1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seraph Cross wrote...

How about an "Earn your happy ending"

I do like those.

It's the best way to go.

[ruggly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Many people (fans of the old school especially)argue yes. And I can see the value in their point and in many ways I agree. Even if you're shoe horned down a particular path, and in a video game plot there ARE limits to the options available, that choice is still your choice, even if the consequences end up the same.

Consider another alternative to your example.... would it be preferable to stand in front of only a single door?

You probably already know this, but I think it's more that people are getting tired of games now always ending with a heroic sacrifice, no matter what.  It was mentioned above, but it's becoming as cliche as the happily ever after sort of ending.

At least for me, having my PC die no matter what kills the replayability of a game.  While that's not to say it can't be an option, I just don't think it should be the only outcome of the ending(s).  Heroic sacrifice lost it's meaning for me in the ME3 ending when Shepard is guaranteed to die with the exception of one ending.

Modifié par ruggly, 30 octobre 2013 - 12:57 .

[Iakus]

Seraph Cross wrote...

How about an "Earn your happy ending"

I am strongly in favor of that trope.

Of course  it does require that there be a hppy ending to earn in the first place.

Unfortunately, True Art is Angsty is the current fad

[HiroVoid]

'Earn your happy ending' is fine when it's actually difficult, but that's hard to do in a game series driven by story choices which require no effort to choose. Then, everyone just goes online to find the perfect ending.

[Xilizhra]

HiroVoid wrote...

'Earn your happy ending' is fine when it's actually difficult, but that's hard to do in a game series driven by story choices which require no effort to choose. Then, everyone just goes online to find the perfect ending.

Is that not simply their choice, then, if they don't want difficulty?

[HiroVoid]

Xilizhra wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

'Earn your happy ending' is fine when it's actually difficult, but that's hard to do in a game series driven by story choices which require no effort to choose. Then, everyone just goes online to find the perfect ending.

Is that not simply their choice, then, if they don't want difficulty?

I'm more referring to the whole 'Earn your happy ending' isn't really that big on earning when it's easy, but admittedly, I'm thinking of the Persona and Shin Megami games which can be absolutely brutal in game difficulty.

[Mr.House]

HiroVoid wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

'Earn your happy ending' is fine when it's actually difficult, but that's hard to do in a game series driven by story choices which require no effort to choose. Then, everyone just goes online to find the perfect ending.

Is that not simply their choice, then, if they don't want difficulty?

I'm more referring to the whole 'Earn your happy ending' isn't really that big on earning when it's easy, but admittedly, I'm thinking of the Persona and Shin Megami games which can be absolutely brutal in game difficulty.

Shadow Yukiko loves you.

[Allan Schumacher]

You probably already know this, but I think it's more that people are getting tired of games now always ending with a heroic sacrifice, no matter what. It was mentioned above, but it's becoming as cliche as the happily ever after sort of ending.

Well, that's something that is cliche and becomes uninteresting, and I think may be independent of simply "all choices still lead to the same conclusion." If we had 10 doors that all still lead to the same interesting conclusion, are people happier?

At least for me, having my PC die no matter what kills the replayability of a game. While that's not to say it can't be an option, I just don't think it should be the only outcome of the ending(s). Heroic sacrifice lost it's meaning for me in the ME3 ending when Shepard is guaranteed to die with the exception of one ending.

I can understand that. For myself (as we're all unique) it doesn't really play a factor. So in that sense, it's gamers like different things. Which is okay

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If I stand before ten doors, and all of them have tigers behind them, that may also be a choice, but is there a point to it?

Many people (fans of the old school especially) argue yes. And I can see the value in their point and in many ways I agree. Even if you're shoe horned down a particular path, and in a video game plot there ARE limits to the options available, that choice is still your choice, even if the consequences end up the same.

Consider another alternative to your example.... would it be preferable to stand in front of only a single door?

Personally, I would see little to no difference if there is one door or ten, and they all lead to the same place.  In particular, in a game that claims to give the player agency and choice.  I'd feel in this case that my choices and agency have been rendered irrelevant.  There are limits to what can be done as far as options go, sure.  but denying the player's survival is pretty much the most basic form of denying player agency.

This is actually what a lot of people reference to when they discuss why they love the older text style dialogues, and the specifics of the infamous Torment picture that happens all the time.

A lot of the issue people had with the ME3 original ending was that Shepard couldn't question the Catalyst. They felt like the agency over their character was stripped as a result. Even if things still end up the same, the idea of being allowed to express the view that you wanted is still important to defining your character.

