267 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

It just goes to show that I find all these options so terrible, that even if by some miracle Shepard were to survive one of these endings, I could only imagine he'd want to eat a bullet afterwards, rather than live with what he's done..

How'd your Sheps get through Arrival?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
Maybe they should have saved that jolt to the next ME game after the trilogy?

That's not unreasonable. I don't personally agree, though; I think games should be improved mid-series, if you can do it.

This is not so much about improvement as much as it is just "don't **** up the tone of your story". When your story is a soft sci-fi of a more heroic nature, don't switch gears the last 15 minutes and turn it into some sort weird psuedo-intellectucal thing.

I don't see how the issues are related, unless you're arguing that there are serious restrictions on what a "heroic" story can do.

When I watch Apocalypse Now I don't expect Cpt. Willard to team up with a band of Ewoks to attack Kurtz's compound in an exciting battle. With it ending with them blowing it up and returning to HQ for a medal cermony and a feel good ending. Likewise when I am watching Return of the Jedi, I wouldn't like it if instead of Luke having his final encounter with Darth Vader and the emporer like we have now. We instead got a sequence reminiscing of "The Fountain" in terms of style and tone, with Luke walking in and meeting the force which explains to him that the dark side was his invention in response to the inevietable protocol droid uprising and now he has to choose between 3 options on how to solve this crisis.

Both of these examples are obviously somewhat hyperbolic, but my point is how that if they happened, the ending would feel extremely out-of-touch, inappropiate and contradicting to the story that came before. Which is exactly what I feel the ME3 ending is. There is technically nothing wrong with what Mac and Hudson wanted to di, I just believe they should have waited until they had a clean slate in terms of story.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

It just goes to show that I find all these options so terrible, that even if by some miracle Shepard were to survive one of these endings, I could only imagine he'd want to eat a bullet afterwards, rather than live with what he's done..

How'd your Sheps get through Arrival?

The ending sucked.  Big time.  But at least I could try to save the colonist.  And make it clear that's exactly what I did.

"I tried to warn the batarian colony, but...time ran out"

"If I could have saved them, you best your ass I would have."

And in ME3:

"You think I didn't feel guilty?  I destroyed a colony.  I've thought about the people who died, about how I couldn't warn them in time.  In the end, I didn't have a choice, but I'm sorry, if that means anything."

[Clayless]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

That's what happened here on BSN. People got spurred into being angry, it was like a circle where people were getting themselves worked up far more than they should have. Even worse is a lot of lies were being spread and people were blindly believing them, and the IT theory came along and made it impossible to communicate as far too many people believed it.

Ah yes, the "angry fans indoctrinated themselves" theory. Needless to say, we have dismissed those frankly idiotic claims.

"Bu- but the lies!"

Yeah, what lies were those again? That BioWare lied about the game pre-release? Because there was no ABC ending, right? 

You live in a mystical land of make-believe, where nothing is bad and people are disappointed simple because they want to be trendily indignant. Me, I just wanted to have a decent ending for my favorite game series. And BW had other priorities. Then idiots started labeling me a "hater". So now I hate 'em.

What were those lies again? EDI survives the destroy ending. "There's no ABC ending" (AKA, a misquote, created by people that hate the ending). "There's a Reapers win scenario" (AKA, a misquote, created by people that hate the ending), and so many more.

Dunno what the rest of your post is about, but I'm glad you used the ABC example in your post, as that shows exactly what I'm talking about.

[AlanC9]

Lizardviking wrote...
When I watch Apocalypse Now I don't expect Cpt. Willard to team up with a band of Ewoks to attack Kurtz's compound in an exciting battle. With it ending with them blowing it up and returning to HQ for a medal cermony and a feel good ending. Likewise when I am watching Return of the Jedi, I wouldn't like it if instead of Luke having his final encounter with Darth Vader and the emporer like we have now. We instead got a sequence reminiscing of "The Fountain" in terms of style and tone, with Luke walking in and meeting the force which explains to him that the dark side was his invention in response to the inevietable protocol droid uprising and now he has to choose between 3 options on how to solve this crisis.

Both of these examples are obviously somewhat hyperbolic, but my point is how that if they happened, the ending would feel extremely out-of-touch, inappropiate and contradicting to the story that came before. Which is exactly what I feel the ME3 ending is. There is technically nothing wrong with what Mac and Hudson wanted to di, I just believe they should have waited until they had a clean slate in terms of story.

Again, were we talking about this? I thought we were talking about evading moral dilemmas, like chemiclord said upthread. My fault for trimming the nested quotes.

What's "The Fountain"?

