616 réponses à ce sujet

[Demarco09]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Citadel was created to give the players more face time with the characters they grew to love so much. Because even though my time on the ME3 boards showed me that there was no consensus as to what people hated about the ending, it did show to me a reasonably strong consensus that people were emotionally invested in the game and setting and a large part of what solicited that emotional investment was the crew of the Normandy.

Just my two cents.

Agreed. It shows you that something was done VERY right when making those characters to where many players became emotionally attached to them. I was/am one of them, I loved the characters and really hated the fact that it was the last time I would see them in a new game with Shepard. I just thought this was a very good point and had to throw my 2 cents in as well.

No matter if you hated the ending or not, the Citadel was fun and it was a great last "hoorah" for us as players. I use it as my canon ending  It was just too good not to.

[Foolsfolly]

Demarco09 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Citadel was created to give the players more face time with the characters they grew to love so much. Because even though my time on the ME3 boards showed me that there was no consensus as to what people hated about the ending, it did show to me a reasonably strong consensus that people were emotionally invested in the game and setting and a large part of what solicited that emotional investment was the crew of the Normandy.

Just my two cents.

Agreed. It shows you that something was done VERY right when making those characters to where many players became emotionally attached to them. I was/am one of them, I loved the characters and really hated the fact that it was the last time I would see them in a new game with Shepard. I just thought this was a very good point and had to throw my 2 cents in as well.

No matter if you hated the ending or not, the Citadel was fun and it was a great last "hoorah" for us as players. I use it as my canon ending  It was just too good not to.

I can't believe they had to be told that, though. I mean even just a small glance online would show thousands of demands for "so and so" to be back in ME3. I thought a decent consenus could be gathered prior to ME3's release that those characters needed to have a larger role and that players really connected with them.

[Foolsfolly]

Thanks to that link to gamefront from the last page I've read their review of Citadel. It's really good.

Yes, The Citadel contains an enormously bizarre abandonment of tone. Yes, in context it’s completely inappropriate, particularly where it takes place within the game. Yes, Mass Effect 3′s ending is still complete nonsense. Yes, the same is true for the ending of The Citadel. Yes, it reeks of an almost desperate need to please. And, yes, it bears the unmistakable signs of a franchise being prepped for conversion to something far more generic than the deeply involved RPG it started as. But action packed, full of variety, and funny as hell, it is not only the best post-release Mass Effect content since Lair of the Shadow Broker, it finally provides something that the Extended Cut and all the ‘lots of speculation from everyone‘ in the galaxy never could: closure.

It accomplishes the difficult trick of leaving you feeling satisfied after a grueling year full of disappointments, and as ridiculous as it gets, it’s a fitting goodbye to the characters players have come to know since 2007. If only you didn’t have to grapple with the game’s other, congenital flaws, it would be a triumph. If only….

That's a great opening statement about the DLC and the game its connected to.

[Foolsfolly]

I've never been to gamefront before but I'm enjoying their year old post on the ending of Mass Effect 3. Which probably helps when you're thinking about what BioWare can learn from the ending. It's not something like looking back and now seeing the EC and all the other DLC for it. This was a response from something still fresh in their memory and it's fun to read now.

At the time I was pissed but now it's fun to look back on it. Kinda like an autopsy. Here's one bit I really agreed with:

Mass Effect continually asks “Can’t we call just get along?” and as Shepard, players can work toward that end for three full games. But the ending totally undoes your work toward galactic unity by undervaluing it, then throwing it out altogether, almost as though it were intended for another story. So what that the races of the galaxy have come to value and understand one another in a way never before possible as they unite against a common enemy: not possible with synthetics and organics, the Guardian proclaims. That’s just an immutable fact. So you’re forced to choose a solution that discards free will.

[Burnham1]

With 18 pages this has probably been stated before but it is something that likely bears repeating.

The key difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect is that Mass Effect is the story of Shepard. Dragon Age is the story of the world. In Mass Effect, most players spent hundreds of hours playing as Shepard and interacting with characters close to Shepard. That same connection to the characters does not exist in Dragon Age. Sure we gain some sort of feeling for our character we create and his/her companions. But not as much as hundreds of hours as the same character brings us.

Mass Effect's endings didn't need to be happy, they needed to provide closure for the characters we all grew to love. They needed to show us what becomes of them after the Reapers are defeated. What is Liara doing 100 years after the fact. What is Tali doing now that the war is over, where is Garrus, etc. Shepard doesn't have to live to gain closure. You just need to fast forward some time into the future and show how the surviving crew members have moved on after the war and how they remember Shepard.

