Lizardviking wrote...
Bioware should have had ME3 like endings in ME2, and had ME2 like endings in ME3.
Have our bleak, second chapter actually have choices that would fit its darker nature. Have the second game break and destroy our hero. And let the third be the one where they can rise from the ashes and earn their happy ending.
Or maybe wanting such a story is too childish?
Modifié par PainCakesx, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:05 .
Modifié par PainCakesx, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:13 .
Lizardviking wrote...
Bioware should have had ME3 like endings in ME2, and had ME2 like endings in ME3.
Have our bleak, second chapter actually have choices that would fit its darker nature. Have the second game break and destroy our hero. And let the third be the one where they can rise from the ashes and earn their happy ending.
Or maybe wanting such a story is too childish?
Seival wrote...
ajsrise wrote...
Why can't Mass Effect 3 have a happy ending?
Because it was intended to be bittersweet.
Sometimes hero dies in the end.
Modifié par Lizardviking, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:20 .
CronoDragoon wrote...
We have no idea whether or not it satisfied the majority. We know it dissatisfied enough people to get it altered, and that's it. Regardless, it's perfectly fine to feel that the endings should have focused on satisfaction instead of a tough choice. It's also perfectly fine to value tough choices over satisfaction. There has always been this tension in the ME games, way back to ME1, where despite the tagline boasting of "tough choices" you really aren't given that many, and either way you have a borderline "everything works out" ending.
Edit: A better example would be DA Origins, but people may feel differently about the Dark Ritual ending if BioWare ever decides to leverage the promised consequences inherent in the decision. Regardless, Origins is more of a "3 happy endings" paradigm, since what you sacrifice to achieve victory is comparatively very little. Mass Effect decides that you will potentially sacrifice a lot, and a lot of people didn't like that, which I can understand.
Modifié par vallore, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:23 .
CronoDragoon wrote...
Violation is a biased word. Everyone is on the brink of death, and Shepard has the opportunity to solve the crisis in a way that not only prevents current harm but - assuming you believe organic/synthetics are going to be a real problem - you do what you can to prevent future harm as well. Abstract notions of autonomy in this ending are subverted to the real needs of the people. Believing this to be "genetic rape" as is the popular phrase, is egotistical assumption. Shepard has every right to alter the DNA of living organisms so that they may survive, because the galaxy willingly placed itself into his hands so that he may lead them out of the war. They would prefer death to Synthesis? I highly doubt it. That you choose to believe that everyone should be miserable about being irrevocably changed in ways that are not obviously bad simply means Synthesis isn't for you, not that it's unobjectionably Renegade.
ajsrise wrote...
Lizardviking wrote...
Bioware should have had ME3 like endings in ME2, and had ME2 like endings in ME3.
Have our bleak, second chapter actually have choices that would fit its darker nature. Have the second game break and destroy our hero. And let the third be the one where they can rise from the ashes and earn their happy ending.
Or maybe wanting such a story is too childish?
Not childish at all. People got attached to the ME series and naturally you would think that the last game of the trilogy would end happily. Sadly, BW doesn't think so and put the bittersweet ending, which i would of been ok with, if it wasn't the last game of the trilogy.
vallore wrote...
CronoDragoon wrote...
We have no idea whether or not it satisfied the majority. We know it dissatisfied enough people to get it altered, and that's it. Regardless, it's perfectly fine to feel that the endings should have focused on satisfaction instead of a tough choice. It's also perfectly fine to value tough choices over satisfaction. There has always been this tension in the ME games, way back to ME1, where despite the tagline boasting of "tough choices" you really aren't given that many, and either way you have a borderline "everything works out" ending.
I have to desagree.
Regardless of everything else, difficult or not, the result of the decisions should always be enjoyable. That is the point of gaming. We do not play games to become depressed or frustrated, we play to have fun.
For an ending to work, the cost should never outweigh the benefit. If it does, then it is not simply difficult, it is impossible to win. Personally, I do not think those decisions were truly morally difficult to make, but rather morally unacceptable.
The resulting problem is not the result of a group of players inability/unwillingness of making a difficult decision, rather is the inability of enjoying the results of it. BW writers allowed the nature of the costs to outweigh the positive side of the choice.Edit: A better example would be DA Origins, but people may feel differently about the Dark Ritual ending if BioWare ever decides to leverage the promised consequences inherent in the decision. Regardless, Origins is more of a "3 happy endings" paradigm, since what you sacrifice to achieve victory is comparatively very little. Mass Effect decides that you will potentially sacrifice a lot, and a lot of people didn't like that, which I can understand.
