253 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

jtav wrote...

There is no forced sacrifice; Shepard lives in Destroy. If you complain it's implausible, well, Jack and Miranda should have died due to being improperly covered in vacuum. TThis is not a good series when it comes to Fridge Logic.

right, but they wussed out at the end without giving some emotional payoff (you can't look like you are actually give a damn)

[jtav]

Considering it took me a couple of days to come up with lore-consistent ways for Shep to survive Synth and Control, you might be talking to the wrong person regarding ambiguity, iakus.

Beyond that, yes I do think "the hero dies; you get to choose what his death accomplishes" is perfectly valid.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard's death is the only unambiguous thing about Control and Synthesis.

Control could have used a bit more ambiguity so that player agency takes over when it comes to what the player would want the Reapers to do. Synthesis completely lacks any exposition on what exacly was gained/lost in the transformation.

And that's part of the problem.  

How much you want to bet that if Shepard's fate was as uncertain in those two as it is in Destroy+, there would be a lot fewer complaints about Shepard's forced death?

People keep saying "If Shepard lives in one ending, it automatically becomes the golden ending, so why should anyone choose any other?"

My response: "Why should there be only one ending where Shepard lives?"

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

Considering it took me a couple of days to come up with lore-consistent ways for Shep to survive Synth and Control, you might be talking to the wrong person regarding ambiguity, iakus.

And I admire people who's personal headcanon can fill in blanks like that.  I fear I'm not so creative, and have to rely more on what happens on the screen.

Beyond that, yes I do think "the hero dies; you get to choose what his death accomplishes" is perfectly valid.

I've seen exactly one RPG that managed to do that well:  Planescape: Torment.  Not only was it made clear from virtually the beginning of the game that death was teh ultimate goal, it was also perhaps one of the greatest cRPGs of all time.

ME3 was no Planescape:Torment.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard's death is the only unambiguous thing about Control and Synthesis.

Control could have used a bit more ambiguity so that player agency takes over when it comes to what the player would want the Reapers to do. Synthesis completely lacks any exposition on what exacly was gained/lost in the transformation.

And that's part of the problem.  

How much you want to bet that if Shepard's fate was as uncertain in those two as it is in Destroy+, there would be a lot fewer complaints about Shepard's forced death?

People keep saying "If Shepard lives in one ending, it automatically becomes the golden ending, so why should anyone choose any other?"

My response: "Why should there be only one ending where Shepard lives?"

That's not what the people have been saying. They're saying that if synthetics survive in Destroy (along with Shep's survival) then it becomes the golden ending.

It's not a forced death anyway. Gonna go ahead and be blunt here: If the complaints don't make any sense then they should be discarded. He can survive post-Crucible, and what happens to him in the long term is decided by the player.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 27 mai 2013 - 07:28 .

[dreamgazer]

iakus, no disrespect meant, but I'm ducking out of that conversation because I really don't feel like chatting against a bunch of exaggerations.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

That's not what the people have been saying. They're saying that if synthetics survive in Destroy (along with Shep's survival) then it becomes the golden ending.

Really?  Okay, I'll play.

Imagine Destroy plays out as it does, but instead of the Breath Scene, it ends with the memorial scene from MEHEM.  Shepard adds Anderson's name to the Wall, turns and hugs the LI if he/she is on teh Normandy (or cuts to the new ending slide if Miranda or Jack is teh LI)

Shepard is clearly alive and ambulatory, reunited with the crew.  Are you going to tell me there wouldn't be an outcry about Destroy being the golden ending now?

It's not a forced death anyway. Gonna go ahead and be blunt here: If the complaints don't make any sense then they should be discarded. He can survive post-Crucible, and what happens to him in the long term is decided by the player.

It's an ambiguous death (with many quotes to back that up) surrounded by certain deaths.  There is not a single ending which ends with Shepard's clear survival (see memorial scene above for example) 

[MegaSovereign]

It's not an ambiguous death. The two words being there together doesn't even make sense. How is it ambiguous if his fate is certain?

And no I'm not gonna play the Bioware quotes game because every quote either points to ambiguity or hints at survival. Which is what I'm arguing. Shepard is shown to have survived the events after the Crucible went off, and the player inserts their headcanon as to what happens next. Whether Shepard gives into his injuries or recovers from them is up to the player. This is what Bioware claims to have intended. Personally, I think he survives because it seems stupid to reward players with a scene showing him die off-screen.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 27 mai 2013 - 07:37 .

