488 réponses à ce sujet

[GimmeDaGun]

iakus wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Well, I don't know. As I wrote in my post before this one, I'm not that emotionally invested. I love the story and it's epicness, scale and mood, but I could never relate to Shepard, since he or she is not an actual character. It is more like story telling device: via it we can experience the universe and the story. Shepard is not like Geralt of Rivia or Garrett from thief or Connor from AC3. They are all characters with soul, motivations, weaknesses, strengths etc.. I can relate to them in a way, but I could never relate to Shepard. And since I can't relate to the main protagonist, I can't relate to its "bonds" with the other characters. And since those othe characters all get their closure in a way, it's all happy days to me. 


To me ME is more of a story-universe-lore-action game, than a game I enjoy for the characters. I know it sounds crazy since the game is stuffed with characters and most fans love the game for them. I don't. There are a few characters I enjoy (Wrex, Mordin and Javik for example), but ME's characters are not my favorite game characters. 

Who and what Shepard is is supposed to come from you.  You decide the motive.  You determine the strengths and weaknessses.  It's up to you to give Shepard a soul.  That's what role-playing games are all about.  And that's why people become invested:  they put pieces of themselves in the character, and it becomes a part of themselves.  Laugh if you want, but this is something Bioware actively encouraged:  "These are your Shepards"  Up until the end, they were encouraging people to be participants in the storytelling process.

Then they shoved us aside and determined how the tale ends. 

I can understand that. As for me, I'm not too big on role-playing when it comes to games. I like games with a c&c system and morality, but I prefer pre-defined, well written characters over those which you yourself have to define. It works to those who love rpgs or table top rpgs, but to me who is more of a book and film loving kind of person it does not work that well. 

I always missed the soul and character from Shepard. I miss the actual character.

Maybe that's why I could never relate to Shepard (even if I played 4 permutations of the avatar) and maybe that's why I enjoyed the game for what it has to offer as a sci-fi epic rather than a character oriented, emotionaly story. Maybe that's why I could enjoy the game's ending.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

5 years I waited.... 5 years...... for a story to end with a gasp of air. WTF?

[shepskisaac]

iakus wrote...

Can we trim these quote pyramids please?

That was my first thought seeing this the previous page lol

Modifié par IsaacShep, 01 septembre 2013 - 12:55 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

iakus wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Well, I don't know. As I wrote in my post before this one, I'm not that emotionally invested. I love the story and it's epicness, scale and mood, but I could never relate to Shepard, since he or she is not an actual character. It is more like story telling device: via it we can experience the universe and the story. Shepard is not like Geralt of Rivia or Garrett from thief or Connor from AC3. They are all characters with soul, motivations, weaknesses, strengths etc.. I can relate to them in a way, but I could never relate to Shepard. And since I can't relate to the main protagonist, I can't relate to its "bonds" with the other characters. And since those othe characters all get their closure in a way, it's all happy days to me. 


To me ME is more of a story-universe-lore-action game, than a game I enjoy for the characters. I know it sounds crazy since the game is stuffed with characters and most fans love the game for them. I don't. There are a few characters I enjoy (Wrex, Mordin and Javik for example), but ME's characters are not my favorite game characters. 

Who and what Shepard is is supposed to come from you.  You decide the motive.  You determine the strengths and weaknessses.  It's up to you to give Shepard a soul.  That's what role-playing games are all about.  And that's why people become invested:  they put pieces of themselves in the character, and it becomes a part of themselves.  Laugh if you want, but this is something Bioware actively encouraged:  "These are your Shepards"  Up until the end, they were encouraging people to be participants in the storytelling process.

Then they shoved us aside and determined how the tale ends. 

I can understand that. As for me, I'm not too big on role-playing when it comes to games. I like games with a c&c system and morality, but I prefer pre-defined, well written characters over those which you yourself have to define. It works to those who love rpgs or table top rpgs, but to me who is more of a book and film loving kind of person it does not work that well. 

I always missed the soul and character from Shepard. I miss the actual character.

Maybe that's why I could never relate to Shepard (even if I played 4 permutations of the avatar) and maybe that's why I enjoyed the game for what it has to offer as a sci-fi epic rather than a character oriented, emotionaly story. Maybe that's why I could enjoy the game's ending.

I'm with iakus. I prefer being able to define Shepard as opposed to having him be pre-defined and 'well-written'. I prefer blank-slate characters in video games, and being able to make them what I want them to be. 

