1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Well sure, but now we are discussing how your previous choices affected the endings, which is separate from a discussion about the possibility of a happy ending alongside three non-happy endings, and whether or not the non-happy endings can maintain their relevance.

If people like unhappy endings they should be able to choose one even if there is a happy ending also available.

If having a happy ending is in there somewhere somehow invalidates the unhappy one, I question the veracity of claims that they like dark, tragic, or bittersweet endings after all.

[AB Souldier]

I see no reason why we can't have a happy and bittersweet ending.
I also see no reason why the refusal ending had to be the "you lose" ending.

[wright1978]

I really think the more simple DAO style or the ME2 the degree of happiness of the ending is proportional to the choices you have made are equally fine as far as i'm concerned. The more important feeling is that sense of my player agency steering the course to these endings. That can be choosing the dark ritual or choosing to carry on building the squad rather than rush off and attack the collectors.

ME3's ending is fundamentally broken imo not just because they are much bleaker than the best ending of the previous 2 installments but because of the fact ending choices are completely disjointed from the story and from player agency. The catalyst parachutes in and out of nowhere offers 3 unpalatable endings that all lead to Shep's death or highly unrewarding ambiguous death/life. The narrative of the story hasn't allowed to feel like i've taken the turn off for the ending. Instead i'm dragged into the slaughterhouse against my will whilst somebody chops at my limbs with a rusty blunt hatchet.

The EC tries to throw a blindfold over my eyes and which makes the whole experience only marginally less infuriating.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

If having a happy ending is in there somewhere somehow invalidates the unhappy one, I question the veracity of claims that they like dark, tragic, or bittersweet endings after all.

We are talking about people who like tough choices. Such people like weighing the pros and cons of each choice in order to determine the optimum path forward. In this capacity, they are STILL interested in the "best" ending, which can often be the happiest one. For someone who takes their choices seriously, a happy ending alongside unhappy ones invalidates the process of decision-making and makes it obsolete.

People who like dark-toned endings are a different discussion. In this case, it depends why they like those sorts of endings. Usually people like these endings for a reason: one that comes to mind is that usually dark or tragic endings result as some consequence of an unfortunate series of events, as a consequence of a character making the wrong decisions because of a flawed personality, because of some set of circumstances that are beyond the main character's control. People can like that a story takes those sort of challenges seriously and does not handwave them purely in order to produce a happy tone.

Personally I do not believe that the current endings feel like a natural progression of unfortunate consequences (or fortunate ones). The endings are contrived both to be sad and happy. For example, why does Synthesis need Shepard to die? That's a contrivance to alter the tone. Similarly, having your squadmates escape the beam rush without explanation (in the OEs) is a contrivance to alter the tone in the opposite direction.

However, pointing out the flawed ways that the ME3 endings manipulate the tone is not an argument to install a happy ending alongside other flawed, non-happy endings.

[Tootles FTW]

I would like to poke someone at Bioware very hard with various objects of my choosing for including the Geth genocide with the Destroy ending. The only "happy" ending beyond that (Control) forces your Shepard to accept TIM as being correct all along which makes the whole "I spent 90% of the game fighting Cerberus, rather than the Reapers" seem rather counter-productive.

...we do not speak of Synthesis. Barf.

[AB Souldier]

wright1978 wrote...

I really think the more simple DAO style or the ME2 the degree of happiness of the ending is proportional to the choices you have made are equally fine as far as i'm concerned. The more important feeling is that sense of my player agency steering the course to these endings. That can be choosing the dark ritual or choosing to carry on building the squad rather than rush off and attack the collectors.

ME3's ending is fundamentally broken imo not just because they are much bleaker than the best ending of the previous 2 installments but because of the fact ending choices are completely disjointed from the story and from player agency. The catalyst parachutes in and out of nowhere offers 3 unpalatable endings that all lead to Shep's death or highly unrewarding ambiguous death/life. The narrative of the story hasn't allowed to feel like i've taken the turn off for the ending. Instead i'm dragged into the slaughterhouse against my will whilst somebody chops at my limbs with a rusty blunt hatchet.

The EC tries to throw a blindfold over my eyes and which makes the whole experience only marginally less infuriating.

Tootles FTW wrote...

I would like to poke someone at Bioware very hard with various objects of my choosing for including the Geth genocide with the Destroy ending. The only "happy" ending beyond that (Control) forces your Shepard to accept TIM as being correct all along which makes the whole "I spent 90% of the game fighting Cerberus, rather than the Reapers" seem rather counter-productive.

...we do not speak of Synthesis. Barf.

Yep and Yep. (although i disagree with the control choice, but that is your choice, because to me, there is no happy ending.)


And don't forget EDI. Seth Green needs his love too.

