1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Emperoroverlord]

happiness is relative, for a soldier coming home seeing his family is great happiness. In fact every nice thing after a devastated war can make people happy.

[Ridwan]

Hadeedak wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Because the pretend intellectuals who think 2000 space odyssey is a work of genius (while in reality it bores people to sleep) can't deal with happy endings it seems. It's too disney and unrealistic or some crap like that, meanwhile they got no problem with robots walking around talking and aliens with four balls.

Have you read the series at all?

I get that Mass Effect 3 can be compared to the movie, in that they end in a confusing way and there's a kid. But they're not all that similar. And... I liked 2001. I like most of Arthur C. Clarke's work. I don't know that that makes me much of an intellectual, pretend or not. But what's with the cheap shot on Clarke out of left field? 

No I haven't. I've watched the film 3 times (and each time I failed, cause I fell asleep and then tried again some years later). It's just a random "art" film I'm throwing out, it's on the list with Contact when it comes to films that are super boring and not that good, but for some reason, probably the same reason why a can of poop is art, is considered art.

Behold, art. No it's not a joke.


I just find it to be completely BS, that some of the people here who overanalyze write long winded posts about everything, also find that happy endings to be unrealistic, meanwhile a giant flying robot fish is totally realistic. People like that are a bad influence in a value of a game. It's ok that game have mature and some might even argue artistic features (I won't), but it also needs to leave the player wanting for more and get them to feel a sense of accomplishment when all is said and done. ME 3 failed spectaculary in that regard (the EC kinda fixed it a little) and therefore it greatly loses its replay value, cause why bother?

Modifié par M25105, 27 janvier 2013 - 09:58 .

[Auztin]

Here's the thing about the ending.You make your own happy ending in your head.Like for me
"I destroyed the reapers & lived i was found by Alliance soldiers & in a coma on Earth.There was ceremony held for Shepard,Anderson,Geth,EDI,Thane,Mordin,& Legion with commendations for their sacrifice.Joker mourned EDI.Garrus got hooked up with Tali lived off the riches like he said.Ashley(LI) was waiting by my bedside.Miranda was with her sister.Jack was back to teaching her students.Hackett retired.Liara went back to being the Shadow Broker.& got with Feron.Blah Blah Blah."
You get the point?

[Denethar]

Auztinito wrote...

Here's the thing about the ending.You make your own happy ending in your head.Like for me
"I destroyed the reapers & lived i was found by Alliance soldiers & in a coma on Earth.There was ceremony held for Shepard,Anderson,Geth,EDI,Thane,Mordin,& Legion with commendations for their sacrifice.Joker mourned EDI.Garrus got hooked up with Tali lived off the riches like he said.Ashley(LI) was waiting by my bedside.Miranda was with her sister.Jack was back to teaching her students.Hackett retired.Liara went back to being the Shadow Broker.& got with Feron.Blah Blah Blah."
You get the point?

I paid 75 dollar to make my own ending in my head?

Somehow that doesn't feel like a fair deal.

[Auztin]

Denethar wrote...

Auztinito wrote...

Here's the thing about the ending.You make your own happy ending in your head.Like for me
"I destroyed the reapers & lived i was found by Alliance soldiers & in a coma on Earth.There was ceremony held for Shepard,Anderson,Geth,EDI,Thane,Mordin,& Legion with commendations for their sacrifice.Joker mourned EDI.Garrus got hooked up with Tali lived off the riches like he said.Ashley(LI) was waiting by my bedside.Miranda was with her sister.Jack was back to teaching her students.Hackett retired.Liara went back to being the Shadow Broker.& got with Feron.Blah Blah Blah."
You get the point?

I paid 75 dollar to make my own ending in my head?

Somehow that doesn't feel like a fair deal.

It seems that way but you have to think about this.How can you make ending for everyone that is different from each.You can't put 20 totally different endings in a game & expect it not to mess up something else in the game.I would prefer EC instead of ME2 ending.ME2's ending was just a cliffhanger & so was ME1.Dragon Age:Origins didn't even have that many different endings it was just different variations.