[ruggly]

MegaSovereign wrote...

It's not a forced death anyway. Gonna go ahead and be blunt here: If the complaints don't make any sense then they should be discarded. He can survive post-Crucible, and what happens to him in the long term is decided by the player.

I think a lot of that stems from when people first encountered the endings.  Unless you read the spoilers, nobody knew that Shepard could survive destroy.  So I definitely thought we were being railroaded into sacrificing Shepard in every single ending, and I am not really a fan of that.  Some people think Shepard had to die for whatever reason,, so they found the sacrfices to be beautiful. I don't believe that.  Now it just comes off as sacrfice for the sake of having sacrfice, and so you don't have to continue the story.

Mind you, I expected Shepard to have a big chance of dying, but I also thought that would be a chance of getting out alive, which there is, but at a very contrived cost, imo.

[dreamgazer]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Personally, I think he survives because it seems stupid to reward players with a scene showing him die off-screen.

... and it's still the "most difficult" element of the ending to obtain. 

[MegaSovereign]

dreamgazer wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Personally, I think he survives because it seems stupid to reward players with a scene showing him die off-screen.

... and it's still the "most difficult" element of the ending to obtain. 

"You're working too hard"

*Renegade interrupt*

Best ending ever.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus, no disrespect meant, but I'm ducking out of that conversation because I really don't feel like chatting against a bunch of exaggerations.

Okay, I'll try to be clearer.  If you still don't want to respond, that's fine:


Yes, a Warden must die to slay the archdemon.  But that at elast has the advantage of having an in game (if fantastical) explanation.  Shepard, however, seems to be required to die because of DM Fiat.  Shepard walks into the explosion because that's what the cinematic dictates.  The control rods electrocute SHepard because that's what they do.  Shepard leaps into the beam because...I dunno, just because.

When one of the Wardens die in DAO, you knwo the rason why it has to happen.  WHen SHepard dies, it's becuase the writers demanded it, for arbitrary reasons.

You stated that adding lines that indicate Shepard survived would upset those who thing SHepard should die.  My response:  Then why should those who want Shepard to clearly survive be the ones that are upset.  Is there not room for both?  By denying such an ending (or endings) Bioware disregarded perhaps the most important aspect of a chocie-based game:   to have a say in the fate of their own character)  There are seven endings where Shepard clearly dies.  And one where Shepard is shown to be not-quite-dead-yet.  That, to me, is a horribly disscrepency which EC should have cleared up, if nothing else.

And on a personal note, no, an ending where SHepard clearly lives is not enough foe me, personally.  I have other issues with the endings as well.  but there are others which it is in fact the driving force of their dislike.


For myself, the endings are all so horrible that I'm not sure Shepard deserves to live after making such a choice.  And my own Shepards certainly wouldn't want to live after being forcd to make that choice.  This is not what I'd call "entertainment"

As to limiting writers:  They already have the endings down that they want.  I'm not suggesting removing them, but adding more.  Endings which a wider segment of players would want to experience, especially after five years and three games of buildup.  Even if it meant they had to work harder, achieve a higher EMS, players would have been happy to see them.  And the EMS system seems ready-made for such alterations. 

[Deathsaurer]

Endings take money. No point in making 20 if only 2 or 3 will ever be picked. At some point it just becomes a waste of resources.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Bioware should have just made destroy minus the BS attached as the base ending, then build the other choices from there.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

It's not an ambiguous death. The two words being there together doesn't even make sense. How is it ambiguous if his fate is certain?

And no I'm not gonna play the Bioware quotes game because every quote either points to ambiguity or hints at survival. Which is what I'm arguing. Shepard is shown to have survived the events after the Crucible went off, and the player inserts their headcanon as to what happens next. Whether Shepard gives into his injuries or recovers from them is up to the player. This is what Bioware claims to have intended. Personally, I think he survives because it seems stupid to reward players with a scene showing him die off-screen.

That's just it.  Hints and ambiguity?  Where's the certainty?

We get to watch Shepard burn to death in every other ending.  We get to watch Shepard die, skin blackening, slowly disintigrating, engulfed in flames.  

But if we want Shepard to survive we have to headcanon it?  Without even getting to see Shepard's face?  You say it seems stupid to reward players with a scene where Shepard dies offscreen.  I think it's stupid to reward players with anything less certain than the scenes all those "Shepard dies" endings showed us.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote..


