616 réponses à ce sujet

[kheldorin]

daaaav wrote...

kheldorin wrote...

Yeah, I think the Citadel DLC showed that if you have a feel good story no one would be picking holes and overly analyzing and criticizing the story. If the Citadel DLC were to be put under the microscope like the ending was, it'd have even more plot holes and inconsistencies.

I think the reaction actually had very little to do with logical inconsistencies but rather, how the endings made people feel. Is this not to be expected? It's not as though we have spent the entire trillogy reading mathematical theorems. 

That's the point. A lot of people did not like how the ending made them feel. But instead of blaming that, they tried to rationalize it as Bioware's crappy writing, logical inconsistencies, no consistency or coherency, conspiracies about how the ending was made under closed doors by 2 people, how it was rushed and so on.... Anytime anyone suggested that it might be because there was no happy ending, that argument got show down pretty quickly. The funny thing is all the alternative endings that were supported were mostly feel good endings, maybe be bittersweet but ultimately feel good.

Bioware stuck with their position that there was nothing wrong with the ending because they felt like they achieved trying to evoke the type of emotions that they feel fits best. That's why I'm amused when people said that Bioware redeemed themselves after the Citadel DLC. They have always known and listened to fan feedback. But they would never sacrifice their artistic vision just to please the fans. Not doing what fans wanted != Not listening to fans. Citadel DLC showed that they can provide fan service if they want to but they would never do it for their main game.

Modifié par kheldorin, 12 mars 2013 - 08:42 .

[daaaav]

kheldorin wrote...

daaaav wrote...

kheldorin wrote...

Yeah, I think the Citadel DLC showed that if you have a feel good story no one would be picking holes and overly analyzing and criticizing the story. If the Citadel DLC were to be put under the microscope like the ending was, it'd have even more plot holes and inconsistencies.

I think the reaction actually had very little to do with logical inconsistencies but rather, how the endings made people feel. Is this not to be expected? It's not as though we have spent the entire trillogy reading mathematical theorems. 

That's the point. A lot of people did not like how the ending made them feel. But instead of blaming that, they tried to rationalize it as Bioware's crappy writing, logical inconsistencies, no consistency or coherency, conspiracies about how the ending was made under closed doors by 2 people, how it was rushed and so on.... Anytime anyone suggested that it might be because there was no happy ending, that argument got show down pretty quickly. The funny thing is all the alternative endings that were supported were mostly feel good endings, maybe be bittersweet but ultimately feel good.

Bioware stuck with their position that there was nothing wrong with the ending because they felt like they achieved trying to evoke the type of emotions that they feel fits best. That's why I'm amused when people said that Bioware redeemed themselves after the Citadel DLC. They have always known and listened to fan feedback. But they would never sacrifice their artistic vision just to please the fans. Not doing what fans wanted != Not listening to fans. Citadel DLC showed that they can provide fan service if they want to but they would never do it for their main game.

The predominant feeling I got from the endings was frustration - an absence of emotion. Frustration that nothing made sense. Frustration that there was no closure for my team mates (somewhat fixed with the EC). Frustration that the protagonist was no longer the Commander Shepard I knew (except for the refuse ending). None of this was due to there not being a happy ending. It was due to the overall tone and the themes conveyed by the material. Poor writing and logical inconsistancies are not the root cause of this but they do not help.

The Citadel DLC is purely thematic with no purpose other than to give fans more of what they love about Mass Effect. Namely hooning around space with a bunch of mates. That is the core of Mass Effect. Not the combat, not the story, just Shepard, the Normandy and a bunch of misfits. The Citadel DLC delivered that in spades.

[Uccio]

kheldorin wrote...

*snip* But they would never sacrifice their artistic vision just to please the fans. *snip*

Not wanting to get deeper into this but you do know that "fans" are paying customers right? If your customers have a problem with your product then what do you do, claim artistic vision? Good luck with that.

[Rob Sabbaggio]

An ending doesnt have to be bittersweet to be the best/most appropriate.

My favourite Bioware games all had the option of a happy ending:
- KOTOR
- ME1 and ME2
- Dragon Age: Origins.

The actual specifics of the ending varied depending on how you played and choices you made, but the option to "succeed" was at least present and correct.

ME3 and Dragon Age 2 both took the ability to influence the ending out of your hands, with the effect of suddenly rendering my awesome a**kicking champion/spectre a passive bystander.

I enjoyed large parts of both ME3 and Dragon Age 2, but I would prefer future games to have the range of endings deployed in ME2 and DAO.

[Heimdall]

Rob Sabbaggio wrote...

