1258 réponses à ce sujet

[RukiaKuchki]

Obadiah wrote...

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.

I would love to have a discussion about this with the writers. It would be interesting to see what their intentions were, not with the intention of saying who here on the forums was right and who was wrong because it doesn't matter really, but just to see what I missed in the narrative that was important. Sadly, I don't think this discussion is going to happen any time in the near future. 

[RukiaKuchki]

78stonewobble wrote...

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."

Yes, this I see. The choices are perhaps open to so much interpretation that they don't seem like that much of a choice at all. I would concede that a failing of the ending could be the fact that the choices mean different things to different people (and to some they mean nothing at all...so there is no choice). For some, it just needed to be more explicit rather than a barrage of exposition from the Catalyst and a narrated slide show at the end.

[RukiaKuchki]

oops..cat stood on the keyboard :-)
DELETED!

Modifié par RukiaKuchki, 27 janvier 2013 - 02:27 .

[78stonewobble]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

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."

Yes, this I see. The choices are perhaps open to so much interpretation that they don't seem like that much of a choice at all. I would concede that a failing of the ending could be the fact that the choices mean different things to different people (and to some they mean nothing at all...so there is no choice). For some, it just needed to be more explicit rather than a barrage of exposition from the Catalyst and a narrated slide show at the end.

It's not so much that they mean different things to different people.

Whether control means good Shepard or dictator Shepard. Whether synthesis is good thing / bad thing. Whether destroy can be the only real win in that it destroys the reapers.

Those are good questions worthy of deliberation.

However when you find out the catalyst makes no sense, there is no point in what the reapers are doing and there is nothing but space magic and "because I said so" as reasons for why the solutions are what they are. Then it all unravels into a pointless mess.

Anyways plot/logic holes is off topic here.



To sum up the arguments against a happy ending (no I'm not expecting one).

Some people would choose it and I don't like that. Or I don't like choice.

I don't think it fits with the story (theme), but I will ignore that lots of other people have a different interpretation of atleast the theme.

I don't think it fits with the story (amount of darkness) being set during a war, but I will ignore that wars aren't just bleak and peoples lives continue during wars.

I think 3 shades of grey rather than all the colours is choice enough.

I like bittersweet (though it didn't leave me bitter or sweet) so much that I want 3 different flavours of bittersweet and other people can't have anything else.

Happy somehow excludes quality.

...


Is that what you're sticking to bsn? 

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 27 janvier 2013 - 02:58 .

[RukiaKuchki]

78stonewobble wrote...

However when you find out the catalyst makes no sense, there is no point in what the reapers are doing and there is nothing but space magic and "because I said so" as reasons for why the solutions are what they are. Then it all unravels into a pointless mess.

So do you think that the fundamental problem is actually the Catalyst's logic? Do you think it should have been better explained in the game, or perhaps in the Leviathan DLC?

[Dr_Extrem]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

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.

shepard goes to the citadel, because it is his/her duty. it was his/her decision, to joint the armed forces. 

why do i stand up at 3am in the morning? why do i run into a burning house, with a 10L bottle of compressed air @ 300atm, while every sane being around me, is running out of it (i am a voluntary fireman - beside my normal work)? because it is my duty. does that mean i dont want to come home after the fire is out? clearly not.


BUT!

there is a difference between being ready to sacrifice yourself for the greater good (of no other outcome is possible) and being forced to do so, because your enemy demands that as a term of of your surrender is, that shepard has no choice. if shepard refuses, this cycle is doomed - this is the only thing, shepard knows for certain. he/she can not even be sure, that liaras time capsules will withstand the ravages of time. from his/her pov, the reapers know of the plans and the crucible. it is the logical conclusion, that they will frisk the entire galaxy for trace info and get rid of them (thats what every shepard would do btw). 

but the real problem with the endings is, that shepard does not even "try to be the shepard" (imagine sam l. jackson form pulp fiction here). shepard takes it like a little "you know what i mean" and does not even object. even if the catalyst would not give in and keeps demanding its offering (shepard), shepard would at least have tried. the ending is also received badly, because shepard roles over without objection. in addition, the paradigm shift this ending represents, bugs not only me - the reapers are no longer the enemy - they are the victims of a broken ai, that is forced to obay to its program, while shepard becomes the war criminal.  

in every ending, the enemy gets rid of the only being in the universe, that was the only (ever) threat to their own existance. (i am not with the IT-crowd).


imo, destroy is painted by the catalyst, as the most grim choice for a reason. in control, it is only enhanced by shepards morals - its will to do its duty is unchanged and in synthesis, the reapers are still around, if this sample (wich can be seen a a new experiment) fails after 50k years. i would call it self preservation.


