245 réponses à ce sujet

[Cheviot]

iakus wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

We knew ME3 would be the end of the Shepard trilogy right from the start..

And of course Throne of Bhaal was the end of the Bhaalspawn's story, so of course he./she had to die...

Wait   

Okay, so the Spirit Monk clearly had to die at the end of Jade Empire

....Umm...


Okay, the Warden had to die at the end of DAO, because DA2 moved on to a new protagonist

Err...

Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

[Iakus]

Cheviot wrote...

Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

Bioware chose to force a different ending for their trilogy of games

You can choose to have the Warden live, or die

The Bhaalapawn can choose to give up his or her life and become a god, or instead remain mortal

Heck, even the Spirit Monk can surrender at the end and die, if you take that option

But no, with the end of a game trilogy, Bioware decided i stead that Shepard "Exists because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

Repeat after me:  "Railroading is bad.  Railroading is bad"

Modifié par iakus, 28 avril 2013 - 05:46 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

^ I agree.

In the end it's their game. I'm completely disenfranchised though about why they decided to end it the way they did. It really is forcing you down a single path.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Aaaand the ending haters have arrived.
ABANDON THREAD!

[Cheviot]

iakus wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

Bioware chose to force a different ending for their trilogy of games

You can choose to have the Warden live, or die

The Bhaalapawn can choose to give up his or her life and become a god, or instead remain mortal

Heck, even the Spirit Monk can surrender at the end and die, if you take that option

But no, with the end of a game trilogy, Bioware decided i stead that Shepard "Exists because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

Repeat after me:  "Railroading is bad.  Railroading is bad"

Oh no!  They decided to have a different choice at the end of this game! 

Modifié par Cheviot, 28 avril 2013 - 05:54 .

[dreamgazer]

Cheviot wrote...
Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

It's actually somewhat similar to DA:O's ending structure: sacrifice yourself, throw someone else under the bus for the greater good, or create an "abomination". It just makes less sense and contradicts the preceding story's logic.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 28 avril 2013 - 05:57 .

[Iakus]

Cheviot wrote...

Oh no!  They decided to have a different choice at the end of this game! 

Death
Death
Death
Death
Death
Death 
Death  
Maaaaaybe alive.  Or maybe not

Is not much of a "choice""

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

Death
Death
Death
Death
Death
Death 
Death  
Maaaaaybe alive.  Or maybe not

Is not much of a "choice""

Only if Shepard living is the only thing important to you.

[Cheviot]

dreamgazer wrote...

Cheviot wrote...
Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

It's actually fairly similar to DA:O's ending . . .It just makes less sense and contradicts the preceding story's logic.

How do the ME3 endings contradict the logic of the preceding story? 

[dreamgazer]

Cheviot wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Cheviot wrote...
Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

It's actually fairly similar to DA:O's ending . . .It just makes less sense and contradicts the preceding story's logic.

How do the ME3 endings contradict the logic of the preceding story? 

Do we really need to have this conversation again?

[Cheviot]

iakus wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Oh no!  They decided to have a different choice at the end of this game! 

Death
Death
Death
Death
Death
Death 
Death  
Maaaaaybe alive.  Or maybe not

Is not much of a "choice""

You seem to have missed the part where Shepard chooses the fate of the entire galaxy.  That's quite a big choice.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Cheviot wrote...
Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

It's actually somewhat similar to DA:O's ending structure: sacrifice yourself, throw someone else under the bus for the greater good, or create an "abomination". It just makes less sense and contradicts the preceding story's logic.

Further difference:

1) If you sacrifice yourself, you go into the last battle already knowing what the choice is (from Riordan's talk)

2) You do not "throw someone else under the bus" as such.  They are at your side and volunteer to do so, knowing full well they will die.  

Either way, only one person is sacrificed in DAO.  Not like in ME3, where to get even a hint that Shepard lives, an entire race must die.  DAO endings where the Warden lives do not genocide the elves.

[Iakus]

Cheviot wrote...

iakus wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Oh no!  They decided to have a different choice at the end of this game! 

