616 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Vicious wrote...

Oh look another 'ME3's ending sucks' thread, a year after the game was released and we all beat it.

Anyway, Red Dead Redemption.

A game can kill off the main character and end on a tragic note, and still be good.

Was Red Dead Redemption a choice-based rpg?

Not saying it can't be a good game, or a good story, but the type of game does have to be taken into account.

In this case, the lesson is the player needs options  Not railroading.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote..

Yes, yes, yes... the Catalyst, who can't open up the arms of the Citadel on its own or do any basic research about a huge project that dozens if not hundreds of Alliance ships have been working on and sending communications in regards to, including the location of the project to one of its Reaper-controlled Rachni queens, also managed to destroy the entire galactic civilization run by the Leviathans, including their thralls, without a single Reaper force of its own yet (Harbinger was the first Reaper, Harbinger was the Reaper of millions of liquefied Leviathans).

Who says the Reaper Queen knew where the project was? Does she have a built-in galactic GPS? There's no reason to make bad stuff up since you've got enough to work with.

Rachni Queens have built in Qunatum Entanglers with all of their workers. Anything the workers knew, including what they were building and where they were building it, was known by the Queen. That the Reapers wouldn't include some way of monitoring the queen's activities when she is the sole provider of their Ravager units seems highly unlikely.

And from the Catalyst's line about Harbinger being the first "true" Reaper, it's pretty easy to figure out that he had some quasi-Reapers at the beginning; presumably purely mechanical.

And, how exactly did the Catalyst who either can't see outside the Citadel or control anything in or around the Citadel, build such quasi-Reapers, exactly? 

You should probably go into exactly what the stupidity is there. Those seconds of video obviously indicate very different states for the game-world. One of the amusing phenomena on the ME boards is seeing someone maintain that "synthesis is an abomination" (etc.) and that "the endings are all the same."

Many think the CONCEPT of synthesis is appalling. The actual footage shown in the endings is identical, except with green circuitry photo-shopped in. Not exactly the definition of original.

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
You don't need it. That's fine. 

Basic human psychology says most people do.

No, it doesn't. Emotional catharsis and ambiguity aren't mutually exclusive.

[Fast Jimmy]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
You don't need it. That's fine. 

Basic human psychology says most people do.

No, it doesn't. Emotional catharsis and ambiguity aren't mutually exclusive.

If ambiguity leads you to think that maybe you rode off into the sunset and went on a myriad of other adventures or sought after personal freedom or goals, then sure, that can be cathartic.

If ambiguity leads to assumptions of destruction, futileness and overall lack of having any real meaning with any action you did, I'd say it is in direct opposition to catharsis.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 mars 2013 - 08:29 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Happy endings are nice, but I remember RDR's ending because it wasn't nice at all.

[King Cousland]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Happy endings are nice, but I remember RDR's ending because it wasn't nice at all.

I'd say it was bittersweet (but definitely more on the bitter side). 

You've inspired me to dig it out again though. Such a good game. 

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
You don't need it. That's fine. 

Basic human psychology says most people do.

No, it doesn't. Emotional catharsis and ambiguity aren't mutually exclusive.

If ambiguity leads you to think that maybe you rode off into the sunset and went on a myriad of other adventures or sought after personal freedom or goals, then sure, that can be cathartic.

If ambiguity leads to assumptions of destruction, futileness and overall lack of having any real meaning with any action you did, I'd say it is in direct opposition to catharsis.

You're working off the premise that everyone wants a happy ending. This isn't true. Some people just want emotional impact, and speaking soley for myself here, a sad/bittersweet (or ambiguous where I can choose whatever I want to) ending has far more appeal in that regard. Also I don't get why people whinge so often about ME3's ending being about choosing the prettiest color (though I don't visit the ME3 forum much so that might explain a lot). In one Shepard turns into a God-Reaper. In one ALL the synthetics die (which is temporary but w/e). And in one Shepard creates a whole new form of frickin LIFE. And then there's that one about just walking away but as far as I'm concerned that's the only stupid ending. Anyway point is that there is a difference Bioware just refuses to color in the picture.

Also, as an aside, Bioware isn't responsible for what you assume. If I try really hard I can pretend my Shepard spent a lot of time in the hospital and got better and is now raising kids with Kaidan in the Destroy ending. That would be stupid but I could assume it if I wanted to.

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Oh look another 'ME3's ending sucks' thread, a year after the game was released and we all beat it.