I am not one of them.  I felkt my agency was stripped by being in that situation to begin with.  If there's a tiger behind the door, I am less interested in how the tiger got there so much as how to get away from it.

Now as I noted earlier, it is possible to have both agency and a pretty much inevitable death without causing a train wreck.  But such things are rare, to the point of being singular events.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You probably already know this, but I think it's more that people are getting tired of games now always ending with a heroic sacrifice, no matter what. It was mentioned above, but it's becoming as cliche as the happily ever after sort of ending.

Well, that's something that is cliche and becomes uninteresting, and I think may be independent of simply "all choices still lead to the same conclusion." If we had 10 doors that all still lead to the same interesting conclusion, are people happier?

Happier?  Probably.  But that would be as a result of myself finding that ending interesting.  To someone else, they'd be bored or upset, because all the endings led to the same outcome which they hated.  They'd argue (rightly) that their agency and chocies didn't matter.

At least for me, having my PC die no matter what kills the replayability of a game. While that's not to say it can't be an option, I just don't think it should be the only outcome of the ending(s). Heroic sacrifice lost it's meaning for me in the ME3 ending when Shepard is guaranteed to die with the exception of one ending.

I can understand that. For myself (as we're all unique) it doesn't really play a factor. So in that sense, it's gamers like different things. Which is okay

It is okay.  But when a range of chocies are offered in a game that offers player agency, does it not make sense that a range of outcomes should be expected.

WIthin reason, of course.  But the player character's survival is about as basic an outcome as it gets.

[Allan Schumacher]

Personally, I would see little to no difference if there is one door or ten, and they all lead to the same place. In particular, in a game that claims to give the player agency and choice. I'd feel in this case that my choices and agency have been rendered irrelevant.

Even if you liked where the door went?

Is it safe of me to assume that, in many cases, you'd prefer if BioWare's games just chose dialogue options for you then? (Especially the earlier games)

Effectively what you're saying is that Deus Ex (2000) is a game that really only grants you three choices in the entire game, because no matter what choices you make the conclusion is the same.

There are limits to what can be done as far as options go, sure. but denying the player's survival is pretty much the most basic form of denying player agency.

And here is where you and I as a gamer come to a bit of an impasse (as gamers).

I love choices to be difficult. I infinitely prefer a game to put me in positions to have to make a difficult choice where what I would ideally want to have happen simply isn't on the cards. It typically brings out an emotional response in me which is what I love so much. These to me come across as "character defining" types of moments for my playthrough, and is pretty much the type of escapism that I'm looking for in entertainment like this.

WALKING DEAD SPOILER---------------------------------

To me, The Walking Dead goes from one of my all time favourite game experiences to something forgettable if I learn that there's some way to avoid Lee's death.

SPOILER OVER----------------------

I am not one of them. I felkt my agency was stripped by being in that situation to begin with.

Here's the thing though, I could grant you dozens of different ways to attempt to do things, complete with hours upon hours of compelling gameplay that is unique to each choice. But for you, if the consequence is the same, it's meaningless. Especially since I am making an assumption that right up until you learn that death is inevitable you actually enjoy the level of choice you have been provided.

How do we reconcile our viewpoints?

Is what you are looking for truly agency (note: we do seem to be using different definitions, since mine focuses on choice while yours focuses on consequence), or simply pleasant conclusions? (Another note: there's nothing wrong with wanting pleasant conclusions, but I think if we provided a game that had dozens of uniquely different endings, but none were really "happy" that you'd prefer if we only had one ending that was happy.

[Dave of Canada]

Seraph Cross wrote...

How about an "Earn your happy ending"

Still prefer bittersweet sadistic choices myself.

iakus wrote...

If I stand before ten doors, and all of them have tigers behind them, that may also be a choice, but is there a point to it?

Yes. CRPGs of old did this and were well-recieved for creating immersive character "roleplaying" (using the term loosely to avoid an argument).

Hell, The Walking Dead recently did this with most of your choices always leading to the same thing but people still reacted to your decisions, you could justify why you did X instead of Y and interpretations of the opinions of characters varied significantly despite being mauled by a tiger all the time.

My playthrough of TWD was significantly different than everyone else despite everything happening the same in all of them.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2013 - 01:39 .