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 mai 2013 - 11:13 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
When I watch Apocalypse Now I don't expect Cpt. Willard to team up with a band of Ewoks to attack Kurtz's compound in an exciting battle. With it ending with them blowing it up and returning to HQ for a medal cermony and a feel good ending. Likewise when I am watching Return of the Jedi, I wouldn't like it if instead of Luke having his final encounter with Darth Vader and the emporer like we have now. We instead got a sequence reminiscing of "The Fountain" in terms of style and tone, with Luke walking in and meeting the force which explains to him that the dark side was his invention in response to the inevietable protocol droid uprising and now he has to choose between 3 options on how to solve this crisis.

Both of these examples are obviously somewhat hyperbolic, but my point is how that if they happened, the ending would feel extremely out-of-touch, inappropiate and contradicting to the story that came before. Which is exactly what I feel the ME3 ending is. There is technically nothing wrong with what Mac and Hudson wanted to di, I just believe they should have waited until they had a clean slate in terms of story.

Again, were we talking about this? I thought we were talking about evading moral dilemmas, like chemiclord said upthread. My fault for trimming the nested quotes.

Well it started with this...

AlanC9 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

You see being jerked around.  I see a jolt of realism and a decrease in wish fulfillment.

Maybe they should have saved that jolt to the next ME game after the trilogy?

That's not unreasonable. I don't personally agree, though; I think games should be improved mid-series, if you can do it.

I made a comment where I said that I believe that if Bioware wanted an ending that is dark, etc. Where players can't get their way, then they should have waited with such a concept until a new ME game. Because such an ending feels inappropiate to the current trilogy. That is all.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AlanC9 wrote...
What's "The Fountain"?

I would describe it as a more "artsy" sci-fi film, which I will admit had great visuals and a kickass soundtrack.

But you can check IMDB for yourself.

[David7204]

Heroism is not wish-fulfillment. And the lack of it is not 'realism.'

[dreamgazer]

I let my movie tastes affect my outlook on games, something I probably shouldn't do.

The Fountain is terrific.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

It just goes to show that I find all these options so terrible, that even if by some miracle Shepard were to survive one of these endings, I could only imagine he'd want to eat a bullet afterwards, rather than live with what he's done..

How'd your Sheps get through Arrival?

I have a certain renegade who told Hackett she was busy. He left out a key detail: "Shepard, Kenson was working on a project to detonate the Alpha Relay in case the Reapers try to invade there, since that relay is an entry point to every system in the galaxy. Plus you'd get to kill a bunch of Batarians."

Shepard: "How many Batarians?"

Hackett: "About 300,000."

Shepard: "I'm on it."

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Heroism is not wish-fulfillment. And the lack of it is not 'realism.'

What I said doesn't one-for-one relate to heroism.

And you can be heroic in tough situations without a "get-out" card.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreamgazer wrote...

I let my movie tastes affect my outlook on games, something I probably shouldn't do.

The Fountain is terrific.

I disliked it, though part of that stems from the fact that for some bizare reason, I couldn't activate subtitles. And given that almost all characters in it seem to talk in quiet voices or downright whispering to each other. I basicly only got half of all dialog in the movie.

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Heroism is not wish-fulfillment. And the lack of it is not 'realism.'

What I said doesn't one-for-one relate to heroism.

And you can be heroic in tough situations without a "get-out" card.

Using your skills and attributes to resolve tough situations is not a "get-out" card.

The question is not whether heroism always pays off. We all know it doesn't.

The question is whether heroism ever pays off.

[AlanC9]

Lizardviking wrote...

I made a comment where I said that I believe that if Bioware wanted an ending that is dark, etc. Where players can't get their way, then they should have waited with such a concept until a new ME game. Because such an ending feels inappropiate to the current trilogy. That is all.

OK, so we were talking about the player being able to get out of dilemmas (unless he doesn't want to, of course).

I didn't think that was a core design element of ME, myself. Getting through the SM with no casualties struck me as a regrettable design flaw rather than a feature, for instance. I think we did a thread about the essential nature of ME last week, come to think of it.

[David7204]

Why is that?

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

The question is whether heroism ever pays off.

Galaxy saved, Reapers tamed or defeated.... I guess it does.

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

Why is that?

That's at me not wanting a possible perfect outcome? I don't believe in them; I could come up with an intellectual rationale, but that would be an empty exercise.

[David7204]

Shepard's heroism didn't have anything close to enough to do with that defeat. Which is the primary problem with the endings. What was the culmination of Shepard's efforts across three games? The Crucible being protected for 30 seconds.

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

OK, so we were talking about the player being able to get out of dilemmas (unless he doesn't want to, of course).

I didn't think that was a core design element of ME, myself. Getting through the SM with no casualties struck me as a regrettable design flaw rather than a feature, for instance. I think we did a thread about the essential nature of ME last week, come to think of it.

Alan makes a very good point here.  ME2's big PR promise was that "anyone could die, even Shepard", not "everyone could live."  I think the design flaw was that Bioware made it entirely too easy for everyone to get out alive.

