138 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Wait, I don't get it.

Is not saving the galaxy desirable in and of itself?

You might feel bad about what you had to do to do it, but that's not the same as declaring its result "hopeless."

No, not in and of itself.  Ends =/= means.

If a game makes you feel bad about what you had to do, it pretty much failed in its purpose.  And a story about how someone has to commit an atrocity to keep another atrocity from happening is the picture of hopelessness in my book.

I'm likely to be skewered for this,

I think it is to the ending's credit that there is no "I win" button.  ME has been a series about hard choices affecting the fate of the galaxy, the ending is just this taken to a whole new level.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Wait, I don't get it.

Is not saving the galaxy desirable in and of itself?

You might feel bad about what you had to do to do it, but that's not the same as declaring its result "hopeless."

No, not in and of itself.  Ends =/= means.

That's exactly my point.

The means may not be perfect, but there's nothing bad/hopeless about its end.

It's ultimately about the sum of all parts -- ends AND means. You can't leave out the ends just because.

If a game makes you feel bad about what you had to do, it pretty much failed in its purpose.  And a story about how someone has to commit an atrocity to keep another atrocity from happening is the picture of hopelessness in my book.

As I said above, it's the sum of all parts.

Even if we are to accept RGB as "atrocities," you cannot just discount how different their ends are from those you're fighting to prevent. You can't simply handwave the difference between [mass-extinction] and [not] as a one of semantics.

[Iakus]

[quote]Steelcan wrote...

No, not in and of itself.  Ends =/= means.

If a game makes you feel bad about what you had to do, it pretty much failed in its purpose.  And a story about how someone has to commit an atrocity to keep another atrocity from happening is the picture of hopelessness in my book.

[/quote]I'm likely to be skewered for this,

I think it is to the ending's credit that there is no "I win" button.  ME has been a series about hard choices affecting the fate of the galaxy, the ending is just this taken to a whole new level.

[/quote]

I'm not talking about an "I win" button.  I'm talking about a price to be paid that still makes the game feel like a victory.  WHat we get are ashes.  Lots and lots of ashes.

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

I'm not talking about an "I win" button.  I'm talking about a price to be paid that still makes the game feel like a victory.  WHat we get are ashes.  Lots and lots of ashes.

EDI for the Reapers?  Feels like a steal for me.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

StreetMagic wrote...

One thing for sure, my Sole Survivor Shep would never pick any of the Space Jesus options. Every line related to that origin is gold, pointing to his general refusal to be taken out so easily. Not a sacrificial personality type. It's a bit like Ripley in Aliens.

Come to think of it.... Out of the 12 Shepards, I have no sacrificial Shepard personalities. My "self-insert" was a Spacer-Sole Survivor paragade -- I have not done ME3 with this one. I verified this to my surprise a few nights ago. I have one war hero paragon. Most are neutrals.

[Steelcan]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

One thing for sure, my Sole Survivor Shep would never pick any of the Space Jesus options. Every line related to that origin is gold, pointing to his general refusal to be taken out so easily. Not a sacrificial personality type. It's a bit like Ripley in Aliens.

Come to think of it.... Out of the 12 Shepards, I have no sacrificial Shepard personalities. My "self-insert" was a Spacer-Sole Survivor paragade -- I have not done ME3 with this one. I verified this to my surprise a few nights ago. I have one war hero paragon. Most are neutrals.

Most of my Shepards would write off "self sacrifice" as a fool's way out. 

Earthborn renegades for the win.

Modifié par Steelcan, 03 juillet 2013 - 03:48 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The ending decided to give us another problem and ignore the old one. Saving the galaxy from the Reapers is just a side effect now to what I'm really trying to do in the ending. As the game has it, you aren't trying to save the galaxy from the Reapers in the end, you're trying to solve the Catalyst's problem. It matters not how you interpret it one way or the other, that is how the ending is set up. To refuse that notion is to screw the galaxy.