[GimmeDaGun]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm with iakus. I prefer being able to define Shepard as opposed to having him be pre-defined and 'well-written'. I prefer blank-slate characters in video games, and being able to make them what I want them to be. 

Different preferences and tastes. It's not a contest about who's right or who's wrong. I never enjoyed blank-slate characters, but it does not mean I can't enjoy a game which has a blank-slate character. Best and most obvious example for this is ME.

The best example to what I prefer is The Witcher games: Absolutely killer lore and setting. A great and pre-defined character with charisma, soul etc., yet you can still role play the game. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 01 septembre 2013 - 01:03 .

[Iakus]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

I can understand that. As for me, I'm not too big on role-playing when it comes to games. I like games with a c&c system and morality, but I prefer pre-defined, well written characters over those which you yourself have to define. It works to those who love rpgs or table top rpgs, but to me who is more of a book and film loving kind of person it does not work that well. 

I always missed the soul and character from Shepard. I miss the actual character.

Maybe that's why I could never relate to Shepard (even if I played 4 permutations of the avatar) and maybe that's why I enjoyed the game for what it has to offer as a sci-fi epic rather than a character oriented, emotionaly story. Maybe that's why I could enjoy the game's ending.

And being able to define my own character is why I've been a Bioware customer fro over a decade.

The Bhaalspawn in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were my characters, different form anyone else's even if we had the same adventures.

Revan in KOTOR was my Revan (and is different from the one later canonized)

The Spirit Monk in Jade Empire was my Spirit Monk who had his own outlook on destiny and finding his place in the world.

The Wardenin Dragon Age: Origins was my Warden, and each of my Wardens was different from each other.  And each met a different fate

Even Hawke in DA2 was my Hawke,  Who had his own motivations (even if it was rather difficult to play out from time to time.

And until ME3, Shepard was my Shepard.  Despite the autodialogue and often railroaded plot. It was "good enough" that I could still enjoy it.  Untiil th every end, when Bioware decided that tragedy was the only ending that was "artistic" enough.

[Iakus]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm with iakus. I prefer being able to define Shepard as opposed to having him be pre-defined and 'well-written'. I prefer blank-slate characters in video games, and being able to make them what I want them to be. 

Different preferences and tastes. It's not a contest about who's right or who's wrong. I never enjoyed blank-slate characters, but it does not mean I can't enjoy a game which has a blank-slate character. Best and most obvious example for this is ME.

The best example to what I prefer is The Witcher games: Absolutely killer lore and setting. A great and pre-defined character with charisma, soul etc., yet you can still role play the game. 

And there's a reason I only played the first game.  And only completed the game once.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...
well obviously it does not work for some, me for instance

why not add the ****ing scene given the chance?

In the EC? I gave my pet theory upthread -- Bio didn't think that there was anything seriously wrong with the scene because all the EMS chatter drowned other complaints out.

There are a few other theories kicking around. In descending order of probability:

Pure cheapness: the current system has mostly common elements between all three endings. There's only one different animation.

Non-favoritism: as above, but different motivation.

Respect for IT: self-explanatory.

Entitled Whiners Must Die! Bio thinks you guys are more trouble as fans than you're worth. They've fired you.

Anyone have another guess?

[AlanC9]

Maybe it's a Murder on the Orient Express thing. Everyone at Bio hated doing a reunion scene for one reason or another, so they all killed it.

[David7204]

The reason why is very simple.

Having a reunion scene makes it too clear that Destroy is the 'right' option.

Countless players have demanded 'ambiguity' and shilled it as mature and realistic. This is exactly what it looks like. All three choices have to presented in more-or-less the same light, or it's just not ambiguous.

Thus, Destroy gets no reunion scene. Thus, Synthesis is portrayed as a utopia. Everything must be equal.

And despite the people that will doubtlessly whine and shriek otherwise, this is exactly what players asked for, and continue to ask for. This is exactly what 'ambiguity' looks like.

Clear enough?

Modifié par David7204, 01 septembre 2013 - 06:48 .

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

Without something similar to that, I'm just going to hope it's a bigger story they wish to tell elsewhere. This idea of Shepard's story actually being finished is already hard enough to swallow. That they finish it on this note is even stranger. Out of all the type of "farewell"/last note/goodbye/Swan Song/what have you options they could do, they did THIS? No, I have to believe there's more. I honestly believe they're more talented and competent than this. It's just a clever ruse to make us think it's the end.

Whoa..... you going IT on us, soldier?

