364 réponses à ce sujet

[ruggly]

David7204 wrote...

Snip..

I hope you're asking the 'what' and not the 'how.' Because there still plenty of problems I have no idea how I would tackle.

Nope, just the 'what.'

[Ultrabobo]

It never ceases to amaze me how some things work, really.
Why some people take it as a personal attack when someone dares to ask for the possibility of a happy ending? Is not they want it to be the only ending, just a chance, a D added to A B and C.

And please don't feed me excuses like meaningful heroism, art, deep storytelling or whatever is this week's word.
A happy ending won't break the game industry, is not a sign of the medium never growing up. If games don't grow is because the majority (the real majority, numbers at hand) don't care about stories. As long as CoD sells a dozen milion copies each and every year, the software houses will want to do that, because money.

So please stop bashing who doesn't think a hero's death is wonderful, that's an opinion, as valid as the one of who likes their heroes dying.

[UniqueName001]

David7204 wrote...

This is about something titanically more important than me. It's about whether meaningful heroism is a good, valid thing or not. MEHEM does not have meaningful heroism, so supporting it is basically indicating to BioWare and other storytellers that heroism doesn't matter as long as you get a happy ending.

Also, how does supporting the MEHEM tell storytellers anything bad?  None of the things you (and I!) would like to see are in the original endings either; supporting the MEHEM isn't reducing the amount of "meaningful heroism" in the story as none really exists in the first place.

As far as I am concerned, the lesson from the popularity of the MEHEM is to not create a new nonsense character at the end of your story, don't have him suddenly be the protagonist, and don't add weird, unexpected, and illogical solutions to the conflict at the last minute.

I completely agree with your list of what would make for a better ending; I just think that MEHEM is a lot closer to it than the "official" choices.

[David7204]

Well then, there you have it.

This is all only for a perfect ending, obviously. Things would be much worse if Shepard has been a screw-up.

Modifié par David7204, 07 avril 2013 - 08:48 .

[Iakus]

UniqueName001 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's easy. Conventional victory, with the nonconventional solution not going to waste.

All squadmembers survive, all races survive, Shepard unambiguously survives. Mass relays completely intact.

At the climax, Shepard does something to turn the tide of battle in a single moment of great courage, willpower, or skill.

Reunion with the crew. Orbital kiss. (Shepard kisses his or her love interest while the camera rotates around them 360 degrees)

A galaxy full of opportunity. Plenty of work that still needs doing if Shepard and the team want to continue the journey on the Normandy...and plenty of quieter spots if Shepard is more interested in settling down.

Hmm...I miss anything?

Erm... isn't this almost exactly what the MEHEM does?  Except for the "Shepard does something to turn the tide of battle in a single moment of great courage, willpower, or skill." part, lack of which is BioWare's fault, not the MEHEM.  The way the story is written, the crucible/starchild takes away the ability for Shepard to do that.

Even before MEHEM, Shepard survives Harbinger's assault, makes it to the Citadel, gets past The Illusive Man, and opens the ward arms so the Crucible can dock.  Granted Shepard passes out right afterwards, but at least the Catalyst is no longer there to trivialize the accomplishment.

but yes, MEHEM provides teh rest, including a moment of courage for the Normandy crew, in going back for Shepard.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

Well then, there you have it.

This is all only for a perfect ending, obviously. Things would be much worse if Shepard has been a screw-up.

Fun fact:  There are plans for MEHEM to have low and medium EMS versions of the endings in the future.  What we have now is just the High EMS version.

[mtmercydave09]

iakus wrote...

UniqueName001 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's easy. Conventional victory, with the nonconventional solution not going to waste.

All squadmembers survive, all races survive, Shepard unambiguously survives. Mass relays completely intact.

At the climax, Shepard does something to turn the tide of battle in a single moment of great courage, willpower, or skill.

Reunion with the crew. Orbital kiss. (Shepard kisses his or her love interest while the camera rotates around them 360 degrees)

A galaxy full of opportunity. Plenty of work that still needs doing if Shepard and the team want to continue the journey on the Normandy...and plenty of quieter spots if Shepard is more interested in settling down.

Hmm...I miss anything?