Again, I disagree.
There is no true happy ending in it; what we have is mostly bittersweet endings, with variable quantities, and types, of sweet and bitter to accommodate different preferences.
The Ultimate Sacrifice is clearly a sad one:
You character loses everything, (if he ever had anything in the first place). Love? Goals for the future? Hope?
All cast aside to ensure the survival of Ferelden/the elves/ the dwarves in general, and that of his friends/lover in particular. It is rather an enjoyable, mostly sad ending, with just a tad bit of sweet.
The Dark Ritual? Not truly happy either. It is not free of potential consequences. If they become real or not is imo, irrelevant, as that knowledge requires metagaming. For the character, it is a dangerous gamble with the future. Further, there are several ways that ending can end in less than rosy tones. It can have the proverbial fly in the ointment, dependent of previous decisions.
Letting Alistair/Logan take the fall? Requires a type of character that one may not be willing to play, a dose of ruthlessness, or cold calculation. Regardless the result is not your textbook happy ending either.
Note: edited for clarity
vallore wrote...
I have to desagree.
Regardless of everything else, difficult or not, the result of the decisions should always be enjoyable. That is the point of gaming. We do not play games to become depressed or frustrated, we play to have fun.
.
The Dark Ritual? Not truly happy either. It is not free of potential consequences. If they become real or not is imo, irrelevant, as that knowledge requires metagaming. For the character, it is a dangerous gamble with the future. Further, there are several ways that ending can end in less than rosy tones. It can have the proverbial fly in the ointment, dependent of previous decisions.
Letting Alistair/Logan take the fall? Requires a type of character that one may not be willing to play, a dose of ruthlessness, or cold calculation. Regardless the result is not your textbook happy ending either.
CronoDragoon wrote...
Do you feel the same way about all stories, or is there something specific about video game stories that mandates such strict limitations?
"Textbook" is semantic. If you side with Alistair at the Landsmeet and execute Loghain, what exactly is the downside? Where are the tangible negatives that manifest as a result? Or is it all hyopothetical future possibilities that, as of DA2, have not shown themselves?
iakus wrote...
No, Shepard doesnt' have that right. Shepard is just a soldier. One who managed to survive the run to the beam. Shepard has no particular wisdom or authority outside of being in the right place at the right time. How does that give SHepard the right to alter every living being in the galaxy, not just Earth, or Sword fleet, or the Council race, but all living beings, everywhere. Prespaceflight civilizations, nonsentient beings like Varren, Pyjaks, the family dog. Every tree and shrub and blade of grass. Not to mention every being what will exist. The descendants of all these creatures.
This isnt' about one war, or one cycle. this is forever. That's where ego comes in. Shepard alone changes the galaxy in a fundamental way for everyone alive and everyone who will be alive alter.
Ideally all endings that could possibly happen should be able to happen. This is impossible to implement (although we got ones that couldn't possibly happen - go figure). Given that all likely results, or a good spread at least, should be possible, although "likely" has to take into account that the game is winnable at all (which isn't really likely, but hey). To do otherwise is to miss the biggest advantage of a game as a storytelling medium.Demarco09 wrote...
Happy for those who feel their cannon shep deserved one. Sad/self-sacrifice for those who thought their shep best suited a sad type of ending. And all the ones in between those two.... This is an RPG right? All your choices matter right?
iakus wrote...
To start with, the player assumes the role of the protagonist in games, unlike books, film, etc.
What are the tangible negatives of any of ME3's endings? Hypothetical future possibilities are important to people who place stock in the narrative.
CronoDragoon wrote...
iakus wrote...
No, Shepard doesnt' have that right. Shepard is just a soldier. One who managed to survive the run to the beam. Shepard has no particular wisdom or authority outside of being in the right place at the right time. How does that give SHepard the right to alter every living being in the galaxy, not just Earth, or Sword fleet, or the Council race, but all living beings, everywhere. Prespaceflight civilizations, nonsentient beings like Varren, Pyjaks, the family dog. Every tree and shrub and blade of grass. Not to mention every being what will exist. The descendants of all these creatures.