In Dragon Age, it is all about the story of the world. We would all like a proper send off for the characters we grew to love in the 40 or so hours we played the game, but it isn't as vital because what is going on in the world and what the next story is going to be is more important. Setting up the groundwork for the future events of the world is more important because those characters we met might still have a role to play in future events.

In Mass Effect 3, the story of Shepard is over, so closure is necessary for the characters involved in Shepard's story. An ending akin to Origins is acceptable for a Dragon Age game because it sets up future events in Thedas. I would rather see actual visual depictions though rather than a power point slide show. I think it would be far more powerful.

[David7204]

The failure of Mass Effect 3's endings is not due to a lack of closure. It isn't. It's due to a lack of meaningful heroism. It's due to pretty much nothing mattering at the end except the Crucible and Catalyst.

That is a colossal failure for a series built on meaningful and effective heroism. Heroism is the primary theme of Mass Effect, and the primary reason why the story is great. And when it was needed absolutely the most, it was entirely absent.

So yeah, I absolutely understand why it feels like a betrayal.

The frustration at the lack of a happy ending and closure is merely an offshoot of that. People excepted a happy ending because they expected Shepard's heroism to matter.

Hence the litany of "Shepard deserved better." It's absolutely true.

As horrible as that is, it's only the main problem. There are about a half dozen very serious other problems that heavily cripple the ending. But pretty much anything would have been forgiveable if Shepard's heroism had been meaningful. And it wasn't.

Modifié par David7204, 18 mars 2013 - 04:41 .

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

The failure of Mass Effect 3's endings is not due to a lack of closure. It isn't. It's due to a lack of meaningful heroism. It's due to pretty much nothing mattering at the end except the Crucible and Catalyst.

You mean, the way nothing matters at the end of ME2 except destroying the Collector Base? The way nothing matters at the end of ME1 except destroying Sovereign? The way nothing matters at the end of DA:O except killing the Archdaemon? The way nothing matters at the end of KotOR except killing Malak? The way nothing matters at the end of Hotu ... (snip).... killing Sarevok?

[David7204]

Uhh...no? Absolutely not. Don't confuse player choice not making much of an impact with the protagonist's actions not making much of an impact.

Having the player's choices not make huge differences may not be great, but it's understandable. We all know developers can only make one game, not 2 or 4 or 8 or 16. All games with choices do it to some extent.

Having the protagonist's actions be meaningless is unforgiveable in a story like Mass Effect.

There is absolutely no question that Shepard plays a key and meaningful role in defeating the Collectors. There's no question that the squad we've been building up plays a meaningful role. There's no question the Normandy plays a meaningful role.

Compare that to Mass Effect 3, where every ship, every ally, every friend, and every victory counts for nothing in the end. Where love, friendship, heroism, courage - all the traits that have been used to tell fulfilling and magnificent stories for 120 hours - count for nothing. You lose no matter what. You die no matter what. You break all your promises no matter what.

Modifié par David7204, 18 mars 2013 - 05:14 .

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

Compare that to Mass Effect 3, where every ship, every ally, every friend, and every victory counts for nothing in the end. Where love, friendship, heroism, courage - all the traits that have been used to tell fulfilling and magnificent stories for 120 hours - count for nothing. You lose no matter what. You die no matter what. You break all your promises no matter what.

Well said!

A great phrase I heard that summed it all up:

"No matter how much of a difference you made, it made no difference"

[abnocte]

[

Burnham1 wrote...

With 18 pages this has probably been stated before but it is something that likely bears repeating.
The key difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect is that Mass Effect is the story of Shepard. Dragon Age is
the story of the world. 

I don't fully agree with you here. Mass Effect was planned as a trilogy with the same character, but ME is as 
much Shepard's story as the galaxy it takes place in. The genophage, the Quarian-Geth conflict, the Reapers
themselves were there way before Shepard was even born, true enough that Shepard has an active part in those 
conflicts but they tell more about the ME universe than about Shepard.

It is true that the devs have stated that Dragon Age is the story of Thedas but that doesn't mean no PC in a DA
game is going to ever have clousure to his story.

In Mass Effect, most players spent hundreds of hours playing as Shepard and interacting with characters close to 
Shepard. That same connection to the characters does not exist in Dragon Age. Sure we gain some sort of feeling for our character we create and his/her companions. But not as much as hundreds of hours as the same character brings us.