Anyway, Red Dead Redemption.

A game can kill off the main character and end on a tragic note, and still be good.

Was Red Dead Redemption a choice-based rpg?

Not saying it can't be a good game, or a good story, but the type of game does have to be taken into account.

In this case, the lesson is the player needs options  Not railroading.

100% this

[Fast Jimmy]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

You're working off the premise that everyone wants a happy ending. This isn't true. Some people just want emotional impact, and speaking soley for myself here, a sad/bittersweet (or ambiguous where I can choose whatever I want to) ending has far more appeal in that regard. Also I don't get why people whinge so often about ME3's ending being about choosing the prettiest color (though I don't visit the ME3 forum much so that might explain a lot). In one Shepard turns into a God-Reaper. In one ALL the synthetics die (which is temporary but w/e). And in one Shepard creates a whole new form of frickin LIFE. And then there's that one about just walking away but as far as I'm concerned that's the only stupid ending. Anyway point is that there is a difference Bioware just refuses to color in the picture. 

Also, as an aside, Bioware isn't responsible for what you assume. If I try really hard I can pretend my Shepard spent a lot of time in the hospital and got better and is now raising kids with Kaidan in the Destroy ending. That would be stupid but I could assume it if I wanted to.

I'm going to assume you didn't read all of the response you snipped my original quote from.

In that, I talk about DA:O's endings as being great, INCLUDING THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. There, your hero dies only so Morrigan cannot conceive and raise a suspect supernatural child. Saving the Blight would have happened regardless of the DR decision. Is that a more noble reason to die than to preserve dozens, if not hundreds, of galactic sentient and sapient species? I'd say not.

So why did DA:O feel noble, while ME felt horrible? Because of follow-through. We saw and were shown the after-math of our actions. The DA:O version of the ME3 endings would be to cut off right when it shows the giant explosion on top of Fort Drakon and the darkspawn running away. 

Also, it is not Bioware's responsibility to be worried about what I (and other) consumers assume about a story... but it certainly is their concern. Based on the information given in the last DLC released for ME2, destroying a Mass Relay releases an explosion that wipes out an entire star system. The very next piece of content we receive after that DLC, ME3, has an ending where every single Mass Relay is destroyed in a big explosion.

Sure, they are pretty explosions, but they are being caused by a giant machine built from blueprints no one really understands and explained by a glowing child who's line of logic is seriously faulted. 

Is it Bioware's responsibility to try and prevent me from assuming the information they gave us right before ME3 came out was still valid? No. But its not my responsibility to like their endings or come to their defense when entire swaths of the gaming community begin to call their writers hacks.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 mars 2013 - 09:29 .

[wrdnshprd]

that, or just do what was advertised.. if bioware would have actually done what they said in the below thread, all of the backlash could have been avoided.

here is the thread:

http://social.biowar...ndex/10204263/1

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 07 mars 2013 - 09:42 .

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Giving Geth sentience is the wrong thing to do, according to the Catalyst. It will lead to guaranteed war and death. You are putting in motion events that will result in the death and destruction of millions, billions, TRILLIONS more down the line.

War and death are guaranteed outcomes of all existence. They're going to happen whether Shepard chooses to give the Geth sentience or not, and they're going to happen no matter which final option Shepard takes. If not this particular conflict, then some other one that the game doesn't forsee.

If the Geth do go to war with the rest of the Galaxy, that's not Shepard's fault. All he did was give them the power to truly think for themselves. From that point on, their decisions are their own. You can take any pointless conflict and try to trace it back to some sort of inciting incident, but the truth is that every side always had the power to end it, but chose not to, and so all must share blame.

If you agree with the logic and the mindset of the Catalyst, that is. If you don't, then you can't trust either Control or Synthesis. And if you choose Destroy, you will wipe out the Geth.

I don't believe that war between Organics and Synthetics must occur, I see no reason why that should be the case, assuming both sides are comprised of rational beings.

But as much as I like EDI and the Geth, they are not sufficient proof that the Catalyst is wrong. All it shows is that Organic and Synthetic lifeforms have been able to reach an accord at this current point in time. What may happen in the future cannot be known by Shepard or anyone except possibly the Catalyst, which claims to know, but offers no evidence.

That's what's flawed with the ME3 endings. The being laying out these choices for you is obviously wrong. So how can you hop off a cliff or grab a hold of some electro-sticks on their word alone?

