260 réponses à ce sujet

[Clayless]

KaiserShep wrote...

Robosexual,

I said that it was willful ignorance, as your point was basically generalizing, painting broad strokes across the entirety of the endings' critics as if it was representative of everyone who had lots of problems with the ending, or even hated it. This is what I gathered from your comment:

If there's one thing video game companies learned from all this, it's innovation and storytelling comes second because people only care about their fake romances and having their hand held to a bland happy ending, even in series where such an ending would be highly contrived.

There are plenty of reasons why people dislike the endings. And I've seen plenty throughout BSN too. It's not all about love interests, or just having fairytale endings. To insist that people *ONLY* care about their fake romances and "bland happy ending" is disingenuous, because people have expressed in great detail many of their gripes that go well beyond these issues. The existence of MEHEM or random people on BSN insisting on having Citadel be their ending does not suddenly make this generalization come true.

I'm yet to see some so, please, present an alternative ending.

[KaiserShep]

Yet to see what? Other criticisms regarding the ending? All one needs to do is peruse the forums, and search outside BSN, turning selective reading mode off, of course.

Present an alternate ending, as in make one up? What would be the point of that? 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 27 août 2013 - 11:54 .

[sveners]

Robosexual wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Robosexual,

I said that it was willful ignorance, as your point was basically generalizing, painting broad strokes across the entirety of the endings' critics as if it was representative of everyone who had lots of problems with the ending, or even hated it. This is what I gathered from your comment:

If there's one thing video game companies learned from all this, it's innovation and storytelling comes second because people only care about their fake romances and having their hand held to a bland happy ending, even in series where such an ending would be highly contrived.

There are plenty of reasons why people dislike the endings. And I've seen plenty throughout BSN too. It's not all about love interests, or just having fairytale endings. To insist that people *ONLY* care about their fake romances and "bland happy ending" is disingenuous, because people have expressed in great detail many of their gripes that go well beyond these issues. The existence of MEHEM or random people on BSN insisting on having Citadel be their ending does not suddenly make this generalization come true.

I'm yet to see some so, please, present an alternative ending.

Ok, I'm not really involved in this discussion but I do have a few thoughts here.

Many people felt a loss of ...control/agency ...  thanks to the Catalyst.  Also the implications it presented from always having been there.

What about a VI instead. A VI without motivation, a simple infodump on the Crucible, it's background and connection to the Reapers. It would allow some of us to feel more in control, rather than the vehicle for the Catalysts redemption.

Failing that, perhaps try to give some more emotional satisfaction. I know that for me, a memorial for Shepard would have been nice, perhaps a mention of her/his name in the epilogues. If it was somewhat like DA:O, I would be quite happy.

Just a few thoughts. And I doubt either can be called "happy"?

Modifié par sveners, 27 août 2013 - 12:11 .

[Farangbaa]

The Catalyst completes the entire story. I found myself wondering what drove the Reapers to what they are doing since playing ME1, the Catalyst answers in ME3.

[Clayless]

KaiserShep wrote...

Yet to see what? Other criticisms regarding the ending? All one needs to do is peruse the forums, and search outside BSN, turning selective reading mode off, of course.

I have, I've been here for over a year and I've seen lots of criticism, but it generally boils down to calling things that aren't plot holes, plot holes, or ****ing about Bioware because the ending made them feel sad. Have you ever actually seen anyone discuss the parts of the ending they hate? Or do you just see ****ing about it and a point blank refusal to change their faulty preconceived notions? Unlike you though, someone below you has responded and I'll respond in kind.

Present an alternate ending, as in make one up? What would be the point of that?

To see if you have a point? To see if you can create a better alternative to the thing you hate? People ****, people even go as far to say it's "ignorant" to say that fans only want happy endings despite how contrived it may be, but when pressed it seems mindless ****ing is about as far as it goes.

[Clayless]

sveners wrote...

Ok, I'm not really involved in this discussion but I do have a few thoughts here.

Many people felt a loss of ...control/agency ...  thanks to the Catalyst.  Also the implications it presented from always having been there.

What about a VI instead. A VI without motivation, a simple infodump on the Crucible, it's background and connection to the Reapers. It would allow some of us to feel more in control, rather than the vehicle for the Catalysts redemption.

Failing that, perhaps try to give some more emotional satisfaction. I know that for me, a memorial for Shepard would have been nice, perhaps a mention of her/his name in the epilogues. If it was somewhat like DA:O, I would be quite happy.