[Deverz]

Having played The Last of Us, which basically said "screw all that", I find that I don't need a sacrifice to get emotionally invested or find deeper meaning from games, or any story for that matter. On the flipside I was satisfied with one of my Warden's declining the Dark Ritual and sacrificing himself to kill the Archdemon. That said, I hope a forced protag-death to be only one of the endings.

Modifié par Deverz, 30 octobre 2013 - 01:43 .

[Xilizhra]

I love choices to be difficult. I infinitely prefer a game to put me in positions to have to make a difficult choice where what I would ideally want to have happen simply isn't on the cards. It typically brings out an emotional response in me which is what I love so much. These to me come across as "character defining" types of moments for my playthrough, and is pretty much the type of escapism that I'm looking for in entertainment like this.

This works... sometimes. But more often than not, it comes across as annoying in some way for me; definitely, if something appears to be an inevitably frustrating outcome and it's major enough, I'm not terribly inclined to play through it much.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

I would never choose death for my character. I don't mind if the choice is there, like in DAO, as long as I have the option not to take it. I wouldn't accept it as a requirement no matter how well-written they think it is, because the way I see it, a sacrifice is not well-written when it doesn't fit the character. When I've been playing a character who expressed at every opportunity that their plan is to survive, and depending on the playthrough, one who doesn't really care about the lives of others, then it won't make sense to force a character like that to sacrifice themselves to save the world.

Personally, I care more about the character I'm playing than the world. It doesn't matter much to me if the world is better off when the one person in that world I cared about most isn't alive to see it.

And as for the character having an "empty life" if they survive... well, that depends on what you would consider empty. The world not approving of their choice and thinking they're a terrible person for doing what they did? Most of the characters I play wouldn't care less. Some of them have already made plenty of choices that the world might hate them for, and they're not going to lose sleep over it. They'll survive, and their lives won't be empty.

I found a quote that pretty much sums up how I feel about it -
"The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning."

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...

I would never choose death for my character. I don't mind if the choice is there, like in DAO, as long as I have the option not to take it. I wouldn't accept it as a requirement no matter how well-written they think it is, because the way I see it, a sacrifice is not well-written when it doesn't fit the character. When I've been playing a character who expressed at every opportunity that their plan is to survive, and depending on the playthrough, one who doesn't really care about the lives of others, then it won't make sense to force a character like that to sacrifice themselves to save the world.

Personally, I care more about the character I'm playing than the world. It doesn't matter much to me if the world is better off when the one person in that world I cared about most isn't alive to see it.

And as for the character having an "empty life" if they survive... well, that depends on what you would consider empty. The world not approving of their choice and thinking they're a terrible person for doing what they did? Most of the characters I play wouldn't care less. Some of them have already made plenty of choices that the world might hate them for, and they're not going to lose sleep over it. They'll survive, and their lives won't be empty.

I found a quote that pretty much sums up how I feel about it -
"The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning."

I actually rather agree with this sentiment very much.

I'd like to have variations on outcomes and conclusions. Really, for something like, say, Mass Effect, there's really only a small handful of conclusions you can reach overall: Galaxy wins, Reapers win, Everybody dies, Everybody (including Reapers) live (which I personally believe was an option that was very inconsistent with the established narrative up to the ending, let alone executed in a very poor manner). But the variations of what can happen:

For example, I certainly want my Shepard to be pro-Cerberus. I want him to live, I want him to be with Miranda, and I want to sacrifice galactic stability (even if the Reapers are destroyed) for that. My Shepard would use the instability to bring his own order to the chaos, one that is fairly extreme in its methodology but ultimately benevolent in its conclusion. I don't want to see Hackett, or the Council, or the alliance, or whoever in charge. I'd like to see the galaxy put in a state that my Shepard can manipulate.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Even if you liked where the door went?

Is it safe of me to assume that, in many cases, you'd prefer if BioWare's games just chose dialogue options for you then? (Especially the earlier games)

Effectively what you're saying is that Deus Ex (2000) is a game that really only grants you three choices in the entire game, because no matter what choices you make the conclusion is the same.

If I liked where the door went, then sure, I'd probably enjoy that outcome.  But then, that would just be me.  And it certainly would not be enjoyed on the basis of "My choices made this happen"  In addition, others may not like where it goes, and they'd be out of luck.  

Deus Ex was an enjoyable game.  Mainly because it allowed you to build Denton's skills the way you liked, and encouraged "outside the box" thinking for achieving objectives.  But I do not recall it advertising that Dentons' decisions would shape the story.