Why are you assuming that the Catalyst was right?

I'm not assuming the Catalyst was right.

I'm talking from a narrative perspective. The narrative of the game has changed. The theme of the game has changed.

The purpose is no longer to beat the Reapers. The purpose is now to handle the organic/synthetic conflict.

The only ending where I can reject this concept in the narrative and theme leads to rocks falling on the galaxy.

This isn't an issue of the ending from Shepard's perspective anymore. This is an issue of CHud and SuperMac trying to be "deep", "high level", and "out there" at the climax of the story, by fudamentally changing what the story is about.

I don't believe the concept for the ending that they chose was appropriate for Mass Effect, at least not in the current setting. I think they should have waited another game to address the concept in universe. The execution of the concept is pretty much universally bad.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 juillet 2013 - 03:51 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

That's exactly my point.

The means may not be perfect, but there's nothing bad/hopeless about its end.

It's ultimately about the sum of all parts -- ends AND means. You can't leave out the ends just because.

Saying the means "may not be perfect" is such an understatement it bends back around to overstating the case, keeps going past that, and ends up back at "understatement"

You say you can't leave out the ends.  I say you can't leave out th emeans.  There are ponts which if crossed, makes victory seem hollow and pontless

If a game makes you feel bad about what you had to do, it pretty much failed in its purpose.  And a story about how someone has to commit an atrocity to keep another atrocity from happening is the picture of hopelessness in my book.

As I said above, it's the sum of all parts.

Even if we are to accept RGB as "atrocities," you cannot just discount how different their ends are from those you're fighting to prevent. You can't simply handwave the difference between [mass-extinction] and [not] as a one of semantics.

I can and I will.  Because mere survival is not enough.  I don't play a game to be an animal.

I don't play a game to go "Yeah I turned on my own allies to secure victory.  It was awesome."  

These choices remind me of the Joker in The Dark Knight:

 "See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people? They'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. "

[Steelcan]

Iakus, you never turned on your allies. That implies malice on your part, they simply died as a result of victory.

[Nole]

That is a big exaggeration. When I chose destroy I didn't feel like an animal at all, I felt like I'm winning this ****ing war.

[ShepnTali]

It's easy to see how all the available endings are depressing, depending on any given person's personality/outlook. That particular segment got left in the dust. It just is what it is.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

WittingEight65 wrote...

That is a big exaggeration. When I chose destroy I didn't feel like an animal at all, I felt like I'm winning this ****ing war.

You are also one person, with one perspective. Many others hold a different (and opposite) perspective. The sheer arbitrariness and lack of purpose of the sacrifice for any other reason besides hammering down the conceptual theme of BioWare's vision saps a lot of the game's luster for many people. I think BioWare was being incredibly arrogant in that respect.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 juillet 2013 - 03:57 .

[Iakus]

Steelcan wrote...

Iakus, you never turned on your allies. That implies malice on your part, they simply died as a result of victory.

They died because Shepard threw them under the bus for completely arbitrary reasons.  And in so doing, rendering the game bitter and hopeless.

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.

-Arthur Welleslly 

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Iakus, you never turned on your allies. That implies malice on your part, they simply died as a result of victory.

They died because Shepard threw them under the bus for completely arbitrary reasons.  And in so doing, rendering the game bitter and hopeless.

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.

-Arthur Welleslly 

They died because Shepard had no way to save them.  And this in no way taints the whole enging.  The Destroy ending is still very upbeat and hopeful, even if the geth are killed off.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

iakus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Iakus, you never turned on your allies. That implies malice on your part, they simply died as a result of victory.

They died because Shepard threw them under the bus for completely arbitrary reasons.  And in so doing, rendering the game bitter and hopeless.

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.

-Arthur Welleslly 

They died because Shepard had no way to save them.  And this in no way taints the whole enging.  The Destroy ending is still very upbeat and hopeful, even if the geth are killed off.