Just a few thoughts. And I doubt either can be called "happy"?

So your problem is the Catalyst had a motivation for the harvest that Shepard wasn't in control of? That situation isn't something that randomly appears at the end, that situation is present throughout the series, Shepard was never in control of the harvest. The Catalyst being an infodump wouldn't change anything either, it would effectively remove an intelligence from the Reapers and players that felt like they weren't in control would feel even more powerless due to not being able to change a simple VI. Whether or not the Catalyst is an ancient AI, or an ancient box with a bunch of information in it, the situation is still the same.

As for your second part, Shepard did get a memorial and their name mentioned in the epilogue.

[adayaday]

Robosexual wrote...

I'm yet to see some so, please, present an alternative ending.

There is an active thread for alternative ending,whether they are better is a matter of opinion.
IMO some of them are better even though they lack polish.

[Iakus]

Robosexual wrote...

Present an alternate ending, as in make one up? What would be the point of that?

To see if you have a point? To see if you can create a better alternative to the thing you hate? People ****, people even go as far to say it's "ignorant" to say that fans only want happy endings despite how contrived it may be, but when pressed it seems mindless ****ing is about as far as it goes.

Now there's a rigged game if ever I saw one.

No matter what alternative anyone would put forth, you'll absolutely savage.  You're determined to put down anyone who doesn't like the endings, as the very language you use to describe them proves.

[FlamingBoy]

KaiserShep wrote...

Yet to see what? Other criticisms regarding the ending? All one needs to do is peruse the forums, and search outside BSN, turning selective reading mode off, of course.

Present an alternate ending, as in make one up? What would be the point of that? 

So he can tear you down and by association make bioware look better which would conclude the absurd judgement that the game ended in the best way possible.
That would be the point.

[Clayless]

adayaday wrote...

There is an active thread for alternative ending,whether they are better is a matter of opinion.
IMO some of them are better even though they lack polish.

You know what? I'll actually show my point through this. I'll grab the first 3 alternative ending ideas (skipping over the "Reapers win no matter what ones"):

Steelcan wrote...

without doing a total re-write,

Shepard and Anderson get through the beam, no blast by Harby. There they start to open up the arms. No weird occurrences, just piles of bodies and the control panel.

The arms won't open, and TIM walks up behind them, with much less subdued implants, and tells them that he has taken over the Citadel's systems and enabled it to interface with the Crucible and Control the Reapers.

Then both Anderson and TIM make their cases for their ending. You can investigate and try and sway opinions. However if you pick Destroy TIM will try to stop you and you can shoot him. he takes the shot and crumples to the floor, there is a renegade interrupt to execute him.

If you choose to Control the Reapers Anderson tries to stop you but he can be talked down.

Why do they do that? They have to reason and let Shepard choose? What's stopping Anderson from destroying the Reapers himself? Plus, what's the motivation for the Reapers? The most glaring plothole there is the whole lack of action from Anderson.

jimr9999us wrote...

Here's mine: Shepard's reincarnation was based on Reaper tech: he is a Reaper. Given the opportunity to command or destroy the Reapers, Shepard's choice is based on his paragon rating. High paragon: Shepard is able to resist the Reaper influence and destroys them. High renegade and Shepard unites with the Illusive Man to destroy the universe, with an alternate ending of him and Miranda having a child that undos Shepard's wrongs.

The obvious glaring flaw in this is the random punishment of Renegade players. It wouldn't be good storytelling to do that without prior basis and at random, especially on Renegade players as it's Paragon that constantly makes the stupid decisions that can backfire horribly.

iakus wrote...

Okay, assuming this is genuine, here's a more detailed explanation:

The Crucible doesn't do any of the nonsense things it does in the current endings.  What it does is "level the playing field"  The Reapers' kinetic barriers go down.  They move more sluggishly, they become vulnerable to our weapons.  FO rthe time being, they can be "defeated conventionally"

Victory and defeat become dependant on EMS.  How long this effect lasts depends on how well built the Crucible is.  How much  damage the fleets can inflict depends on the War Assets you can bring to bear.  A well made Crucible and a huge fleet can devastate teh Reapers.  A poorly made one with a small fleet can't take advantage of the opening provided.  And so on.