I wouldn't say the Cataylst is "obviously wrong". I don't agree with the premise on which all of its logic is based, but I can't prove the premise to be false.

What's flawed with the ME3 endings is that, even if I generously assume that the Catalyst is correct, and Synthetics will inevitably destroy Organics, (until they merge, which the Catalyst says is also inevitable) the "solutions" it provides don't actually fix that problem. Neither Destroy, Control, nor Synthesis will stop new "pure" organic life from evolving, nor will they prevent new "pure" synthetic life from being created, either by oragnics or by these new hybrid species. The cycle continues regardless, simply with a third faction added, and no reset button.

Which is fine. It's how the universe should be. The Leviathans didn't have the right to decide the direction in which life should progress. The natural order, whatever it turns out to be, will be able to resume without needless tampering.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 07 mars 2013 - 10:04 .

[legbamel]

The lesson is not to have your PC spend half an hour making promises she can't keep. I expected Shep to die. I didn't expect her to make declarations of love and promises to return and then have her companions and LI be magically transported to a different part of the galaxy that meant that, even had she lived, she couldn't have kept them. There's a difference between piling on the angst and making my character a liar.

[Fast Jimmy]

I wouldn't say the Cataylst is "obviously wrong". I don't agree with the premise on which all of its logic is based, but I can't prove the premise to be false.

And Shepherd can't ask for evidence for the Catalyst to prove its logic, though it certainly would have countless upon countless examples. It says it, and we are expected to take it on faith. Despite the fact that Shepherd can poke holes in its logic within five minutes of speaking to it. There's a serious need for me to say to the Catalyst "show your work" instead of just writing down the three solutions to the problem it just posed to me.

What's flawed with the ME3 endings is that, even if I generously assume that the Catalyst is correct, and Synthetics will inevitably destroy Organics, (until they merge, which the Catalyst says is also inevitable) the "solutions" it provides don't actually fix that problem. Neither Destroy, Control, nor Synthesis will stop new "pure" organic life from evolving, nor will they prevent new "pure" synthetic life from being created, either by oragnics or by these new hybrid species. The cycle continues regardless, simply with a third faction added.

Arguably, Control would prevent any future conflicts from escalating. If Shepherd controls the entire Reaper fleet (something many people claim the Catalyst can't do currently, which is why it could not open the arms of the Citadel... but whatever), then if tensions started escalating, the Reaper fleet shows up and everyone either craps their pants and goes into Time Out, or God Shepherd devastates them. The entire Reaper fleet, all at once, used just as escalations begin between any group (not just organics vs. synthetics) would be the ultimate galactic nuclear deterent.

Destroy is basically the way of saying "You Reapers are evil, I don't believe your drivel, we make out own future." After all, if what the Catalyst says is true, then we only know that peace between Organics and Synthetics could not be achieved under the Leviathans rule. These beings ruled a galaxy of thralls to... worship them, I guess? Its never really explained... through mind control and technological superiority. With them gone, and organics and synthetics free to make their own decisions and rule themselves as they see fit, will that problem be resolved? Possibly. We don't have enough data, or know what steps the Catalyst took to bring peace before moving to the Reaper solution.

And Synthesis is garbage, in my opinion. The science behind it aside, outfitting everyone with machine parts does not make them more cohesive with the universe. Shepherd still fought Geth and Reaper forces alike despite being a large portion of synthetic material. I'm not sure what "perspective" the Reapers would gain by the Synthesis ending, since they were already composed of organic material anyway. The only way peace could be achieved through Synthesis was if there was a galactic consciousness that spawned from the procedure, which would basically mean everyone thinks the exact same thing. Which is very similar to a galaxy of cyborg zombies.

If free will was really given, then people would be scheming and plotting right off the bat to hack the bodies of others, for control, gain or fun. Not to mention that resources are scarce, no matter if you are a mutant robot or not. If the galaxy was at peace, then what does it do with itself? Enrichment? Exploration? Scientific progress? All of these things require resources, which means priority must be given. When there is a selection process of how resources are divied, there is a focus of power. When power is unevenly distributed, conflict erupts. When conflict erupts, violence or damage often results.

So I think Synthesis is the only ending that doesn't offer a true solution. Destroy doesn't either, honestly, but Destroy also inherently says "You don't know what you are talking about, you psychopathic robot kid, DIE DIE DIE!" So it is not really trying to solve any problem other than the Reaper one.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 mars 2013 - 10:17 .