I'm not sure if you refer to DA:O or DA2 but my first play-through in DA:O took me more than 90 hours. Not only
that, interactions with squadmates is far more limited in the ME series that it ever was in DA:O.

That aside not everyone needs the same time to get attached to a certain character.

Mass Effect's endings didn't need to be happy, they needed to provide closure for the characters we all grew to
love. They needed to show us what becomes of them after the Reapers are defeated. What is Liara doing 100 years after the fact. What is Tali doing now that the war is over, where is Garrus, etc. Shepard doesn't have to live 
to gain closure. You just need to fast forward some time into the future and show how the surviving crew members have moved on after the war and how they remember Shepard.

I agree here, mostly.

In Dragon Age, it is all about the story of the world. We would all like a proper send off for the characters we
grew to love in the 40 or so hours we played the game, but it isn't as vital because what is going on in the 
world and what the next story is going to be is more important. Setting up the groundwork for the future events 
of the world is more important because those characters we met might still have a role to play in future events. 

In Mass Effect 3, the story of Shepard is over, so closure is necessary for the characters involved in Shepard's 
story. An ending akin to Origins is acceptable for a Dragon Age game because it sets up future events in Thedas. 
I would rather see actual visual depictions though rather than a power point slide show. I think it would be far 
more powerful.

As I said above even if DA is the story of Thedas and the writers can set up future stories in each game, that
does not mean that a DA PC should not get clousure to his/her story.

It is up to the writers to use or not a previous NPC in future installements, but that doesn't mean that
everyone we met in a DA game is going to have a role in a future game. I mean, it really had to be Leliana 
the sister that appeared at the end of DA2? What makes her special ( besides appearing in DA:O )? May be we will know in DA:I, may be not.


If we take DA:O as a reference, we can say its ending offered clousure while explaining Thedas story.
You joined the grey Wardens and your objective is to defeat the Archdemon.
You do so.
Depeding on your choices Thedas is left in one state or other but the mission you were given at the begining of
the game is completed. You defeat the Blight, but you don't defeat or exterminate the Darkspawn.

From a more personal prespective ( I think ) the only Warden that doesn't get clousure are those that romanced
Morrigan. Bioware tried to solve that with DLC. 
From that on, its not the Warden story anymore but Morrigan's and her child.


The thing is that Thedas story is the story of its people, thousands of little stories that shape Thedas on
different levels, it is impossible to tell Thedas story if you don't offer clousure to each of its parts.

Same applies to ME series. 



So, more on topic, as most have said: I don't need or want a happy ending I just want clousure, I need and want to feel that my character served his/her pourpose whatever fate befalls him/her.

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

Where love, friendship, heroism, courage - all the traits that have been used to tell fulfilling and magnificent stories for 120 hours - count for nothing.

Need I point out those "traits" weren't present in all player characters? The ruthless and pragmatic character never had anything count throughout the entire series, the entire ending ultimately ended up being expected because nothing ever worked in your favor.

I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner.

[randomcheeses]

Personally I think the lesson here is to give an ending that:

1. makes logical sense within the confines of the setting
2. gives closure regarding the players companions
3. isn't option A, B or C depending on a number being high enough
4. fits the themes of the game
5. isn't flat out morbidly depressing.
6. gives the player a sense of achievement when they finish the game.

As long as those conditions are met I don't mind if the ending is not all sunshine and rainbows.

[philippe willaume]

yes some people wanted a happy ending
yes some people where somewhat satisfied with the DLC ending
yes some people were not satisfied with the DLC ending.
yes marketing spin did not help

Personally I though the ending DLC fixed my main grief with the original ending.
sure it could have been more elaborate but at the time it came out. I though that was a really really good effort and i am super grateful for it


but one thing is sure is that whilst people might like or dislike the tone of the ending. ME3 clearly showed that regardless what it is, it has to been presented and put into context in a meaningful manner and be at the very least of the same quality as what the game was up top that point.

ME3 origfinal ending, like DA;2 ending felt like an after thought sparkeld with a "that will f**king do!" feeling.

In DA:2, act2 was really well done, in ME: until the return to earth the story was holding together well and you had some really, really well made ending to some companion back story.

and then at the conclusion, you have the Orsino effect or it does not matter if you have unified the galaxy you will have your arse handed to you in the same manner as if you hadn't got any body onboard.
it is fine for a story to end how the writers wants in fact that is the point of playing a game, but if I bothered to get the galaxy onboard at least make it something more epic that if you turned up with only your two best mate.