An ending doesnt have to be bittersweet to be the best/most appropriate.

My favourite Bioware games all had the option of a happy ending:
- KOTOR
- ME1 and ME2
- Dragon Age: Origins.

The actual specifics of the ending varied depending on how you played and choices you made, but the option to "succeed" was at least present and correct.

ME3 and Dragon Age 2 both took the ability to influence the ending out of your hands, with the effect of suddenly rendering my awesome a**kicking champion/spectre a passive bystander.

I enjoyed large parts of both ME3 and Dragon Age 2, but I would prefer future games to have the range of endings deployed in ME2 and DAO.

ME2 had two endings, but I assume you're referring to the suicide mission.

[Itkovian]

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.

That's highly subjective right there, and quite frankly I disagree.

A game is just another medium for storytelling, despite being interactive, and there's just as much room for a sad bittersweet ending than for a happy bunny one. I'd say that goes double for an apocalyptic tale like ME3.

Furthermore, since when is victory dependent on survival? My Ultimate Sacrifice Warden sure as hell was victorious, probably in a cleaner way than in any of the other endings (for one thing, there's quantifiable progress: an old god is actually gone, instead of reborn in some dark ritual), AND it was one of the most satisfying endings I've experienced in gaming. Indeed, I personally felt the sacrifice required made for a much more powerful ending (especially in light of the Grey Wardens Motto).

So yeah, I won DAO, and ME3 as well. My character still died, but I don't regret it. Those were good deaths. I'm sure lots of people would agree with me on this one (especially concerning DAO, at least).

Incidentally, you might want to check out Dear Esther.

Thank you.

Modifié par Itkovian, 12 mars 2013 - 02:00 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

daaaav wrote...
Frustration that nothing made sense.

That some things didn't make sense. Granted, some pretty important things....

 Frustration that there was no closure for my team mates (somewhat fixed with the EC).

That's what war is supposed to feel like. You don't always get closure. Nor heroic, meningfull death. Nor deep and menainfull last words. Nor knowledge and satisfaction.
You don't know the exact fate of everyone in your unit that went MIA? SHOCKING!

Frustration that the protagonist was no longer the Commander Shepard I knew (except for the refuse ending). None of this was due to there not being a happy ending. It was due to the overall tone and the themes conveyed by the material.

He was the exact same Shepard. You only instilled into your skull that everything but X is BETRAAAAAYL!!!

Themes? Thone? It didn't fail there either.

Yeah, you are basicly complaninig because it wasn't what you wanted, what tone/theme you THINK was the only appropriate one.


I hate the ME3 ending (and pretty much the entire ME3) but I hate reasoning like yours even more.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ukki wrote...

kheldorin wrote...

*snip* But they would never sacrifice their artistic vision just to please the fans. *snip*

Not wanting to get deeper into this but you do know that "fans" are paying customers right? If your customers have a problem with your product then what do you do, claim artistic vision? Good luck with that.

Are you saing that if I watched a movie or read a book and didn't like it, I can start a crusade agaisnt the director/writer and demand they re-do it or get sacked?

Rule number 1 when purchasing a product - SATISFACTION IS *NOT* GUARANTEED.

[Rob Sabbaggio]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Rob Sabbaggio wrote...

An ending doesnt have to be bittersweet to be the best/most appropriate.

My favourite Bioware games all had the option of a happy ending:
- KOTOR
- ME1 and ME2
- Dragon Age: Origins.

The actual specifics of the ending varied depending on how you played and choices you made, but the option to "succeed" was at least present and correct.

ME3 and Dragon Age 2 both took the ability to influence the ending out of your hands, with the effect of suddenly rendering my awesome a**kicking champion/spectre a passive bystander.

I enjoyed large parts of both ME3 and Dragon Age 2, but I would prefer future games to have the range of endings deployed in ME2 and DAO.

ME2 had two endings, but I assume you're referring to the suicide mission.

Yep.

ME2 had two endings in terms of the collector base, but there was a whole lot of variety about the mission itself that you had direct influence over. I dont know about other people, but it gave me a sense of ownership of the mission. Bring everyone back alive and that was a major happy ending for me!

It didnt need to be tragic or forced player death to render it worthwhile.

I dont want to play an updated Kobayashi Maru scenario!!

[Iakus]

Itkovian wrote...

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.

That's highly subjective right there, and quite frankly I disagree.

A game is just another medium for storytelling, despite being interactive, and there's just as much room for a sad bittersweet ending than for a happy bunny one. I'd say that goes double for an apocalyptic tale like ME3.