Modifié par Auztinito, 27 janvier 2013 - 11:14 .

[Mcfly616]

M25105 wrote...

snip

I like Contact. It's one of my favorite sci fi films. In fact, I'm pretty sure everybody I know that have seen it, like it. So basically, what are we getting at? Well, its that word again: "opinion". Everything you just said, is your opinion. I have mine. Clearly, the movie can't be all that awful if it was a best selling novel turned Hollywood production that pulled some better than average acting talent (and I'm not talking about that douche Matthew Mcconaughey), and has a pretty original story.

So it didn't have explosions throughout. You've made it quite obvious. Maybe Independence Day is more up your alley. But throwing the word "Art" around in a mocking fashion as if your opinion has any credibility or legitimacy on the matter, just makes you look ignorant and have little to no grasp of what Art is. Or is it your idea of the "cool" thing to do?


Carry on....

Modifié par Mcfly616, 27 janvier 2013 - 11:26 .

[Pfor]

M25105 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Because the pretend intellectuals who think 2000 space odyssey is a work of genius (while in reality it bores people to sleep) can't deal with happy endings it seems. It's too disney and unrealistic or some crap like that, meanwhile they got no problem with robots walking around talking and aliens with four balls.

Have you read the series at all?

I get that Mass Effect 3 can be compared to the movie, in that they end in a confusing way and there's a kid. But they're not all that similar. And... I liked 2001. I like most of Arthur C. Clarke's work. I don't know that that makes me much of an intellectual, pretend or not. But what's with the cheap shot on Clarke out of left field? 

No I haven't. I've watched the film 3 times (and each time I failed, cause I fell asleep and then tried again some years later). It's just a random "art" film I'm throwing out, it's on the list with Contact when it comes to films that are super boring and not that good, but for some reason, probably the same reason why a can of poop is art, is considered art.

Behold, art. No it's not a joke.


I just find it to be completely BS, that some of the people here who overanalyze write long winded posts about everything, also find that happy endings to be unrealistic, meanwhile a giant flying robot fish is totally realistic. People like that are a bad influence in a value of a game. It's ok that game have mature and some might even argue artistic features (I won't), but it also needs to leave the player wanting for more and get them to feel a sense of accomplishment when all is said and done. ME 3 failed spectaculary in that regard (the EC kinda fixed it a little) and therefore it greatly loses its replay value, cause why bother?

And yet, you bother continuing to post on this forum 9 months after the release of a game that has horribly disappointed you. 

But before you realise how insanely illogical frittering your life away on the Bioware Social Forums over a game that has 'no replay value' is, consider that the vast majority of people who have seen 2001 greatly enjoyed it because of the way it played with genre conventions of science ficiton. Indeed, this is one of many reasons I still enjoy it years and years after seeing it for the first time. And yet, I don't begrudge you finding it boring. In fact, I don't even care because you're entitled to your opinion. 

Crazy how that works, right 

u should try it bro 

u know

not hating on other people's opinions 

[78stonewobble]

GimmeDaGun wrote...
Fair enough. Not, nice at all, but it seems you see that too...

Well, my view on war is quite different. I'm far from being a notorious pacificst, or anything, but I don't consider those things morally or in any way "good" (only useful at best), since hundreds of thousands or even millions had to suffer and die to let a part(!) of humanity benefit from those technical or economical advantages which the war produced (mostly for the victor). I take any human life over any kind of advantage humanity can gain from wars. But that's me.

While it is sad that war is necessary due to human nature it can be necessary imho.

Someone somewhere will think less of the people around him/her and start throwing lives away.

The question then becomes. Do you make war (a supposedly bad thing) to stop that person? Do we have a moral obligation to stop xyz dictator from inflicting deaths upon those around him? What if he/elected was elected? And so forth.

Depending on the circumstances a war to remove eg. a dictator could end up saving more lives totally than the war itself would cost.

It all boils down to what level of involvement you think is right and proper and your priorities.

But that is off topic really...



Regarding 2001.