I think the issue here is more a matter of why couldn't Shepard save them and still kill the Reapers. Why do you have to make such a heavy price to beat the Reapers? Why can't a person who get's a theoretically perfect trilogy run get something more from the ending than someone who didn't try or didn't play from the beginning? That last one is my biggest issue.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think the issue here is more a matter of why couldn't Shepard save them and still kill the Reapers. Why do you have to make such a heavy price to beat the Reapers? Why can't a person who get's a theoretically perfect trilogy run get something more from the ending than someone who didn't try or didn't play from the beginning? That last one is my biggest issue.

.  Because no one would ever consider synthesis if this was possible.

[Nole]

Because Bioware made the ending with the new players in mind.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Because Bioware made the ending with the new players in mind.

Which was rather ridiculous for the old players. 

It rather sucks that a person who's played through the trilogy and made all the decisions and choices and extra bang out of the story and imports it has to have the story end the same way for some jody who bought ME3 new and has no prior connection (in-game and out).

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

Because Bioware made the ending with the new players in mind.

Which was rather ridiculous for the old players. 

It rather sucks that a person who's played through the trilogy and made all the decisions and choices and extra bang out of the story and imports it has to have the story end the same way for some jody who bought ME3 new and has no prior connection (in-game and out).

.  But hey, $$$$

Modifié par Steelcan, 03 juillet 2013 - 04:38 .

[ShepnTali]

If the ending was designed with new players in mind, who did they think the new players would be? Philosophy fans?

Modifié par ShepnTali, 03 juillet 2013 - 04:43 .

[Iakus]

Steelcan wrote...

iakus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Iakus, you never turned on your allies. That implies malice on your part, they simply died as a result of victory.

They died because Shepard threw them under the bus for completely arbitrary reasons.  And in so doing, rendering the game bitter and hopeless.

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.

-Arthur Welleslly 

They died because Shepard had no way to save them.  And this in no way taints the whole enging.  The Destroy ending is still very upbeat and hopeful, even if the geth are killed off.

  It's the very fact that Shepard has no way to save them that makes the situation hopeless.They died as a punishment for daring to choose other than Synthesis.  It's an arbitrary smiting by the cruel and capricious Bioware gods.  Even in your moment of  victory, Bioware sabotages it because they demand moar sadz.  How can there be hope when Jigsaw the Catalyst forces you to shoot an ally in the back, or he'll kill everyone?

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...


  It's the very fact that Shepard has no way to save them that makes the situation hopeless.They died as a punishment for daring to choose other than Synthesis.  It's an arbitrary smiting by the cruel and capricious Bioware gods.  Even in your moment of  victory, Bioware sabotages it because they demand moar sadz.  How can there be hope when Jigsaw the Catalyst forces you to shoot an ally in the back, or he'll kill everyone?

Just kill the geth over Rannoch and avoid the whole issue=]

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think the issue here is more a matter of why couldn't Shepard save them and still kill the Reapers. Why do you have to make such a heavy price to beat the Reapers? Why can't a person who get's a theoretically perfect trilogy run get something more from the ending than someone who didn't try or didn't play from the beginning? That last one is my biggest issue.

.  Because no one would ever consider synthesis if this was possible.

This is the whole thing. No one would have considered this or control. Why would they? Well maybe Auld Wulf and a few others would have. I think a lot of people would have chosen synthesis their first game by accident. ... you know walk up to investigate and trigger the point of no return? Yeah, that way. Some of those of us who finished the game at 3:00 a.m. Me? I got tunnel vision. I saw "Destroy the Reapers" on the right and my brain shut off. Die b****es! But I still blew up the galaxy.

The mass relays exploded. The Normandy crashed. Where were they? The Asari populate this new world. Was anyone else even alive? I would never see Liara again which was all I wanted. Then they gave me this gasp of air and leave me buried under a pile of rubble just to break my heart one more time. 22 Mar 2012 0320 hrs