Legion, Sorin have really superb endings, you could had Wrex and Talis depending of your choices, and then, at the end a big fat nothing for the rest of them or the race that came to help you.
in the ending you learn that the end game purpose is not what you have intially assumed. it is really a nice twist and I did not see it coming.
Sheperd: "so ultimately we can't defeat the reapers but it is about how the galaxy will continue as it is or if I can break the circle.

StarBrat: " yeap"

Shep: "so each option will be put into the context of what I have done so far"

StarBrat: " nope"

shep : ha well, at least i will know what happen to me mate and the fleets and the galaxy. after i have bought it"

StarBrat: " nope, unless you get the ending DLC "
Sherp: "well carry on then, i really wonder why I bothered?."



Same for DA:2 fantastic act 2, and the Anders action only makes sense in the rivalry path. the friendship path makes you fell that you are the worse friend or contender for the worst partner in the Thedas because during 3 years you clearly did not give a toss about the dude.
then if you side with the mages, you end up having the old chap loosing it for no real reasons,
O: "aaaaaaaaaaaaah we are all domed, lets go Massey Ferguson"
Hawke " easy old chap, don't get you knickers in a twist, they are just and other waves of the Muppets we slapped silly for the last 30 minutes. so we are clearly winning and it will be a walk in the park, so relax and put the kettle on"
O: ".well, hum well ......................... so my old china the script says that I need to Massey Ferguson so that you have another boss to fight."
H: "well carry on then, i really wonder why I bothered?."




TL,DR
don't make an ending that makes us fell as if the publisher care less about the story and the world they created than us.
Don't rub our nose in it by giving us an ending that is so much bellow par compared to the rest of the game it is finishing, let alone compared to the series previous ending.

but that's just me
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 19 mars 2013 - 03:42 .

[Wulfram]

David7204 wrote...

Compare that to Mass Effect 3, where every ship, every ally, every friend, and every victory counts for nothing in the end. Where love, friendship, heroism, courage - all the traits that have been used to tell fulfilling and magnificent stories for 120 hours - count for nothing. You lose no matter what. You die no matter what. You break all your promises no matter what.

The Earth gets blown up no matter what... wait, no.  That only happens in the bad ending.  Casualties can be a bunch higher if the player hasn't built up a good amound of war assets too.

Of course, the game does a spectacularly bad job of making the player aware that things could be worse.  And it's rather devalued because success is mostly about whether you played the scanning mini-game or did some MP.

[philippe willaume]

Wulfram wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Compare that to Mass Effect 3, where every ship, every ally, every friend, and every victory counts for nothing in the end. Where love, friendship, heroism, courage - all the traits that have been used to tell fulfilling and magnificent stories for 120 hours - count for nothing. You lose no matter what. You die no matter what. You break all your promises no matter what.

The Earth gets blown up no matter what... wait, no.  That only happens in the bad ending.  Casualties can be a bunch higher if the player hasn't built up a good amound of war assets too.

Of course, the game does a spectacularly bad job of making the player aware that things could be worse.  And it's rather devalued because success is mostly about whether you played the scanning mini-game or did some MP.

that is true for the DLC ending, the original ending was less clear about that.
Ie you had to guess/intreprete quite a bit to get to that conclusion.

Now that i liked that the change of direction at the end and that you can't have the bock buster happy ending.
just as i liked the ideas that the conflict in Kurkwall was ineluctable.

At the end it is the prerogative of the author to lead the story where he sees fit.
and from that it is his/her job to tell me how we got there and why. It can be clues or  it does not need to explaine is simple subject-verb-complement type of sentences but it does need to happens in some from. IE i should not have to make it up as it goes along.

phil

[deaths origin]

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.

agreed i'm not reading a book series or watching a movie i've put time into the game so i want a happy ending

[Twisted Path]

I think there's a longstanding consensus (predating the ending of Mass Effect 3 even,) that having a previously unseen deus ex machina appear out of nowhere to resolve the conflict of a story is bad writing.

Not to be too rude I should add that it does happen all the time, even with otherwise good writers. Steven King is notorious for not knowing how to end a story and often pulls stuff like the Mass Effect 3 ending out of nowhere. But it's a bad idea. Don't end a story that way. Lesson learned.

[Milan92]

I don't want a happy ending. I want a good written ending.

Happy endings don't automatically mean good endings.

[Iakus]

I DO want happy endings

I also want sad endings
and bittersweet endings
and hopeful endings
and dark endings.

But most of all I want to be able to choose which ending fits best for a given playthrough.