btw. a surviving shepard and the not-sacrifice of synthetic life, does not make this ending happy. shepard was in purgatory (not only the bar and the prison ship). shepard experienced hell and loss. he/she even had to helplessly witness the death of his/her mentor, without being able to do something against it.
the galaxy lies in ashes, every world looks like berlin 1945 and galaxy-wide communication and travel are not possible for a long time. several colonies will not be able to survive on their own (i.e.: sterile "terminator seeds" are used on horizon to grow food). an d i am not counting the faceless dead and the fleets that came to earth (those troops will not most likely not sse their homeworlds and loved ones again - one way trip). 
an ending with this implication, can still be happy but also bittersweet or dark - depending on the player and his/her imagination. the ending we have now, are mostly (and definately on a personal base) dark.

shepards survival against all odds does not make the endng happy - it only makes shepard a possibly tragic and broken character - scarred for (a possibly very long) life. why does the imagination of a lot of people not reach this far?

[78stonewobble]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

However when you find out the catalyst makes no sense, there is no point in what the reapers are doing and there is nothing but space magic and "because I said so" as reasons for why the solutions are what they are. Then it all unravels into a pointless mess.

So do you think that the fundamental problem is actually the Catalyst's logic? Do you think it should have been better explained in the game, or perhaps in the Leviathan DLC?

I think the logic is so fundamentally flawed it cannot be fixed. So the problem is trying to use logic as motivation in the first place.

Had the catalyst been displayed as crazy or faulty I'd have had no problem with the rest making little to no sense.
Crazy doesn't have to make sense. It's why it's crazy. 

If they wanted a logic route it should have been kept very simple. Reapers reap because sentients organics are as tasty as bacon and they want to make more reapers.

Simple and relatively bulletproof logic.

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

shepard goes to the citadel, because it is his/her duty. it was his/her decision, to joint the armed forces. 

why do i stand up at 3am in the morning? why do i run into a burning house, with a 10L bottle of compressed air @ 300atm, while every sane being around me, is running out of it (i am a voluntary fireman - beside my normal work)? because it is my duty. does that mean i dont want to come home after the fire is out? clearly not.


BUT!

there is a difference between being ready to sacrifice yourself for the greater good (of no other outcome is possible) and being forced to do so, because your enemy demands that as a term of of your surrender is, that shepard has no choice. if shepard refuses, this cycle is doomed - this is the only thing, shepard knows for certain. he/she can not even be sure, that liaras time capsules will withstand the ravages of time. from his/her pov, the reapers know of the plans and the crucible. it is the logical conclusion, that they will frisk the entire galaxy for trace info and get rid of them (thats what every shepard would do btw). 

but the real problem with the endings is, that shepard does not even "try to be the shepard" (imagine sam l. jackson form pulp fiction here). shepard takes it like a little "you know what i mean" and does not even object. even if the catalyst would not give in and keeps demanding its offering (shepard), shepard would at least have tried. the ending is also received badly, because shepard roles over without objection. in addition, the paradigm shift this ending represents, bugs not only me - the reapers are no longer the enemy - they are the victims of a broken ai, that is forced to obay to its program, while shepard becomes the war criminal.  

in every ending, the enemy gets rid of the only being in the universe, that was the only (ever) threat to their own existance. (i am not with the IT-crowd).


imo, destroy is painted by the catalyst, as the most grim choice for a reason. in control, it is only enhanced by shepards morals - its will to do its duty is unchanged and in synthesis, the reapers are still around, if this sample (wich can be seen a a new experiment) fails after 50k years. i would call it self preservation.


btw. a surviving shepard and the not-sacrifice of synthetic life, does not make this ending happy. shepard was in purgatory (not only the bar and the prison ship). shepard experienced hell and loss. he/she even had to helplessly witness the death of his/her mentor, without being able to do something against it.
the galaxy lies in ashes, every world looks like berlin 1945 and galaxy-wide communication and travel are not possible for a long time. several colonies will not be able to survive on their own (i.e.: sterile "terminator seeds" are used on horizon to grow food). an d i am not counting the faceless dead and the fleets that came to earth (those troops will not most likely not sse their homeworlds and loved ones again - one way trip). 
an ending with this implication, can still be happy but also bittersweet or dark - depending on the player and his/her imagination. the ending we have now, are mostly (and definately on a personal base) dark.

shepards survival against all odds does not make the endng happy - it only makes shepard a possibly tragic and broken character - scarred for (a possibly very long) life. why does the imagination of a lot of people not reach this far?

