482 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

This makes it sound like Bioware deliberately sabotaged the endings, that they wanted them to be terrible and if there was an ending the players enjoyed, they somehow failed.

One can give up something and still get a "good" ending.  It's in deciding that what's being given up was worth the price.  For all too many people, the endings did not strike that balance.

What exactly differentiates the endings from something like the Virmire situation, in this regard? Someone could easily turn that into an argument for how they should have the choice to give up any member of their squad.

[vallore]

chemiclord wrote...

And my response wasn't so much about a successful refuse as it was about any kind of changed ending.  Add a reunion scenario (for example) without similarly fleshing out the other two options presents Destroy as the "right" ending (because Bioware put THAT much more effort into it), thusly defeating the very thing they were trying to present.

It's one of those things that theoretically would be fine (adding significant content to all three options), but practically, for something they pretty much HAD to release for free (or simply ignite an entirely different ****storm), probably wasn't all that feasible.

Hm, three points:

Shepard’s death is supposed to be the cost of implementing Control and Synthesis. Either the goals of those endings are seen as worthy of the cost, (by the player who picks them), or they aren’t.

If they are, showing Shepard alive in an extra scene doesn’t validate Shepard’s survival as “the right option; “ it just makes the cost of those endings feel real, as opposed to what we got, where Shepard actual survival was relegated to headcanon. This, imo, severely diminished the cost supposedly associated with the endings where Shepard dies, as survival is just theoretical anyway.

Then there is the issue of closure; in Control and Synthesis Shepard explicitly dies and we know how and why.

In high Destroy, all we know is that someone that may be Shepard is (barely) alive, sometime after the partial destruction of the Citadel, alone inside a ruined station, severely wounded. Far from her team that could come to her rescue. The actual fate of Shepard is far from certain. It is all relegated to headcanon.

Lastly, I believe that Bioware could have provided Destroy with a bit more closure, with minimum costs. Here’s an example:

In “high score” Destroy it could be Shepard to give the “we will rebuilt” speech, plus a quick allusion of herself rejoining the crew.

[vallore]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
So are these truly  happier consequences?  Or simply a different ones, ones some people might be more willing to accept? 

If people like them better, aren't they happier by definition? What else would "happier" mean? 

Anyway, the conceptual problem is that the design intent was for the player to give up something that he wants in any ending. More endings don't go necessarily go against this intent, but giving the player an ending he finds optimal does.

This is what chemiclord was getting at, I think.

But the cost was poorly implemented; If the best you can hope is to see Shepard on top of a pile of rubble, alone and bleeding to death, then, in regard to Shepard’s survival, the issue of choosing Control or Synthesis vs. Destroy is merely a matter of explicit death vs. likely death.

Sure, the player may know that he can headcanon Sheapard out of that mess, but without a clear “Shepard lives!” moment in one ending, the cost of control or synthesis was severely diminished. Without a clear unambiguous image of Survival, the player may know Shepard can survive, but does he feel it? Personally, I don’t think so.

[KaiserShep]

Vallore,

I agree about the destroy monologue. Shepard > Hackett, but I guess they wanted variety for each one, since Shepard's reaper-ized voice covers the Control ending.

[AlanC9]

vallore wrote...

But the cost was poorly implemented; If the best you can hope is to see Shepard on top of a pile of rubble, alone and bleeding to death, then, in regard to Shepard’s survival, the issue of choosing Control or Synthesis vs. Destroy is merely a matter of explicit death vs. likely death.

I don't think Bio expected anyone to interpret the scene that way unless he actually wanted to interpret it that way. I'm surprised that people do that myself.

Which makes it poorly implemented, sure. Same as the pre-EC relay explosions. Bio shows that the explosions aren't novas when we see the Citadel Relay blow, but that didn't stop people from concluding that all the other relays novaed.

[sveners]

AlanC9 wrote...

vallore wrote...

But the cost was poorly implemented; If the best you can hope is to see Shepard on top of a pile of rubble, alone and bleeding to death, then, in regard to Shepard’s survival, the issue of choosing Control or Synthesis vs. Destroy is merely a matter of explicit death vs. likely death.

I don't think Bio expected anyone to interpret the scene that way unless he actually wanted to interpret it that way. I'm surprised that people do that myself.