I think it is a great film, but I also agree that it can be boring as hell. That quite depends on what mood im in when I'm watching it.

Sometimes I'm reflective and sometimes I just want big flashy splosions...

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 27 janvier 2013 - 11:36 .

[Ridwan]

Pfor wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Because the pretend intellectuals who think 2000 space odyssey is a work of genius (while in reality it bores people to sleep) can't deal with happy endings it seems. It's too disney and unrealistic or some crap like that, meanwhile they got no problem with robots walking around talking and aliens with four balls.

Have you read the series at all?

I get that Mass Effect 3 can be compared to the movie, in that they end in a confusing way and there's a kid. But they're not all that similar. And... I liked 2001. I like most of Arthur C. Clarke's work. I don't know that that makes me much of an intellectual, pretend or not. But what's with the cheap shot on Clarke out of left field? 

No I haven't. I've watched the film 3 times (and each time I failed, cause I fell asleep and then tried again some years later). It's just a random "art" film I'm throwing out, it's on the list with Contact when it comes to films that are super boring and not that good, but for some reason, probably the same reason why a can of poop is art, is considered art.

Behold, art. No it's not a joke.


I just find it to be completely BS, that some of the people here who overanalyze write long winded posts about everything, also find that happy endings to be unrealistic, meanwhile a giant flying robot fish is totally realistic. People like that are a bad influence in a value of a game. It's ok that game have mature and some might even argue artistic features (I won't), but it also needs to leave the player wanting for more and get them to feel a sense of accomplishment when all is said and done. ME 3 failed spectaculary in that regard (the EC kinda fixed it a little) and therefore it greatly loses its replay value, cause why bother?

And yet, you bother continuing to post on this forum 9 months after the release of a game that has horribly disappointed you. 

But before you realise how insanely illogical frittering your life away on the Bioware Social Forums over a game that has 'no replay value' is, consider that the vast majority of people who have seen 2001 greatly enjoyed it because of the way it played with genre conventions of science ficiton. Indeed, this is one of many reasons I still enjoy it years and years after seeing it for the first time. And yet, I don't begrudge you finding it boring. In fact, I don't even care because you're entitled to your opinion. 

Crazy how that works, right 

u should try it bro 

u know

not hating on other people's opinions 

Where's the fun in that?

Edit: down below for a more serious response.

FYI: I'm  not hating on peoples opinion, just calling out that I think it's BS that ME 3 couldn't have a happy ending cause it's for some reason unrealistic. And I enjoy the game series, and I'll buy ME 4 (when it's on discount), but I'm posting this stuff to get through to those that still think happy endings are unrealistic and not "mature". You see, I like this game series, a lot. Big fan of it and I want it to be successful, but even when the rage on the forum against the ending was the highest, you saw many people claiming that they wanted the ending to make sense and were willing to have Shepard die. That's cool for them I guess, not for me. I wanted the game to end on a note of celebration, not heroic sacrifice.

Why did I throw the films out there? Why not? They were boring to me, yet is considered artistic to some. Yet I'll bet people rather wanna watch Bloodsport together over beer and pizza than watch one of those important art films in a group. And yet Bloodsport is considered one of the cheesiest 80's film ever. So on one hand, you got one of those fancy art films that you have to watch alone or you got the great films you can watch with your buddies, guess which one I prefer. Same goes for the ending, I rather see Shepard standing over a crater of Reapers, chugging beer and grab his love interests ass and then see the epilogue followed by the credits. Game over.

Modifié par M25105, 27 janvier 2013 - 11:57 .

[Mcfly616]

Lol

This guy is so cool ^


....and edgy. F*ckin edgy, man.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 27 janvier 2013 - 11:37 .