Furthermore, since when is victory dependent on survival? My Ultimate Sacrifice Warden sure as hell was victorious, probably in a cleaner way than in any of the other endings (for one thing, there's quantifiable progress: an old god is actually gone, instead of reborn in some dark ritual), AND it was one of the most satisfying endings I've experienced in gaming. Indeed, I personally felt the sacrifice required made for a much more powerful ending (especially in light of the Grey Wardens Motto).

So yeah, I won DAO, and ME3 as well. My character still died, but I don't regret it. Those were good deaths. I'm sure lots of people would agree with me on this one (especially concerning DAO, at least).

Incidentally, you might want to check out Dear Esther.

Thank you.

It's great that DAO offered an Ultimate Sacrifice option.  It's cool that you like it.  Heck I liked how that ending played out too, even if it wasn't my personal favorite.

But you know what's even better?  That DAO offered three other options for the Warden.  And we were all free to choose which one was our personal favorite (I preferred redeeming Logain).  ME3 offered nothing more than three (now four) variations of Ultimate Sacrifice.  With hideous drawbacks DAO's US didn't have as well. 

That's what ME3's lesson:  Give the player options regarding the protagonist's fate.  The wider the range, the better.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I thought the main lesson is to have a strong narrative with good character development, and a ending that tracks with the rest of the plot.

I'm also pretty sure alot of the complaints about ME3's ending wasn't that it was sad.

[Twisted Path]

kheldorin wrote...

Yeah, I think the Citadel DLC showed that if you have a feel good story no one would be picking holes and overly analyzing and criticizing the story. If the Citadel DLC were to be put under the microscope like the ending was, it'd have even more plot holes and inconsistencies.

I've got to disagree with this. From the beginning I thought the plot of Citadel was silly and kind of dumb but that never mattered because the game didn't take its self seriously at all. Ignoring the fanservice stuff afterwards the main story was a lot of fun because it was a lighthearted Die-Hard-in-space style adventure and that's obviously the Mass Effect team's strength. They really fall flat when they switch gears and try to do the Call of Duty-style "War is gritty and grimdark" stuff that you see in the base game.

I think that's the reason Citadel was so much better than the base game, and why in general Mass Effect 2 (which was a series of cool space adventures full of action movie cliches,) is so much better than Mass Effect 3.

To relate this somewhat to Dragon Age: much as I disliked DA2 there were a lot of bits where it seemed like they wanted the game to have a Die-Hard-in-Fantasy-Land feel to it, especially everything that had to do with Varric. I think that if the game had thrown away any pretense of seriousness and just gone with that theme it would have at least been a lot more fun than the mismatched mess that we got.

[Lord Issa]

I support this, but I feel that a true happy ending should be something earned. I especially liked ME2's ending because of this.

[Heimdall]

Lord Issa wrote...

I support this, but I feel that a true happy ending should be something earned. I especially liked ME2's ending because of this.

While I somewhat agree, I never felt getting the everyone-lives ending was terribly difficult.

Now, if Priority: Earth had played out like the Suicide Mission on a larger scale that would have been great!

[Lord Issa]

I agree that the Suicide Mission was too easy, but to be honest I still found it very impressive simply because there was the option to fail-and besides, I think that a lot of people only saved all their characters by using a guide for the Normandy Upgrades.

Ideally, a perfect ending would require completing the final mission in a time limit (perhaps a subsquad is left to guard a gateway that is broken if you take too long), various good, clever choices throughout the game and also the stuff needed for a perfect victory in ME2.

[Heimdall]

Lord Issa wrote...

I agree that the Suicide Mission was too easy, but to be honest I still found it very impressive simply because there was the option to fail-and besides, I think that a lot of people only saved all their characters by using a guide for the Normandy Upgrades.

Ideally, a perfect ending would require completing the final mission in a time limit (perhaps a subsquad is left to guard a gateway that is broken if you take too long), various good, clever choices throughout the game and also the stuff needed for a perfect victory in ME2.

Hmmm, what could have worked would be if they had divided the war assets into various categories (Crucible assets, infantry assets, fleet assets, ect.) and then used those during several sequences of the mission a la the Collector Base.  Add in some other items dependent on more on Shepard's personal choices and imagine what could have been 

[Lord Issa]

That could have been awesome. Something else: What if you could 'spend' war assets rather than simply get advantages for having them?

For example, Normandy is hovering above a space station that is being assaulted by a Reaper.

You have 3 options:

1: Leave them alone.

Pro: No skin off your back, you don't lose any war resources.
Con: Space station is annihilated, which is a shame as research that could give Shepard a power buff is lost.