[Babaganoosh013]

Wulfram wrote...

Nah, the lesson of ME3 is that it's a bad idea to write an ending that's both sad and totally rubbish.

Also that people care about what happens to their companions.

And that having a Big Ending Choice doesn't excuse ignoring the choices made in the rest of the game.

And the fact that a few hours of muliplayer was more important than 120 hours of single player play over three games.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Rachni Queens have built in Qunatum Entanglers with all of their workers. Anything the workers knew, including what they were building and where they were building it, was known by the Queen. That the Reapers wouldn't include some way of monitoring the queen's activities when she is the sole provider of their Ravager units seems highly unlikely.

Why would the workers know the position? Are they flying to the construction site in their own ships?

Though I agree it would be better if being stupid enough to save the corrupted queen  took you to a Critical Mission Failure. Any Shepard that dumb deserves to lose, and ME3 could use a few more fail points.

And, how exactly did the Catalyst who either can't see outside the Citadel or control anything in or around the Citadel, build such quasi-Reapers, exactly?

Yeah, in retrospect he probably should have kept some of those mechanicals around for the later cycles. 

Many think the CONCEPT of synthesis is appalling. The actual footage shown in the endings is identical, except with green circuitry photo-shopped in. Not exactly the definition of original.

There's something wrong with hitting people with an appalling concept? If so, what?

If you want to say that the original ending clips were a bit cheap, I'm hardly going to disagree. I'm just not convinced that's really a big problem with them.

[Jzadek72]

Really? I would think the true lesson of Mass Effect 3 is make choices matter and don't pull a weird deus ex machina out of your arse.

[Foolsfolly]

It's been a year since ME3 broke my heart (although, I may get back with it since I'm hearing good things about Citadel and I'm a sucker for the old crew mates, who I've missed so much...).

No one here's going to change anyone's minds. It's an impossibility.

That said I've enjoyed reading these last few pages. I especially enjoy reading Fast Jimmy's posts but that's entirely due to the fact that I've agreed with literally everything he's said for two pages.

[Augustei]

Dasher1010 wrote...

That's the truth. Just make the Inquisitor able to have an ending where he/she lives if it's a completionist playthrough.

THATS the main lesson to learn from ME3?? OP you seriously need to go back and replay ME3 because you clearly weren't paying that much attention... That lesson isnt even in the top 10

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

King Cousland wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Happy endings are nice, but I remember RDR's ending because it wasn't nice at all.

I'd say it was bittersweet (but definitely more on the bitter side). 

You've inspired me to dig it out again though. Such a good game. 

Somebody needs to explain to me what Bittersweet means because I really dont see the sweet side here.

That being said RDR had a great ending, I know it is the hipster thing to do to say that happy endings suck but I am really struggling to find examples of memorable happy endings that I felt really gave a game or movie that were really well done and gave the game or movie that extra punch.

As for those saying that "a game needs to have the option of a happy ending" then that is all well and good and nobody is stopping you from creating your own game using that design philosophy but if it were me creating the game then I would say that you can all go get ****ed as I completely disagree with this assertion and believe that such an assertion can actually be quite detrimental depending on the type of game you are trying to create.

As for the game Bioware is creating and their views on the subject then I guess that is completely up to them whether they take notice or share the same views as some of you here, I am just saying that I personally completely disagree for a good number of reasons. That is not to say I am against happy endings I just dont agree that the option of a happy ending is mandatory.

[CuriousArtemis]

I expect good writing from BW ... haven't been disappointed yet, and pretty sure I will love DA3, ending and all. Loved DA:O, DA2, and ME3 (whole game and endings). Of course ME3 is a completely different writing team, so it's kind of a pointless argument. But people who make such arguments probably aren't writers themselves.

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm going to assume you didn't read all of the response you snipped my original quote from.

In that, I talk about DA:O's endings as being great, INCLUDING THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. There, your hero dies only so Morrigan cannot conceive and raise a suspect supernatural child. Saving the Blight would have happened regardless of the DR decision. Is that a more noble reason to die than to preserve dozens, if not hundreds, of galactic sentient and sapient species? I'd say not.

So why did DA:O feel noble, while ME felt horrible? Because of follow-through. We saw and were shown the after-math of our actions. The DA:O version of the ME3 endings would be to cut off right when it shows the giant explosion on top of Fort Drakon and the darkspawn running away. 

