371 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

Do you really want the game so contrived that you can know better than to take your LI on the beam run with you, just so they survive?

[Yestare7]

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

Do you really want the game so contrived that you can know better than to take your LI on the beam run with you, just so they survive?

he-she just wanted a happy ending. Why you gotta pi== on that?



Y

[o Ventus]

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

Do you really want the game so contrived that you can know better than to take your LI on the beam run with you, just so they survive?

How would that be contrived?

I don't know about anyone else, but bull rushing a 2km tall cuttlefish with tentacle lasers isn't particularly good for your life expectancy. Many of the anonymous soldiers are killed on the beam run, why should your squad be exempt from that?

[dreamgazer]

o Ventus wrote...

How would that be contrived?

I don't know about anyone else, but bull rushing a 2km tall cuttlefish with tentacle lasers isn't particularly good for your life expectancy. Many of the anonymous soldiers are killed on the beam run, why should your squad be exempt from that?

Because you would know in advance that the scenario would kill your LI, and you could plan accordingly by forcing them to stay away for Shepard in those final moments?  That's pretty darn contrived, especially for the conclusion of the series---at the very least on following play-throughs. 

It gets worse when you know for a fact that Shepard will, in fact, survive. 

Yestare7 wrote...

he-she just wanted a happy ending. Why you gotta pi== on that?[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

Who's whizzing on anything? It's a legitimate question about planning and willing a happy ending into existence. 

[KaiserShep]

I love when people crap all over other players' desire to have a happy ending in a game that, throughout the entire campaign before the ending, allows you to choose whether or not you get one. Want your powerful downer of an ending? Then by all means, choose the options that lead to it. After all, this is escapist fantasy, so whether or not the protagonist should be able to make it out OK based on our understanding of real life is irrelevant. After all, Shepard should not even be able to survive a single mission with just 2 squadmates watching your back.

[Yestare7]

KaiserShep wrote...

I love when people crap all over other players' desire to have a happy ending in a game that, throughout the entire campaign before the ending, allows you to choose whether or not you get one.

Want your powerful downer of an ending? Then by all means, choose the options that lead to it.

A hundred times this. Kaisershep knows where it's at.:D

[dreamgazer]

Right, who cares about sensible storytelling as long as you have a happy-ending machine at your fingertips?

I give up. Go for it, folks.

PS: Expressing concerns with contrived, predictable game mechanics =/= "I'm against happy endings."

[Yestare7]

@Dreamgazer: I misunderstood contrived. It helps if you use "common" english, as many, myself included, DO NOT have english as first language.

[KaiserShep]

dreamgazer wrote...

Right, who cares about sensible storytelling as long as you have a happy-ending machine at your fingertips?

I give up. Go for it, folks.

PS: Expressing concerns with contrived, predictable game mechanics =/= "I'm against happy endings."

Neither kind of ending preclude sensible storytelling. There is absolutely no reason why you can't get either and have a cohesive plot at the same time. The issues of game mechanics, plot holes and logic are a separate matter entirely. Even if you choose the ending that's worse for you, lots of things make no sense, so if I'm going to pick one of three nonsense endings, it might as well be the one I like most.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 mai 2013 - 06:18 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Jadebaby wrote...

I'll tell you how some people can like it...

It's because everyone is different...

Some people out there have zero standards.. Twitter followers for example..

Yeah, and I assume those who happen to like the ending of a game (what you don't like), have zero standards... 

Or at least that's how I can interpret what you wrote. If I get you right and this is the case: well, simply put: no...:happy:

But, if your last sentence is in no way connected to the middle one, then yes... everybody is different, so are tastes, cultural backrounds, intellects, religious views, age etc. etc.. All these differences can effect how you look at this particular piece of work (or anything else in the world). It would be pretty weird if everybody equally liked it or hated it. 

But outright stating that those who disagree with you are people with zero standars (which pretty much equals presuming that they are stupid) is not only silly, but also shows one thing: you can't handle other people's opinions and differences in general.