Which makes it poorly implemented, sure. Same as the pre-EC relay explosions. Bio shows that the explosions aren't novas when we see the Citadel Relay blow, but that didn't stop people from concluding that all the other relays novaed.

I'm still curious, since you disappeard from the last thread you discussed this (admittedly I was gone for a while first) 

What other work of fiction (book, tv, film, theatre, musical, opera), anywhere, has had the protagonist in a similar situation at journeys end?

[PinkysPain]

AlanC9 wrote...
Anyway, the conceptual problem is that the design intent was for the player to give up something that he wants in any ending.

That certainly was Mac's intent, I don't think it was ever Drew's intent.

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

iakus wrote...

This makes it sound like Bioware deliberately sabotaged the endings, that they wanted them to be terrible and if there was an ending the players enjoyed, they somehow failed.

One can give up something and still get a "good" ending.  It's in deciding that what's being given up was worth the price.  For all too many people, the endings did not strike that balance.

What exactly differentiates the endings from something like the Virmire situation, in this regard? Someone could easily turn that into an argument for how they should have the choice to give up any member of their squad.

Scope.  Havng to lose a squadmate sucks.  But it's not someting that alters the fundamental structure of the galaxy.  The loss of Ashley or Kaidan does not exterminate all of humanity.

[dreamgazer]

PinkysPain wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Anyway, the conceptual problem is that the design intent was for the player to give up something that he wants in any ending.

That certainly was Mac's intent, I don't think it was ever Drew's intent.

I'd read over Karpyshyn's interviews in regards to the ending, especially his comments about the dark energy concept, and consider rethinking that statement. 

[PinkysPain]

Both Ashley and Kaiden were ready to sacrifice themselves ... there is no cause justifying the means, there is simply a choice of who gets to go out like a hero. There is nothing heroic about RGB, it's a choice of which morals to compromise ... it's all about the cause justifying the means.

Except for refuse, the only hero way out ... of course Bioware punishes you for the audacity to still want to be a hero in their art where you are supposed to embrace moral ambiguity, but that's a different matter entirely.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 10 août 2013 - 05:10 .

[3DandBeyond]

chemiclord wrote...

They listened to the fans who offered suggestions they could realistically do within the constraints they had.

They ignored fans who continued to demand what they could not provide.

Whether or not they should have actually produced an ending that was actually good so that they didn't have those constraints is an entirely separate argument in which I think you would find considerable agreement. You could even argue that they should have at least TRIED to accommodate fans that wanted more, even if it meant it would cost them more money.

But one thing I really don't see any argument anymore is that they weren't listening. They very clearly were.

They weren't listening even to themselves.  You miss that very fact.  They were too busy talking and trying to get this all framed as a problem fans were having in understanding their great work of art (my words based upon what they tried to say the original endings were).  The thing is they released the original endings and may have at the time not been satisfied and really wanted speculation in order to help give them ideas and create DLC (there's that blue screen telling us to continue the legend through DLC) that would come after.

What then ensued was a crap-storm and they began to dig in their heels. 

They could very well have easily and cheaply created something that would have solve a huge portion of this.  By their own words, the EC didn't change anything.  All it was was like putting a photo of poop in a gilded frame.  Call it art, call it done, call it complete, whatever, but there will be those who will still see it as the poop it always was.  It would have been far more mature to admit the mistakes, open up a true dialogue (well before the whole debacle reached the explosive nature that it did), but instead they fanned the flames.  They sought out "reviewers" and fans to wage a war.  Sure, fans got out of hand but that's true for every product that anyone sells.  Other companies don't let anyone go after their customers.  They feel they might even learn something from their biggest critics.  BW decided to ignore whenever possible, taunt when the moment seemed right, use twitter to inflame if given some reason, and tried to retcon the heck out of a whole bunch of what they said.

Make no mistake there were simple things they could have done right from the start.  I think they leaked the script themselves to see the reaction to it (them).  I think all along they've been "listening" in a way to fans, but hell bent on not giving fans what they truly wanted and then pretending that they did.  It's why all of the statements about what they said pre-release and post-release indicate they thought they gave fans what they'd promised to give and are so full of contradiction that the only term that suffices is "lie".  The very fact that pre-release they said that fans may not like the ending and then post-release they tried to claim they had no idea fans would not like the ending indicates truth is just not in their vocabulary.  They may want to be open and honest and truly I've no doubt they're good people, but I think they opened this can of worms themselves and when they couldn't control it, they tried to do so in as many ways as possible but it was all about PR and not about honesty. 