You could say all above in just one sentence: "i don't like the way it all ended", which is just your personal opinion of course.

The story ended in the most unpredictable way, like it or not. This really got under your skin? You may again and again try to cry a little, do some regular bashing against the wall - this will not help. Unexpected turn of events is not bad writing. There is nothing incorrect in the story.

Wanna keep bashing against the wall forever? Then so be it. Your mind's safety is your own business.

[78stonewobble]

Seival wrote...
You could say all above in just one sentence: "i don't like the way it all ended", which is just your personal opinion of course.

The story ended in the most unpredictable way, like it or not. This really got under your skin? You may again and again try to cry a little, do some regular bashing against the wall - this will not help. Unexpected turn of events is not bad writing. There is nothing incorrect in the story.

Wanna keep bashing against the wall forever? Then so be it. Your mind's safety is your own business.

But neither is that any guarantee or testiment to the quality of the story.

[Femlob]

Don't feed the Seival.

[RukiaKuchki]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

snippidy doo-da (trying to prevent a huge quote pyramid!)

Thanks for explaining Dr_Extrem. So do you think that Shepard's sacrifice is less worthy and is empty because he's made to do it, it isn't actually a choice? If that is the case, why would that be a detriment to the story? Shepard is treated unfairly, he doesn't get the ending he deserves (in my opinion of course!) because he's gone far beyond most to defeat the Reaper threat. And that is what I like about it - ME3 turns all preconceptions for who deserves what based upon their actions right on its head. What happens isn't fair, it's horrible. I agree that by going to the Citadel Shepard is not just doing his job or what he's told, he's doing his duty unquestionably and what he knows is right, even when faced with such odds. It could be easy for him to just run (he could have disappeared and spent the next decades playing hide and seek with the Reapers as the Normandy seems able to outrun them), but it doesn't occur to him that that is an option. Maybe it should have been (at least for the renegade Shepard)? 

[Thore2k10]

Seival wrote...

You could say all above in just one sentence: "i don't like the way it all ended", which is just your personal opinion of course.

The story ended in the most unpredictable way, like it or not. This really got under your skin? You may again and again try to cry a little, do some regular bashing against the wall - this will not help. Unexpected turn of events is not bad writing. There is nothing incorrect in the story.

Wanna keep bashing against the wall forever? Then so be it. Your mind's safety is your own business.

Unexpected events is not bad writing, agreed.

But to introduce a new antagonist, which exceeds the old one in meaning and importance, in the last few minutes of the game is bad writing!

[Seival]

Thore2k10 wrote...

Seival wrote...

You could say all above in just one sentence: "i don't like the way it all ended", which is just your personal opinion of course.

The story ended in the most unpredictable way, like it or not. This really got under your skin? You may again and again try to cry a little, do some regular bashing against the wall - this will not help. Unexpected turn of events is not bad writing. There is nothing incorrect in the story.

Wanna keep bashing against the wall forever? Then so be it. Your mind's safety is your own business.

Unexpected events is not bad writing, agreed.

But to introduce a new antagonist, which exceeds the old one in meaning and importance, in the last few minutes of the game is bad writing!

What you just said is "No, unexpected turn of events is not bad writing, but unexpected turn of events is bad writing". One more proof that haters don't know what are they talking about. They just want to find any reason to hate ME3 ending, even if the reason is silly or absurd.

Story shouldn't always follow the patterns. And good writing doesn't mean 100% following the patterns. Good writing is showing interesting ideas, raising important questions, and creating noteworthy chain of events.

...Shame on all those "literature experts" who try to lower reputation of BioWare writers team. Those "experts" might finished some literature colledge, but learned only standard patterns and have no idea about how to create great stories.

[78stonewobble]

Seival wrote...

What you just said is "No, unexpected turn of events is not bad writing, but unexpected turn of events is bad writing". One more proof that haters don't know what are they talking about. They just want to find any reason to hate ME3 ending, even if the reason is silly or absurd.

Story shouldn't always follow the patterns. And good writing doesn't mean 100% following the patterns. Good writing is showing interesting ideas, raising important questions, and creating noteworthy chain of events.

...Shame on all those "literature experts" who try to lower reputation of BioWare writers team. Those "experts" might finished some literature colledge, but learned only standard patterns and have no idea about how to create great stories.

...

Yet. Bioware did create the logical inconsistencies, plotholes, the poorly thought out catalyst story and reasoning, just as poorly thought out and arbitrary solutions (end choices) and executed it so poorly that quite a few people went from caring a great deal to not caring at all. It was so poor they had to band aid it.

Thats... what makes it bad.

[Thore2k10]

Seival wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

Seival wrote...