[RukiaKuchki]

If you look at this from a slightly different angle, most of the different races can have a happy ending in ME3 - it's just Shepard that doesn't/can't have a happy ending. The genophage can be cured and the Krogan can now breed, assuring their survival. Art and culture instead of war and violence is brought back into their civilisation and maybe they will be invited to join the council(?) - a huge victory. The Quarians- who suffered extreme prejudice and like the Krogan were teetering on the edge of extinction - can return to their homeworld and will again breathe without the aid of a mask... and perhaps begin to atone for some of the moral crimes they committed in the past against the Geth. The Geth can be accepted as fully sentient beings, and will no longer be feared and restricted to the margins of the galaxy. Earth, Palavan, Thessia to name a few are liberated. Humanity can (and will) rebuild. The technology left behind by the Reapers can be rebuilt and used not only to return galactic civilisation to the way it was, it can now surpass that which came before because there is no longer the threat of the Reapers coming back to cut down the main civilisations as they reach their apex. And let's not forget the small fact that Shepard has united an entire galaxy. Different races who hated/mistrusted each other working together to achieve a common goal. There must be long term repercussions from this...mainly the fact that they will be less likely to needlessly go to war with each other in the future. This is surely a happy ending?

So...I don't think it's an unhappy ending at all. It is the definition of bittersweet. In order to achieve a happy ending, Shepard must sacrifice himself. The loss of one man/woman to save not only the billions who are alive at that particular point in time, but the many billions of the generations to come who would not be allowed to exist if the Reaper's won. In return, Shepard becomes a legend, need I say it without cringing, but almost a Christ-like figure. Of course those left behind, those whose lives were directly and personally touched by Shepard will be devastated, but there was always going to be a price to pay for winning the war. If you go down the route of trying to save Shepard (i.e. the high EMS destroy ending) you have to commit genocide. Shepard lives, but the cost is terrible. So in this instance, even a 'happy' ending is not so clear cut, it's terribly selfish and morally questionable. Is the life of one man worth more than the lives of billions?

[Ridwan]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Lol

This guy is so cool ^


....and edgy. F*ckin edgy, man.

I know rite!

[Denethar]

Auztinito wrote...

Denethar wrote...

Auztinito wrote...

Here's the thing about the ending.You make your own happy ending in your head.Like for me
"I destroyed the reapers & lived i was found by Alliance soldiers & in a coma on Earth.There was ceremony held for Shepard,Anderson,Geth,EDI,Thane,Mordin,& Legion with commendations for their sacrifice.Joker mourned EDI.Garrus got hooked up with Tali lived off the riches like he said.Ashley(LI) was waiting by my bedside.Miranda was with her sister.Jack was back to teaching her students.Hackett retired.Liara went back to being the Shadow Broker.& got with Feron.Blah Blah Blah."
You get the point?

I paid 75 dollar to make my own ending in my head?

Somehow that doesn't feel like a fair deal.

It seems that way but you have to think about this.How can you make ending for everyone that is different from each.You can't put 20 totally different endings in a game & expect it not to mess up something else in the game.I would prefer EC instead of ME2 ending.ME2's ending was just a cliffhanger & so was ME1.Dragon Age:Origins didn't even have that many different endings it was just different variations.

DA:O did it right though. it didn't have to be 3 endings with a huge difference. All that was needed was those differences. Genophage cure or not, Geth alive or not....and other choices we had to make. Take the Destroy ending and just make variations and I think a lot more people would have been happy about it.

[78stonewobble]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

If you look at this from a slightly different angle, most of the different races can have a happy ending in ME3 - it's just Shepard that doesn't/can't have a happy ending. The genophage can be cured and the Krogan can now breed, assuring their survival. Art and culture instead of war and violence is brought back into their civilisation and maybe they will be invited to join the council(?) - a huge victory. The Quarians- who suffered extreme prejudice and like the Krogan were teetering on the edge of extinction - can return to their homeworld and will again breathe without the aid of a mask... and perhaps begin to atone for some of the moral crimes they committed in the past against the Geth. The Geth can be accepted as fully sentient beings, and will no longer be feared and restricted to the margins of the galaxy. Earth, Palavan, Thessia to name a few are liberated. Humanity can (and will) rebuild. The technology left behind by the Reapers can be rebuilt and used not only to return galactic civilisation to the way it was, it can now surpass that which came before because there is no longer the threat of the Reapers coming back to cut down the main civilisations as they reach their apex. And let's not forget the small fact that Shepard has united an entire galaxy. Different races who hated/mistrusted each other working together to achieve a common goal. There must be long term repercussions from this...mainly the fact that they will be less likely to needlessly go to war with each other in the future. This is surely a happy ending?