I hope I'm wrong. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 05 mai 2013 - 06:33 .

[GimmeDaGun]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh twitter canon.

Killing off fan-favorite characters and replacing them with pandering VG reporters in ****ty dresses since 2012!

I don't like Emily Wong or Diana Allers. I never liked any of the reporters in the ME series.

I seriously don't understand how any of the reporters could have a fan base.

Who would you have preferred though? The established character who has been with the series since the first game and who it would have been nice to see again? Or the IGN woman who sounds and looks like complete crap, and who's inclusion in the game is heavily suspected to amount to pandering for a good review, not to mention taking resources away that could have gone to some other feature, like a side-mission or whatnot?

I understand if you say neither as well. I thought it was an interesting idea to have a reporter on the ship, but I think the execution was utterly terrible.

While Diana's character can be pretty annoying at times (as it should be), I prefer her over Emily. Not because I have anything against that particular side-character (whom you could ignore in ME1), but because the ME-trilogy has enough consequence-pornography already. Gettin her on board would make the universe look even smaller. 

[Jorji Costava]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm fine with not having a perfectly happy ending for the galaxy. Past having the relays intact, I'm fine if 90% of the galactic population dies. I'm fine if Earth is turned into a wasteland. 

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

Heh. Whenever I used to say that this was people's problem with the ending, someone like drayfish or 3DandBeyond would come by and say that I was deliberately distorting the anti-ending position to make it look bad.

I strongly doubt that there's any such thing as the anti-ending position; I'm sure there was a variety of differing and often conflicting perspectives. I remember that I first heard about the ending controversy from a friend of mine before I finished the game. He didn't spoil it, but I automatically assumed that his complaint would be that Shepard died, and that's too sad. I was completely undeterred; actually, I was almost resolved to like the ending, on the assumption that all the complainers were just upset that they didn't get to live and reunite with their space waifu, something I couldn't have cared less about. Obviously that's not how I ended up feeling after I saw it, but I'll leave it there, since that isn't really what this thread is about.

[chemiclord]

osbornep wrote...
I strongly doubt that there's any such thing as the anti-ending position; I'm sure there was a variety of differing and often conflicting perspectives. I remember that I first heard about the ending controversy from a friend of mine before I finished the game. He didn't spoil it, but I automatically assumed that his complaint would be that Shepard died, and that's too sad. I was completely undeterred; actually, I was almost resolved to like the ending, on the assumption that all the complainers were just upset that they didn't get to live and reunite with their space waifu, something I couldn't have cared less about. Obviously that's not how I ended up feeling after I saw it, but I'll leave it there, since that isn't really what this thread is about.

There isn't "the" anti-ending position; this is very true.  In fact, many of the complaints would mutually contradict other complaints; and any attempt to cater to one group would do nothing more than further ****** off another.  The consensus against the ending amounts to "Fix it", go any further than that and the consensus completely falls apart.

[AlanC9]

Sure. 3D and drayfish didn't have anything to do with MassivelyEffective's position. I think 3D's mostly in the "logical and thematic coherence" camp, while drayfish is in the "morally abhorrent" camp.

So, yeah, there's no common problem and there's no single "fix." Edit: though 3D and drayfish's position can be unified if one assumes that ME ought to provide a perfectly moral choice for Shepard in the endgame because that's how ME decision-making has been structured up until the endgame ( you can handwave the ME2 start away because there's no choice per se).

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 mai 2013 - 07:50 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Okay since we're on page 12 I can feel free to give my opinion now.

Dr. Greg Zeschuk said: "The passion and level of engagement was so high that it makes it very hard to solve every scenario you wanted to solve at the end of it…I always still sincerely think it’s because [the fans] really really care about what we make," he said in the interview with IGN. "It’s not random. It’s like, they may be disappointed when they can’t get the choice they want because they’re so intimate with their story or their character or their game. If it’s not just the way they want it, it’s not right. So it’s a very hard thing to reconcile, but the reality is, I can understand completely where it can come from." In other words he can understand completely why people were disappointed with the ending of the game.