Yes,a Warden must die to slay the archdemon.  But that at elast has the
advantage of having an in game (if fantastical) explanation.  Shepard, however, seems to be required to die because of DM Fiat.  Shepard walks into the explosion because that's what the cinematic dictates.  The
control rods electrocute SHepard because that's what they do.  Shepard leaps into the beam because...I dunno, just because.

When one of the Wardens die in DAO, you knwo the rason why it has to happen.  WHen
SHepard dies, it's becuase the writers demanded it, for arbitrary reasons.

You stated that adding lines that indicate Shepard survived would upset those who thing SHepard should die.  My response:  Then why should those who want Shepard to clearly survive be the ones that are upset.  Is there not room for both?  By denying such an ending (or endings) Bioware disregarded perhaps the most important aspect of a chocie-based game:   to have a say in the fate of their own character)  There are seven endings where Shepard clearly dies.  And one where Shepard is shown to be not-quite-dead-yet.  That, to me, is a horribly
disscrepency which EC should have cleared up, if nothing else.

Andon a personal note, no, an ending where SHepard clearly lives is not
enough foe me, personally.  I have other issues with the endings as well.  but there are others which it is in fact the driving force of their dislike.


For myself, the endings are all so horrible that I'm not sure Shepard deserves to live after making such a choice.
 And my own Shepards certainly wouldn't want to live after being forcd to make that choice.  This is not what I'd call "entertainment"

As to limiting writers:  They already have the endings down that they want.  I'm not suggesting removing them, but adding more.  Endings which a wider segment of players would want to experience, especially after five years and three games of buildup.  Even if it meant they had to work harder, achieve a higher EMS, players would have been happy to see them.  And the EMS system seems ready-made for such alterations.

iakus, there's nothing wrong with your request and its fairly reasonable to have that expectation considering how many other decision moments had ideal scenarios.

However, the scenario you're proposing isn't based on choice. It's based on effort. Only lazy Sheps die. That's not a solution that pleases both crowds. I also think you're failing to understand that adding an ideal scenario would change the context of the other choices. It would essentially sabotage the setup that Bioware wanted to create, which are three decisions that each have their set of consequences and moral ambiguity.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 27 mai 2013 - 07:56 .

[Rafficus III]

I never understood it either and it's a major thorn in my relationship with Bioware right now.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

It's not an ambiguous death. The two words being there together doesn't even make sense. How is it ambiguous if his fate is certain?

And no I'm not gonna play the Bioware quotes game because every quote either points to ambiguity or hints at survival. Which is what I'm arguing. Shepard is shown to have survived the events after the Crucible went off, and the player inserts their headcanon as to what happens next. Whether Shepard gives into his injuries or recovers from them is up to the player. This is what Bioware claims to have intended. Personally, I think he survives because it seems stupid to reward players with a scene showing him die off-screen.

That's just it.  Hints and ambiguity?  Where's the certainty?

We get to watch Shepard burn to death in every other ending.  We get to watch Shepard die, skin blackening, slowly disintigrating, engulfed in flames.  

But if we want Shepard to survive we have to headcanon it?  Without even getting to see Shepard's face?  You say it seems stupid to reward players with a scene where Shepard dies offscreen.  I think it's stupid to reward players with anything less certain than the scenes all those "Shepard dies" endings showed us.

Watching Shepard die is not a reward. So no I don't think the Destroy ending is short changed in comparison to the Control/Synthesis endings.

And it's not ambiguous to the point where you don't know if Shepard survived. It's ambiguous as to what happens to him after the scene....

[chemiclord]

MegaSovereign wrote...

However, the scenario you're proposing isn't based on choice. It's based on effort. Only lazy Sheps die. That's not a solution that pleases both crowds. I also think you're failing to understand that adding an ideal scenario would change the context of the other choices. It would essentially sabotage the setup that Bioware wanted to create, which are three decisions that each have their set of consequences and moral ambiguity.

For what its worth, I think iakus knows this.

He finds the entire "moral dilemma" absurd and frankly wrong for the Mass Effect game he played.  He wanted a conclusion based on effort, not just through ME3, but the trilogy as a whole.

I personally don't think that's bad.  I don't think that's wrong.  Hell, that's how I would have put it together had I been in charge.  But that's not how Bioware decided to do it, and it's their story; their rules.  If you don't like it, it's time to walk away and look for someone who makes stories the way you like.

