354 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

SNascimento wrote...

.
But you would miss something very important: uncertainty and the new beginning. Especially the former.
.
Let me put an ending scenario here and you tell me if this is something more close to what you'd like to see, just don't analize it to much. You pick destroy option: All reapers are destroyed, but the geth, EDI and the galaxy infrastructure remains intact. You last scene is Shepard being held by your friends while dying, and they say that he did it, he stopped the reapers and everybody is oh so very proud of him. Than you get a nice epilogue showing the afterward. Shepard being endless praised, maybe a classic statue scene. You get difference scenes depending on your actions and everything.
.
There is it. Pretty straight foward, don't you think? How would you liked it?
.
I'm very confident if that ending was available the uproar wouldn't have existed, or at least would have been minimal compared to what is was. People would be satisfied by it. But then, its message would be completely different from the one we've got now. Continuing with my stupid death analogy, you can't make it happen while give certainty to the player. You have to make it wonder what will happen after the end.

I like this human!  He understands!

I saw it the same way.  To me the tone of the ending was really quite masterful because BW forced us to confront an unpleasant reality - our loved ones are going to have to get along without us, because we are going to die.  Shepard can't know what the ultimate outcome of his sacrifice is going to be.  It reminded me a lot of the ending of the Sopranos, which by making you experience being shot unexpectedly in the head from the perspective of the victim made us think about our own mortality in a new way.

The fans were outraged by that approach, as well, but I think that both endings were great and very thought provoking.  I really think that some of the fans (in both instances) complaining that they didn't get to see what happened after the viewpoint character was killed are at least partly grappling with outrage over their own mortality.

[Mixon]

Dunno why but drama with happy endings gifts feels better, than this. Just imho.

[Fixers0]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Well yeah, that plus it was terribly-written.

[CaptainZaysh]

Fixers0 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Well yeah, that plus it was terribly-written.

There is no need to bump such spectacularly thoughtless and banal criticism, especially when it is criticism on writing quality from a man who does not understand how to write down compound adverbs.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:40 .

[Fixers0]

CaptainZaysh wrote...


There is no need to bump such spectacularly thoughtless and banal criticism, especially when it is criticism on writing quality from a man who does not understand how to write down compound adverbs.

But it's the truth, the endings are poorly written. 

[CaptainZaysh]

Fixers0 wrote...

But it's the truth, I believe the endings are poorly written. 

I fixed your typo.

[Fixers0]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

But it's the truth, the endings are poorly written. 

I fixed your typo.

I see no one.

[Kulbelbolka]

My theory: Bioware tried to deliver some message through existing endings, but they failed for some reasons: bad writing, bad narrative and dramaturgy, no suspense and no pressure. Final scene feels so much out of place. I think there was meant to be some kind of final fight and Suicide Mission 2.0 in which we should make many sacrifices to transport Shepard to the beam.

SP DLC should bring some context to Bioware's message and quench our thirst for Last Big Fight.

[hwf]

In ME3 you lose.
Not so in the first and second games; in those you got the job done.

The reason you lose ME3 is that Shepard collapses in front on a control panel not being able to activate the mother of all bombs.
That's where both Shepard and the player lose the game.

The next couple of minutes that follow is where the Ultimate Evil introduces itself; an AI that acts as Clippy and tells you that it thinks you're trying to interface an energy device to the primary data node - it then gives you three suggestions on what it thinks you wanted to do.

You lose agency in Mass Effect 3 the instant Shepard falls unconcious when Hackett mentions the MOAB fails.
In the Extended Cut DLC you can dismiss Clippy so you briefly appear to regain your agency yet you still get to lose both it and the game - since the choice Shepard refused to make was made anyway in the next cycle.

This is what personally ticks me off about the way ME3 concludes and I think it's in line what Cheez mentioned in her post of "going out like this"; the clip from Independance Day she refers to is all about agency -- making the choice yourself rather then have it forced upon you.

[CaptainZaysh]

hwf wrote...

The next couple of minutes that follow is where the Ultimate Evil introduces itself; an AI that acts as Clippy and tells you that it thinks you're trying to interface an energy device to the primary data node - it then gives you three suggestions on what it thinks you wanted to do.

That exact same criticism applies to Vigil, right?  (Except, of course, that it gives you only one suggestion.)

