1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Because the theme of the series is "victory through sacrifice".

And because Mass Effect 3 doesn't have an ending yet.

Since when?

[Iakus]

BleedingUranium wrote...

iakus wrote...

And here I expected Shepard to live, and to be able to keep a shred of honor intact too.

Honour? Javik would like a word with you.

Yeah, and how'd that work out for the Protheans?

[NeroonWilliams]

CronoDragoon wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

I can understand CronoDragoon's interpretation of that dream sequence (and while I do not choose to interpret that way, I fully respect it), but BleedingUranium, that is a statement that can only come from someone who has already seen the ending ( IT metagaming) rather than the interpretation of someone who has just experienced that dream for the first time.

In a way we are actually agreeing, since "leading the galaxy to faster destruction" includes Shepard. However, since I see it as a dream instead of a vision, I see it less as a prophecy by the writers of Shepard's death and more a representation of his internal conflict and uncertainty.

I think you are right in saying that we are agreeing.  Both interpretations are valid.  It's just that every other instance of Shepard "dreaming" in the series has been a variation of the vision from Eden Prime and those were dual purposed as well (history and prophecy).  In hindsight, my interpretation of the kid is that he was a real kid that died on Earth, that has come to symbolize Shepard's struggle throughout the series to save the galaxy.  I see the final dream as showing that Shepard will have to sacrifice in order to do it, and that is the reason that the AI chooses his form to appeal to Shepard in the end.  They BOTH have to go down in the process of ending the conflict.

[Jadebaby]

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All choices are completely and utterly monstrous...
Disgustingly awful soul crushing war crimes...

The only way to save the current cycle is by symbolically sacrificing all that is good and decent and worth saving about the galaxy...

+1

+2

[CronoDragoon]

JadeShepard wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All choices are completely and utterly monstrous...
Disgustingly awful soul crushing war crimes...

The only way to save the current cycle is by symbolically sacrificing all that is good and decent and worth saving about the galaxy...

+1

+2

Wow, and here I thought you guys liked the characters of Mass Effect.

[TheGreatDayne]

I'm more disappointed at the fact that there is no "You lose!" ending... I'm not counting refuse, since the next cycle won... There is also Low EMS Destroy, but I wanted to annihilate EVERYONE... with no possibility of survivors....

Actually, why is it harder to screw up in this game?? I'm thinking about it, but it feels as if it takes a lot more work to get low ems destroy... or at least it seems harder to get as little war assets as possible...

[Jadebaby]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Yes.  The bag of dog poop is no longer on fire, for what that's worth 

It's worth quite a bit. Ever had to smell a flaming paper bag of dog poop?

Some might consider it art, who are we to judge. (the dog poop in the bag I mean)

[Jadebaby]

CronoDragoon wrote...

JadeShepard wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All choices are completely and utterly monstrous...
Disgustingly awful soul crushing war crimes...

The only way to save the current cycle is by symbolically sacrificing all that is good and decent and worth saving about the galaxy...

+1

+2

Wow, and here I thought you guys liked the characters of Mass Effect.

Could you be anymore vague?

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

It's still a bag of dog poop, with all that entails.

Thank you for conceding my point about the difference.

[CronoDragoon]

JadeShepard wrote...

Could you be anymore vague?

Oh I could be a LOT more vague.

[Bill Casey]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I ****ing love steak.

Where did that moronic meme come from and how can I banish it back to whatvever Hellmouth universe it came from?

Dang calm down. It's from the Gamer Poop videos.

Sorry.  I just been seeing that everywhere, and I've started mentally deducting about 50 IQ points from people who use it.  Just suprised you were one of them..

Watch this

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's still a bag of dog poop, with all that entails.

Thank you for conceding my point about the difference.

And thank you for conceding my point about the lack of difference 

[BleedingUranium]

TheGreatDayne wrote...

I'm more disappointed at the fact that there is no "You lose!" ending... I'm not counting refuse, since the next cycle won... There is also Low EMS Destroy, but I wanted to annihilate EVERYONE... with no possibility of survivors....

Actually, why is it harder to screw up in this game?? I'm thinking about it, but it feels as if it takes a lot more work to get low ems destroy... or at least it seems harder to get as little war assets as possible...

All that depends on your perspective of the endings.

[Indy_S]

TheGreatDayne wrote...

I'm more disappointed at the fact that there is no "You lose!" ending... I'm not counting refuse, since the next cycle won... There is also Low EMS Destroy, but I wanted to annihilate EVERYONE... with no possibility of survivors....

Actually, why is it harder to screw up in this game?? I'm thinking about it, but it feels as if it takes a lot more work to get low ems destroy... or at least it seems harder to get as little war assets as possible...