[Xplode441]

Personally the only thing that bothered me about the ME3 ending was the lack of closure for, well pretty much everything you did. EC fixed a lot of that for me, seeing little Krogan babbies in the one playthrough I cured the genophage in and the Quarians and junk was pretty good. I've come to terms with it though through my own headcanon. Destroy ending where the Geth survived by having backup storage outside the galaxy. EDI is dead as **** though. Won't go far into it as it's probably boring.

[Renmiri1]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Personal investment should not affect the interpretation of a scene, particularly a cutscene, which is very similar to a scene in more passive media.

And you pulled that rule from the same place Casey pullet the starbrat ?

You don't get to make the rules for how people receive a work of art, all the author can do is produce the work. You who are not even the author have even less control.

And less understanding too it seems.. Even the writers at bioware weren't dense enough to finaly realize why a movie that ends in total disaster can be fun but the same scene on a videogame does not work.

Perhaps listen more and brown nose less ? 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:45 .

[Eterna]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm with iakus. I prefer being able to define Shepard as opposed to having him be pre-defined and 'well-written'. I prefer blank-slate characters in video games, and being able to make them what I want them to be. 

Different preferences and tastes. It's not a contest about who's right or who's wrong. I never enjoyed blank-slate characters, but it does not mean I can't enjoy a game which has a blank-slate character. Best and most obvious example for this is ME.

The best example to what I prefer is The Witcher games: Absolutely killer lore and setting. A great and pre-defined character with charisma, soul etc., yet you can still role play the game. 

The thing about a pre defined character is that there is the chance you'll end up hating that character and thus the game.

I hate Geralt, so much so that I could only get through a few hours of the game before never touching it again. The next Withcer game could be the greatest RPG game ever and I still wouldn't touch it, simply because the portagonist does not appeal to me.  

Modifié par Eterna5, 01 septembre 2013 - 09:13 .

[Eterna]

StreetMagic wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The thing about a pre defined character is that there is the chance you'll end up hating that character and thus the game.

I hate Geralt, so much so that I could only get through a few hours of the game before never touching it again. The next Withcer game could be the greatest RPG game ever and I still wouldn't touch it, simply because the portagonist does not appeal to me.  

Totally off topic, but I'd probably play your Female Dwarf in that avatar over Geralt. Good looking character. I'm curious what armor she's wearing.

Grey Warden Heavy Armor.

 
And thanks!

Modifié par Eterna5, 01 septembre 2013 - 09:28 .

[Renmiri1]

IsaacShep wrote...

No. The only people who didn't "get it" are:
a) the one who don't get even the most banal, archaic Hollywood symbolism and they didn't get "Joker & EDI = Adam & Eve!" symbolism either

What does that even mean ?

Adam and Eve ??? Between a steel / metal alloy machine and a handicapped man with brittle bone in a place without any medical facilities ? 

Seriously sick and disturbing ****. A handicaped man whose bones break at the lightest activities on a ship and on a industrial society is not exactly your "Adam" material. Just a night with EDI and he might have all his bones broken. Perhaps Stephany Meyer - of Twilight - can be hired to write the wedding night. For Joker it will be even more bruising than what poor Bella had to endure with her vampire.

Move over sparkly! Joker and EDI's first night is way creepier than yours!



But let's pretend there was more space magic and Joker survives the mating night... (UGH)

Are we supposed to believe organics can reproduce with synthethics after 10 minutes telling us how syntethics always kill organics and vice versa ???  

But of course since you are on the camp that says "the ending makes sense" then explain to me why / how Joker and EDI can do what Sheppard and the Reapers can not...  

IsaacShep wrote...
people who know eaxctly what this scene is but pretend they don't to add to the list of "Bioware you failed atb yet another thing in execution of ending, clearly you must make completly new one, 100% happy this time thehe" 

Again let's pretend you are right. Shepard breathes coming back to life... Inside Earth's atmosphere ? At 10,000 feet without a helmet ? 

Can you breath at 10,000 feet ? I can not, when I'm on a plane the plane cabin is pressurized with air. Where does the air that Shepard pulls into his lungs come from ?

If Shepard is breathing Earth's air then the citadel is falling, not in orbit. It is too massive to be in orbit that low.

Ah but the Citadel must have anti gravity engines or it's own air supply right ?

And is it kept functioning during the battle ? For how long ? How serious are Shepard's wounds ?

Because the breath scene is done AFTER the memorial scene. So either the memorial cerimony is done mere minutes after the battle and shortly later a rescue team finds a breathing Shepard or Shepard's odds of drawing a second breath are roughly zero.