So...I don't think it's an unhappy ending at all. It is the definition of bittersweet. In order to achieve a happy ending, Shepard must sacrifice himself. The loss of one man/woman to save not only the billions who are alive at that particular point in time, but the many billions of the generations to come who would not be allowed to exist if the Reaper's won. In return, Shepard becomes a legend, need I say it without cringing, but almost a Christ-like figure. Of course those left behind, those whose lives were directly and personally touched by Shepard will be devastated, but there was always going to be a price to pay for winning the war. If you go down the route of trying to save Shepard (i.e. the high EMS destroy ending) you have to commit genocide. Shepard lives, but the cost is terrible. So in this instance, even a 'happy' ending is not so clear cut, it's terribly selfish and morally questionable. Is the life of one man worth more than the lives of billions?

I understand the argument and partially agree.

However I still think that "that" in itself should not exclude having 3 endings being actually different endings.

If they're all "bittersweet" or "happy", depending on your outlook on things, then it isn't 3 endings, but 1.

And I still think that a true bittersweet ending should be executed in a manner that leaves you both bitter and sweet. Happy AND sad.

It didn't in my oppinion. It was an absense of the emotional extremes. Not a mixture.

[wright1978]

Denethar wrote...

DA:O did it right though. it didn't have to be 3 endings with a huge difference. All that was needed was those differences. Genophage cure or not, Geth alive or not....and other choices we had to make. Take the Destroy ending and just make variations and I think a lot more people would have been happy about it.

Yeah DAO one ending with tonnes of variation worked well and they could have followed that route. However i think the 3 branches of endings with variation could have worked if they bothered integrating the endings into the narrative of the story earlier rather than getting to 1 minute before the credits and thinking it a great idea to create a nonsenical plot device to act as an ending data dump.

[Dr_Extrem]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

If you look at this from a slightly different angle, most of the different races can have a happy ending in ME3 - it's just Shepard that doesn't/can't have a happy ending. The genophage can be cured and the Krogan can now breed, assuring their survival. Art and culture instead of war and violence is brought back into their civilisation and maybe they will be invited to join the council(?) - a huge victory. The Quarians- who suffered extreme prejudice and like the Krogan were teetering on the edge of extinction - can return to their homeworld and will again breathe without the aid of a mask... and perhaps begin to atone for some of the moral crimes they committed in the past against the Geth. The Geth can be accepted as fully sentient beings, and will no longer be feared and restricted to the margins of the galaxy. Earth, Palavan, Thessia to name a few are liberated. Humanity can (and will) rebuild. The technology left behind by the Reapers can be rebuilt and used not only to return galactic civilisation to the way it was, it can now surpass that which came before because there is no longer the threat of the Reapers coming back to cut down the main civilisations as they reach their apex. And let's not forget the small fact that Shepard has united an entire galaxy. Different races who hated/mistrusted each other working together to achieve a common goal. There must be long term repercussions from this...mainly the fact that they will be less likely to needlessly go to war with each other in the future. This is surely a happy ending?

So...I don't think it's an unhappy ending at all. It is the definition of bittersweet. In order to achieve a happy ending, Shepard must sacrifice himself. The loss of one man/woman to save not only the billions who are alive at that particular point in time, but the many billions of the generations to come who would not be allowed to exist if the Reaper's won. In return, Shepard becomes a legend, need I say it without cringing, but almost a Christ-like figure. Of course those left behind, those whose lives were directly and personally touched by Shepard will be devastated, but there was always going to be a price to pay for winning the war. If you go down the route of trying to save Shepard (i.e. the high EMS destroy ending) you have to commit genocide. Shepard lives, but the cost is terrible. So in this instance, even a 'happy' ending is not so clear cut, it's terribly selfish and morally questionable. Is the life of one man worth more than the lives of billions?