My staff had drawn out the battle plan and explained it great detail. I made it up the Conduit and killed The Illusive Man. I was then looking forward to the epic ending. Then I got the call...

"Mein Fuhrer!... Mein Fuhrer!.. All the endings are the virtually the same except for the color of the explosions on your screen. You die, the relays are destroyed, and the Normandy crashes."

Anyone who was not emotionally invested in the game from the beginning, or who saved Ashley on Virmire stop reading now.

What in the #@$%?!! If Zeschuk can completely understand why we were disappointed, how in the hell could he have thought this was a good idea? "The passion and level of engagement was so high that it makes it very hard to solve every scenario you wanted to solve at the end of it…" .... What in the #@$%?!! All that is true, but for what? So I can pick a color on my screen?!!

"Mein Fuhrer, it is the meaning behind the colors that matter."

Five years! Five years! I spent countless hours playing through the story tweaking it every way I wanted and none of ever mattered. And all of the alternate characters I made in anticipation were wasted because I just cannot bear go through it all again. I feel like such an idiot.

"It’s not random. It’s like, they may be disappointed when they can’t get the choice they want because they’re so intimate with their story or their character or their game. If it’s not just the way they want it, it’s not right."

Not random, he says. Then if it's not random what does that leave? They gave us this &*%^#@$%!! of an ending on purpose?!

Casey Hudson said Shepard was ours. Her struggle was ours. I knew Shepard would likely die in the end. Her legacy was supposed to be ours, but it was not supposed to be rendered completely meaningless in ten minutes.

I just wanted to be with Liara in the end, even if it was to die in her arms. My dream is over. Instead they left Liara stranded on a planet gods know where.

So it's a very hard thing to reconcile, but the reality is, I can understand completely.... yet no attempt was ever made to reconcile this. Shepard was left under a pile of rubble separated from Liara, forever, as if they had to break my heart one more time.

You got closure if you kept the reapers around and became a reaper. You got closure if you altered all life in the galaxy. If you destroyed the reapers like you wanted to do from the beginning did you get closure? No. Would they give you closure? No.

I don't agree with punishing a player by killing people the player chooses to take on the beam run. The player soon figures that out, and will reload the game from a save game and choose the two squadmates they hate and make the beam run with them. I mean what gamer wouldn't? People who say this are just looking for a way to kill Liara. It is that simple. I'm guessing you want the ultimate fail Shepard. Dead Liara = an ultimate fail Refuse because the time capsules are incomplete and the cycle continues.

Stargazer: "The previous civilization was mysteriously wiped out, but left us this wonderous technology."

Child: "Will I ever get to the stars?"

Stargazer: "Of course, I think it's time for you to come along. We're going to the Citadel in a couple of days."

Do I think the ending could have been done a lot better? Yes. Of course. I also think the story could have been written better. The peace between Quarians and Geth is an absolute must. The Morning War history needed to be fleshed out a lot more, but we're dealing with a game and gamers. They could have made an entire game about Rannoch, or at least taken about 10-15 hrs of the game. (sorry I go back to when RPGs took 60 hrs to play out of the box). The situation was that complicated. Instead it, like everything else got oversimplified. Peace should have been possible without the "Pinocchio Code".

The Crucible....okay, they were going to go with this because it was either this or a discovery of another MacGuffin. There were insufficient numbers to have a conventional victory. Starbrat? Now that was just lazy and completely unsatisfying. That was not overcoming the odds and keeping with the theme.

IMO the way they should have done it was to use Ilos (don't say anything about the power -- they did worse ass pulls during the game) and launch a Suicide Mission from there using your current squad + six of your "dirty dozen" (whoever is alive or their replacements - Legion is replaced by a Geth Infiltrator platform.) Tactical fight to the panel in the council chamber (Open the arms). Tactical fight to the crucible. (Deal with Cerberus forces and TIM at this time who is trying to get there for his Control purpose -- you can choose this route (TIM has the sequence on his omnitool - ass pull), too, but you die.) When it docks, hit the fire sequence and bugger out. Crucible targets reapers and whatever was controlling them, period. Relays are damaged (amount damage determined by EMS). Additional collateral damage (like to Earth and team survivors determined by EMS). High EMS everyone survives. Low EMS Shepard dies.