Erm... isn't this almost exactly what the MEHEM does?  Except for the "Shepard does something to turn the tide of battle in a single moment of great courage, willpower, or skill." part, lack of which is BioWare's fault, not the MEHEM.  The way the story is written, the crucible/starchild takes away the ability for Shepard to do that.

Even before MEHEM, Shepard survives Harbinger's assault, makes it to the Citadel, gets past The Illusive Man, and opens the ward arms so the Crucible can dock.  Granted Shepard passes out right afterwards, but at least the Catalyst is no longer there to trivialize the accomplishment.

but yes, MEHEM provides teh rest, including a moment of courage for the Normandy crew, in going back for Shepard.

Exactly, and that's why I love MEHEM.  It provides needed elaboration that Bioware couldn't provide, and as the storyteller, they should have seen the story all the way through to the end.

[mtmercydave09]

Ultrabobo wrote...

It never ceases to amaze me how some things work, really.
Why some people take it as a personal attack when someone dares to ask for the possibility of a happy ending? Is not they want it to be the only ending, just a chance, a D added to A B and C.

And please don't feed me excuses like meaningful heroism, art, deep storytelling or whatever is this week's word.
A happy ending won't break the game industry, is not a sign of the medium never growing up. If games don't grow is because the majority (the real majority, numbers at hand) don't care about stories. As long as CoD sells a dozen milion copies each and every year, the software houses will want to do that, because money.

So please stop bashing who doesn't think a hero's death is wonderful, that's an opinion, as valid as the one of who likes their heroes dying.

Agree completely.  A happy ending won't break the game industry because the people asking for a happy ending, aren't asking for it to be the only ending there is.  We're only asking for it as an option.  I don't see why that's such a bad thing.

[David7204]

Because MEHEM is not a good ending. Just a happy one.

[mtmercydave09]

David7204 wrote...

Because MEHEM is not a good ending. Just a happy one.

And as far as happy endings, it's still better than anything we were given in the happiness department.  Would be no need for it if you know, Bioware had actually provided something similar as an option themselves.

Modifié par mtmercydave09, 07 avril 2013 - 09:26 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Because MEHEM is not a good ending. Just a happy one.

Its not really a happy ending when you think about it

[Yestare7]

mtmercydave09 wrote...

It provides needed elaboration that Bioware couldn't provide, and as the storyteller, they should have seen the story all the way through to the end.

Yes. Closure was needed. Last playthrough I did Destroy high EMS THEN Citadel Party. 
THAT was my closure. (even without Citadel, the famous "breathe" scene did leave me feeling positive about MY game and MY ending)

One of the many things I appreciate in Tolkien, is the end. 
The ring is destroyed, they travel home, visit the Elves and some others, live in Hobbiton a bit more, and then go to the Harbors. It's about 100 pages of the characters not doing anything heroic, fighting or dying. But you get such a wonderfull closure with the characters and the book. 



Y

Modifié par Yestare7, 07 avril 2013 - 09:29 .

[mtmercydave09]

Yestare7 wrote...

mtmercydave09 wrote...

It provides needed elaboration that Bioware couldn't provide, and as the storyteller, they should have seen the story all the way through to the end.

Yes. Closure was needed. Last playthrough I did Destroy high EMS THEN Citadel Party. 
THAT was my closure. 

One of the many things I appreciate in Tolkien, is the end. 
The ring is destroyed, they travel home, visit the Elves and some others, live in Hobbiton a bit more, and then go to the Harbors. It's about 100 pages of the characters not doing anything heroic, fighting or dying. But you get such a wonderfull closure with the characters and the book. 



Y

My thoughts exactly, and I don't see how that couldn't have been provided as an option.

Sure there are those who like the current endings, and that's fine, nobody is suggesting those be taken away.

[Yestare7]

 
Bioware did great giving (almost) every character attention in the Citadel.I must have replayed Liara's piano scene at least 8 times, but hey, I got a weak spot for Blue:wub:

[mtmercydave09]

Yestare7 wrote...