Also, it is not Bioware's responsibility to be worried about what I (and other) consumers assume about a story... but it certainly is their concern. Based on the information given in the last DLC released for ME2, destroying a Mass Relay releases an explosion that wipes out an entire star system. The very next piece of content we receive after that DLC, ME3, has an ending where every single Mass Relay is destroyed in a big explosion.

Sure, they are pretty explosions, but they are being caused by a giant machine built from blueprints no one really understands and explained by a glowing child who's line of logic is seriously faulted. 

Is it Bioware's responsibility to try and prevent me from assuming the information they gave us right before ME3 came out was still valid? No. But its not my responsibility to like their endings or come to their defense when entire swaths of the gaming community begin to call their writers hacks.

ME3's ending didn't suck though. That's just like, your opinion, man. I actually assumed that when the Mass Relays exploded that A LOT of people were going to die and I was cool (well not cool) with that fact. Sacrifices and such. I consider the EC a bit of a retcon in that regard. And my Shepard's sacrifice felt noble as ****. I never did the Ultimate Sacrifice with my Warden because a) there was an obvious way out and the sacrifice wouldn't have birthed a new form of life with limitless knowledge. Sacrificing my Shep felt much more worth it than sacrificing my Warden.

Anyway all the whining about ME3's ending seems to be one of two things. Either that Bioware didn't choose to explain EVERYTHING to you or that it was sad. The first one is a dev choice, you can argue they were stupid or contradicting their own lore and you might or might not have a point. But the second one is a totally subjective personal preference. And since that's what the thread is supposed to be about... No, a happy ending is definitely not the lesson to be learned from ME3 imo.

Also concern and worry are synonyms dude. Might as well just have disagreed with me instead of being disingenuous.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KingsTiger wrote...

Makes perfect sense to me. There is a place for dark endings, brutal lessons that sometimes you just can't win. A videogame is not that place. We go there to live another life, one where our actions ultimately determine our fates. You can tell a dark tale, take a serious look at serious issues, but this is not a medium suited for tales of life's capriciousness. You can make us work for it, but the possibility of victory should never be taken off the table.

Sez who?
Videogames are an evolving, expanding media. Who are you to judge what they should be?

Even tough I generally don't like them, I hope to God that DA3 has a completely, totally unhappy ending.
Nothing would give me more joy than to hear the cries of self-entilted brats all over the internet, who think their preferrence is the only way to design a game or tell a story.

And while choices are important, it is a fallacy to think the choice has to be presented to you at every junction and in every situation. You can have a game choke full of choices that still has only 1 ending.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 08 mars 2013 - 08:35 .

[Yumichika]

I'm happy about Mass Effect 3 ending. It was the ending i needed from a game such a long long time and Bioware was the first to provide it to me. So same goes for DAO. since the begenning uwe knew warden wont make it that long cause of the darkspawn blood. Plus without Morrigan it would be even darker.

[Farbautisonn]

I hated the endings.

Its not so much that they were "tragic". Because they werent. They were inanely written and written so poorly infact that any 12 year old kid with the litterary experience of Doc Seuss should be able to see right through them.

Synthesis: Fasistoid violation of the free will of ever sentient being alive and imposing the will of the reapers, their definition of "final evolutionary stage" upon every organic. Every so often a dictator comes by and tries to create "Ubermensch"'s. This is no different.

Controll: Yeah. That worked out so well for TIM. Having spacehitler pander to my pride and goading me into believing I can controll the reapers, thats just too ****ing stupid.

Destroy. The only option that makes any ****ing sense, renegade or paragon, as you have devoted your entire existence to this purpose. Its what every sentient being expects of you, bringing them self determination and a future.

The whole "Tragic" bull****e is a travesty. If you want "Tragic" in storytelling, check out "The Little Matchgirl". Thats tragic, but with a bittersweet ending. One that gets increasingly bittersweet with the amount of thought you put into it.

The endings we were presented with were inane. They left us with no hope for the organics, no future, and despite halfarsed retcons, allusions here on the boards and leaps of logic that would make a "Comical Ali" be impressed, it remains utter bull****e.

You can have tragic endings, even horid, endings all you want. If you leave us with hope. Some logical, tangible hope. We are left with nothing. And that is why ME3 retroactively ruined the franchise for me.

I wish I could say that I thought Bioware had learned from this. However I dont think they have.