There would be a myriad of possible outcomes, ranging from a comparatively easy victory to a tragic last stand for the galaxy.  Not just Low Medium, and High EMS wins, but certain combinations which would determine if certain individuals or groups would live or die.  Dozens of possible outcomes based on which Assets you have at your disposal, choices made in the trilogy,  Including decisions made during the attack on Earth.  There would be endings (plural  where Shepard lived (clearly lived), endings where Shepard died,  Endings where Shep is reunited with the Normandy, and those where Shep is the only survivor.  Liara could die.  James could die.  EDI could die.  Joker could die.  Ashley could die.  Garrus could die.  Or they could all live.

"Oh no we have no shields. Good thing we can group together, FTL away and indoctrinate and deploy constant hit-and-run tactics until we either win or fix the fault."

There you go. Sure, maybe it's opinion whether or not these are worse, but those plot holes are pretty objective. People hate on the original endings, someone (can't remember if it was this thread) even went to the extent of calling them "objectively bad", but I'm still yet to see a viable alternative. They pretty much all boil down to "Reaper off button, happy ever after" and the ones that don't, like above, are so plot hole ridden they can't be considered viable.

[Chashan]

KaiserShep wrote...

And that's really the thing. Fitting the narrative is generally what matters the most. If people get an ending that is senseless and anticlimactic, they'll just go ahead and express their desire for their ideal ending, many of which will just be fairytale grade. But what people desire for the protagonist can be overridden by an ending that properly follows through with how the story played out up until that point. Look at the big episode in season 3 of Game of Thrones. Lots of fans definitely did not want that to happen, but it not only fits completely with the story because of how it follows through with an event in the past, but it also made the story immensely more exciting for the right reasons. The end of The Walking Dead game may not be what people were hoping for, but it was a satisfying conclusion because it made sense, while hitting the right notes emotionally.

Another example I recently had the pleasure of playing - reload-sessions on suicide-mission-difficulty aside, although I got through them eventually - would be Spec Ops: The Line, which manages to gradually turn the protagonist from 'hero' to 'monster' as the game progresses. About the only 'heroic' moment I've had playing it was rescuing a couple civvies who said their 'thanks' and were gone.

Best of all, it manages ambiguity far better as it leaves the protagonist's sanity and perception, and thus the perception of players, in question: was it all fever-induced near-death illusion? Exactly who are the 'bad guys' at the end of the day?

Does Captain Walker 'wake up' or does he 'survive'?

Brilliant.

I have, I've been here for over a year and I've seen lots of criticism,
but it generally boils down to calling things that aren't plot holes,
plot holes, or ****ing about Bioware because the ending made them feel
sad. Have you ever actually seen anyone discuss the parts of the ending
they hate? Or do you just see ****ing about it and a point blank refusal
to change their faulty preconceived notions? Unlike you though, someone
below you has responded and I'll respond in kind.

My my, I nearly forgot how pleasant this corner could be...

For one, pin-pointing the one common key-problem is fairly easy: the Catalyst, its setting and the execution thereof. Simply removing it quite seamlessly gets rid of the most glaring problems - which, personally, includes the difficulty of taking an ancient AI in charge of eons-old kill-bots that has an inexplicable need to dress up as a kid seriously.
'Sacrifice of choice' is a consequence of that, you say? Why insist a story needs to have that for the mere sake of 'choice'? Why not let the choices accumulated throughout the series play out themselves? Is adding an 'If I were god'-scenario really that necessary when Shepards already were peacemakers or conquerors, heroes or villains in the third game alone?

As for alternate endings, there's a good number of those out there. Some better thought out than others, true, yet I am sad to say that the vanilla end, and the EC's insistence on keeping the Catalyst in there, isn't exactly stellar writing either, as what it comes down to is paving the road to 'playing god' in several flavours. You think that is perfectly 'logical' and 'innovative storytelling'? Your call, certainly not that of everyone.

[FlamingBoy]

I don't think I could have placed my point next to robosexuals better

[Iakus]

Robosexual wrote...

adayaday wrote...

There is an active thread for alternative ending,whether they are better is a matter of opinion.
IMO some of them are better even though they lack polish.

You know what? I'll actually show my point through this. I'll grab the first 3 alternative ending ideas (skipping over the "Reapers win no matter what ones"):

Steelcan wrote...

without doing a total re-write,

Shepard and Anderson get through the beam, no blast by Harby. There they start to open up the arms. No weird occurrences, just piles of bodies and the control panel.

The arms won't open, and TIM walks up behind them, with much less subdued implants, and tells them that he has taken over the Citadel's systems and enabled it to interface with the Crucible and Control the Reapers.

Then both Anderson and TIM make their cases for their ending. You can investigate and try and sway opinions. However if you pick Destroy TIM will try to stop you and you can shoot him. he takes the shot and crumples to the floor, there is a renegade interrupt to execute him.