 
Bioware did great giving (almost) every character attention in the Citadel.I must have replayed Liara's piano scene at least 8 times, but hey, I got a weak spot for Blue:wub:

Agreed.  I loved that scene with Liara and the piano.  I only wished that the Citadel DLC gave an option to invite Ashley over to the apartment instead of just the short bar scene, but other than that I liked everything.

[Reorte]

David7204 wrote...

Because MEHEM is not a good ending. Just a happy one.

No, it's not good. Making it good would take more than is possible with a fan mod (probably). But it's better than the in-game endings. Nothing that was removed by MEHEM has any sound reason for being in in the first place.

[Asharad Hett]

Reorte wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Because MEHEM is not a good ending. Just a happy one.

No, it's not good.

But it's not as bad, because it removes some of the bad

[mtmercydave09]

David7204 wrote...

Because MEHEM is not a good ending. Just a happy one.

Well it is a mod, maybe if it was easier to mod the game it would be better.  It's the best we can do with the tools we have to work with though.

It removes Starbrat, which in my view is pretty dang good.

Modifié par mtmercydave09, 07 avril 2013 - 11:19 .

[CronoDragoon]

mtmercydave09 wrote...
Well it is a mod, maybe if it was easier to mod the game it would be better.  It's the best we can do with the tools we have to work with though.

It removes Starbrat, which in my view is pretty dang good.

I haven't played MEHEM, but removing the Catalyst does not make the ending better. It objectively makes the ending worse, because now you have dangling plot threads from earlier in the game like the Leviathan DLC and Vendetta stating that someone is controlling the Reapers.

Had MEHEM been able to keep the idea of the Catalyst while still basically conforming to Destroy without the geth/EDI dying then I would indeed call it an objectively better ending. If all you're removing is the geth/EDI dying - a story detail which I've always opposed for several reasons - while adding some more closure scenes then MEHEM would sound fine to me.

But removing the Catalyst as well is just forcing the story to be MORE nonsensical, not less. That's not good.

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...

mtmercydave09 wrote...
Well it is a mod, maybe if it was easier to mod the game it would be better.  It's the best we can do with the tools we have to work with though.

It removes Starbrat, which in my view is pretty dang good.

I haven't played MEHEM, but removing the Catalyst does not make the ending better. It objectively makes the ending worse, because now you have dangling plot threads from earlier in the game like the Leviathan DLC and Vendetta stating that someone is controlling the Reapers.

Vendetta says its conjecture so that's OK and whilst the Leviathans said they set the whole thing up that doesn't mean it has to still be around or particularly relevent to defeating the Reapers. Not everything has to be tied up and known at the end and such details about the Reapers are one of those things IMO; at any rate not tying it up is the lesser of two evils.

[CronoDragoon]

Reorte wrote...
Vendetta says its conjecture so that's OK

No, story-telling wise that's not okay. It goes with the old saying that if you put a gun on the mantle in Act 1, then in Act 3 somebody better use it. If you suggest someone is controlling the Reapers, even by conjecture, then eventually you need to have someone controlling the Reapers.

and whilst the Leviathans said they set the whole thing up that doesn't mean it has to still be around or particularly relevent to defeating the Reapers.

It's difficult for me to say since I didn't play Leviathan my first run through the game, but speaking from my own viewpoint: how is anyone supposed to finish Leviathan and NOT gather that the Intelligence is controlling the Reaper cycle?

Not everything has to be tied up and known at the end and such details about the Reapers are one of those things IMO; at any rate not tying it up is the lesser of two evils.

Everything doesn't have to be known, but if you set up a plot point then yes, it DOES have to be tied up. Besides, how much harm does the Catalyst really do in an ending where he presumably wants to keep doing the cycle but is defeated by the docking of the Crucible and Shepard activating it? After all, we've eliminated all the stuff about Synthesis.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well they kind of brought it on themselves, didn't they? They cut quests from the game that are on the game disk.

The entire Starbrat ending really blows. It doesn't fit the story. Starbrat is the intelligence. He isn't the catalyst. Shepard is. He's a goddamned liar. The entire purpose of that ending was to make you feel bad. Screw that. I didn't wait 5 years to feel bad.

The way I have it all figured out was that the catalyst scene takes place in your mind anyway.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I haven't played MEHEM, but removing the Catalyst does not make the ending better. It objectively makes the ending worse, because now you have dangling plot threads from earlier in the game like the Leviathan DLC and Vendetta stating that someone is controlling the Reapers.