[GreyLycanTrope]

SNascimento wrote...


But you would miss something very important: uncertainty and the new beginning. Especially the former.
.
Let me put an ending scenario here and you tell me if this is something more close to what you'd like to see, just don't analize it to much. You pick destroy option: All reapers are destroyed, but the geth, EDI and the galaxy infrastructure remains intact. You last scene is Shepard being held by your friends while dying, and they say that he did it, he stopped the reapers and everybody is oh so very proud of him. Than you get a nice epilogue showing the afterward. Shepard being endless praised, maybe a classic statue scene. You get difference scenes depending on your actions and everything.
.
There is it. Pretty straight foward, don't you think? How would you liked it?
.
I'm very confident if that ending was available the uproar wouldn't have existed, or at least would have been minimal compared to what is was. People would be satisfied by it. But then, its message would be completely different from the one we've got now. Continuing with my stupid death analogy, you can't make it happen while give certainty to the player. You have to make it wonder what will happen after the end.

Still plenty of uncertainty to be had in that scenario. Will the Geth remain peaceful? Will the Krogan? What ahppens if Wreav was incharge instead of Wrex? What happens if Wrex isn't around anymore? Will the Yahg be a problem somewhere down the line? The Rachni? Are Cereberus ideals really dead or will they resuface? What fall out can the asari expect from withholding their Prothean Beacon? Primarch Victus was a good primarch during the war but can he handle peace? What will the Salarains do if the Genophage is cured will they try a different more extreme counter measure agains the Krogan?

Things aren't always certain, we can hope for the best but things can always change down the road, we'd get a fighting chance to actually make our own future with all parties involved but just the future seems bright now doesn't mean it will always remain so.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 31 octobre 2012 - 01:09 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

hwf wrote...

The next couple of minutes that follow is where the Ultimate Evil introduces itself; an AI that acts as Clippy and tells you that it thinks you're trying to interface an energy device to the primary data node - it then gives you three suggestions on what it thinks you wanted to do.

That exact same criticism applies to Vigil, right?  (Except, of course, that it gives you only one suggestion.)

Vigil wasn't responsible for the Reapers.

[wright1978]

hwf wrote...

In ME3 you lose.
Not so in the first and second games; in those you got the job done.

The reason you lose ME3 is that Shepard collapses in front on a control panel not being able to activate the mother of all bombs.
That's where both Shepard and the player lose the game.

The next couple of minutes that follow is where the Ultimate Evil introduces itself; an AI that acts as Clippy and tells you that it thinks you're trying to interface an energy device to the primary data node - it then gives you three suggestions on what it thinks you wanted to do.

You lose agency in Mass Effect 3 the instant Shepard falls unconcious when Hackett mentions the MOAB fails.
In the Extended Cut DLC you can dismiss Clippy so you briefly appear to regain your agency yet you still get to lose both it and the game - since the choice Shepard refused to make was made anyway in the next cycle.

This is what personally ticks me off about the way ME3 concludes and I think it's in line what Cheez mentioned in her post of "going out like this"; the clip from Independance Day she refers to is all about agency -- making the choice yourself rather then have it forced upon you.

I feel agency was lost from the minute the minute the explosion knocks shep out on the beam charge. The game feels like it is on rails, as you are forced to limp at a snail's pace. Then forced to shoot Anderson. Then forced into a useless chat with Anderson, forced to collapse unconscious, forced to go along with the idiotic catalyst's reasoning then handed a choice of limping to 1 of 3 destinations. EC did improve agency somewhat because you can query and refute catalyst via new dialogue wheel segments.

[Fingertrip]

The endings are fine.

Stop being butthurt.

[Yate]

The endings failed because:

a) BW talked them up past all reasonable expectations.

There was no sense of finality.

EC fixed , and if you ignore a) and go into the ending without any unreasonable expectations, it's fine.

[Mathias]

AeonFrog wrote...

ME3 made it painfully obvious that BW was just making it up as they went along.

They flat out admitted that at one point.

[CaptainZaysh]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Vigil wasn't responsible for the Reapers.

That doesn't seem relevant in the context of discussing agency.

[GreyLycanTrope]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Vigil wasn't responsible for the Reapers.

That doesn't seem relevant in the context of discussing agency.

