253 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Well, it's a war... so, yeah, omlets and eggs unfortunately... 

This is why I prefer the much more refined and life-like moralitly system of The Witcher 2. Every decision has good and bad consequences. It depends how you look at things. While in ME you can play an all paragon Shep (yuch) who does no wrong, whose deeds have no real downside to them. To full paragon players the ending must be a true shock... but the full paragon path being so perfect was a mistake in the first place. They should have made it morally ambiguous too and not a total space-saint play-mode. 

People die in wars, the get killed by the enemy.  Getting shot in the back by their own CO is not at all the same thing.

If Destroy required Shepard to move a fleet in place to protect the Crucible form the Reapers while it powered up, knowing that Fleet would have to sacrifice itself for the rest of the galaxy, that would be different.  Heroic, even.  They'd know what they were fighting and dying for.

 But this...this si just a blood sacrifice to Bioware's demands for a "bittersweet" ending.  "omelets and eggs" is an entirely appropriate saying fro the endings, especially given some of the people who popularized the prase.

Modifié par iakus, 27 mai 2013 - 04:38 .

[crimzontearz]

I have ZERO problems with getting my hands dirty or condemning the North to succumb to Nilfgaard because I killed Hanselt for raping Ves, or causing Loredo to sell His town and relocate all his habitants in oder to save the elf girls trapped in the burning building

ZERO problems

Forced suicide? I take issue with that, as you are sick with old school happy endings I am sick of mature grimdark emo endings. The solution? Full spoilers before purchase and everyone is happy

[jtav]

Military officers can and have fired on the enemy when they knew friendlies would also be taken out. They've also fired on military targets enmeshed in civilian centers. The standard is: 1) is the damage proportionate and 2) is there a less harmful way of accomplishing the same objective? Considering the Reapers will kill everyone, 1) is met. 2 is why I prefer the other choices, but YMMV.

[S.A.K]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

iakus wrote...

S.A.K wrote...

Well we got a 99% win ending. It's called Destroy. The other 1% being EDIs death.

And the geth
And every synthetic life form inthe galaxy, whether or not they've done anything to deserve such a fate or are even aware fo what's happening.

But hey, omlets and eggs, right?  /sarcasm

Well, it's a war... so, yeah, omlets and eggs unfortunately... 

This is why I prefer the much more refined and life-like moralitly system of The Witcher 2. Every decision has good and bad consequences. It depends how you look at things. While in ME you can play an all paragon Shep (yuch) who does no wrong, whose deeds have no real downside to them. To full paragon players the ending must be a true shock... but the full paragon path being so perfect was a mistake in the first place. They should have made it morally ambiguous too and not a total space-saint play-mode. 

The only known synthetics in the galaxy are EDI and Geth. EDI clearly didn't deserve death, but I think she would accept death if it means Reapers are gone for good. And who knows, maybe she can even be repaired.

As for the Geth; They have joined Reapers twice in the past, they are responsible for billions of death and they were actively trying to kill us in all 3 games. So I'd say they deserve death. There is no reason to consider their death to be a bad thing. Like I said Destroy is 99% good imo.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

I have ZERO problems with getting my hands dirty or condemning the North to succumb to Nilfgaard because I killed Hanselt for raping Ves, or causing Loredo to sell His town and relocate all his habitants in oder to save the elf girls trapped in the burning building

ZERO problems

Forced suicide? I take issue with that, as you are sick with old school happy endings I am sick of mature grimdark emo endings. The solution? Full spoilers before purchase and everyone is happy

So it's OK if bad things happen to people as long as none of them are your PC?

[AlanC9]

As for the topic:

Argetfalcon wrote...

 They added a full fail ending that many people didn't really care about

but they didn't add a full win ending that many people did want

It's not complicated. Refuse is consistent with the design intent, and from an RP perspective not having this option was a horrible oversight in the original release, which Bio rightly took serious criticism for.

Neither is true for a full win.