Death
Death
Death
Death
Death
Death 
Death  
Maaaaaybe alive.  Or maybe not

Is not much of a "choice""

You seem to have missed the part where Shepard chooses the fate of the entire galaxy.  That's quite a big choice.

I figured that would be for another thread.  SInce this one is about Shepard. Believe me, I have some words about the fate of the galaxy too.

So, about the lack of variety in Shepard's fate...

[Cainhurst Crow]

I'm almost tempted to run a survey now to see how many people who hate biowares ending simply becasue of shepards fate would react to what happens to ned stark in game of thrones.

Should be interesting.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

Cheviot wrote...
Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

It's actually somewhat similar to DA:O's ending structure: sacrifice yourself, throw someone else under the bus for the greater good, or create an "abomination". It just makes less sense and contradicts the preceding story's logic.

That's why it's bad.

It's not the same story as the preceeding 100+ game. It literally changes everything at the very end from defeat the Reapers and overcome as a united galaxy to solve this guys problem of organics and synthetics.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 avril 2013 - 06:04 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cheviot wrote...

iakus wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Oh no!  They decided to have a different choice at the end of this game! 

Death
Death
Death
Death
Death
Death 
Death  
Maaaaaybe alive.  Or maybe not

Is not much of a "choice""

You seem to have missed the part where Shepard chooses the fate of the entire galaxy.  That's quite a big choice.

Choose from 3 bad choices to screw the galaxy or refuse to make a choice for the galaxy. They're all kind of bad.

No sense of victory, defiance, or fulfillment. 

And look at why you're making the choice. It's no longer about the Reapers at the end. It's about something entirely different.

[Cheviot]

dreamgazer wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Cheviot wrote...
Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

It's actually fairly similar to DA:O's ending . . .It just makes less sense and contradicts the preceding story's logic.

How do the ME3 endings contradict the logic of the preceding story? 

Do we really need to have this conversation again?

As far as I can see, the endings are consistent with the logic of ME3 and indeed the rest of the series.  I've read a lot about people's misgivings about the endings, but I've yet to find anything that changes my mind.

[dreamgazer]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I'm almost tempted to run a survey now to see how many people who hate biowares ending simply becasue of shepards fate would react to what happens to ned stark in game of thrones.

Should be interesting.

Mass Effect isn't A Game of Thrones, though. They carry very different tones and purposes.

In that scenario, however, I'd be more interested to hear what people have to say about the Red Wedding.

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

Bioware chose to force a different ending for their trilogy of games

You can choose to have the Warden live, or die

The Bhaalapawn can choose to give up his or her life and become a god, or instead remain mortal

Heck, even the Spirit Monk can surrender at the end and die, if you take that option

But no, with the end of a game trilogy, Bioware decided i stead that Shepard "Exists because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

Repeat after me:  "Railroading is bad.  Railroading is bad"

Very true

[hiraeth]

iakus wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Oh no!  They decided to have a different choice at the end of this game! 

Death
Death
Death
Death
Death
Death 
Death  
Maaaaaybe alive.  Or maybe not

Is not much of a "choice""

I'd also add that it's not just the end outcome (alive vs. death), in either case you don't get very much tribute being paid to Shepard. It took an extended cut to get us a 1-minute memorial scene with no dialogue...and in high EMS Destroy, you get a half-second ambiguous breath scene...and that's what we're left with after 3 games with this protagonist. I guess you could technically say that Synthesis and Control get narration done by Shepard (which also took an extended cut), but the purpose is to spell out the state of the galaxy, not really to properly end Shepard as a character.

People seem to be creating this false dichotomy of closing Shepard's story vs. closing the galaxy...why can't you do both? Why can't you make the choice of Shepard's fate as diverse and intellectually stimulating as the choice of the galaxy's fate?

[Cheviot]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Choose from 3 bad choices to screw the galaxy or refuse to make a choice for the galaxy. They're all kind of bad.

No sense of victory, defiance, or fulfillment. 

And look at why you're making the choice. It's no longer about the Reapers at the end. It's about something entirely different.