Not really, all Vendetta speculates on is that the Reapers are servants of a greater pattern.  It even goes so far as to say that this goes beyond the cycles. and even as far as the nature of time itself. 

Vendetta Our studies of past ages have led us to believe time is cyclical.  Many patterns repeat.
Shepard:  Like the Reaper attacks
Vendetta: And beyond.  The same peaks of evolution.  The same valleys of dissolution.  The same conflicts are expressed in every cycle, but in a differnt manner.  the repetition is too prevalent to be merely chance.
Liara: We assumed the Reapers were responsible for the pattern.
Vendetta: Perhaps.  Though I believe the Reapers are only servants of the Pattern, not its master
Shepard: So who is the master?
Venetta: Unknown.  Its presence is inferred rather than observed.  The only certainty is its intention

 This goes far beyond the scope fo the Catalyst.. 


And the Leviathans only say they created an intelligence, which turned on them and created the Reapers.  For all we know, this intelligence is housed within the Reapers themselves, like geth platforms.  

Neither of these contradicts Vendetta's assertion that "the Citadel is the Catalyst"

If you haven't played it, see for yourself.

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Reorte wrote...
Vendetta says its conjecture so that's OK

No, story-telling wise that's not okay. It goes with the old saying that if you put a gun on the mantle in Act 1, then in Act 3 somebody better use it. If you suggest someone is controlling the Reapers, even by conjecture, then eventually you need to have someone controlling the Reapers.

There can be red herrings, there can be filler, there can be irrelevent speculation from characters. Plotting everything that tight so everything has meaning makes things feel too artificial.

and whilst the Leviathans said they set the whole thing up that doesn't mean it has to still be around or particularly relevent to defeating the Reapers.

It's difficult for me to say since I didn't play Leviathan my first run through the game, but speaking from my own viewpoint: how is anyone supposed to finish Leviathan and NOT gather that the Intelligence is controlling the Reaper cycle?

Not ideal but pretend it's Harbinger these days - it could've created Harbinger as a platform for itself. As I said, not ideal but considering the mess we've got to work with here...

Not everything has to be tied up and known at the end and such details about the Reapers are one of those things IMO; at any rate not tying it up is the lesser of two evils.

Everything doesn't have to be known, but if you set up a plot point then yes, it DOES have to be tied up. Besides, how much harm does the Catalyst really do in an ending where he presumably wants to keep doing the cycle but is defeated by the docking of the Crucible and Shepard activating it? After all, we've eliminated all the stuff about Synthesis.

Well, I disagree with having to tie it up but beyond that the Catalyst is still a pointless, annoying character who cheapens the Reapers and doesn't actually tell us anything useful. Is a really badly tied up plot point always worse than a loose one?

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

No, story-telling wise that's not okay. It goes with the old saying that if you put a gun on the mantle in Act 1, then in Act 3 somebody better use it. If you suggest someone is controlling the Reapers, even by conjecture, then eventually you need to have someone controlling the Reapers.

"We are each a nation.  Independant.  Free of all weakness" 

It's difficult for me to say since I didn't play Leviathan my first run through the game, but speaking from my own viewpoint: how is anyone supposed to finish Leviathan and NOT gather that the Intelligence is controlling the Reaper cycle?

Or simply got the ball rolling.

Prior to ME3, the Reapers reminded me of the Berserkers.  Ancient war machines gone screwy and now operate on directives no longer relevant.

Everything doesn't have to be known, but if you set up a plot point then yes, it DOES have to be tied up. Besides, how much harm does the Catalyst really do in an ending where he presumably wants to keep doing the cycle but is defeated by the docking of the Crucible and Shepard activating it? After all, we've eliminated all the stuff about Synthesis.

It eliminates the laughably circulr logic.  It elimiated the appeal to authority fallacy concerning its conclusions.  It eliminates the arbitrary tragedies tacked on to the use of the Crucible.  It eliminates Shepard having to compromise his.her values to defeat the reapers.  

Modifié par iakus, 08 avril 2013 - 12:11 .