[crimzontearz]

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

I have ZERO problems with getting my hands dirty or condemning the North to succumb to Nilfgaard because I killed Hanselt for raping Ves, or causing Loredo to sell His town and relocate all his habitants in oder to save the elf girls trapped in the burning building

ZERO problems

Forced suicide? I take issue with that, as you are sick with old school happy endings I am sick of mature grimdark emo endings. The solution? Full spoilers before purchase and everyone is happy

So it's OK if bad things happen to people as long as none of them are your PC?

it's ok if bad things happen to my characters, it is not ok to force kill him or impose a grimdark downer ending...simple really

[Iakus]

crimzontearz wrote...

it's ok if bad things happen to my characters, it is not ok to force kill him or impose a grimdark downer ending...simple really

This

Modifié par iakus, 27 mai 2013 - 05:28 .

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it's ok if bad things happen to my characters, it is not ok to force kill him or impose a grimdark downer ending...simple really

This

Pretty constricting on the storytelling, isn't it?

Or does that not matter?

[frostajulie]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it's ok if bad things happen to my characters, it is not ok to force kill him or impose a grimdark downer ending...simple really

This

Pretty constricting on the storytelling, isn't it?

Or does that not matter?

not to me.

[crimzontearz]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it's ok if bad things happen to my characters, it is not ok to force kill him or impose a grimdark downer ending...simple really

This

Pretty constricting on the storytelling, isn't it?

Or does that not matter?

not constricting at all


 
And as long as those 2 are avoided no it does not

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it's ok if bad things happen to my characters, it is not ok to force kill him or impose a grimdark downer ending...simple really

This

Pretty constricting on the storytelling, isn't it?

Or does that not matter?

How is less railroading more restrictive?

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...
not constricting at all

 
And as long as those 2 are avoided no it does not

So it's not constricting to avoid those two things? Interesting definition of constricting.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

How is less railroading more restrictive?

Restrictive on the writers, he means.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it's ok if bad things happen to my characters, it is not ok to force kill him or impose a grimdark downer ending...simple really

This

Pretty constricting on the storytelling, isn't it?

Or does that not matter?

How is less railroading more restrictive?

Being required to include a "get out of death free" card is, in fact, restrictive from a storytelling perspective---whether it's one option or the option. The choice worked in Origins, but that was a very specific, fantasy-driven scenario.  You don't think that the player banking on a sure-fire "I get to live!" option limits the writers' options?

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Being required to include a "get out of death free" card is, in fact, restrictive from a storytelling perspective---whether it's one option or the option. The choice worked in Origins, but that was a very specific, fantasy-driven scenario.  You don't think that the player banking on a sure-fire "I get to live!" option limits the writers' options?

You think Dragon Age is fantasy driven and Mass Effect isn't?  By ME3 it's completely fantasy driven-in Space!

Ther's absolutely positively no way we can stop the darkspawn Reapers unless the Grey Wardens Crucible can somehow manage.  How?  Who knows?  Oh, but look it exacts a terrible, terrible price to save Thedas the galaxy!

How "limiting" would it have been to include a simple "We found Shepard alive!" message over the Normandy intercomm in ending(s) where Shep lives.

Shepard can live in an ending with 3100 EMS?  How about one are 3300 or 3500 that imples EDI's survival?  How "limiting" is that?  the grim endings Bioware wants are already there.  And more hopeful ones are too, if the player's willing to work for them.  

If you're going to peddle a trilogy of games with hundreds if not thousands of options, forcing all of them into a grim, virually certain death and morally grey sacrifice is what's restrictive.

Modifié par iakus, 27 mai 2013 - 06:39 .

[jtav]

Because then the ending becomes about point-hunting and not a choice. Why would anyone, except for curiosity, choose anything other than the golden ending. The threat is big enough that a sacrifice is very appropriate, and it has to be one the player feels and not faceless billions. What I'd have done is made Shep's survival explicit. And I would have shown the death of EDI and Joker's death in equal detail. Here's your reunion; there's your price.

[crimzontearz]

No forced sacrifice ≠ get out if death free card

Current endings + reunion scene = acceptable

Even tho the catalyst is still an awful piece of writing

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

You think Dragon Age is fantasy driven and Mass Effect isn't?  By ME3 it's completely fantasy driven-in Space!