None of the choices "screw the galaxy" (unless you have a low EMS, that is); the galaxy is being rebuilt, and in some choices, it's becoming better than before.  And Shepard had achieved victory; she had achieved what she had set out to do.  Also, it is about the Reapers at the end, since at least two out of the 4 decisions directly relate to their fate.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

iakus wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Oh no!  They decided to have a different choice at the end of this game! 

Death
Death
Death
Death
Death
Death 
Death  
Maaaaaybe alive.  Or maybe not

Is not much of a "choice""

You seem to have missed the part where Shepard chooses the fate of the entire galaxy.  That's quite a big choice.

Choose from 3 bad choices to screw the galaxy or refuse to make a choice for the galaxy. They're all kind of bad.

No sense of victory, defiance, or fulfillment. 

And look at why you're making the choice. It's no longer about the Reapers at the end. It's about something entirely different.

That's your personal opinion, I on the other hand feel that it was the galaxies united efforts that managed to construct, dock, and activate the crucible in the first place.

But while were on the subject of choices coming together from the game, let's consider that with the previous games shall we?

Where was the great many choices correlising in chooseing whether the council lived or died? I mean, if I favored humanity over the council, did that affect my choice? Had I done every side missson on the citadel, does that affect how the battle turns out? No, you pick fate of galactic society in a virtual bubble and nothing you did previously affects the outcome of what you did, say for your paragon or renegade meter. And even ME3 did that with the control ending.

Similar with Me2, what actually changes in the decision to keep or destroy the collector base in two different playthroughs of the game? About the only significant change is who you bring on your mission, and that's hardly seeing all your choices cumulate into a single moment. And at the end, you get virtually the same cutscene with the illusive man, only his star is now a different color, wow, big difference there.

[Iakus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

That's your personal opinion, I on the other hand feel that it was the galaxies united efforts that managed to construct, dock, and activate the crucible in the first place.

But while were on the subject of choices coming together from the game, let's consider that with the previous games shall we?

Where was the great many choices correlising in chooseing whether the council lived or died? I mean, if I favored humanity over the council, did that affect my choice? Had I done every side missson on the citadel, does that affect how the battle turns out? No, you pick fate of galactic society in a virtual bubble and nothing you did previously affects the outcome of what you did, say for your paragon or renegade meter. And even ME3 did that with the control ending.

Similar with Me2, what actually changes in the decision to keep or destroy the collector base in two different playthroughs of the game? About the only significant change is who you bring on your mission, and that's hardly seeing all your choices cumulate into a single moment. And at the end, you get virtually the same cutscene with the illusive man, only his star is now a different color, wow, big difference there.

ME3 was supposed to be where the choices finally came together.  Where the divergence comes and everyone's story gets personalized.  Wasn't that why we were told things had to be so on-rails in ME2?  Because everyone had to be in the same spot for the finale?

But ME3 was "the Super Bowl" Who cares about the regular season, remember?  And yet in the end, Shepard feels more helpless in ME3 than he was in ME1 or ME2.  Shepard must inflict something terrible on the galaxy to stop the Reapers.  And in the end, can't even save himself.

[SpamBot2000]

Cheviot wrote...

You seem to have missed the part where Shepard chooses the fate of the entire galaxy.  That's quite a big choice.

Since it's the end of the Universe, arguably Shepard gets to pick the nature of the rubble. Meaningful choice in a game is something that affects the game. This didn't, except to retrospectively ruin it.

Personally, I find it ridiculous to have the character determine the fate of the entire Universe. Megalomania on that scale is just... embarrassing, really. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 28 avril 2013 - 07:51 .

[sveners]

Cheviot wrote...

iakus wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

We knew ME3 would be the end of the Shepard trilogy right from the start..

And of course Throne of Bhaal was the end of the Bhaalspawn's story, so of course he./she had to die...

Wait   

Okay, so the Spirit Monk clearly had to die at the end of Jade Empire

....Umm...


Okay, the Warden had to die at the end of DAO, because DA2 moved on to a new protagonist

Err...

Bioware decided to have a different ending for one of their games?  Those monsters!

Why not do it for a new franchise? 

Why do it for a series where, after 5 years and 3 games, many fans WILL have a strong connection to the Shepard's they've made?

Modifié par sveners, 28 avril 2013 - 08:04 .