IMO all the EC did for me is tell me what happens and what will happen. It doesn't change the ending, that that is what most people wanted, is a new ending.

Modifié par ajsrise, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:09 .

[TurianRebel212]

Because it's 'art'. y u no like art???? Like Bioware's art dammit... Like it. Like it I tell you.

Like it.

[wright1978]

I'll also point out that presentation can affect the feelings an ending induces. If the current endings had flowed from the narrative they might have different responses. If destruction of Synthetics was presented upfront(like death of warden in killing the archdemon) as consequence of destroy use of crucible. Then say synthesis method of using crucible was presented by reconciled Geth/Quarians, if player has achieved this feat. I think the feelings synthesis engenders might be different than the current response to being sandbagged by the antagonist with the option at the last minute.

[Ageless Face]

A happy ending will make me unhappy. Shame on you even asking for one!

[AB Souldier]

HagarIshay wrote...

A happy ending will make me unhappy. Shame on you even asking for one!

Just you? I can live with that. 
And we are not suppose to ask for something we deserve.

Modifié par ajsrise, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:17 .

[AB Souldier]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Because it's 'art'. y u no like art???? Like Bioware's art dammit... Like it. Like it I tell you. 

Like it.

Nope.

Modifié par ajsrise, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:18 .

[CronoDragoon]

To expand upon my dislike of the geth consequence: I think that the geth consequence was added somewhat after-the-fact as a means to balance the consequences of the endings. Even then, it wouldn't have been so bad if Destroy was the obvious anti-AI choice.

But Destroy as it is constructed right now functions as both the ultimate anti-AI choice AND the ultimate refusal of the Catalyst's logic. (Besides Refuse, limiting this within the scope of the original endings) It is the ultimate refusal of the Catalyst's logic because it is the only true assertion of the value of autonomy, and an individual's right to determine their own path...even if that path leads to destruction. It says, "We don't need you Catalyst, and we'll take that chance." This is one reason my Paragon is attracted to the ending.

And then the consequence is destroying all synthetics. This is problematic because it cannot be reconciled with what I take to be the "Paragon" view of Destroy above. Control and Synthesis both have consequences that can be reconciled to make sense within respective Paragon and Renegade playthroughs, but not Destroy. With Destroy, the geth/EDI dying can't be spun any other way except "war sucks" which is to say it has no deeper meaning within the scope of your specific playthrough.

For me, if Shepard had merely died in Destroy instead of the geth/EDI, I would have been sad but satisfied, because what an obviously glorious final statement to make: sacrificing yourself so that synthetics and organics can try to make a future together.

[Kabraxal]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

If having a happy ending is in there somewhere somehow invalidates the unhappy one, I question the veracity of claims that they like dark, tragic, or bittersweet endings after all.

We are talking about people who like tough choices. Such people like weighing the pros and cons of each choice in order to determine the optimum path forward. In this capacity, they are STILL interested in the "best" ending, which can often be the happiest one. For someone who takes their choices seriously, a happy ending alongside unhappy ones invalidates the process of decision-making and makes it obsolete.

People who like dark-toned endings are a different discussion. In this case, it depends why they like those sorts of endings. Usually people like these endings for a reason: one that comes to mind is that usually dark or tragic endings result as some consequence of an unfortunate series of events, as a consequence of a character making the wrong decisions because of a flawed personality, because of some set of circumstances that are beyond the main character's control. People can like that a story takes those sort of challenges seriously and does not handwave them purely in order to produce a happy tone.

Personally I do not believe that the current endings feel like a natural progression of unfortunate consequences (or fortunate ones). The endings are contrived both to be sad and happy. For example, why does Synthesis need Shepard to die? That's a contrivance to alter the tone. Similarly, having your squadmates escape the beam rush without explanation (in the OEs) is a contrivance to alter the tone in the opposite direction.

However, pointing out the flawed ways that the ME3 endings manipulate the tone is not an argument to install a happy ending alongside other flawed, non-happy endings.

But it is an arbitrary and poorly forced "tough choices" ending.  If they fit the universe and tone that had been built for three games, there wouldn't have been as big of an outcry.  However, the original ending was severely out of place even to the point that the EC still hasn't completely fixed that feeling that we are playing the ending to a different game and not a Mass Effect game.  

That is the reason many people have chosen refuse.  It remains true to the Shepard we've played and shows a glimmer of the themes and attitude of the previous games instead of plugging in three arbitrary choices to feign a difficult choice.

Going back to DAO... that is actually a game of hard decisions with an ending that isn't exactly an easy choice to make either.  Not only must you decide if you can trust a character enough, but then you have to make the choice of who will make the killing blow.  And sometimes that choice is actually ignored because another choice will override it.  YOu can have an extremely bittersweet victory with DAO.  And people love that ending.  It's a hard choice but its a fitting choice.  ME could have had a hard choice at the ending and still worked.  Most of us were expecting it and hoping for something very much like the US from DAO.  