Ther's absolutely positively no way we can stop the darkspawn Reapers unless the Grey Wardens Crucible can somehow manage.  How?  Who knows?  Oh, but look it exacts a terrible, terrible price to save Thedas the galaxy!

Don't intentionally sidestep the point, iakus, because you know that's not what I was saying.  A warden must die because magical reasons, no matter which one, and abomination babies can be birthed to avoid all death through a mystical spell.  

How "limiting" would it have been to include a simple "We found Shepard alive!" message over the Normandy intercomm in ending(s) where Shep lives.

Not very, except for those who felt s/he should have died.  So, your entire dissatisfaction would be hand-waved with that single line of dialogue?

Shepard can live in an ending with 3100 EMS?  How about one are 3300 or 3500 that imples EDI's survival?  How "limiting" is that?  the grim endings Bioware wants are already there.  And more hopeful ones are too, if the player's willing to work for them.  

We were mostly talking about the protagonist's survival, I thought.

But now that you mention it, yes, you're limiting the writer's ability to do what they want with their characters and their ending's design---which, in terms of the destroy ending, is essentially built on the idea of a massive overload beam that can't identify specific synthetics.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 27 mai 2013 - 07:09 .

[jtav]

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.

[dreamgazer]

"Implausible" physiology went out the window with the Prothean cipher.

[MegaSovereign]

dreamgazer wrote...

"Implausible" physiology went out the window with the Prothean cipher.

Don't forget the Thorian plant who spawns infinite amounts of fully-clothed Asari clones.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

You think Dragon Age is fantasy driven and Mass Effect isn't?  By ME3 it's completely fantasy driven-in Space!

Ther's absolutely positively no way we can stop the darkspawn Reapers unless the Grey Wardens Crucible can somehow manage.  How?  Who knows?  Oh, but look it exacts a terrible, terrible price to save Thedas the galaxy!

Don't intentionally sidestep the point, iakus, because you know that's not what I was saying.  A warden must die because magical reasons, no matter which one, and abomination babies can be birthed to avoid all death through a mystical spell.  

How am I sidestepping it?  Shepard must die for magical reasons too.  More magical, really, since at least DAO tried to explain why a Warden has to die.  For Shepard is because reason.

Not very, except for those who felt s/he should have died.  So, your entire dissatisfaction would be hand-waved with that single line of dialogue?

So anyone who thinks Shepard should have lived just have to suck it up?  If a player can't even control the fate of their own protagonsit, Bioware really has to stop pretending to respect the concept of choices and consequences.

Mass Effect!  Where your chocies matter!  Except when it comes to the fate of your own character!  

And no I's dtill have some serious problems about the ending.  Shepard's forced death is just part of it.  But for a lot of other people, yeah, one line of dialogue would have fixed the majority of their problems.

Shepard can live in an ending with 3100 EMS?  How about one are 3300 or 3500 that imples EDI's survival?  How "limiting" is that?  the grim endings Bioware wants are already there.  And more hopeful ones are too, if the player's willing to work for them.  

We were mostly talking about the protagonist's survival, I thought.

Well, like I said, Shepard's survival is only part of it.  I find all these endings so horrific I'm not so sure Shepard deserves to live after picking one.  My own certainly wouldn't want to.

But now that you mention it, yes, you're limiting the writer's ability to do what they want with their characters and their ending's design---which, in terms of the destroy ending, is essentially build on the idea of a massive overload beam that can't identify specific synthetics.

They already have the ending they want.  And for that matter, look where it got them.  I'm not suggesting taking them out.  What I'm asking is why not create more alternatives, even if these require more work to achieve?  Alternatives which make the fans happy and receptive towards puchasing more games in this setting?

The EMS system would have been an excellent way to implement it.

Modifié par iakus, 27 mai 2013 - 07:11 .

[Iakus]

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.

It'a ambiguous and deliberately set up to be.

A pity they didn't set up Control and Synthesis to be equally ambiguous, as I'm sure a lot of rage might have been quelled before it even began.

Modifié par iakus, 27 mai 2013 - 07:13 .

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

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.

It'a ambiguous and deliberately set up to be.

A pity they didn't set up Control and Synthesis to be equally ambiguous, as I'm sure a lot of rage might have been quelled before it even began.

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.