1258 réponses à ce sujet

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

Do people want a good ending or a happy Disney ending?

So far looking at these posts, everyone wants the later.

[Rasofe]

I want a good ending and I got one in the EC.

[Motherlander]

Ultranovae wrote...

Gamers need to read more. Thousand of stories have been written with vague ambiguous events. Hell, ever read the book foxfire, the last you see of that group doesn't even make physical sense. I really lose respect for people who need to be spoon fed evey detail of a narrative, you're simply missing the point If what is being said.
.

I disagree with your view.

I read a lot. In fact, I read three books of various genres at once.. So your comment can't apply to me.

I disagree with your philosophy here.

ME is not a philosophical drama. It is an sci-fi action adventure. That is how it was advertised. That is how the game and story is presented in all if ME1&2 and in 95% of ME3. So the creators should fill in the gaps. Not us.

If it was supposed to be a philosophical drama it should have been advertised as such. But it was not. It was advertised as Shep saving the galaxy with his friends. And that is what the end should have reflected.

I did not play ME because I wanted to have a vague ending that demands multiple interpretations. I wanted a solid story with a clear-cut ending.

Believe it or not, many of us enjoy all sorts of material. I can enjoy stories which have deep symbolism and multiple interpretation.

But I do not regard ME as one of these stories. With ME, I don't want to interpret the end and make up my own story. I want to be carried away by an epic story and a beautiful emotional passionate conclusion (whether Shep lives or dies does not matter).

We got none of that. We got a cold impersonal end with the EC. The original end was just a lazy mess.

My view is that this argument that gamers should use their imagination is just an excuse to cover a shoddy job. Either that or some people in BW began to believe their work was no more profound than it is. Either way,it doesn't look good.

In ME, Bioware is narrating a rather conventional story of war, adventure and companionship. Such a story deserves a conventional end where the loose ends are tied up. Interpretation is not wanted or required in this case. Not from me at least.

And this view has nothing to do with how much or little I read.

Modifié par Motherlander, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:08 .

[78stonewobble]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Do people want a good ending or a happy Disney ending?

So far looking at these posts, everyone wants the later.

Then you probably didn't read or understand the posts.


The catalyst is the disney magic. You get that in all the endings that are allready there.  

Yes, I wanted a good quality ending and I didn't get it.

In that sense even a standard happy ending (catalyst is a big bomb that only destroys reapers) would be a better quality ending than what we got. It would have less plotholes, less faulty logic, less last minute character introductions, keep things simple and intuitive and it would be more emotionally engaging. All round even that would be better than what we got.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:09 .

[Motherlander]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Do people want a good ending or a happy Disney ending?

So far looking at these posts, everyone wants the later.

Some want a Disney ending where Shep lives and has blue babies or lives happily ever after in a nice house with a Poarch and a white picket fence. And frankly, I think it is a reasonable request. Although, I accept it does not have to be delivered.

But what I really wanted was for Shepard to be able to express his/her unique personality, which the gamer has developed over the trilogy, at the point of climax, whether that means Shep lives or dies.

That does not mean a farewell scene two hours in game-time (which could be days in real time) before the climax or a few animations and stills showing the aftermath. I mean a proper expression of personality.

We got none if that. We got an impersonal ending which is the same regardless of the Shep you developed over the trilogy. Yes there are differents in aftermath. But we don't get to see our individual Shep express herself. She is railroaded into a one dimensional conclusion where nothing that went before really matters.

Modifié par Motherlander, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:12 .

[Archonsg]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Do people want a good ending or a happy Disney ending?

So far looking at these posts, everyone wants the later.

Considering that *all* the endings we have now are dismal and bad, yes, a Disney ending would be preferred.

Do note that a "Shepard dead" scenario where the Catalyst was edited out was far better received on YouTube then any of the original three endings indicates just where exactly the problem is.

[Motherlander]

78stonewobble wrote...

In that sense even a standard happy ending (catalyst is a big bomb that only destroys reapers) would be a better quality ending than what we got. It would have less plotholes, less faulty logic, less last minute character introductions, keep things simple and intuitive and it would be more emotionally engaging. All round even that would be better than what we got.

So true. Why not just make the crucible a big anti reaper bomb, where Shep has to fight his way into the citadel to activate it.That's what the crucibke is anyway. And we wouldn't even need the Catalyst.

Then EMS can affect the ending.

High EMS means complete victory.