The very fact that it was BW that chose to constantly discuss the endings pre-release means they set this whole thing up.  By virtue of that, truthfully, it was unlikely that they'd be able to create something most people would be happy with.  And all they had to do was not discuss the endings prior to release.

Getting back to the OP-it's also true that the very idea that pre-release they said fans may not like the endings, then they discussed them constantly, and in the Final Hours app they really promoted the idea of speculation for all, does point to them wanting a controllable controversy.  They hoped there would be debate and even some anger.  They never expected what they got and did the minimum needed to try and stop the money hemorrhage.  And then tried to get fans to keep the debate hot and heavy so others would buy. 

One line in the game speaks volumes as to this.  Garrus says it, and I'll paraphrase it.  "If you scream and shout loud and long enough, sooner or later someone's going to come along to see what the ruckus is."  They wanted a loud debate, even loud argument.  If they'd truly "listened", most of the emotional discourse would have gone away.  PR is what it's always been about.

[PinkysPain]

dreamgazer wrote..
I'd read over Karpyshyn's interviews in regards to the ending, especially his comments about the dark energy concept, and consider rethinking that statement. 

You were supposed to simply be able to say "uhuh, sure that's what YOU think is going to happen ... but we'll just go ahead any way and find a fix" ... which is what most people would have done.

Sure it's an open ending and in theory you could have destroyed the universe with the decision ... but meh, we'd still almost all have done it.

[dreamgazer]

"I find it funny that fans end up hearing a couple things they like about it and in their minds they add in all the details they specifically want," he explained. "It's like vapourware - vapourware is always perfect, anytime someone talks about the new greatest game. It's perfect until it comes out. I'm a little weary about going into too much detail because, whatever we came up with, it probably wouldn't be what people want it to be."

http://www.eurogamer...-trilogy-ending

[3DandBeyond]

PinkysPain wrote...

Both Ashley and Kaiden were ready to sacrifice themselves ... there is no cause justifying the means, there is simply a choice of who gets to go out like a hero. There is nothing heroic about RGB, it's a choice of which morals to compromise ... it's all about the cause justifying the means.

Except for refuse, the only hero way out ... of course Bioware punishes you for the audacity to still want to be a hero in their art where you are supposed to embrace moral ambiguity, but that's a different matter entirely.

Exactly.  Too many people act as if the Ashley/Kaiden choice is the same as the ending choice, but it isn't.  Shepard didn't just choose with them having no input.  They both were willing to lay down their lives and made it clear.  I saved the one rigging the bomb since it made the most sense.  To me as far as an RPG goes, I couldn't see trying to help the one that was not rigging the bomb since the goal was to set off the bomb or the mission would be for nothing.  And the way it played out was heroic, even emotional, and the one who sacrificed their life is honored well after the fact even.

The RGB choices are Shepard's choices alone with no input into them.  The only input that s/he is ever given is that the reapers must be destroyed.  Hackett and Anderson emphasize this up until the end.  Shepard even can discuss TIM with Hackett and Control and Hackett says TIM's nuts, must be killed, control would get people killed, and they need to be dead.  Everyone that talks to Shepard about synthesis reinforces that it would be a bad idea.  Javik discusses the Zha'til and the parallels are clear because that story even reinforces what Mordin says of the Collectors.  Nothing in the game leads Shepard to believe synthesis or control would be good, except one sentence from the kid that doesn't even make sense given what just happened.  Control as seen by TIM-TIM was right.  Yes, but he could not assume control because they already controlled him.  WTF.  So sure makes sense for Shepard to see that TIM was deluded into thinking he could control the reapers but was indoctrinated and then believe that s/he could control them and is not indoctrinated.  Yeah, brains exist for a reason.

So as a choice destroy is left, but it's ridiculous.  It makes complete sense to have to kill (presumably) things that might pose the greatest threat to the reapers AND the very things that disprove the "conflict" of synthetics vs organics as somehow leading inevitably to the destruction of all organic life.  Funny thing is if the kid's goal of synthesis is realized, that is the very thing that leads to the destruction of all organic life, since in synthesis organic life no longer exists.  The whole thing is stupid.  And in terms of the morality of the Shepard I played, very immoral.  Kaiden and Ashley had a choice.  A galaxy altered by any one of the choices, does not and even the galaxy's "favorite" pre-authorized partial choice of destroy could be ignored.  That would be like neither Kaiden nor Ashley saying anything and Shepard choosing to just shoot one of them for no reason at all and then saying it helps the Virmire mission.

