1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

People still bitter over the Geth and EDI perishing? Still trying to say that Bioware made it that way so it would "balance out the endings"?


Lol


The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

[Mcfly616]

L_B_123 wrote...

Probably wont get read that much but how emotional would it be if there was one ending where shepard did survive and you get a scene with your crew looking across earth. He take back earth would be shown and we would get closure, it would at least make up for lack of harbinger too for me.

so.....

Even though, he did save Earth and the entire galaxy.....even though, he survives....and even though the Normandy is coming to get him.....

It's not "closure" unless you get a picture?

Modifié par Mcfly616, 08 février 2013 - 11:19 .

[christrek1982]

[quote]XM-417 wrote...

[quote]PainCakesx wrote...

[quote]1337b0r0m1r wrote...

[quote]Kazzuuk wrote...

[/quote]

I agree some will choose bleak for the sake of bleak, though I don't think anything except maybe low ems endings in ME 3 are truly bleak.  My point was that a greater number will be compelled to choose the "nice" ending, and choice would really be an illusion for most.  I would think that would just be human nature.  As a longtime gamer (my first game was Empire Strikes Back........ for atari), I really enjoyed having to make difficult choices.  There are nice endings, bleak endings, etc in gaming, but having to make a hard choice is still fairly rare, and I think that is so often overlooked here on BSN.  Just my 2 cents.

[/quote]

I agree. If you play it "right", you don't have to make many hard choices. Apart from Kaidan or Ashley, no one in your squad(s) has to die. Legion and Mordin die too, but you have no influence over that. The number of important other characters not making it is quite small too. Sure, billions of people die in the reaper war, but only very few are close to you. A more recent game presenting you with harder - and more consequential choices - would be The Witcher 2.

Maybe if you had to suffer more losses over the course of the games, you would have been more deserving of a happier ending. [/quote]
--------------------------------

So basically, BioWare intentionally and knowingly witheld an ending that people would have preferred to railroad people into picking one of the other endings?

Sounds like a good plan. 

Additionally, if the premise is for there to be a variety of endings (as was advertised), then that should be the case. 3 shades of bittersweet with more assortments of just plain bleak endings isn't exactly variety. I get that some people may love bleak and dark endings, a sentiment that I don't fully understand (though there are some dark movies / stories I like), but as is evidenced here, there are also many people who wanted at least *one* option for a happy ending. Is one ending out of the many depressing and bitter ending

Apparently it is. Baffling, but whatever. They've made their decision, as have I with regards to buying this next DLC. I don't enjoy playing as a character who's only destiny is suicide on the whim of a genocidal machine. 

[/quote]

XM-417 wrote ...
I would have being happy for that one option to have existed, instead of being left with depressing and bitter endings.Unless there is a nice surprise in store with that final dlc then its time to trade the games in and move on as i just don't enjoy the player character having to commit suicide. As i find the pet endings just to replusive.[/quote]

I agree 100% whats the point in play DLC and a game for that matter where the only outcome for the PC (one that I have been playing for 5 years) is death by stupidity?

[The Night Mammoth]

Mcfly616 wrote...

People still bitter over the Geth and EDI perishing? Still trying to say that Bioware made it that way so it would "balance out the endings"?


Lol


The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

Depends on why one chooses Destroy. 

[christrek1982]

Mcfly616 wrote...

L_B_123 wrote...

Probably wont get read that much but how emotional would it be if there was one ending where shepard did survive and you get a scene with your crew looking across earth. He take back earth would be shown and we would get closure, it would at least make up for lack of harbinger too for me.

so.....

Even though, he did save Earth and the entire galaxy.....even though, he survives....and even though the Normandy is coming to get him.....

It's not "closure" unless you get a picture?

umm.... yep thats about right.

[Mcfly616]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People still bitter over the Geth and EDI perishing? Still trying to say that Bioware made it that way so it would "balance out the endings"?


Lol


The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

Depends on why one chooses Destroy. 

maybe your feelings depend on why you choose it.


But EDI and the Geth being destroyed, makes sense regardless of how you feel about it or why you choose it.

[EnvyTB075]

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

No it doesn't. You don't control them in Control, so why should it destroy them  in destroy?

Mcfly616 wrote...

Even though, he did save Earth and the
entire galaxy.....even though, he survives....and even though the
Normandy is coming to get him.....

It's not "closure" unless you get a picture?

1. That would depend on whether the player feels saving Earth and the Galaxy was actually important to them.

2. You don't know the Normandy is going to get Shepard. It just flies off somewhere and Shepard is shown in some rubble. Thats hardly conclusive.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 08 février 2013 - 11:34 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People still bitter over the Geth and EDI perishing? Still trying to say that Bioware made it that way so it would "balance out the endings"?


Lol


The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

Depends on why one chooses Destroy. 

maybe your feelings depend on why you choose it.


But EDI and the Geth being destroyed, makes sense regardless of how you feel about it or why you choose it.

In an in-game psuedo-science logical way? Sure, Crucible targets 'all synthetic life', which is vague enough to be resistant to any real scrutiny except from the 'how does is discriminate' one, which is not answered by saying it targets Reaper technology, because the Catalyst says the opposite. 