You could say all above in just one sentence: "i don't like the way it all ended", which is just your personal opinion of course.

The story ended in the most unpredictable way, like it or not. This really got under your skin? You may again and again try to cry a little, do some regular bashing against the wall - this will not help. Unexpected turn of events is not bad writing. There is nothing incorrect in the story.

Wanna keep bashing against the wall forever? Then so be it. Your mind's safety is your own business.

Unexpected events is not bad writing, agreed.

But to introduce a new antagonist, which exceeds the old one in meaning and importance, in the last few minutes of the game is bad writing!

What you just said is "No, unexpected turn of events is not bad writing, but unexpected turn of events is bad writing". One more proof that haters don't know what are they talking about. They just want to find any reason to hate ME3 ending, even if the reason is silly or absurd.

Story shouldn't always follow the patterns. And good writing doesn't mean 100% following the patterns. Good writing is showing interesting ideas, raising important questions, and creating noteworthy chain of events.

...Shame on all those "literature experts" who try to lower reputation of BioWare writers team. Those "experts" might finished some literature colledge, but learned only standard patterns and have no idea about how to create great stories.

oh, i think everyone here admires youre literature expertise. i have no problem saying that i dont know much about literature. i just read a lot of books. but in the last few months i heard, read or saw so many people talking about it, that i have at least scratched the surface ot that topic..

there was nothing interesting about the catalyst, he was just confusing and out of place. that he took the form of that kid alone is strange...

he didnt raise important questions. he didnt ask you anything, he just throws every claim he makes at you like its a law of physics.

and ther was no chain of events there. there was a chain of events til shepard collapsed in front of that terminal. til that point every part of the game followed logicaly from the event that happened before. the whole catalyst scene was nowhere even foreshadowed

thats how i see it, other people may see it different, but there definitely is a reason that sooooo many people are unhappy with how this was handled!

Modifié par Thore2k10, 27 janvier 2013 - 04:12 .

[Dr_Extrem]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

snippidy doo-da (trying to prevent a huge quote pyramid!)

Thanks for explaining Dr_Extrem. So do you think that Shepard's sacrifice is less worthy and is empty because he's made to do it, it isn't actually a choice? If that is the case, why would that be a detriment to the story? Shepard is treated unfairly, he doesn't get the ending he deserves (in my opinion of course!) because he's gone far beyond most to defeat the Reaper threat. And that is what I like about it - ME3 turns all preconceptions for who deserves what based upon their actions right on its head. What happens isn't fair, it's horrible. I agree that by going to the Citadel Shepard is not just doing his job or what he's told, he's doing his duty unquestionably and what he knows is right, even when faced with such odds. It could be easy for him to just run (he could have disappeared and spent the next decades playing hide and seek with the Reapers as the Normandy seems able to outrun them), but it doesn't occur to him that that is an option. Maybe it should have been (at least for the renegade Shepard)? 

its not a sacrifice, because there is no choice or to clarify, shepard does not even look for another way out. he accepts the catalysts conditions without questioning them. you could count this, as an "unconditional surrender" on shepards side.

from a technical pov: shepards fate was meant to provoke (cheap) drama (with s jackhammer), to whitewash the slim plot of the endings.
one ending was fought by shepard from the very beginning and the only reason to choose it, is out of the inability to sacrifice the geth and edi (it also has no storywise buildup ingame) and the other ending does not even have a scientific background/buildup in this piece of fiction.

[Peranor]

Just because you understand something it doesn't necessarily make it good.
Actually not fully understanding something can sometimes make you see it in a better, albeit wrong, way

And introducing something unexpected to a story doesn't automatically make it good.

Modifié par anorling, 27 janvier 2013 - 04:22 .

[sharkboy421]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

I would love to have a discussion about this with the writers. It would be interesting to see what their intentions were, not with the intention of saying who here on the forums was right and who was wrong because it doesn't matter really, but just to see what I missed in the narrative that was important. Sadly, I don't think this discussion is going to happen any time in the near future. 

This times infinity.  10 months later and I still do not understand why Bioware decided this was the best thing to do to end Mass Effect.  I really, really want to understand why they felt this way, how they got to that decision and what their intentions were.  And also as you said Rukia, to see what I missed that is causing my confusion. 

I agree something like this will probably never happen, but I am still hoping.  It would be wonderful, not only for Bioware and Mass Effect, but also just to get a little better understanding of how the creative process works.

[ofarrell]

Bioware really just wanted to try something new (the bittersweet stuff) but it was just too much. My personal opinion is that they really didn't have enough foresight to see that people really do want a happy ending usually.

