say there is nothing close to consensus over why people found the endings to ME3 disappointing.


If you were to ask me, based on my experiences interacting with the fan base, reading comments here, on other boards, twitter, etc. the most common area of disappointment was that Shepard dosen't end up with his/her love interest.  The second one I saw most frequently was that there's no way for Shepard to survive.

There's a reason why people were up in arms about the "best" ending requiring galactic readiness above 50%.  There's a reason why people would consider that the "best" ending.

I promise that this post is going to be about bittersweetness and Dragon Age.  It just needs to go via Mass Effect sometimes.  To summarise my long post in one paragraph, though...  I'm not going to lie: I would have liked my Shepard to be able to survive a heroic, victorious ending and have some years to spend with her nearest and dearest while the galaxy was recovering.  But, in my opinion, when people complain about the death of Shepard or lack of information about what happened to love interest characters, it is often (but not always) because what was gained by the sacrifice of those positives was wholly insufficient to make up for them.  "Shepard died, <X> is mourning them, and for that price I received that ending?"  I think that people would have found the loss of a happy ending for Shepard more acceptable if it had achieved a victory that was in keeping with what their Shepards had fought for throughout the trilogy.  I think that the endings of DA:O did a much better job of balancing sacrifice and victory and I hope that they are the model for future endings in the Dragon Age series.

I'm gonna get to this in a bit more depth now, so please stop reading if a long post is too much for you right now!  

Part of my enjoyment of the Mass Effect series up to the ending of ME3 was the inspiring, uplifting sense of overcoming huge obstacles.  By contrast, I was gutted by the ending of Dragon Age: Origins.  My first playthrough of that game culminated in Alistair dumping my city elf after he became king, but then sacrificing himself by killing the Archdemon because he loved her and wouldn't let her sacrifice herself.  The ceremony at the end, where everyone congratulated my Warden while I was still going "Alistair, why????" felt like an honest-to-God punch in the gut.  Everything was happy-happy, but my Warden had lost the person who meant most in the world to her when she had intended to make the same sacrifice for him.  It was a victory for Ferelden but a loss for me.  After having a while to come to terms with it, I was able to acknowledge that the ending was very well-written and had hit me so hard because the writing made me feel attached to the characters.  All the same, because I had become so very attached, my escapist heart wished that there had been some other way to ensure a happy ending.  (I'm still not sure if it would really make sense in-character for my Warden to ever accept Morrigan's deal, since I played a city elf who was appalled when Morrigan seemed to be in favour of sacrificing a number of elven slaves including her own father for the sake of power.)

After finishing DA:O, I looked enviously towards the ending of Mass Effect, where my Shepard had momentarily seemed to be killed but then emerged wounded from the rubble.  Why, I asked, could I not just have a heroic ending where my character triumphed over adversity?  Yes, of course, sacrifices could and would be made (RIP Ashley), but why couldn't there be a hero left standing afterwards with something left to live for?  Mentally, I categorised the mood of Mass Effect as being a bit lighter (in spite of the Reaper threat) but as leaving me with a much happier feeling that Dragon Age.  Games didn't have to end in tragedy to be emotionally satisfying.  They could conclude with a "big, damn heroes" moment instead.

Then the ending of Mass Effect 3 happened and totally shifted my personal boundaries of what is most important in an ending.  Yes, as I already acknowledged and as you indicate so many people also felt, it would have been nice for my Shepard to be able to do the right thing and still survive with her love interest.  It would have been awesome.  But not at the cost of coherence.  You can't have a nice apartment on the second floor if the foundations of the building are crumbling.  