Medium EMS means a sacrifice of Shep or crew member must be made, together with tear jerking farewell scene.

Low EMS means sacrifice and very high casualties on Earth, or perhaps whole squad is killed. Of course, an emotional farewell scene is required.

And het presto. Together we have outlined a nice ending which would please many fans, while providing a satisfying personal and emotional conclusion.

[78stonewobble]

Motherlander wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

In that sense even a standard happy ending (catalyst is a big bomb that only destroys reapers) would be a better quality ending than what we got. It would have less plotholes, less faulty logic, less last minute character introductions, keep things simple and intuitive and it would be more emotionally engaging. All round even that would be better than what we got.

So true. Why not just make the crucible a big anti reaper bomb, where Shep has to fight his way into the citadel to activate it.That's what the crucibke is anyway. And we wouldn't even need the Catalyst.

Then EMS can affect the ending.

High EMS means complete victory.

Medium EMS means a sacrifice of Shep or crew member must be made, together with tear jerking farewell scene.

Low EMS means sacrifice and very high casualties on Earth, or perhaps whole squad is killed. Of course, an emotional farewell scene is required.

And het presto. Together we have outlined a nice ending which would please many fans, while providing a satisfying personal and emotional conclusion.

Agreed... Which kinda brings my argument full circle: If you can't pull off a convincing bittersweet or tragic ending. Which requires a a great idea and intelligent setup, story and point. Don't try to.

Keep it simple and adequadetely fullfilling.

[Motherlander]

78stonewobble wrote...

Agreed... Which kinda brings my argument full circle: If you can't pull off a convincing bittersweet or tragic ending. Which requires a a great idea and intelligent setup, story and point. Don't try to.

Keep it simple and adequadetely fullfilling.

the other interesting thing is that you can you can still have the three main choices: Destroy, control and synthesis.

So the real crux of BW's artistic vision would still be there.

Also, the beauty of the concept is that it allows the gamer to choose the ending they want. 

They can have a happy ending if they want. But in fact many gamers will go for the bitter-sweet weepy sacrificial ending. Everyone could have had what they want.

What is sad is that BW did not use the very advantage that a game gave them. They could have pleased everyone by letting the gamer shape the conclusion themselves. But instead they created a one dimensional ending. How so ironic.

[Motherlander]

78stonewobble wrote...

Agreed... Which kinda brings my argument full circle: If you can't pull off a convincing bittersweet or tragic ending. Which requires a a great idea and intelligent setup, story and point. Don't try to.

Keep it simple and adequadetely fullfilling.

wouldn't it be great if BW developed an alternative paid DLC starting just before Shep enters the Citadel where Shep has to fight his way in to activate the crucible along the lines we discussed. It would just be like the ME1 final mission, but without the catalyst.

It won't happen of course. BW have made that clear. But I bet it would be popular if they did it.

[TheRealJayDee]

Ultranovae wrote...

Gamers need to read more. Thousand of stories have been written with vague ambiguous events. Hell, ever read the book foxfire, the last you see of that group doesn't even make physical sense. I really lose respect for people who need to be spoon fed evey detail of a narrative, you're simply missing the point If what is being said.

Wow, that was fast...

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 20 janvier 2013 - 11:46 .

[78stonewobble]

Motherlander wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

Agreed... Which kinda brings my argument full circle: If you can't pull off a convincing bittersweet or tragic ending. Which requires a a great idea and intelligent setup, story and point. Don't try to.

Keep it simple and adequadetely fullfilling.

wouldn't it be great if BW developed an alternative paid DLC starting just before Shep enters the Citadel where Shep has to fight his way in to activate the crucible along the lines we discussed. It would just be like the ME1 final mission, but without the catalyst.

It won't happen of course. BW have made that clear. But I bet it would be popular if they did it.

It would be great but I don't believe for a second it will happen. It's too late and would cost too much. Nah they did what they could with EC and it helped.

What we need is a delorean, a mr. fusion and a flux capacitor.

As in me3 deserved an appropriately awesome quality ending to what is quite an awesome game and game series from the start.

[Reorte]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Do people want a good ending or a happy Disney ending?

So far looking at these posts, everyone wants the later.

Not this nonsense again. The protagonist surviving makes it a saccharine Disney ending? Please. If that's true then reality is either miserable death and failure or Disney endings - there's really very little plausible scope for anything in between. Try to do better than ridiculous derogatory-sounding strawmen.