Yeah, I would have thought that would be a simple thing to implement. But if they were under time pressure, I can understand why it wasn't in the game. The fact that you simply can't fail the game because the narrative will always give you victory is a little strange in retrospect. It's less that you can't fail, perhaps, and more that the victory is arbitrary.

[Iakus]

Bill Casey wrote...

iakus wrote...

Sorry.  I just been seeing that everywhere, and I've started mentally deducting about 50 IQ points from people who use it.  Just suprised you were one of them..

Watch this

...

I may have to increase that deduction...

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

And thank you for conceding my point about the lack of difference 

Nice try at a witty comeback, but it doesn't apply.

A bag of dog poop and a bag of flaming dog poop are reaaaally different.

Now if you want to try and argue about whether or not the EC actually is a bag of dog poop, you've proven nothing and I've conceded nothing.

[NeroonWilliams]

iakus wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

That really is the long and short of it.  The writers WANTED a bittersweet (at best) ending and even the mere existence of a "happy" ending would deny that "reality".

Then they never should have called the players "architects" of the story.

They never should have told us our choices mattered

They never should have called them "our" Shepards.

If they wanted a canon, they.shouldn't give us choices then railroad the result they want

And I totally deny that the existence of a "happy ending" denies as bittersweet ending.  If you really do prefer bittersweet, the existence of a happy ending shouldn't matter to you.  Lookat DAO.  Everyone has their own preferred ending outcome and details.

I'll refer you to an earlier post where I referenced the idea of a "happy" ending where Shepard lives but at the expense of a large portion of the galaxy.  This MIGHT have worked, but if there is no sacrifice needed to acheive the "happy" ending, everyone will seek that as the "canon" ending.  I submit to you as evidence all the folks who went back and replayed portions of the game to get the results they wanted, and all of the threads dedicated to begging BW for a happy ending as well as the existence of MEHEM.  Since this was not the goal of the writers (their goal was to make you as the player think about what you would sacrifice "for the greater good" and why), they did not present it as a choice.

In the end, I think one of the biggest mistakes BW made was tying MP directly into the final equation and not putting enough space in between the totals for War Assets delineating the different paths.  What I mean is that they made it too easy to get all of the "best" endings and too hard to get only the bleakest of the bleak.  A problem they compounded with the recalculation upon the addition of the EC.

[AlanC9]

Do we really need so much dog poop in the thread, people?

[Silvair]

Its kinda dumb. The fact that you can't actually WIN means that there's little to no reason to replay. I loved replaying 1 and 2 over and over, but since NONE OF THAT MATTERS thanks to 3s ending, I havent touched the single player of any of them since.

No matter what you choose, there's a few inevitabilities.
1) Shepard dies, or is otherwise lost.
2) Everyone is stranded on Earth (or wherever else they were at the time) barring those like the Normandy crew who got Gilligan'd to unknown sectors space thanks to being in-transit when the relays went supernova.
3) Love interest is left heartbroken. (I'll be honest, that's what killed it for me, especially since I went with Tali, and I had to struggle to get time with her in all three games in the first place, then her saying "I wish we had more time" bout broke my heart).

Just doesn't seem to matter. like others have said, there's no way to WIN, there's only "lose" and "hollow bittersweet victory".

Artistic integrity my ass, I want some kind of satisfaction when I finally beat a trilogy of videogames.

[NeroonWilliams]

Indy_S wrote...

TheGreatDayne wrote...

I'm more disappointed at the fact that there is no "You lose!" ending... I'm not counting refuse, since the next cycle won... There is also Low EMS Destroy, but I wanted to annihilate EVERYONE... with no possibility of survivors....

Actually, why is it harder to screw up in this game?? I'm thinking about it, but it feels as if it takes a lot more work to get low ems destroy... or at least it seems harder to get as little war assets as possible...

Yeah, I would have thought that would be a simple thing to implement. But if they were under time pressure, I can understand why it wasn't in the game. The fact that you simply can't fail the game because the narrative will always give you victory is a little strange in retrospect. It's less that you can't fail, perhaps, and more that the victory is arbitrary.

You can get a Critical Mission Failure by taking too long to walk to your preferred choice when you regain control.  I discovered this by accident when on one of my playthroughs I changed my mind after I turned the corner of one ramp and decided to turn around and go for another.  It's probably not what you were thinking of, but since that's the closest we get throughout the game, there you have it.

[NeroonWilliams]

Silvair wrote...

Its kinda dumb. The fact that you can't actually WIN means that there's little to no reason to replay. I loved replaying 1 and 2 over and over, but since NONE OF THAT MATTERS thanks to 3s ending, I havent touched the single player of any of them since.