I'll leave the death hierarchy and details up in the air. I don't feel like going into them. I'll just say that even in the low EMS someone has to survive to write the history.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

remydat wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm fine with not having a perfectly happy ending for the galaxy. Past having the relays intact, I'm fine if 90% of the galactic population dies. I'm fine if Earth is turned into a wasteland. 

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

So 90% of the population can die as long as Shep lives.  How selfish, lol.  I kid.  Look I know where you are coming form.  It is why in most movies the hero lives.  I am just the opposite.  I would be pissed if Shep survived from a story telling perspective.  This threat is just too massive for me to think he comes out of this alive. 

To each his/her own I suppose.

And to be honest, I see where you are coming from.

That's why both options should have been available. I  don't understand why they had to put you almost exclusively down the sacrifice/death route, with the survival being made as an easter egg. As I've said, the destroy scene should have had Shepard in an infirmary or hospital with the outline of the LI standing over him (or her) and holding his (or hers) hand. Then have Shepard take a breath and have the hands squeeze.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

Do you really want the game so contrived that you can know better than to take your LI on the beam run with you, just so they survive?

My LI isn't on the team in ME3, and I have no problem seeing Liara, Tali, Ashley, or Garrus get vaporized.

I like James and Javik. They are the mandatory survivors on the team. EDI dies no matter what I do. 

[KaiserShep]

I'm pretty sure more people would be willing to overlook the plot holes for that alone.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm fine with not having a perfectly happy ending for the galaxy. Past having the relays intact, I'm fine if 90% of the galactic population dies. I'm fine if Earth is turned into a wasteland. 

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

Heh. Whenever I used to say that this was people's problem with the ending, someone like drayfish or 3DandBeyond would come by and say that I was deliberately distorting the anti-ending position to make it look bad.

And you probably were distorting our position. 

Above everything, I want it to be narratively consistent, both on it's own, and with the rest of the trilogy in mind. As I said earlier, I have themes and a narrative that I'm writing to make it fit that criteria, and have Shepard live.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 mai 2013 - 08:28 .

[KaiserShep]

The baffling thing is that creating a scenario in which Shepard can properly survive and escape is not complicated.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 mai 2013 - 08:15 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

KaiserShep wrote...

The baffling thing is that creating a scenario in which Shepard can properly survive and escape is not complicated.

Really, it's not. I'm still working on it, but it's mostly a matter of nailing the execution. I know what I want to do, just not sure how I want to do it.

[KaiserShep]

I have a fairly good idea of how I would've done it, but typing it all on my tablet is awfully tiresome.

[o Ventus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Because you would know in advance that the scenario would kill your LI, and you could plan accordingly by forcing them to stay away for Shepard in those final moments?  That's pretty darn contrived, especially for the conclusion of the series---at the very least on following play-throughs. 

It gets worse when you know for a fact that Shepard will, in fact, survive.

"You" wouldn't know anything without meta gaming. 

And that still isn't contrived. 

[Reorte]

KaiserShep wrote...

The baffling thing is that creating a scenario in which Shepard can properly survive and escape is not complicated.

That's the main thing that annoys me about people bashing Shepard living - Shepard having to die is far more complicated and unconvincing. We're not talking about Shepard manoeuvring himself into a position where death is rather likely, like the Suicide Mission in ME2 - something portrayed as "Even if you can complete it your chances of getting out are pretty damned slim", we're talking about "You have to give your life as part of the process." That's true for Control and Synthesis (for hideously bad reasons) so Destroy gets thrown the same thing to equal them down. But as soon as you've got a situation where death is a high possibility but not a fundamental, essential requirement (i.e. anything that doesn't strain credulity) you've got the situation where survival is possible.