2: Attack the Reaper head on with the Normandy:

Pro: Saved station, get research. No war assets lost.
Con: Normandy takes heavy damage (perhaps forcing you to do a short reqardless mission finding repairs), companion severely injured (can't use them in the next mission).

3: Use war assets: Send a squad of ships to take out the Reaper.

Pro: You get the research, no one is injured.
Con: You lose assets, meaning you could be placed in a potentially worse situation in the next event that has a War Asset option.

[Heimdall]

Lord Issa wrote.
1: Leave them alone.

Pro: No skin off your back, you don't lose any war resources.
Con: Space station is annihilated, which is a shame as research that could give Shepard a power buff is lost.

2: Attack the Reaper head on with the Normandy:

Pro: Saved station, get research. No war assets lost.
Con: Normandy takes heavy damage (perhaps forcing you to do a short reqardless mission finding repairs), companion severely injured (can't use them in the next mission).

3: Use war assets: Send a squad of ships to take out the Reaper.

Pro: You get the research, no one is injured.
Con: You lose assets, meaning you could be placed in a potentially worse situation in the next event that has a War Asset option.

Well, I don't think the Normandy is meant to go toe to toe with a Reaper on its own, but I like the idea.  It might just just have to be a choice between saving science assets or fleet assets.  It would certainly have been an interesting mechanic, though I would probably end up taking breaks from the game to calculate my current totals :happy:

[Lord Issa]

That was just a random stupid example- you could explain it away by saying it was a sleepy Reaper.

I feel you on the second point, I fear it would awaken my obsessive tendencies-but that's not necessarily a bad thing-it tends to keep me gripped to the game and it would make people buy the DLC if the assets that they had won would let them have more options in the main game.

[Heimdall]

Lord Issa wrote...

That was just a random stupid example- you could explain it away by saying it was a sleepy Reaper.

I feel you on the second point, I fear it would awaken my obsessive tendencies-but that's not necessarily a bad thing-it tends to keep me gripped to the game and it would make people buy the DLC if the assets that they had won would let them have more options in the main game.

Well, on the last point.  I think that would just have a lot of people complaining about everything not being available in the main game from the start.

Part of the reason I think a system like that would have to do away with Shepard's direct involvement is the drain on the art and cinematics department.  I could stand for Shepard to just be allocating resources without too much direct involvement.

[Mikoto8472]

What's wrong with making a happy 'puppies and rainbows' ending available?

Make a 'fail' ending. Make a bad ending. Make a decent ending. Make a good ending. Make a happy ending. And let us choose and work for the ending we'd prefer.

Then, everyone's happy.

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ukki wrote...

kheldorin wrote...

*snip* But they would never sacrifice their artistic vision just to please the fans. *snip*

Not wanting to get deeper into this but you do know that "fans" are paying customers right? If your customers have a problem with your product then what do you do, claim artistic vision? Good luck with that.

Are you saing that if I watched a movie or read a book and didn't like it, I can start a crusade agaisnt the director/writer and demand they re-do it or get sacked?

Rule number 1 when purchasing a product - SATISFACTION IS *NOT* GUARANTEED.

If you can obtain enough collective support to demand that a director or writer rewrite their movie, go for it. If the livelihood of your business depends on sales, unfortunately you're dependent on overall consumer satisfaction.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mars 2013 - 09:03 .

[Il Divo]

Mikoto8472 wrote...

What's wrong with making a happy 'puppies and rainbows' ending available?

Make a 'fail' ending. Make a bad ending. Make a decent ending. Make a good ending. Make a happy ending. And let us choose and work for the ending we'd prefer.

Then, everyone's happy.

Not necessarily. Happy 'puppy and rainbow' scenarios tend to deprive games of the ability to present morally grey options. You know, the kind of stuff you find in thought experiments.

To offer an example: take Virmire. You're given a choice between Kaidan and Ashley. For some players, this is really difficult. The situation becomes much less interesting if Bioware had offered a third way out to save both squad-mates, maybe with a shoot out. Suddenly, it's no longer about playing Shepards with different preferences, but it's now about playing competent vs. incompetent Shepards, like what the suicide mission does.

I like seeing thought experiments done well in video games, so when I see stuff like the Redcliffe scenario, where the player has the ability to save Connor, save Isolde, etc, without any sort of consequence, I find it really boring.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mars 2013 - 09:15 .

[Lord Issa]

The issue with your Virmire comparison is that it's the life of a single character. Just to play the devil's advocate, wouldn't a lot of people argue that a gray choice concerning which of two companions to save is a little different to an ending where the only way to save your character is to commit genocide.