Modifié par chemiclord, 27 mai 2013 - 08:08 .

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus, there's nothing wrong with your request and its fairly reasonable to have that expectation considering how many other decision moments had ideal scenarios.

However, the scenario you're proposing isn't based on choice. It's based on effort. Only lazy Sheps die. That's not a solution that pleases both crowds. I also think you're failing to understand that adding an ideal scenario would change the context of the other choices. It would essentially sabotage the setup that Bioware wanted to create, which are three decisions that each have their set of consequences and moral ambiguity.

Well, going by the definition that Shepard lives in a 3100+ Destroy ending, only "lazy Shepards" die anyway.  Or devastate Earth, or unlock the green ending.  We already have tiered endings.  Why not add another level to them?

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Watching Shepard die is not a reward. So no I don't think the Destroy ending is short changed in comparison to the Control/Synthesis endings.

But they're willing to go into excruciating detail showing Shepard's death.  Why shy away from the reverse?  Why only a single breath, without even showing Shepard's face?  Is Shepard's survival a shameful event?

On a side note:  Destroy is the ending where the relay network is broken and there's no Reapers around to fix it.  That in itself is a punishment, as it virtually guarantees a galactic dark age, at least in the short term.  Stacking SHepard's potetnial death as well as teh deaths of all Synthetics, I'd say Destroy is in fact, the short-changed one.  Ironic, given its popularity.

And it's not ambiguous to the point where you don't know if Shepard survived. It's ambiguous as to what happens to him after the scene....

It is (or was) ambiguous what happened to Shepard after the closing scenes of ME1 and ME2.  Are you saying that the breath scene in ME3 is equal to those?

[Iakus]

[quote]chemiclord wrote...

For what its worth, I think iakus knows this.

He finds the entire "moral dilemma" absurd and frankly wrong for the Mass Effect game he played.  He wanted a conclusion based on effort, not just through ME3, but the trilogy as a whole.[/quote]

I personally don't think that's bad.  I don't think that's wrong.  Hell, that's how I would have put it together had I been in charge.  But that's not how Bioware decided to do it, and it's their story; their rules.  If you don't like it, it's time to walk away and look for someone who makes stories the way you like.
[/quote]

I do find this particular instance absurd, yes.  Other terms also:  "arbitrary" "heavyhanded" "overwrought" to name a few.

I sometimes think it's funny that people think I want some kind of golden ending, when that is absolutely not the case.  What I wanted was greater freedom in what gets sacrificed to stop the Reapers.  in previous threads I've named some of the things I'd rather give up, and was told "that's worse than the endings we got"

So, yeah...

[crimzontearz]

what I love the most? Bioware will never actually defend their choices with us.....only in totally not rigged interviews with Jessica ....yep....LOVE IT

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

I sometimes think it's funny that people think I want some kind of golden ending, when that is absolutely not the case.  What I wanted was greater freedom in what gets sacrificed to stop the Reapers.  in previous threads I've named some of the things I'd rather give up, and was told "that's worse than the endings we got"

So, yeah...

Well, as I read your posts in this thread you've been asking to be able to choose to sacrifice less, rather than merely asking for greater freedom in choosing what gets sacrificed. I'd do the quote thing, but you probably know what I'm talking about.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 mai 2013 - 09:51 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

I sometimes think it's funny that people think I want some kind of golden ending, when that is absolutely not the case.  What I wanted was greater freedom in what gets sacrificed to stop the Reapers.  in previous threads I've named some of the things I'd rather give up, and was told "that's worse than the endings we got"

So, yeah...

Well, as I read your posts in this thread you've been asking to be able to choose to sacrifice less, rather than merely asking for greater freedom in choosing what gets sacrificed.

I'm on record as stating destroying the Relays would be preferable (to me) to genociding the geth.

I've also stated that I'd have no problem sacrificing any fleet in the defense of the Crucible, provided they knew what was being asked of them

I've also said Control should have an option where Shepard could break off the connection before it became fatal at the cost of an "imperfect" upload, making the long term benefits of Control far more open-ended.

I've also stated that all the endings should have a top-tier "Shepard lives" ending, not just Destroy.


@crimzontearz:  They're just waiting for more people to finish the game.  That's all 

Modifié par iakus, 27 mai 2013 - 09:56 .