I don't need to go on at length about what was so unsatisfactory about the ME3 ending.  You've read enough of that to last a lifetime.  I will summarise my problems as 1) structurally speaking, introducing a new antagonist and engaging in exposition in the last minutes, and 2) emotionally speaking, a betrayal of the themes of the series up to this point as Shepard must cooperate with the architect of millions of years of misery in spite of the fact that everything Shepard knew up to this point should have made the Catalyst completely non-credible from her point of view.  Ultimately, while I would have liked a happier ending for Shepard and her love interest, I would accept self-sacrifice if it gave me the emotional satisfaction of having achieved Shepard's goal of winning a hopeful future for the galaxy that had united to face the Reaper threat.  None of the endings did that.  Geth genocide would have murdered part of the force that assembled wholly on race/species lines when one of the themes so far had been the strength of different people united, while forcing organic-machine hybridisation would have been a violation of free will and self-determination and an annihilation of difference, and trusting herself to control the Reapers when everyone else she knew who had tried had failed and been made Reaper tools would have been stupidly irresponsible.  Each of those three endings violated what she had stood for all the way through her narrative. 

Compared to that, I will welcome the (largely) coherent bittersweetness of a DA:O-type ending with open arms.  When we made sacrifices, it reinforced the importance of the things we were sacrificing and gaining.  Alistair meant more to my Warden emotionally than anyone else, and she lost him even though she would have preferred to lose her own life, but together they saved Ferelden and did their duties as Wardens.  (I think I would have found my original ending much more satisfying from the get-go, vs. after some reflection, if I had only been allowed to express my character's heartbreak rather than having a party.)  To me, being a hero is about doing what you have to, no matter the cost to yourself, right until the end.  It's not about making others pay the price.  It's about taking the price on yourself.  I want at least one ending to any future Bioware game, and especially any future Dragon Age games, to give us the option for at least one ending this that emotional resonance of the self-sacrificing hero who succeeds at his or her goals.

It's great if it's possible for that sacrifice to then turn into triumph, in what Tolkien called a "eucatastrophe," such that the hero loses a great deal but, in a surprise twist, is still able to live afterwards with some happiness, even if they are diminished, injured in a number of ways, lost something of value to them, won't be able to achieve something else that they wanted, etc.  But it's important not to make this the ending of every game's story, otherwise it will set people's genre expectations (as, in fact, it already has to a certain extent), and that makes the sacrifice less emotionally engaging, since it will always be in the back of the player's mind that something will happen to make it all work out somehow.  Just... let it happen sometimes... please?  :-)  There's a wide palette to work with between total triumph and tragic, heroic sacrifice, with eucatastrophe somewhere in the middle.  I hope that future endings from Bioware games always have some items from that palette available as options.  That's not even going near non-heroic / subversive endings, but I think I've written enough for now.  ;-)

Modifié par Estelindis, 30 octobre 2012 - 12:48 .

[Bernhardtbr]

Honestly I´m more bothered by standard Foozle fights in the end (and DAO end and plot was nothing more than standard evil Foozle fight) than an ending where not everyone lives happily ever after (through some people should, even if not the protagonist. I too hate 100% bleak endings). Planescape Torment end could be very bleak for example (everyone dead if you didn´t get the Ressurection ability) but that doesn´t mean it was a bad ending, however most people will agree that the other ending was more satisfactory. Dak´kon alive versus dead? Obvious which one made you feel more realized. 

And either way you´re going to hell. Bittersweet? Sure. Just not too much.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:32 .

[Xilizhra]

Considering equivalence, why would the mage one be considered the happy one? Why can't they both have their reasonings to take, rather than having one ending being the "superior" one?

Because you don't like happy endings. I'm just trying to give you what you want, while giving me what I want. as much as possible.

I'd pick the Templar ending because it's what most of my characters would do, I'd pick the mage ending at times because it's what some of my other characters would do--I'd still absolutely loathe the damn differences between both endings.

I don't wish to be presented with "win" or "lose", I wish to be presented with "win under some conditions" and "win under other conditions". I want the game to confront me and tell me that my line of thinking might be wrong, that the other path would be superior.

I want the game to not make me feel pidgeonholed into one mentality of "lawful good = victory!" and "anything else = LOL HAVE FUN FAILING".

The game will tell you that, but I think we both know that very, very few players will let it seriously affect their opinions. Also, the mage side is chaotic good (or just Good, if you're using 4e alignments), although I find it interesting that you acknowledge it as being good. Anyway, while I have no logical ethical issues with your side being able to win, I request that you let mine do so too.