Citadel is visibly broken, in disarray, unlike everything else in the memorial scene and the scenes just before it. People on the memorial scene have showered, changed uniform and got their wounds dressed. And there is no sense of hurry, so no one thinks Shepard - or anyone - in the Citadel is in need of medical attention or air. We see large areas repaired.


A shower and a shave but no help for Shepard

So where the hell is Shepard ? Why isn't the area wehre he is repaired and crawling with technicians and med teams ? How long does he have air for ? Does he even have air ? At the right pressure ? A wounded person can not survive for long above 10,000 feet and how did the fleet miss a large structure at this height floating over Earth ?

Maybe the IT guys are right and Shepard is on Earth and survived the fall.. while gravely wounded and abandoned for days ?
 
And then a lead writer from Bioware adds that that was Shepard's dying breath.. Which every Biobot says "he was just trolling' but no one from Bioware EVER said yay or nay.

You can pretend you made sense of this butt I know you are full of ****. Because it does not make sense. Unless it was all a dream.. But we all know IT was a desperate attempt from deluded fans to make sense of the impossible..

Unless - like you say - it is just symbolism and as such, doesn't need to make sense. Which 
a) Is a pisspoor example of symbolism with glaring execution flaws
Is a pisspoor way to end a trilogy that never used such wildly unreal symblism before.

What is next ? Squidward doing interpretative dance to show how Shepard and Repaers are best buddies and all the galaxy lives miserably ever after ? 

 
Mass Effect 4 wows loyal Bioware fans who loved ME3's ending with more artistic symbolism for ending 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 septembre 2013 - 09:52 .

[Mcfly616]

Renmiri1 wrote...


Adam and Eve ??? Between a steel / metal alloy machine and a handicapped man with brittle bone in a place without any medical facilities ? 

Seriously sick and disturbing ****. A handicaped man whose bones break at the lightest activities on a ship and on a industrial society is not exactly your "Adam" material. Just a night with EDI and he might have all his bones broken. Perhaps Stephany Meyer - of Twilight - can be hired to write the wedding night. For Joker it will be even more bruising than what poor Bella had to endure with her vampire.

But let's pretend there was more space magic and Joker survives the mating night... (UGH)

Are we supposed to believe organics can reproduce with synthethics after 10 minutes telling us how syntethics always kill organics and vice versa ???  

But of course since you are on the camp that says "the ending makes sense" then explain to me why / how Joker and EDI can do what Sheppard and the Reapers can not...  

You can pretend you made sense of this butt I know you are full of ****. Beecause it does not make sense. Unless - like you say - it is just symbolism and as such, doesn't need to make sense. Which 
a) Is a pisspoor example of symbolism with glaring execution flaws
Is a pisspoor way to end a trilogy that never used such wildly unreal symblism before.

yes, Adam and Eve as in a new "beginning". Synthesis makes it possible.

No symbolism? I guess you missed Project Lazarus in ME2. Straight from the bible.

[Renmiri1]

I don't think my Bible has robots in it

Yours might.

But then I read mine and played ME2 strictly sober, and don't really dig interpretative dancing or trypping 

Mcfly616 wrote... Synthesis makes it possible

Ah yes, what would Artistic Integrity be without Space Magic ? 

:wizard: :wizard:

Doesn't this smilie  have Squidward's nose ? 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 septembre 2013 - 09:53 .

[Mcfly616]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think my Bible has robots in it

Yours might.

But then I read mine and played ME2 strictly sober, and don't really dig interpretative dancing

you're right. It doesn't have robots. Hence the term "symbolism". Don't be that dense.

I don't think the Bible had people fighting a war in the real world as well as the computer world. Yet, the Matrix made Neo into cyber Jesus. Greek mythology didn't have a huge space station orbiting the Earth, but Elysium still uses symbolism to convey the "Elysium Fields"


By the way, "Space Magic" is inevitably involved within every work of science fiction. Whether it be a book, a show, a movie or a game. If you have any interest in the genre, you should probably get used to it.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 01 septembre 2013 - 09:57 .

[KaiserShep]

Project Lazarus from the Bible? Man, the third day resurrection must've been expensive. Wait....does that mean the creator is Miranda? I'm willing to become religious for that.

[Mcfly616]

KaiserShep wrote...

Project Lazarus from the Bible? Man, the third day resurrection must've been expensive. Wait....does that mean the creator is Miranda? I'm willing to become religious for that.

You're aware we're talking about symbolism.....right?

Lazarus is from the Bible. He is the only person (besides Jesus) that is resurrected, in the entire Bible. ME2 has Shepard being resurrected by "Project Lazarus".