there is one flaw in your argumentation chain.

sacrifice is willingly. shepard has to commit suicide or else, the harvest continues. for a self sacrifice, the option not to do it, is a premise. this is not given. its: "die (on my terms) or watch the galaxy burn." take your pick. 

what you discribe as happy endings (control & synthesis), are in fact crimes against nature and the extiction of free will and self determination. this game has no happy ending - shepard has to commit suicide, because of the catalysts extortion.


oh .. and one thing .. shepard chooses destroy, because it destroyes the reapers - once and for all (in the other endings, they are still around). shepard has no reason to believe, that he/she will survive or that the reapers in the other endings will be pacified. what you do is metagaming.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 27 janvier 2013 - 12:48 .

[RukiaKuchki]

78stonewobble wrote...

I understand the argument and partially agree. 

However I still think that "that" in itself should not exclude having 3 endings being actually different endings.

If they're all "bittersweet" or "happy", depending on your outlook on things, then it isn't 3 endings, but 1.

And I still think that a true bittersweet ending should be executed in a manner that leaves you both bitter and sweet. Happy AND sad.

It didn't in my oppinion. It was an absense of the emotional extremes. Not a mixture.

Fair comment. But do you think that what we are looking for is just a happy ending for Shepard? The tone I'm getting is that people would like to see an ending where Shepard is essentially reunited with their crew or loved ones, and that can really happen under good or bad circumstances. It's like someone whose loved one goes to war... they don't care who wins the war and how, they just want their loved one to come home? They don't want them to sacrifice themselves for anything...even the greater good? 

[78stonewobble]

RukiaKuchki wrote...
Fair comment. But do you think that what we are looking for is just a happy ending for Shepard? The tone I'm getting is that people would like to see an ending where Shepard is essentially reunited with their crew or loved ones, and that can really happen under good or bad circumstances. It's like someone whose loved one goes to war... they don't care who wins the war and how, they just want their loved one to come home? They don't want them to sacrifice themselves for anything...even the greater good? 

Well I don't know what every one else wants.

For me it isn't that much about whether the ending is happy or sad, just that the ending there is, is of a good quality. Eg. An awesome tragic ending is still an awesome ending. 

However... Given that there are, and iimho should be, a choice in the endings? 

I think there might as well have been genuinely different endings. A true happy one (within the war setting), a true middle one, a truely sad one and so forth. 

You can, with the right execution, pull off a shepard surviving and reuniting with friends and family, without making it a disney "rainbows and unicorns" ending.

It just requires enough attention to detail and showing the other sides of the war. As it is we have been very disconnected from the majority of the galaxy to care about whose dying, where and why.

[knightnblu]

Being as you have defined "happy ending" to what you specifically want, shouldn't you change the title of this thread?

[RukiaKuchki]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

there is one flaw in your argumentation chain.

sacrifice is willingly. shepard has to commit suicide or else, the harvest continues. for a self sacrifice, the option not to do it, is a premise. this is not given. its: "die (on my terms) or watch the galaxy burn." take your pick. 

what you discribe as happy endings (control & synthesis), are in fact crimes against nature and the extiction of free will and self determination. this game has no happy ending - shepard has to commit suicide, because of the catalysts extortion.


oh .. and one thing .. shepard chooses destroy, because it destroyes the reapers - once and for all (in the other endings, they are still around). shepard has no reason to believe, that he/she will survive or that the reapers in the other endings will be pacified. what you do is metagaming.