[Reorte]

Motherlander wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

Agreed... Which kinda brings my argument full circle: If you can't pull off a convincing bittersweet or tragic ending. Which requires a a great idea and intelligent setup, story and point. Don't try to.

Keep it simple and adequadetely fullfilling.

the other interesting thing is that you can you can still have the three main choices: Destroy, control and synthesis.

To be honest I don't think that you can pull off any of those if you're constrained to an intelligent setup, at least not without completely redoing the game from scratch, and Synthesis not at all. A device that suddenly stops all the Reapers at the same time, in one go, is simply too unconvincing no matter how it's done although admittedly both Control and Destroy are merely very, very, very implausible (although Destroy affecting the geth oversteps even that line).

[78stonewobble]

Reorte wrote...

Motherlander wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

Agreed... Which kinda brings my argument full circle: If you can't pull off a convincing bittersweet or tragic ending. Which requires a a great idea and intelligent setup, story and point. Don't try to.

Keep it simple and adequadetely fullfilling.

the other interesting thing is that you can you can still have the three main choices: Destroy, control and synthesis.

To be honest I don't think that you can pull off any of those if you're constrained to an intelligent setup, at least not without completely redoing the game from scratch, and Synthesis not at all. A device that suddenly stops all the Reapers at the same time, in one go, is simply too unconvincing no matter how it's done although admittedly both Control and Destroy are merely very, very, very implausible (although Destroy affecting the geth oversteps even that line).

Personally I don't find much difference in plausibility from what we have: 

A magical device that allows you to control all reapers everywhere.
A magical device that allows you to change all reapers and all organics everywhere.
A magical device that allows you to destroy all reapers and all synthetics everywhere.

Everywhere meaning the me galaxy supposedly.

And then to:

A magical device that allows you to destroy all reapers but just reapers.



Now you might not find this plausible or, as you say, unconvincing, but apparenly like 90 percent of everyone bought in to what we got. Then they might equally have bought into the second. 

So theoretically they could have pulled the same endings off without star child. 


However I would have have preferred some entirely different endings in combination with the second suggestion. It does stretch my suspension of disbelief a little less than the existing endings.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 20 janvier 2013 - 01:51 .

[sheppard7]

Get the mod and you will get a better ending. You have to be on PC though.

[Motherlander]

Reorte wrote...
]
To be honest I don't think that you can pull off any of those if you're constrained to an intelligent setup, at least not without completely redoing the game from scratch, and Synthesis not at all. A device that suddenly stops all the Reapers at the same time, in one go, is simply too unconvincing no matter how it's done although admittedly both Control and Destroy are merely very, very, very implausible (although Destroy affecting the geth oversteps even that line).

I can live without synthesis too. But in the end, I know there are people who like it. So I am willing to compromise and keep synthesis on the basis that I don't have to choose it.

It is not the three choices in themselves that damage the ending for me. It is the lack if personal impact that is my issue.

[Reorte]

Motherlander wrote...

Reorte wrote...
]
To be honest I don't think that you can pull off any of those if you're constrained to an intelligent setup, at least not without completely redoing the game from scratch, and Synthesis not at all. A device that suddenly stops all the Reapers at the same time, in one go, is simply too unconvincing no matter how it's done although admittedly both Control and Destroy are merely very, very, very implausible (although Destroy affecting the geth oversteps even that line).

I can live without synthesis too. But in the end, I know there are people who like it. So I am willing to compromise and keep synthesis on the basis that I don't have to choose it.

It is not the three choices in themselves that damage the ending for me. It is the lack if personal impact that is my issue.

I could live with it as a choice (nothing wrong with having choices available that I find really bad - if you can only choose good stuff there's no point in having this sort of choice) if only it wasn't so completely over-the-top stupid. If there was a half-plausible mechanism for it that didn't also require Reaper tech to be so advanced that they could barge in and do whatever we wanted before we even know they were there then I've yet to hear it.

Modifié par Reorte, 20 janvier 2013 - 02:58 .

[Reorte]

78stonewobble wrote...

Personally I don't find much difference in plausibility from what we have: 

A magical device that allows you to control all reapers everywhere.
A magical device that allows you to change all reapers and all organics everywhere.
A magical device that allows you to destroy all reapers and all synthetics everywhere.

Everywhere meaning the me galaxy supposedly.

And then to:

A magical device that allows you to destroy all reapers but just reapers.