No matter what you choose, there's a few inevitabilities.
1) Shepard dies, or is otherwise lost.
2) Everyone is stranded on Earth (or wherever else they were at the time) barring those like the Normandy crew who got Gilligan'd to unknown sectors space thanks to being in-transit when the relays went supernova.
3) Love interest is left heartbroken. (I'll be honest, that's what killed it for me, especially since I went with Tali, and I had to struggle to get time with her in all three games in the first place, then her saying "I wish we had more time" bout broke my heart).

Just doesn't seem to matter. like others have said, there's no way to WIN, there's only "lose" and "hollow bittersweet victory".

Artistic integrity my ass, I want some kind of satisfaction when I finally beat a trilogy of videogames.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Iakus]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

I'll refer you to an earlier post where I referenced the idea of a "happy" ending where Shepard lives but at the expense of a large portion of the galaxy.  This MIGHT have worked, but if there is no sacrifice needed to acheive the "happy" ending, everyone will seek that as the "canon" ending.  I submit to you as evidence all the folks who went back and replayed portions of the game to get the results they wanted, and all of the threads dedicated to begging BW for a happy ending as well as the existence of MEHEM.  Since this was not the goal of the writers (their goal was to make you as the player think about what you would sacrifice "for the greater good" and why), they did not present it as a choice.

First, who said anything about no sacrifice?  I think there's very few so naive as to think a sacrifice wouldn't be necessary to stop the Reapers.  What makes such an ending happy, or "bittersweet" at least is in thinking the price was worth paying.  I submit that the endings, even after EC, do not fit that description to many, many people.  The price both Shepard and the galaxy as a whole pay is simply too high to make the ending at all sweet.

Personally I think Shepard in all the endings becomes worse than Saren:  a dead war criminal rather than a live hero. 

Second, I submit that all the begging for a happier ending, the existence of MEHEM, etc is evidence that Bioware grossly misread their audience, and compounded the problem with EC.  They alienated a large number of fans who expected something a bit more...heroic...to be an option.  Players think about what they're willing to sacrifice and said "all the choices suck.  Why the frak did I just play this game?"

In the end, I think one of the biggest mistakes BW made was tying MP directly into the final equation and not putting enough space in between the totals for War Assets delineating the different paths.  What I mean is that they made it too easy to get all of the "best" endings and too hard to get only the bleakest of the bleak.  A problem they compounded with the recalculation upon the addition of the EC.

Bioware's mistake was in not allowing a greater variety of endings, with greater or lesser amounts of bitterness or sweetness: a wider variety of consequences for Shepard's actions, allowing the player to decide what price was worth paying:  what should be sacrificed and what should be preserved.  Not be forced down an A, B, or C ending

[AB Souldier]

[/quote]NeroonWilliams wrote...

In reference to the SM, most players sought out the ending that they wanted.  For most players that orchestrated their ending, their preferred ending was everyone lives.  I'm sure those people were offended by the fact that they couldn't spare Mordin on Tuchanka, or save Thane on the Citadel.  These players would most assurredly seek out the "happy" ending if it existed.  How many of them reloaded an earlier save in order to spare Wrex in ME1?

I'm not a fighter myself, but I've found that an awful lot of posters on BSN are not "thinkers".  By that, I mean that they believe what they believe, but they don't know why.  My goal when I post is usually to challenge these "non-thinkers"
to think about WHY they believe what they do.  Your responses have shown you to NOT be one of them.

I actually don't think that the endings represent the be-all-end-all of perfection, but I LOVE the thought that must go into the choices if the player is actually thinking in character.  For the record my decisions included: 1 Synthesis, 3 Control (2 Paragon, 1 Renegade), 4 Destroy, and 1 Refuse.  IMHO a pure happy ending with only the end of the Reapers and no other collateral damage would be as much "space magic" (I hate that "argument") as Synthesis.

[/quote]
For some reason it isnt quoting so my post starts here:
- The happy ending doesn't have to be the ONLY ending. Just like in ME2, you can have the complete opposite or in between if you want. But compared the the Refusal ending, we should of got a happy ending instead.*

Modifié par ajsrise, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:23 .

[CronoDragoon]

ajsrise wrote...

The happy ending doesn't have to be the ONLY ending. Just like in ME2, you can have the complete opposite or in between if you want. But compared the the Refusal ending, we should of got a happy ending instead.

Mass Effect 2 is not the best example, since the only way to get a non-happy ending was to be worse at playing the game. DA Origins is probably a better example.

[AB Souldier]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

The happy ending doesn't have to be the ONLY ending. Just like in ME2, you can have the complete opposite or in between if you want. But compared the the Refusal ending, we should of got a happy ending instead.

Mass Effect 2 is not the best example, since the only way to get a non-happy ending was to be worse at playing the game. DA Origins is probably a better example.

Well i see your point, but the ending in ME2 IS based on our in game decisions.