[clarkusdarkus]

I just like to feel like i win at videogames, im weird like that.....ME3 did not give me that feeling..

[Il Divo]

Wulfram wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Compare that to Mass Effect 3, where every ship, every ally, every friend, and every victory counts for nothing in the end. Where love, friendship, heroism, courage - all the traits that have been used to tell fulfilling and magnificent stories for 120 hours - count for nothing. You lose no matter what. You die no matter what. You break all your promises no matter what.

The Earth gets blown up no matter what... wait, no.  That only happens in the bad ending.  Casualties can be a bunch higher if the player hasn't built up a good amound of war assets too.

Pretty much. If Shepard's heroism didn't matter at all, the Reaper genocide would have been successful, no matter what.

[Sir George Parr]

@clarkusdarkus : I know that feeling. Every time i completed ME3 i felt that the game had beaten me.

Modifié par XM-417, 19 mars 2013 - 08:53 .

[Travie]

PLEASE don't make the argument that people disliked the ME3 ending only because it wasn't 'happy'.

There were so many flaws we could talk about it forever... and seeing that this thread has gone on this long... probably will.

[Althix]

happy ending? why there is always should be a happy ending? Look at Dark Souls - there is no happy ending.

ME3 endgame failure is not about death of Shep.

Let say in Origins devs offer you a choice to give your warden's live for Ferelden by killing Archy, or you can trick everyone with Morrigan, or you can send party member to die for Ferelden.
In ME3 Shep's live is taken from us by devs. And not only that:

Honestly on first playthrough when Anderson died and Shep is nearby bleeding, i thought alright. Shep is about to die, but that Crucible thingy is about to blast Reapers from the galaxy. But suddenly radio start working, i mean Shep's armor is ****ing ruin, shields are down, medigel is broken, but ****ing radio is still working!

Not to mention that Anderson t-shirt armor looks good. And he just took one slug from a Fex.

And Shep is elevated to a vista of some kind with glowing god-child who is talking bs. Logic of this AI is so wrong, that it makes me facepalm every time i play the game.

Endgame plot is so badly made that it makes me sad, and it was even worse before EC.

Also this harvest thing, i mean ok they harvest advanced races and store them in reaper form. There can be only one Reaper from humans, one from Asari etc. And lesser races becomes little reapers. Ok fine, but honestly how many reapers were destroyed in all that time? I mean it's attrition war and reapers are loosing it. From cycle to cycle be it a void war or ground war they suffer casualties. And i doubt that they can reproduce quick enough to fill the gap. Given that Sovereign class reaper can only be build from remnants of major race, odds are not in their favor. Reapers are loosing, in 10 or 100 cycles they will be destroyed.

Overall writting of ME3 plot is horrible. That is the problem, i am totaly fine with the fact that Shep has to die, it was obvious right after Mars mission. But meh, to rape entire series with last 15 minutes? seriously?

And now take a look at DA2, the only thing that keeps me in good mood towards this game is Arishok. Whoever made this character and his conversation lines is a genius. The only thing why you should play DA2 is Arishok.

DA:O on the other hand is full with rich, interesting characters. Plot, conversation, everything.
ME1 - the scene when Wrex lowers his face to Shepard and telling that "Shep, i am going to kill Fist" is priceless. Game is full with such moments.

Bioware have many talented people i am sure of what. But when it's gone wrong? Why instead of Loghain level antogonist we have TIM?

I can blame EA of course, i mean as Simcity owner i have ****loads of issues with this product and it's not about servers, it's about that they sold me a beta version of the game.

We want to play RolePlaying Games! For me it's not even about LI or choices "that matters" it is about plot, that can consume you whole and keep you engaged from first second to the last. With out faceplams in the end like it was with DA2 and ME3.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 19 mars 2013 - 10:27 .

[Huntress]

Happy ending? I like happy endings! thats why your character worked for hours isnt? to get something out of.. something?

Even if you play an evil it would sux not to destroy the world.. right? It wouldnt make sense if you try to save it because.. the character got bored of his evil choices.. meh

I dont mind if there is a character option to go suicidal, to send his love interest to death or to kill the siblings, I do want an option to save them .. all ...if posible, the character survives the last battle, the Li survive and is happy next to the hero, the sibling/s on a vacation trip that involve torturing lower class citizens...

this is somethign that always bother me from da2..but is way better that ME 3 with all the over priced DLC's!

So yeah happy ending is alright and I hope they dont pull another hologram out of thin air that said: I m the last evil in this galaxy, shot at me and you lose.. mf.