It's plausible, although highly unlikely that there's
something in the design of the Reapers that means a certain signal could
trigger a self-destruct, and that the Mass Relays could be used to
transmit this signal across the galaxy.  Control is similar. The reason I find it highly implausible is because it's a ridiculously exploitable vulnerability. It's like building something into every weapon of an army that could then be used to stop that army dead. The reason "just Reapers" makes a little more sense is because why on earth would such a transmission affect anything else? If you think about the geth, they're software - some have uploaded to quarian suits if they're still around, but the transmission can somehow identify certain software, irrespective of hardware, and delete it too. It clearly isn't frying the hardware (Tali looks fine at any rate).

Changing everything in the galaxy though is many, many orders of magnitude beyond that and there's no rational mechanism by which it could possibly work, plausible or otherwise.

Now you might not find this plausible or, as you say, unconvincing, but apparenly like 90 percent of everyone bought in to what we got. Then they might equally have bought into the second.

That's a very depressing thought since it's on par with someone saying "We defeat the Reapers by charging stark naked at them and beating them up with our bare hands!" and it working. Would people buy into that?

[78stonewobble]

Reorte wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

Personally I don't find much difference in plausibility from what we have: 

A magical device that allows you to control all reapers everywhere.
A magical device that allows you to change all reapers and all organics everywhere.
A magical device that allows you to destroy all reapers and all synthetics everywhere.

Everywhere meaning the me galaxy supposedly.

And then to:

A magical device that allows you to destroy all reapers but just reapers.

It's plausible, although highly unlikely that there's
something in the design of the Reapers that means a certain signal could
trigger a self-destruct, and that the Mass Relays could be used to
transmit this signal across the galaxy.  Control is similar. The reason I find it highly implausible is because it's a ridiculously exploitable vulnerability. It's like building something into every weapon of an army that could then be used to stop that army dead. The reason "just Reapers" makes a little more sense is because why on earth would such a transmission affect anything else? If you think about the geth, they're software - some have uploaded to quarian suits if they're still around, but the transmission can somehow identify certain software, irrespective of hardware, and delete it too. It clearly isn't frying the hardware (Tali looks fine at any rate).

Changing everything in the galaxy though is many, many orders of magnitude beyond that and there's no rational mechanism by which it could possibly work, plausible or otherwise.

Now you might not find this plausible or, as you say, unconvincing, but apparenly like 90 percent of everyone bought in to what we got. Then they might equally have bought into the second.

That's a very depressing thought since it's on par with someone saying "We defeat the Reapers by charging stark naked at them and beating them up with our bare hands!" and it working. Would people buy into that?

Ewrgh *long sigh* ... It is not a thing... I can comprehend.

At some point you have to laugh at it all.

You do make some good points about the "implausibility" of the various scenarios.

I guess I've watched enough star trek technobabble to buy "a subspace signal only used by the reaper alliance that can be hacked with the, unexpected by reapers, friendly helpfull ai of the geth and edi and destroy the reapers".

Much easier to buy into that than something physically changing an impossible amount of stuff around the galaxy. For me atleast.

Heck as a reason for harvesting organics before they can develop an ai (which is the real threat to the reapers) it kinda works as well.... Kinda...

This is my major beef with the ending. If you think it through, it unravels into something ridiculous.

In addition to my problems with the emotional range, the quality of it technically, weight of choices and so forth.

[Mixon]

Why can't Mass Effect 3 have a happy ending?
Because:
1. Authors wanted as much drama as it possible.
Many great works (books and movies) were with unhappy ending and this made ​​them more brilliant.
But in my opinion this not works with games, because you are not just reading or watching -
you are spending energy in the true sense to build your character.
or
2. Prepared story base for the next part.
But that did not stop Houk from DA2...

I can say that the best art in any work is when you can make your audience cry of happy things (endings inc.) Thats why Mass Effect 2 IS still the best game of ME series + it has 2 opposite options that were most important: pure Life or pure Death.
Everything I wrote - my opinion.

[Obadiah]

The EMS endings all seem pretty "happy" to me. Players just don't want to have to end the war with the Reapers on terms they are given.

[GimmeDaGun]

Because Bioware wants you to suffer... oh, man! All these silly posts about "cause it's artsy" or "deep" etc. etc..

In all seriousness: ME has a happy ending of a kind. Yeah, it is not a conventional happy ending for sure and it's also true that nowadays these semi-happy, cryptic and apocalyptic endings are getting back on the main stream once again (though it's not that out of the blue when it comes to ME, since it's a story about a war against an "invincible" apocalyptic force).