[PinkysPain]

I liked your first link better ...

The original final choice was going to be 'Kill the Reapers and put your faith in the races of the galaxy in finding another way to stop the spread with what little time is left' or 'Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means.

I know Gurren Lagann's plot well enough to see when it's being copied and Drew was copying Gurren Lagann ... as I said in the other thread, Mac came in and gave us Sophie's Choice instead.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 10 août 2013 - 05:29 .

[dreamgazer]

I like both links, since it reveals a good bit about Drew's perspective on the ending's direction towards grim choices and on the fans' speculation about endings that never were.

Grass is always greener, and whatnot.

[3DandBeyond]

StreetMagic wrote...

PinkysPain wrote...

dreamgazer wrote..
I'd read over Karpyshyn's interviews in regards to the ending, especially his comments about the dark energy concept, and consider rethinking that statement. 

You were supposed to simply be able to say "uhuh, sure that's what YOU think is going to happen ... but we'll just go ahead any way and find a fix" ... which is what most people would have done.

Sure it's an open ending and in theory you could have destroyed the universe with the decision ... but meh, we'd still almost all have done it.

Not only that, but even if there was a small chance of a fix, it had a better sense of continuity. The Milky Way inhabitants would have a good deal of time to continue fairly uninterrupted and you could have had many stories in the MEU while they pursued a fix. Now the continuity of the whole series is up for question.

To me, the lack of continuity is the most important thing I have to complain about the current endings. Closure for Shepard comes second (at least my Destroy Shep).

Well yes and much as I dislike the idea of an either/or ending and know that still wouldn't have been what most of us saw coming, real variety, at least it would have been explored somewhere in a big way in a previous part of the plot.  A lot of the game continued into ME3 talking about Dark Energy.  And Dark Energy even played some part in the whole Mass Effect phenomenon-it was a part of how mass could be manipulated.

The idea also was specifically related to an explanation for the reapers and yet still left it as which version of galactic destruction suits you best.  The concept in and of itself was not as far-fetched as some space kid reaper god falling out of the sky at the last minute and telling Shepard they must be friends.

My "I'd rather have" type ending would always still revolve upon how effective the galaxy was at doing all the things needed to destroy the reapers.  That would include the actions and choices of Shepard, and at the end there wouldn't be so much a choice as there would be some hail mary kind of thing where even if you screwed up other things, you might still find a way to succeed partly.  But it always would be about playing until the end, confronting the enemy, and trying to defeat them on your own terms and not something partial handed to you by the kid that is meant to solve a problem that was not a real point of the story at all.  Not a boss fight but definitely not a boss conversation with feel good cutscenes and slides that detract from any real consequences of a fight for survival.

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I like both links, since it reveals a good bit about Drew's perspective on the ending's direction towards grim choices and on the fans' speculation about endings that never were.

Grass is always greener, and whatnot.

Just watch Gurren Laggan if you haven't. You'll see what Pinky's saying.

You'll cry tears of joy.

Again, that's assuming it would look and feel exactly like TTGL.

ME3 ripped off Foundation's Edge (and, either by extension or directly, Deus Ex), but it certainly didn't feel the same. 

[shingara]

Ye i defo got echoes of Dues ex hr in the end.

Modifié par shingara, 10 août 2013 - 06:07 .

[shingara]

@street defo go do a finish on DE HR if you have the time and you will sit there dumb struck at how close they are.


 Edit, actualy here, all 12 endings, based from the 3 or is it 4 ? choices youtu.be/vHvTI9l5Xj0

Modifié par shingara, 10 août 2013 - 07:05 .

[PinkysPain]

dreamgazer wrote...
ME3 ripped off Foundation's Edge (and, either by extension or directly, Deus Ex), but it certainly didn't feel the same. 

ME3 feels schizoid ... Gaider was right when he said you shouldn't really have been able to broker a peace between the Geth and the Quarians, that was a ME1/ME2 type solution which only served as a reminder of the previous games before grim derp took over.

PS. Deus Ex was grim dark from the start, it didn't betray expectations.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 10 août 2013 - 07:21 .