If you choose to Control the Reapers Anderson tries to stop you but he can be talked down.

Why do they do that? They have to reason and let Shepard choose? What's stopping Anderson from destroying the Reapers himself? Plus, what's the motivation for the Reapers? The most glaring plothole there is the whole lack of action from Anderson.

jimr9999us wrote...

Here's mine: Shepard's reincarnation was based on Reaper tech: he is a Reaper. Given the opportunity to command or destroy the Reapers, Shepard's choice is based on his paragon rating. High paragon: Shepard is able to resist the Reaper influence and destroys them. High renegade and Shepard unites with the Illusive Man to destroy the universe, with an alternate ending of him and Miranda having a child that undos Shepard's wrongs.

The obvious glaring flaw in this is the random punishment of Renegade players. It wouldn't be good storytelling to do that without prior basis and at random, especially on Renegade players as it's Paragon that constantly makes the stupid decisions that can backfire horribly.

iakus wrote...

Okay, assuming this is genuine, here's a more detailed explanation:

The Crucible doesn't do any of the nonsense things it does in the current endings.  What it does is "level the playing field"  The Reapers' kinetic barriers go down.  They move more sluggishly, they become vulnerable to our weapons.  FO rthe time being, they can be "defeated conventionally"

Victory and defeat become dependant on EMS.  How long this effect lasts depends on how well built the Crucible is.  How much  damage the fleets can inflict depends on the War Assets you can bring to bear.  A well made Crucible and a huge fleet can devastate teh Reapers.  A poorly made one with a small fleet can't take advantage of the opening provided.  And so on.

There would be a myriad of possible outcomes, ranging from a comparatively easy victory to a tragic last stand for the galaxy.  Not just Low Medium, and High EMS wins, but certain combinations which would determine if certain individuals or groups would live or die.  Dozens of possible outcomes based on which Assets you have at your disposal, choices made in the trilogy,  Including decisions made during the attack on Earth.  There would be endings (plural  where Shepard lived (clearly lived), endings where Shepard died,  Endings where Shep is reunited with the Normandy, and those where Shep is the only survivor.  Liara could die.  James could die.  EDI could die.  Joker could die.  Ashley could die.  Garrus could die.  Or they could all live.

"Oh no we have no shields. Good thing we can group together, FTL away and indoctrinate and deploy constant hit-and-run tactics until we either win or fix the fault."

There you go. Sure, maybe it's opinion whether or not these are worse, but those plot holes are pretty objective. People hate on the original endings, someone (can't remember if it was this thread) even went to the extent of calling them "objectively bad", but I'm still yet to see a viable alternative. They pretty much all boil down to "Reaper off button, happy ever after" and the ones that don't, like above, are so plot hole ridden they can't be considered viable.

Thank you for proving my point, your game is rigged so no one but you can win it.

[adayaday]

Robosexual wrote...

but I'm still yet to see a viable alternative.

And you just proved Iakus point.

iakus wrote...

Now there's a rigged game if ever I saw one.

No
matter what alternative anyone would put forth, you'll absolutely
savage.  You're determined to put down anyone who doesn't like the
endings, as the very language you use to describe them proves.

[Clayless]

Chashan wrote...

My my, I nearly forgot how pleasant this corner could be...

For one, pin-pointing the one common key-problem is fairly easy: the Catalyst, its setting and the execution thereof. Simply removing it quite seamlessly gets rid of the most glaring problems - which, personally, includes the difficulty of taking an ancient AI in charge of eons-old kill-bots that has an inexplicable need to dress up as a kid seriously.

But it wouldn't. In fact it would create a slew of problems and narrative holes, such as what's the motivation for the Reapers? Who created them? Removing that Catalyst wouldn't fix anything, it would just leave a whole bunch of unanswered questions, it's not seemless in the slightest. Simply saying it would be, without addressing the flaws or explaining how, doesn't actually make it so. Be specific too, don't just be vague.

'Sacrifice of choice' is a consequence of that, you say? Why insist a story needs to have that for the mere sake of 'choice'? Why not let the choices accumulated throughout the series play out themselves? Is adding an 'If I were god'-scenario really that necessary when Shepards already were peacemakers or conquerors, heroes or villains in the third game alone?

Because the series is about choice. A series, an RPG, about choices, built around choices, advertised a being about morally grey, difficult choices, should present you with choice. And what choices accumulated? In what way? Again, be specific, don't just be vague.