Hell, I'd say the endings would have been easier to take if we could actually discuss things with our sqaud and the characters it would effect.  Then making some of those "hard" choices would have actually been hard and maintain some actual amount of narrative integrity.  Could you imagine discussing a destroy like option with EDI and maybe even the Geth and getting the approval or disaproval from that?  Or choosing to sacrifice yourself instead of someone or somethign else? Or having someone not want to watch you die and make the choice for you?  

Bioware had the perfect foundation for a truly masterful ending with DAO... why they decided to go the route they did is just mind boggling.  Though, with the original endings I have a sneaking suspicious it was a torch and run so they could have an easier time with a sequel.  Screw the integrity of the trilogy, there is money to be made in them dar sequal hills!

[AB Souldier]

CronoDragoon wrote...

To expand upon my dislike of the geth consequence: I think that the geth consequence was added somewhat after-the-fact as a means to balance the consequences of the endings. Even then, it wouldn't have been so bad if Destroy was the obvious anti-AI choice.

But Destroy as it is constructed right now functions as both the ultimate anti-AI choice AND the ultimate refusal of the Catalyst's logic. (Besides Refuse, limiting this within the scope of the original endings) It is the ultimate refusal of the Catalyst's logic because it is the only true assertion of the value of autonomy, and an individual's right to determine their own path...even if that path leads to destruction. It says, "We don't need you Catalyst, and we'll take that chance." This is one reason my Paragon is attracted to the ending.

And then the consequence is destroying all synthetics. This is problematic because it cannot be reconciled with what I take to be the "Paragon" view of Destroy above. Control and Synthesis both have consequences that can be reconciled to make sense within respective Paragon and Renegade playthroughs, but not Destroy. With Destroy, the geth/EDI dying can't be spun any other way except "war sucks" which is to say it has no deeper meaning within the scope of your specific playthrough.

For me, if Shepard had merely died in Destroy instead of the geth/EDI, I would have been sad but satisfied, because what an obviously glorious final statement to make: sacrificing yourself so that synthetics and organics can try to make a future together.

As much as would want to see the hope that my LI had by not putting shepards name on the memorial wall, i agree. If shepard would of died except the geth/edi, i would be satisfied. (Even more happy if they show my LI pregnant or something xD)

[Ageless Face]

ajsrise wrote...
Just you? I can live with that. 

No you won't. Soon, you will start to feel regret for causing me sandness, and soon your conscience will overload with sorrow and guilt. You won't be able to take it, so you will transform into a rabbit.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:36 .

[Kabraxal]

HagarIshay wrote...

ajsrise wrote...
Just you? I can live with that. 

No you won't. Slowly, you will start to feel regret for causing me sandness, and soon your conscience will overload with sorrow and guilt. You won't be able to take it, so you will transform into a rabbit.

I like carrots!

[CronoDragoon]

Kabraxal wrote...

Going back to DAO... that is actually a game of hard decisions with an ending that isn't exactly an easy choice to make either.  Not only must you decide if you can trust a character enough, but then you have to make the choice of who will make the killing blow.  And sometimes that choice is actually ignored because another choice will override it.  YOu can have an extremely bittersweet victory with DAO.  And people love that ending.  It's a hard choice but its a fitting choice.  ME could have had a hard choice at the ending and still worked.  Most of us were expecting it and hoping for something very much like the US from DAO.  

I COMPLETELY disagree with the bolded. The only choice that has any semblance of being hard is the last one, and then it turns out it isn't a tough choice after all since nothing bad happens in DR ending. You can free the werewolves from their curse without killing the elven clan. You can save both templars and mages at the tower. You can bring in the mages to save both Connor and his mother. Perhaps you can't reconcile Alistair and Logain, but how many people REALLY debated whether to choose Alistair or Logain?

[AB Souldier]

HagarIshay wrote...

ajsrise wrote...
Just you? I can live with that. 

No you won't. Soon, you will start to feel regret for causing me sandness, and soon your conscience will overload with sorrow and guilt. You won't be able to take it, so you will transform into a rabbit.

Then i would have to make another thread on my regret and sadness towards you
It will be hard though, you know, being a rabbit and all. 

[Ageless Face]

Kabraxal wrote...

I like carrots!

Will you be perpared to eat carrots for the rest of your life until your fur will turn yellow? Will you??

Turning into a yellow rabbit, or no happy ending.

Tough choice.

ajsrise wrote...
Then i would have to make another thread on my regret and sadness towards you
It will be hard though, you know, being a rabbit and all. 

Oh, if you can't be a writing or talking rabbit then forget it, you're not worth my time.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:46 .