Shepard is not just a soldier. I don't know how you could possibly argue this given what's happened in the series. It is because of Shepard that the galaxy is even in the position it's in to fight the Reapers in the last battle. Shepard is the one responsible for alliances, for the success of building the Crucible. By the time Priority Earth comes along, he is the hero and the savior. He has ample wisdom and authority to make this decision, and to be perfectly honest after the hell the galaxy has went through, I am sure that becoming partly synthetic in in exchange for their lives is a reasonable compromise.This isnt' about one war, or one cycle. this is forever. That's where ego comes in. Shepard alone changes the galaxy in a fundamental way for everyone alive and everyone who will be alive alter.
The argument is only realistic if we consider those alive now, since those born after don't have a choice how they will live one way or another: organic or synthorganic.
Should those alive and fighting have a say in whether or not they have their DNA changed? Ideally, yes. But is it un-Paragon of Shepard to choose Synthesis given that he cannot ask permission of anyone for any of the endings? No, it isn't. No single ending is 100% Paragon or Renegade. That is, in fact my point. Each ending has Paragon and Renegade interpretations, which is to say there are drawbacks to each no matter where you stand. But that doesn't make Synthesis "Renegade" any more than it makes Control "Paragon".
Kabraxal wrote...
Doesn't give him the right to make that choice. I can speak from a personal level here... I would detest Shepard for forcing me to become something I don't want to be. What right does he have to say I want to live and be violated in that way? Cause honestly, I'd rather go down swinging and biting til my dying breath then have synthesis forced on me.
CronoDragoon wrote...
Kabraxal wrote...
Doesn't give him the right to make that choice. I can speak from a personal level here... I would detest Shepard for forcing me to become something I don't want to be. What right does he have to say I want to live and be violated in that way? Cause honestly, I'd rather go down swinging and biting til my dying breath then have synthesis forced on me.
Shepard is working with the operative knowledge that the galaxy wants to survive. No one joined Shepard in battle with a long list of don't-do limitations. They want to survive and he is working on that assumption.
CronoDragoon wrote...
iakus wrote...
To start with, the player assumes the role of the protagonist in games, unlike books, film, etc.
And that is a meaningful distinction how?
What are the tangible negatives of any of ME3's endings? Hypothetical future possibilities are important to people who place stock in the narrative.
Tangible negatives: Shepard dying, the geth/EDI being destroyed, the relays being destroyed or disabled, just for a few. These are not possibilities; they are actualities. This is what is lacking in the Dark Ritual.
Hypothetical future possibilities lacking any immediate consequences are relegated to speculation and conjecture.
Kabraxal wrote...
Being in a coma would be survival... would forcing the galaxy into a coma be acceptable?
Seriously, he doesn't have the right to make the choice. It's obvoius many people would not want to be forced into becoming something else. Renegade's would weigh survival more important and damn those persopnal rights. It's a renegade decision no matter how you look at it. You are forcing something on a hell of a lot of people that you know many wouldn't want. There is nothing noble in that.
Reorte wrote...
Ideally all endings that could possibly happen should be able to happen. This is impossible to implement (although we got ones that couldn't possibly happen - go figure). Given that all likely results, or a good spread at least, should be possible, although "likely" has to take into account that the game is winnable at all (which isn't really likely, but hey). To do otherwise is to miss the biggest advantage of a game as a storytelling medium.Demarco09 wrote...
Happy for those who feel their cannon shep deserved one. Sad/self-sacrifice for those who thought their shep best suited a sad type of ending. And all the ones in between those two.... This is an RPG right? All your choices matter right?
CronoDragoon wrote...
Kabraxal wrote...
Being in a coma would be survival... would forcing the galaxy into a coma be acceptable?
I don't consider being in a permanent coma survival, if that's what you are trying to say. Perhaps you should try another comparison?
Seriously, he doesn't have the right to make the choice. It's obvoius many people would not want to be forced into becoming something else. Renegade's would weigh survival more important and damn those persopnal rights. It's a renegade decision no matter how you look at it. You are forcing something on a hell of a lot of people that you know many wouldn't want. There is nothing noble in that.
In a vacuum, it's obvious they would not want to become something else. This isn't a vacuum but a galaxy-exterminating war. But if we were basing Shepard's "right" merely on what the "many" people would want, then destroying the geth and EDI shouldn't be a problem, right?
Retour en haut