Regarding the endings...I agree with you to some extent. They are all pretty, erm..difficult in terms of their morality. Even destroy is morally ambiguous because in addition to genocide, the Catalyst warns you that the conflict between organics and synthetics will arise again. The peace will be temporary. Arguably the problems won't be in Shepard's lifetime, and maybe not for hundreds of generations, but it will probably happen. So in the end, do we accept a temporary peace and sacrifice the generations to come? I think that perhaps using the term 'happy ending' is a misnomer for ME3 and yes, none of the endings are by definition 'happy' (so I'm sorta contridicting the terminology of my first post, lol!), but there are a lot of happy outcomes. I think the ramifications of all of endings are quite unpleasant, and give me that feeling of hopelessness in the pit of my stomach because I have grown very fond of my Shepard and I desperately wanted him to have a happy ending because I felt he deserved it. None of the choices can yield an outcome that is favourable for everyone, and that is what I really like about them. Some of us have been playing this games since 2007 (seemingly) making all the right choices, being highly moralistic and promoting peace when in fact no matter what you do as an individual, the forces around you are infinitely more powerful and the choices you have to make are horrible and go against everything you believe in. To me, it's a case of accepting the lesser evil which if you compare this to reality, is what commonly what happens in conflict. There are no outright victors without considerable loss. In terms of sacrifice though, I don't really understand your point...perhaps you can elaborate? By simple definition, a sacrifice is a short term loss in order to gain some larger in the long term. Shepard's sacrifice is willing, he knows when he goes to the Citadel that he is unlikely to return. Does a willing sacrifice make it any more or less worthy? It could be argued that Shepard is forced to sacrifice himself. He is sent to the Citadel by Hackett, who in turn knows that he will probably not return.

[RukiaKuchki]

78stonewobble wrote...

Well I don't know what every one else wants.

For me it isn't that much about whether the ending is happy or sad, just that the ending there is, is of a good quality. Eg. An awesome tragic ending is still an awesome ending. 

However... Given that there are, and iimho should be, a choice in the endings? 

I think there might as well have been genuinely different endings. A true happy one (within the war setting), a true middle one, a truely sad one and so forth. 

You can, with the right execution, pull off a shepard surviving and reuniting with friends and family, without making it a disney "rainbows and unicorns" ending.

It just requires enough attention to detail and showing the other sides of the war. As it is we have been very disconnected from the majority of the galaxy to care about whose dying, where and why.

In bold - this is what I was expecting to happen to be honest, and the darkness of the final choice really surprised me. I think Bioware tried to avoid a cliched RPG ending, and didn't fully succeed for reasons that have been debated to death on the forums so I don't want to go down that route here lol. It's obvious that I quite like the endings, but I will defnitely agree with you in that there wasn't enough meat on the bone for the writers to really spell out what was happening, and just how morally ambiguous the endings are. I guess I'm just writing about my interpretation, and there is a high probability that I am totally wrong in my interpretation of what the endings are trying to do!!! Maybe it would have better if the endings were more clear and not so open to interpretation!!!

[Auztin]

Denethar wrote...

Auztinito wrote...

Denethar wrote...

Auztinito wrote...

Here's the thing about the ending.You make your own happy ending in your head.Like for me
"I destroyed the reapers & lived i was found by Alliance soldiers & in a coma on Earth.There was ceremony held for Shepard,Anderson,Geth,EDI,Thane,Mordin,& Legion with commendations for their sacrifice.Joker mourned EDI.Garrus got hooked up with Tali lived off the riches like he said.Ashley(LI) was waiting by my bedside.Miranda was with her sister.Jack was back to teaching her students.Hackett retired.Liara went back to being the Shadow Broker.& got with Feron.Blah Blah Blah."
You get the point?

I paid 75 dollar to make my own ending in my head?

Somehow that doesn't feel like a fair deal.

It seems that way but you have to think about this.How can you make ending for everyone that is different from each.You can't put 20 totally different endings in a game & expect it not to mess up something else in the game.I would prefer EC instead of ME2 ending.ME2's ending was just a cliffhanger & so was ME1.Dragon Age:Origins didn't even have that many different endings it was just different variations.

DA:O did it right though. it didn't have to be 3 endings with a huge difference. All that was needed was those differences. Genophage cure or not, Geth alive or not....and other choices we had to make. Take the Destroy ending and just make variations and I think a lot more people would have been happy about it.

I'll agree with you there.It worked well for DA:O.I was just using it as something relatable or similiar to ME3's ending.That is all.

Modifié par Auztinito, 27 janvier 2013 - 01:48 .