[Iakus]

HagarIshay wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

I like carrots!

Will you be perpared to eat carrots for the rest of your life until your fur will turn yellow? Will you??

Turning into a yellow rabbit, or no happy ending.

Tough choice.

Watsup, doc? 

[AB Souldier]

HagarIshay wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

I like carrots!

Will you be perpared to eat carrots for the rest of your life until your fur will turn yellow? Will you??

Turning into a yellow rabbit, or no happy ending.

Tough choice.

ajsrise wrote...
Then i would have to make another thread on my regret and sadness towards you
It will be hard though, you know, being a rabbit and all. 

Oh, if you can't be a writing or talking rabbit then forget it, you're not worth my time.

But i am not fully transformed yet. 

[Kabraxal]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Going back to DAO... that is actually a game of hard decisions with an ending that isn't exactly an easy choice to make either.  Not only must you decide if you can trust a character enough, but then you have to make the choice of who will make the killing blow.  And sometimes that choice is actually ignored because another choice will override it.  YOu can have an extremely bittersweet victory with DAO.  And people love that ending.  It's a hard choice but its a fitting choice.  ME could have had a hard choice at the ending and still worked.  Most of us were expecting it and hoping for something very much like the US from DAO.  

I COMPLETELY disagree with the bolded. The only choice that has any semblance of being hard is the last one, and then it turns out it isn't a tough choice after all since nothing bad happens in DR ending. You can free the werewolves from their curse without killing the elven clan. You can save both templars and mages at the tower. You can bring in the mages to save both Connor and his mother. Perhaps you can't reconcile Alistair and Logain, but how many people REALLY debated whether to choose Alistair or Logain?

Templars/Mages
Werewolves/Elves
Branca/Carridan
Harrowmont/Bhalen

Just to name a few choices that aren't actually all that easy.  It depends on the character being played on how hard some of those will be, but they are often quite difficult.  As for Loghain, that is actually a very hard choice.  He's a capable warrior and would make a great Warden, even if you don't like him.  That choice has actually given me pause a few times.  As has the US and the Dark Ritual.  

I find those choices far harder than that mess of endins in ME3.  Especially after truly hard decisions like Tuchanka and Rannoch.  Those were prime examples of choices that were truly hard, could be very bitter, but still fit the narrative structure that existed... there is a reason those are the moments commonly brought up to address teh confusion we feel at how the same team that made those choices, made those horrid narrative breaking endings that aren't tough at all.... just so completely out of place and betraying everything that had come before.

[Ageless Face]

iakus wrote...
Watsup, doc? 

No, not doc. HagarIshay. But I see how you can get confused.

ajsrise wrote...
But i am not fully transformed yet. 

Then you didn't overload with guilt and sorrow and whatever crap I wrote there yet?

HOW DARE YOU?!?

Modifié par HagarIshay, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:51 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

If having a happy ending is in there somewhere somehow invalidates the unhappy one, I question the veracity of claims that they like dark, tragic, or bittersweet endings after all.

We are talking about people who like tough choices. Such people like weighing the pros and cons of each choice in order to determine the optimum path forward. In this capacity, they are STILL interested in the "best" ending, which can often be the happiest one. For someone who takes their choices seriously, a happy ending alongside unhappy ones invalidates the process of decision-making and makes it obsolete.

People who like dark-toned endings are a different discussion. In this case, it depends why they like those sorts of endings. Usually people like these endings for a reason: one that comes to mind is that usually dark or tragic endings result as some consequence of an unfortunate series of events, as a consequence of a character making the wrong decisions because of a flawed personality, because of some set of circumstances that are beyond the main character's control. People can like that a story takes those sort of challenges seriously and does not handwave them purely in order to produce a happy tone.

Personally I do not believe that the current endings feel like a natural progression of unfortunate consequences (or fortunate ones). The endings are contrived both to be sad and happy. For example, why does Synthesis need Shepard to die? That's a contrivance to alter the tone. Similarly, having your squadmates escape the beam rush without explanation (in the OEs) is a contrivance to alter the tone in the opposite direction.

However, pointing out the flawed ways that the ME3 endings manipulate the tone is not an argument to install a happy ending alongside other flawed, non-happy endings.

I don't disagree that the consequences of the chocies are massively contrived.  At the same time, though I believe there should have been "happy" outcomes for each of them, depending on playthroughs.  The cost of these "happy outcomes" should have been a selection of choices.  The debt to be paid should have been...distributable...so the player could find a price palatable enough to play.

For example, the geth could be saved in Destroy, but the cost would be far more damage to the relay network.  You you wipe out a race so the rest of the galaxy can have a comparatively easy recovery?  Or do you risk a "galact dark age" so everyone has a chance to live?  Place everyone at risk so all have a chance?

Modifié par iakus, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:53 .