Neither is Vigil, he's pure exposition. The catalyst isn't, he's the source of the problem.

[CaptainZaysh]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Neither is Vigil, he's pure exposition. The catalyst isn't, he's the source of the problem.

hwf's criticism was that Catalyst removes player agency by appearing, expositing, and giving you three options as to how to finish the game.

Vigil does exactly the same thing (except for giving you any options), so I'm interested in hearing whether people think Vigil also robbed us of agency.

You seem not to think so, but I don't understand why.  The fact the Catalyst created the Reapers just doesn't seem at all relevant - will you explain to me why you think it is?

[Mathias]

We're talking about a trilogy that's suppose to have multiple different endings. Yet they all end with the death of the hero. It felt completely forced, and seemed to have been done for the sole purpose of being deep. Did i expect Shepard to die? Not in ALL endings no. The end of someone's story has never meant that they have to be killed off in the end. I know i can speak for a lot of people when i say i spent dozens and dozens of hours completing every single side mission in the entire trilogy, and making all the good decisions, just so i could achieve that hard to get "Golden Perfect" ending where the hero lives and we have a triumphant victory at the end. But that's not what happened. Instead the overall message I got was:



As people have said before, in the final 10 minutes Bioware turned Mass Effect into something it wasn't, and it failed hard because of that.

[GreyLycanTrope]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

hwf's criticism was that Catalyst removes player agency by appearing, expositing, and giving you three options as to how to finish the game.

Vigil does exactly the same thing (except for giving you any options), so I'm interested in hearing whether people think Vigil also robbed us of agency.

You seem not to think so, but I don't understand why.  The fact the Catalyst created the Reapers just doesn't seem at all relevant - will you explain to me why you think it is?

Vigil was a connecting point the point of player agency in ME1 came during the decision to save or abandon the council. The Catalyst creates the solutions, refuse him and he turns of the crucible off, you have some player agency within the options he presents but you aren't in control of the situation, you pretty much spend it having him talk down to you and explaining how his problem is now your porblem for some reason. Vigil actually helps you with what you were trying to achieve in the first place, the Catalyst only helps you stop the Reapers if you satisfy his problem as well.

[CaptainZaysh]

Greylycantrope wrote...

The Catalyst creates the solutions, refuse him and he turns of the crucible off, you have some player agency within the options he presents but you aren't in control of the situation, you pretty much spend it having him talk down to you and explaining how his problem is now your porblem for some reason.

That sounds like a separate criticism.  It doesn't sound like you're criticising lack of agency so much as being forced to engage in dialogue with the antagonist.

Greylycantrope wrote...

Vigil actually helps you with what you were trying to achieve in the first place, the Catalyst only helps you stop the Reapers if you satisfy his problem as well.

If you don't want to assist the Catalyst, then you can choose to Destroy it and all its creations.

[GreyLycanTrope]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

That sounds like a separate criticism.  It doesn't sound like you're criticising lack of agency so much as being forced to engage in dialogue with the antagonist.

I'm criticising how limited the agency is. It's there just not as varied as it should be.

If you don't want to assist the Catalyst, then you can choose to Destroy it and all its creations.

And validate it's claim that synthetics and organics can get along by removing all synthetics from the equation. I can't support that claim I don't agree with it.

[Sanunes]

I think part of the problem is they put too many variables into the ending when they really haven't done that in my recent memory, if there was a single ending and the only choice there was to kiss your LI, a final goodbye hug to Shepard's mother, or something simliar at the Forward Operations Base and from that point forward everything becomes static to new choices I believe the ending could have been much better. If you really look back at Mass Effect 1 and 2, at least for me neither gives me a good conclusion so that made the expectation of a conclusion for Mass Effect 3 that much higher.

My biggest problem with the Extended Cut is that it left the "breath scene" intact making it the default ending for so many people that want the hope that Shepard is alive. If they simply changed the breath audio for a person flat lining I think it would have kept the different endings balanced.

[CaptainZaysh]

Greylycantrope wrote...
And validate it's claim that synthetics and organics can get along by removing all synthetics from the equation. I can't support that claim I don't agree with it.

This, I think, is the root from which your other criticisms grow.  I guess at least there is a Refuse option now, for those who feel so strongly about this principle that they are willing to literally sacrifice everything and everybody in the galaxy for it.