[David7204]

ME 2 is a video game. Not an examination. Not a chore. Not work. A game. And so long as it remains a well-designed game, the optimal outcome is going to be fairly easily within reach for a through player who's decently intelligent.

I'm sensing that's the fundamental issue here. You can't simoultaniously have a truly difficult and taxing task and a game. You can't 'earn' heroism. The player is not the source of that. Shepard is.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mai 2013 - 01:00 .

[Reorte]

chemiclord wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

OK, so we were talking about the player being able to get out of dilemmas (unless he doesn't want to, of course).

I didn't think that was a core design element of ME, myself. Getting through the SM with no casualties struck me as a regrettable design flaw rather than a feature, for instance. I think we did a thread about the essential nature of ME last week, come to think of it.

Alan makes a very good point here.  ME2's big PR promise was that "anyone could die, even Shepard", not "everyone could live."  I think the design flaw was that Bioware made it entirely too easy for everyone to get out alive.

Agree with this. I think it should've been possible, just a hell of a lot harder than it actually was. If it could be done in some way which couldn't be easily metagamed then so much the better although I can't think of a suitable mechanism for that (random pot luck, whilst realistic, would just be annoying). Having them as units in an real-time strategy type game would do it, although how that could be translated properly into a third-person RPG?

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The question is whether heroism ever pays off.

Galaxy saved, Reapers tamed or defeated.... I guess it does.

Only by being a sick monster...
If you're a hero, everyone dies...

[CuraeL]

Hello.

I have just had a few days of vacation and decided to pick up all three games, sadly I didn't know anything about the trilogy pack-thingy, so I kinda just picked up all three games individually, played thru one and two, romancing Liara, bought Shadow Broker to squeeze some more sexy times out and then continuing into ME3. I must say I loved ME2 the most.. Then comes 1. The 3rd was somewhat lacking and I can't put my finger on it. I must agree that the ending felt a bit shallow. I DO really feel like I made the right choice. And I'm glad that Synthesis was made available to me. Otherwise I'd had gone for Destroy.

However my feelings wish "I" could'ave survived. Man, I worked so hard for this thru all 3 games.. I can't believe it's over. I lost crewmen I wish I hadn't and hell, some of them I was happy to see go. - I'm a fan of non-hollywood approaches, so it's fine and all. The fact of the matter for me is that this particular rpg made me feel really, really attached to "my" crew. I simply can't bear the fact that I shall never see them again cause I had to save the world. So for me, it's a selfish thing that makes me sad. (I guess that's where me and Shepard differs.) As for the story goes, I think it's great, besides the whole thing with that kid being an AI and stuff, the whole thing just feels overplayed and overdone and a thing of the past, I wouldn't expect it being used in this trilogy. that was kinda weird. But who cares, you know? I had laughs and I had hissyfits and I was crying my heart out thru these sessions. I wish I could have chosen to just.. Fly out somewhere at the edges of space with Liara as she mentioned. Surely we could get lost, just one ship? Oh god damnit, nevermind. This game was touching and I can say that I don't feel like playing ME3 again, solely because of the outcome, how I reach it, doesn't matter to me. It's that I reach it. I will NOT say goodbye to another Shepard.

Never.

I still intend to pour my money towards BioWare and Dark Horse Comics for more story. I shall also play the Omega DLC when my pockets are full with glorious money at the arrival of june the 1st.

Don't get me wrong, the last mission in ME3 was the worst one I have played. Both plot-wise and emotional. It could have been done better but it could most certainly have been done much, much worse as well.

I can't really join with any of the sides here. I'm kinda twisted.. All I can say is that I feel both sides too. Diablo 2 fanboy here. Diablo 3 was the biggest let down I have ever experienced.

Modifié par CuraeL, 30 mai 2013 - 01:15 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The question is whether heroism ever pays off.

Galaxy saved, Reapers tamed or defeated.... I guess it does.

Sure, if you're going by history being written by the winners.

Ihave slightly different criteria.  The "how" is important too.

@Curael:  If you're on the PC, click the link in my sig.   team of modders have been working on  that...

Modifié par iakus, 30 mai 2013 - 01:15 .

[Jorji Costava]

As far as ME2 making it too easy to lose no one in the suicide mission, I'd actually like to go a step further: I think there should have been potential benefits to losing or sacrificing squadmates, so that whether or not you had them all alive at the end wasn't simply a matter of completionism.

For instance, suppose that you can accomplish goal X but have to sacrifice a squadmate to do it; you can choose not to do X and save the squadmate, but that makes things harder down the road or closes off certain desirable future options. This certainly fits with sacrifice and "war is hell" themes, the idea being that the more unwilling you are to risk losing your soldiers, the harder it is to accomplish certain military objectives.