Of course they do, they dismiss everything bad about mages and think all of society will simply accept them as is. The mage ending can't be happy or else it'll feel like modern Disney films which has everybody suddenly dismiss their interests and hatreds to live happily ever after.

Ah, so you're now a priori claiming that only one side could possibly have a happy ending? Why don't you wait until the game is actually out before making such claims? I'm sure a way can be found. Certainly we won't be going back to the status quo.

Becoming personally invested only in your creations practically dismisses most works of entertainment, be it literary / film or games. I'd wager to say that these people are the minority.

As a result of becoming personally invested in one's own character, it can frequently lead one to become more attached to the others, too, feeling that the story is more personal. And to use one of your examples, who gets attached to anyone in God of War, for instance? It's obvious that everyone will be horribly slaughtered at some point.

Options:
You die.
Your best friend / ally dies.
You do a dark ritual which spares the lives of both but ensures the Old God remains.

In addition, a lot of the epilogue cards would "get" the player.

I wanted the Old God to remain. And none of the cards really "got" me, possibly because I was paying attention.

[Iakus]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

Honestly I´m more bothered by standard Foozle fights in the end (and DAO end and plot was nothing more than standard evil Foozle fight) than an ending where not everyone lives happily ever after (through some people should, even if not the protagonist. I too hate 100% bleak endings). Planescape Torment end could be very bleak for example (everyone dead if you didn´t get the Ressurection ability) but that doesn´t mean it was a bad ending, however most people will agree that the other ending was more satisfactory. Dak´kon alive versus dead? Obvious which one made you feel more realized. 

And either way you´re going to hell. Bittersweet? Sure. Just not too much.

I've said before PS:T is a unique case.  Death has been the ultimate goal pretty much from the start of the game (just one example of how it turns standard rpg tropes on their heads)  Dying isn't a consequence imposed by a policy of "needs moar sadz" .  It's a victory in itself.  It's putting things right that has been out of whack for so long even immortals no longer remember what started it.

In addition, this is the D&D universe it takes place in.  Death isn't always the end.  Yeah we see The Nameless One take up an axe and join the Blood War, but at this point, he's grown so powerful one can hope he might find a way to claw his way out of even this.

[EricHVela]

I'll wait to hear about the story (and not actual hear the story itself) before I start to guess at what my opinion will be, but that won't be a final decision for me. I'd still have to see it for myself, but the desire to see it will likely begin with hearsay. Some stories lend themselves well to "bittersweet" endings as the best way to end it.

ME3 had a bittersweet ending all primed and ready to go when they made a left turn in the wrong direction and tried to continue the story past that point -- as if they wanted to end the series with a bang -- not what I'd consider to be bittersweet.

Yes. I would have been perfectly okay with the story ending in the Citadel control room before Hackett opens the comms -- a jarring event in what was a bittersweet moment that only seemed to get weirder from that point. I would have been fine for all endings to reach that point, but someone somewhere made (what most interpreted to be) a promise to have many endings -- and not just an ABC ending.

A bittersweet ending won't necessarily destroy a story if done appropriately and is truly bittersweet -- and is actually the end, not something that precedes the end (because, you know, the phrase has the word "ending" in it).

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:49 .

[Xilizhra]

Yes. I would have been perfectly okay with the story ending in the Citadel control room before Hackett opens the comms -- a jarring event in what was a bittersweet moment that only seemed to get weirder from that point. I would have been fine for all endings to reach that point, but someone somewhere made (what most interpreted to be) a promise to have many endings -- and not just an ABC ending.

Honestly, I liked that. It was unexpected, it seemed like a deliberate dissonance that I found more energizing than annoying.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Watching Upsettingshorts trying to get his point across to David for the first few pages is painful, and hilarious.

[EricHVela]

Note: Bittersweet also doesn't mean "you lose the game". That is merely bitter with no sweetness to it at all. Bittersweet ends with a "win" at a great personal cost -- usually a many outweigh the one situation with a sting to it.

EDIT: Shepard's decision outweighed everything else.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:00 .