[RukiaKuchki]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not a sacrifice, because there is no choice or to clarify, shepard does not even look for another way out. he accepts the catalysts conditions without questioning them. you could count this, as an "unconditional surrender" on shepards side. 

from a technical pov: shepards fate was meant to provoke (cheap) drama (with s jackhammer), to whitewash the slim plot of the endings.
one ending was fought by shepard from the very beginning and the only reason to choose it, is out of the inability to sacrifice the geth and edi (it also has no storywise buildup ingame) and the other ending does not even have a scientific background/buildup in this piece of fiction.

I disagree with your statement that there is no choice, therefore no sacrifice. Even in the refuse ending, Shepard can and does refuse to accept the Catalyst's logic, the price being he sacrifices the whole of the current galactic civiisation for his ideals (or perhaps even arrogance!). I see four distinct outcomes - control your enemy, bond with your enemy, destroy your enemy or be destroyed by your enemy. I concur that Shepard almost passively accepts what the Catalyst was saying in all but one of the endings which considering how strong his character is, does seem rather out of character. But then... what would be the point of arguing? It is clear that the Catalyst is infintely more powerful and intellectually superior to him, so why would the Catalyst need to lie at this point?  

[Headcount]

Forget getting a happy ending, I think the question should be did ME3 gave a satisfying conclusion that left you wanting more.  Or did it left you feeling that you wasted hundreds of dollars and hours playing it.  I played ME3 twice, once with the original ending and again with the EC and that was enough for me.  I never bothered with the Leviathan or the Omega DLCs and considering both are behind the Pinnacle Station in sales on the Xbox Live Marketplace should be very telling.

[Obadiah]

sharkboy421 wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...

I would love to have a discussion about this with the writers. It would be interesting to see what their intentions were, not with the intention of saying who here on the forums was right and who was wrong because it doesn't matter really, but just to see what I missed in the narrative that was important. Sadly, I don't think this discussion is going to happen any time in the near future. 

This times infinity.  10 months later and I still do not understand why Bioware decided this was the best thing to do to end Mass Effect.  I really, really want to understand why they felt this way, how they got to that decision and what their intentions were.  And also as you said Rukia, to see what I missed that is causing my confusion. 

I agree something like this will probably never happen, but I am still hoping.  It would be wonderful, not only for Bioware and Mass Effect, but also just to get a little better understanding of how the creative process works.

I don't think it will happen until video games go mainstream (more mainstream than they are now) and, not fans, but prominent people in the industry hold it up as an example of how not to do something.

So... basically I agree, it's never going to happen.

[RukiaKuchki]

ofarrell wrote...

Bioware really just wanted to try something new (the bittersweet stuff) but it was just too much. My personal opinion is that they really didn't have enough foresight to see that people really do want a happy ending usually.

This. I love the fact that it tried to be different, it tried to be thought-provoking, it tried to turn RPG preconceptions on their head. It certainly generated a lot of discussion, which many would argue is a good thing. Most games are long gone from memory a few weeks after finishing them, never mind nearlh a year! I love the game and I'm happy enough with the ending, but even I will concede that it was far from perfect, it requires a lot of filling-in the blanks (and not everyone wants to have to do this to be satisfied), and yeah, it seems that it wasn't what a lot of people really wanted. But...and I cringe when I write this because of the connotations of writing this now on the forums...it was the story Bioware wanted to tell. 

[RukiaKuchki]

Headcount wrote...

Forget getting a happy ending, I think the question should be did ME3 gave a satisfying conclusion that left you wanting more.  Or did it left you feeling that you wasted hundreds of dollars and hours playing it.  I played ME3 twice, once with the original ending and again with the EC and that was enough for me.  I never bothered with the Leviathan or the Omega DLCs and considering both are behind the Pinnacle Station in sales on the Xbox Live Marketplace should be very telling.

Pinnalce Station

*shudder*

[Mouton_Alpha]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Reorte wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

It is a game about war and genocide. Perhaps that should have suggested slightly less optimistic lines, hm.

Your point being...? I don't see exactly what "WAR!" does to ruin any chance of a "happy" ending.

Apparently no-one involved in a war can ever have any sort of personal happiness ever again (because apparently that's "unrealistic".)

As a veteran, I know how absolutely untrue that is.

That notion that people are implying is downright insulting and disgusting.

That's actually taking it to the other extreme here. You imply that the story HAS to have a happy ending no matter what happens there, that you are entitled to one. I respectfully disagree.

To clarify my point - many of the themes in the series are quite heavy and downright depressing. If you play such a game, there is a hightened possibility that the expected happy ending might not come. It can go both ways.