Yes, Shepard dies in almost all of the endings and it's also true that all the endings have their "catches" which can cause moral conflict or disturbance, but they are (except for refusal) all happy endings in their own right:

1. In all of them the main antagonists (the reapers) and their servants are defeated (either destroyed or controlled or pacified).
2. Hence the galaxy and its dwellers despite all the losses and sacrifices manage to survive the threat which couldn't be survived and overcome for millions of years or longer.
3. So this means that there's a future for them: hope. A hope to rebuild and to appreciate their efforts and sacrafices by starting a new life. It also depends on your choices here: Krogan, Rachni, Geth, Quarian... the way you used the Crucible and how ready you were to face the reapers. So you fought for their future and in the end it pays off.
4. You also manage to keep your squad mates and-or friends alive (again depends on how you play) and give them a future (your optional romantic partner included) which you have been fighting for on a different level. You may also have an impact on their future as well (especially EDI, Wrex, Tali, Javik, Steeve, Samara, Jack... but if you think about it, almost everybody who stays alive).
5. There's one permutation of the ending where Shepard may be still alive (it is strongly hinted)... so maybe even the main protagonist have a future too which can be shared with all those whom he or she cares for. It's left for player interpretation which is not that a bad thing IMO. 

These are all happy things, especially if we take the circumstances and what was at stake into consideration.

Yeah, there's no ending where you walk out like a boss (mr. or miss center of the whole galaxy) by a mythic, heroic final battle, with no major sacrifices, losses or the weight of responsibility on you shoulders (since your final decisions have really heavy consequences). So you can't feel the taste of easy triumphant glory by rejoining your team and LI and feasting over the defeated reapers with no strings attached. You either swallow the bitter pill of responsibility (you affect the future, and in what way, you can not tell) and sacrifice in order to win, or you refuse all these, but you know what happens then... yeah, an apocalyptic force like the reapers can't be defeated just like that. You feel it's painful and devastating effect on your own skin no matter what and deciding upon the future of the whole world you know is no easy and happy task.. And the game makes sure you feel that... it doesn't mean that the game's ending can't be happy, only it is not "fairy tale" happy. It also gives a proper end to a hero who becomes legend: and does not give way for some rip-off sequels ("lets make another one, yeah, ya know 'cause Shaperd sells, everybody loves Shep"). And I'm quite grateful for the latter.

My2cents.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 20 janvier 2013 - 04:09 .

[78stonewobble]

I still don't quite get why people would want 3 similar "bittersweet" (or happy if you take that pov.) to 3 more different endings?

One? Sure... but why would the rest have to be the same?

Could have done away with the choice of endings then and just have one.

I mean... Bittersweet1 vs. bittersweet2 vs. bittersweet3.


And atleast, if you wanted bittersweet, expect one that is actually bittersweet and qualitatively good enough to be logically necessary, gives you a sense of accomplishment and happyness over that and imprints enough feeling of loss to make it sad as well.

Bittersweet shouldn't be a lack of happyness and lack of sadness rather a mix of both these emotions.

EDIT: I was overly harsh in the last bit. The ec did improve alot on that. I am glad we got that.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 20 janvier 2013 - 08:23 .

[Reorte]

78stonewobble wrote...

Ewrgh *long sigh* ... It is not a thing... I can comprehend.

Hehe

At some point you have to laugh at it all.

You do make some good points about the "implausibility" of the various scenarios.

I guess I've watched enough star trek technobabble to buy "a subspace signal only used by the reaper alliance that can be hacked with the, unexpected by reapers, friendly helpfull ai of the geth and edi and destroy the reapers".

I usually have pretty much the same reaction when Star Trek does it but I don't recall it ever going to the same scale so the reaction is also scaled down. It's downright bad writing and the fact that occurs at the most crucial point of the entire story is the killing blow. At least with Trek the odds are that it's a bad episode that you can forget about, your settings and characters can carry on and pretend it never happened, which makes it easier to ignore. Imagine if the events of Voyager's "Threshold" had been the culimnation of every story ever told in Trek, and that was the end of it... At least the writers of that episode had the decency to admit it was a mess (no artistic integrity for them!)

I can live with such nonsense to get through some parts in the middle of a story but it just ruins it for me being the main culmination of it all.

Modifié par Reorte, 20 janvier 2013 - 06:29 .