As for alternate endings, there's a good number of those out there. Some better thought out than others, true, yet I am sad to say that the vanilla end, and the EC's insistence on keeping the Catalyst in there, isn't exactly stellar writing either, as what it comes down to is paving the road to 'playing god' in several flavours. You think that is perfectly 'logical' and 'innovative storytelling'? Your call, certainly not that of everyone.

Another vague, non-answer. Present me an alternative ending, don't just criticise without substance or point. Your entire post is "They're bad and would be better without the Catalyst". How? What would make them better? I want you to tell me that, to present a better ending, to actually explain your point with a bit more depth than vague statements with nothing to back it up, but something tells me you wont.

[dreamgazer]

adayaday wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

but I'm still yet to see a viable alternative.

And you just proved Iakus point.

iakus wrote...

Now there's a rigged game if ever I saw one.

No
matter what alternative anyone would put forth, you'll absolutely
savage.  You're determined to put down anyone who doesn't like the
endings, as the very language you use to describe them proves.

Should the poster not challenge alternate ideas with the same scrutiny as the game's critics? 

I think the issue brought up about iakus' ending concept is pretty fair, actually.

[Clayless]

iakus wrote...

Thank you for proving my point, your game is rigged so no one but you can win it.

Do you understand what the word "viable" means? It doesn't mean "Say anything and if it has glaring plot holes complain at the guy that points it out and pretend said flaws don't exist".

Modifié par Robosexual, 27 août 2013 - 03:21 .

[adayaday]

You realy expect people to give you a plot hole free,satisfying,choice based, and fitting the narrative in in 5-10 lines?

[adayaday]

dreamgazer wrote...

Should the poster not challenge alternate ideas with the same scrutiny as the game's critics? 

I think the issue brought up about iakus' ending concept is pretty fair, actually.

Didn't say that,but keep in mind that most of those posts lack polish.
cramming an hour or two worth of story telling in 5-10 lines will leave you with plot holes and logic gaps,so imo those post should be judged as some sort of an early concept rather complete piece.

Modifié par adayaday, 27 août 2013 - 03:33 .

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

adayaday wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

but I'm still yet to see a viable alternative.

And you just proved Iakus point.

iakus wrote...

Now there's a rigged game if ever I saw one.

No
matter what alternative anyone would put forth, you'll absolutely
savage.  You're determined to put down anyone who doesn't like the
endings, as the very language you use to describe them proves.

Should the poster not challenge alternate ideas with the same scrutiny as the game's critics? 

I think the issue brought up about iakus' ending concept is pretty fair, actually.

Pointing out areas where a basic idea needs polish is one ting

"Your ending is bad and you should feel bad because it's not Bioware's ending" is someting else.

[Clayless]

adayaday wrote...

You realy expect people to give you a plot hole free,satisfying,choice based, and fitting the narrative in in 5-10 lines?

5-10 lines? There's no limit like that. Plus you make it sound as though people haven't had 17 months to think about this, especially as a lot of the complainers at least appear to make themselves look like they're critical thinkers (how much time do you hear things like "thematic" or "narrative incosistencies" being tossed around?) so it's not exactly a big ask to ask them to present a viable alternative to the thing they've been criticising for almost 2 years.

[Kel Riever]

Borderlands 2 is pretty fun. Yes its shallow. I find these days that watching someone throw deep and completely missing is a lot less fun than a successful quick pass.

ME3 ending.....saving me lots of money!

Played Multiplayer last night on ME3 though. So interesting how that still turned out better....

[Clayless]

iakus wrote...

Pointing out areas where a basic idea needs polish is one ting

"Your ending is bad and you should feel bad because it's not Bioware's ending" is someting else.

You could probably start by addressing my criticisms, as looking at that post I'm not even sure if we're reading the same thread.

[Remix-General Aetius]

Bioware told the OP they invented electricity. hmmhmmhmmhmmm Gabbenator will believe anything.

[Iakus]

Robosexual wrote...

iakus wrote...

Pointing out areas where a basic idea needs polish is one ting

"Your ending is bad and you should feel bad because it's not Bioware's ending" is someting else.

You could probably start by addressing my criticisms, as looking at that post I'm not even sure if we're reading the same thread.

Why?  I already told you I'm not playing your game.  It's rigged from the start.  There is nothing I can say that you won't tear apart.  No amount of polish would be good enough for you.  No alternative won't be riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes.  If it's not a Bioware ending, it simply won't be good enough.