On a thematic level? Depends on why one chooses Destroy

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 08 février 2013 - 11:36 .

[Mcfly616]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People still bitter over the Geth and EDI perishing? Still trying to say that Bioware made it that way so it would "balance out the endings"?


Lol


The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

Depends on why one chooses Destroy. 

maybe your feelings depend on why you choose it.


But EDI and the Geth being destroyed, makes sense regardless of how you feel about it or why you choose it.

In an in-game psuedo-science logical way? Sure, Crucible targets 'all synthetic life', which is vague enough to be resistant to any real scrutiny except from the 'how does is discriminate' one, which is not answered by saying it targets Reaper technology, because the Catalyst says the opposite. 

On a thematic level? Depends on why one chooses Destroy

he doesn't say the opposite. He generalizes. The Geth basically make up the galaxy's entire AI population. And they have Reaper code.

He could've said: 99% of synthetics will be affected, except for the 1% that doesn't have Reaper code.

But that would've been awkward considered he's pretty vague throughout the entire conversation.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 08 février 2013 - 11:46 .

[Mcfly616]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

No it doesn't. You don't control them in Control, so why should it destroy them  in destroy?

Mcfly616 wrote...

Even though, he did save Earth and the
entire galaxy.....even though, he survives....and even though the
Normandy is coming to get him.....

It's not "closure" unless you get a picture?

1. That would depend on whether the player feels saving Earth and the Galaxy was actually important to them.

2. You don't know the Normandy is going to get Shepard. It just flies off somewhere and Shepard is shown in some rubble. Thats hardly conclusive.

yes it is. The squadmember with Shepards plaque literally refuses to put it on the Memorial wall and looks "hopefully" to the sky. The next scene shows the Normandy taking off, and the scene after that shows Shepards survival.


If you really think they're not going to get him, then you have little understanding of visual storytelling.....if any.

[MegaSovereign]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

No it doesn't. You don't control them in Control, so why should it destroy them  in destroy?

Mcfly616 wrote...

Even though, he did save Earth and the
entire galaxy.....even though, he survives....and even though the
Normandy is coming to get him.....

It's not "closure" unless you get a picture?

1. That would depend on whether the player feels saving Earth and the Galaxy was actually important to them.

2. You don't know the Normandy is going to get Shepard. It just flies off somewhere and Shepard is shown in some rubble. Thats hardly conclusive.

Why wouldn't you care about saving the galaxy? Isn't that the whole point of the adventure anyway? 

[The Night Mammoth]

Mcfly616 wrote...
he doesn't say the opposite. He generalizes. The Geth basically make up the galaxy's entire AI population. And they have Reaper code.

He could've said: 99% of synthetics will be affected, except for the 1% that doesn't have Reaper code.

But that would've been awkward considered he's pretty vague throughout the entire conversation.

The belief that the Crucible only targets Reaper technology is suggesting that it discriminates. 

The Catalyst explicitly states that the Crucible will not discriminate, that all synthetic life will be wiped out. 

Nothing more to it really. 

[jtav]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Why wouldn't you care about saving the galaxy? Isn't that the whole point of the adventure anyway? 

Well, I can save the galaxy in almost any game. It's the individuals that make me care whether this particular universe is saved.  I got what I needed with the EC-- I know the people I actually cared about are okay via the slides-- but others feel differently.

[Reorte]

Mcfly616 wrote...
 yes it is. The squadmember with Shepards plaque literally refuses to put it on the Memorial wall and looks "hopefully" to the sky. The next scene shows the Normandy taking off, and the scene after that shows Shepards survival.


If you really think they're not going to get him, then you have little understanding of visual storytelling.....if any.

If the storytelling has to rely on such conventions to get its message across (i.e. it can't be determined purely by the information present in the story alone) then it's simply bad storytelling. Those sorts of things can be used to reinforce the message. As the only way of determining that that is the message? Hopeless.

As for the geth dying making sense, no it doesn't but then not a lot about anything the Catalyst / Crucible does makes sense. Arbitrary deletion of all software that happens to add up to AI is completely moronic, even if it's software with a it of Reaper code in it.

The geth aren't the only AI race (even ignoring EDI), there was one that cropped up on the Cerberus Daily News thing.

Modifié par Reorte, 09 février 2013 - 12:40 .

[Reorte]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
he doesn't say the opposite. He generalizes. The Geth basically make up the galaxy's entire AI population. And they have Reaper code.

He could've said: 99% of synthetics will be affected, except for the 1% that doesn't have Reaper code.

But that would've been awkward considered he's pretty vague throughout the entire conversation.

The belief that the Crucible only targets Reaper technology is suggesting that it discriminates. 

The Catalyst explicitly states that the Crucible will not discriminate, that all synthetic life will be wiped out. 

Nothing more to it really.

And in any case being able to determine what technology is and isn't synthetic life requires a lot of discrimination.

[TheRealJayDee]

Mcfly616 wrote...

even though, he survives....and even though the Normandy is coming to get him.....