[78stonewobble]

RukiaKuchki wrote...]

Regarding the endings...I agree with you to some extent. They are all pretty, erm..difficult in terms of their morality. Even destroy is morally ambiguous because in addition to genocide, the Catalyst warns you that the conflict between organics and synthetics will arise again. The peace will be temporary. Arguably the problems won't be in Shepard's lifetime, and maybe not for hundreds of generations, but it will probably happen. So in the end, do we accept a temporary peace and sacrifice the generations to come? I think that perhaps using the term 'happy ending' is a misnomer for ME3 and yes, none of the endings are by definition 'happy' (so I'm sorta contridicting the terminology of my first post, lol!), but there are a lot of happy outcomes. I think the ramifications of all of endings are quite unpleasant, and give me that feeling of hopelessness in the pit of my stomach because I have grown very fond of my Shepard and I desperately wanted him to have a happy ending because I felt he deserved it. None of the choices can yield an outcome that is favourable for everyone, and that is what I really like about them. Some of us have been playing this games since 2007 (seemingly) making all the right choices, being highly moralistic and promoting peace when in fact no matter what you do as an individual, the forces around you are infinitely more powerful and the choices you have to make are horrible and go against everything you believe in. To me, it's a case of accepting the lesser evil which if you compare this to reality, is what commonly what happens in conflict. There are no outright victors without considerable loss. In terms of sacrifice though, I don't really understand your point...perhaps you can elaborate? By simple definition, a sacrifice is a short term loss in order to gain some larger in the long term. Shepard's sacrifice is willing, he knows when he goes to the Citadel that he is unlikely to return. Does a willing sacrifice make it any more or less worthy? It could be argued that Shepard is forced to sacrifice himself. He is sent to the Citadel by Hackett, who in turn knows that he will probably not return.

I said this in another thread.

"Hard choices are interesting if they are genuinely hard. Eg. there are sound arguments for and against.

Lacking that... They just became arbitrarily enforced."



Say you've bought your newly manufactured car and have to decide on the paint. That is an interesting choice. Do you go for the bright red you love, survivability or ease of cleaning and what not?

Now the manufacturer says... "You can only pick light grey, grey or dark grey." Because he likes grey ALOT.

It's still a choice... but it's a crappy one... The choices are too similar and too far from what you wanted to be engaging. You would maaaybe accept the choice if it was because you wanted a really cheap car and this particular manufacturer could only afford grey paint. Or maybe the guy could point out that grey IS the best colour for a car. That would make more sense than the manufacturer arbitrarily enforcing his own subjective oppinion on the choice. To the degree where it's no longer your choice but his that you are making.

This is sort of like me3's diversity in endings to me. They are all grey and they are not my choices. It's someone elses.

The only real choice is to not buy a car at all / refuse... and loose.

3 shades of grey or nothing at all is pseudo choice.

EDIT: This is atleast from an emotional standpoint.

The choices themselves are okay'ish interesting, but some have very few detractions (unless you really analyse what is being said and not said) and eg. the geth one is rather arbitrary and they are poorly delivered.

Having been forced to blow up thessia or earth to destroy some reapers. With the choice of which one would have been interesting and the detractions obvious.

Or rather than it automatically being the geth being sacrificed ... Shepard should have had to choose which race.

Something like that.

EDIT2: I still find the catalyst logic so unconvincing that I cant trust the choices. The choices themselves are also unconvincing.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 27 janvier 2013 - 02:22 .

[Obadiah]

RukiaKuchki wrote...
...
It's obvious that I quite like the endings, but I will defnitely agree with you in that there wasn't enough meat on the bone for the writers to really spell out what was happening, and just how morally ambiguous the endings are.
...

I agree as well. I am quite happy with the ending.

But the meat - a decent sci-fi explanation, and more discussion about the moral ambiguity of the ending in-game and from the devs outside of the game kind of irks me. A bunch of it could probably be solved with an official FAQ, but I'm guessing EA and Bioware don't want to engage in an official discussion on some of the more controversial and poisonous interpretations of the ending.