It's not "closure" unless you get a picture?

Well, yeah, kind of. What we have is a scene that shows that they believe Anderson to be dead and Shepard as well, because, seriously, why would they put their names on the memorial otherwise? Yes, the LI hesitates to put Shep's name there as well, but that doesn't mean ****. Enough time must have passed for them to declare the biggest hero(es) of the galaxy dead, because I don't believe they have these plaques ready to put them on the wall as soon as the Reapers go down and without being absolutely sure that there is no hope of finding him/them. And based on what we saw happening there really was little hope of Shep surviving, even if he would get help immediatly.

So yeah, I don't see how the "Shep obviously wasn't found for quite some time and thus declared dead" and "we see him take a breath somewhere while being in one of the worst shapes any human has ever been in" scenes are supposed to lead to the inevitable conclusion of "he totally survived and his friends found him and everything's shiny", even though I acknowledge that this was likely the intent. It's just not done well.

[squee365]

oh nevermind 

Modifié par squee365, 09 février 2013 - 01:22 .

[AlanC9]

EnvyTB075 wrote...


1. That would depend on whether the player feels saving Earth and the Galaxy was actually important to them.

Are there any players who actually think saving the galaxy isn't important?

[AlanC9]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
So yeah, I don't see how the "Shep obviously wasn't found for quite some time and thus declared dead" and "we see him take a breath somewhere while being in one of the worst shapes any human has ever been in" scenes are supposed to lead to the inevitable conclusion of "he totally survived and his friends found him and everything's shiny", even though I acknowledge that this was likely the intent. It's just not done well.

One of the problems with this topic is that we always seem to go from "the scene isn't done well" to "the scene doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean."  If someone really wants to interpret the scene as meaning that Shep dies anyway, there's no argument that can disprove the point.

What I've never really understood is when people who know that the scene is supposed to mean Shepard lives refuse to interpret it that way, even when they want to interpret it that way.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 février 2013 - 04:08 .

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

What I've never really understood is when people who know that the scene is supposed to mean Shepard lives refuse to interpret it that way, even when they want to interpret it that way.

word....


I hear that.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...
One of the problems with this topic is that we always seem to go from "the scene isn't done well" to "the scene doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean."  If someone really wants to interpret the scene as meaning that Shep dies anyway, there's no argument that can disprove the point.

What I've never really understood is when people who know that the scene is supposed to mean Shepard lives refuse to interpret it that way, even when they want to interpret it that way.

It's the context.  It's where Shepard is, what Shepard has done, the condition of the body.  the genocidfe and death Shepard had to perpetrate to get to this point.  One breath is not enough hope.

Edit:  in short, the framing of the scene fails to convey the "hopeful" emotion they intended.  It just sorta mixes in with all the bleakness

Modifié par iakus, 09 février 2013 - 04:20 .

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

What I've never really understood is when people who know that the scene is supposed to mean Shepard lives refuse to interpret it that way, even when they want to interpret it that way.

That scene is not supposed to mean anything beyond what Mr. Priestly says it does, which is "BW have decided to avoid the responsibility of saying whether Shep survives or not... for now." And naturally enough, people who care deeply about the issue are extremely reluctant to let themselves be convinced that Shep survives, in case B-ware are just going to snatch that comfort from them in some cruel way at some point, like stating that "the heroic Commander Shepard who killed those nasty machines, the Reapers and the Geth and that EDI robot, died in some considerable discomfort in a big-ass explosion on the Citadel" in Mass Effect NoNumber: The Search For A Point. These are the folks who brought us the Catalyst, the Refuse ending and other Golden classics of fan-trolling after all.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 09 février 2013 - 10:09 .

[AB Souldier]

Mcfly616 wrote...

People still bitter over the Geth and EDI perishing? Still trying to say that Bioware made it that way so it would "balance out the endings"?


Lol


The Geth and EDI being destroyed in "Destroy" makes perfect sense, regardless of how you feel about it.

Well, in MY opinion, there shouldn't be other endings because Shepards goal was always to destroy the reapers, and that was always our mindset.

But that's the thing about opinions....

Modifié par ajsrise, 09 février 2013 - 10:22 .

[wright1978]

AlanC9 wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...
So yeah, I don't see how the "Shep obviously wasn't found for quite some time and thus declared dead" and "we see him take a breath somewhere while being in one of the worst shapes any human has ever been in" scenes are supposed to lead to the inevitable conclusion of "he totally survived and his friends found him and everything's shiny", even though I acknowledge that this was likely the intent. It's just not done well.

One of the problems with this topic is that we always seem to go from "the scene isn't done well" to "the scene doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean."  If someone really wants to interpret the scene as meaning that Shep dies anyway, there's no argument that can disprove the point.

What I've never really understood is when people who know that the scene is supposed to mean Shepard lives refuse to interpret it that way, even when they want to interpret it that way.

The scene is meaningless. I can accept the conclusion that some of the writers decided adding a nudge nudge, wink wink approach to living side of the ambiguity ocean. That doesn't make the scene feel at all rewarding or fulfilling.

[AB Souldier]

Bump