There are limits to what can be done as far as options go, sure. but denying the player's survival is pretty much the most basic form of denying player agency.

And here is where you and I as a gamer come to a bit of an impasse (as gamers).

I love choices to be difficult. I infinitely prefer a game to put me in positions to have to make a difficult choice where what I would ideally want to have happen simply isn't on the cards. It typically brings out an emotional response in me which is what I love so much. These to me come across as "character defining" types of moments for my playthrough, and is pretty much the type of escapism that I'm looking for in entertainment like this.

WALKING DEAD SPOILER---------------------------------

To me, The Walking Dead goes from one of my all time favourite game experiences to something forgettable if I learn that there's some way to avoid Lee's death.

SPOILER OVER----------------------

I noted earlier in this thread where TWD was one of two games I have played that managed to handle both player choice and player death well (the other being Planescape: Torment)  But such achievements have proven to be the exception rather than the rule to me.  There is a fine liine between "difficult choice" and "impossible choice"   If there isn't a certain minimal outcome to achieve (in most cases, player survival) then I question why I am being given a chcoie in the first place.  The writers might as well script everything.

Here's the thing though, I could grant you dozens of different ways to attempt to do things, complete with hours upon hours of compelling gameplay that is unique to each choice. But for you, if the consequence is the same, it's meaningless. Especially since I am making an assumption that right up until you learn that death is inevitable you actually enjoy the level of choice you have been provided.

How do we reconcile our viewpoints?

Is what you are looking for truly agency (note: we do seem to be using different definitions, since mine focuses on choice while yours focuses on consequence), or simply pleasant conclusions? (Another note: there's nothing wrong with wanting pleasant conclusions, but I think if we provided a game that had dozens of uniquely different endings, but none were really "happy" that you'd prefer if we only had one ending that was happy.

From my perspective, giving a player a choice comes with the expectation that taking a different chocie would lead to a different consequence.  Maybe it's only a tiny change, A line or two of dialogue.  Maybe it's a big one, with the life of a major character in the balance.  But if the choice leads to no change whatsoever, then why was the choice there in the first place?  The illusion is broken.  Choice  It becomes an ornament, pretty, but without use.  

If i find out that death is inevitable, no matter what choices I made throughout the game, then yeah, it would (and it has in the past) made me upset.  It makes me feel I have been toyed with.  As noted, a truly exceptional story can overcome that.  But stories that accomplish that are rare to the point of being unique.

It's not that I need a "pleasant outcome" so much as I am a firm believer of "Earn Your Happy Ending" If a character goes through hell to accomplish an objective, I think there should be some sort of reward beyond "becoming a legend"  I believe that a game that touts iself as being "your story" should have multiple outcomes, both good and bad, reflecting that.  

Again, I understand that there are limits to how much divergence can happen.  But again, I believe that the survival of the protagonist is one of the most basic outcomes there can be.  I hold the endings to DAO as an example of how one can have the survival or the death of a character end up both being "good" outcomes.


And now we come to the end of my wall of text 

Modifié par iakus, 30 octobre 2013 - 02:11 .

[ruggly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You probably already know this, but I think it's more that people are getting tired of games now always ending with a heroic sacrifice, no matter what. It was mentioned above, but it's becoming as cliche as the happily ever after sort of ending.

Well, that's something that is cliche and becomes uninteresting, and I think may be independent of simply "all choices still lead to the same conclusion." If we had 10 doors that all still lead to the same interesting conclusion, are people happier?

At least for me, having my PC die no matter what kills the replayability of a game. While that's not to say it can't be an option, I just don't think it should be the only outcome of the ending(s). Heroic sacrifice lost it's meaning for me in the ME3 ending when Shepard is guaranteed to die with the exception of one ending.

I can understand that. For myself (as we're all unique) it doesn't really play a factor. So in that sense, it's gamers like different things. Which is okay

For the first part, it's not that there can't be multiple ways to reach the same end.  DA:O did just that, pretty much.  Whereas you look at ME3, sure you stop the Reaper threat, but two of those three ways end up with the PC dead and quite different futures for each way.  I mean, that is interesting, but I would haved like to have something like a high EMS synthesis ending where Shepard can reap the benefits of that choice, or face the conseqences or what have you.  Playing the heroic sacrifice works for some people, but in that case, it just did not work for me (but I'm glad it worked out for other players).  If there's 10 different doors, I would like to have 5 of those end up with the PC surviving.  Doesn't have to be rainbows and butterflies, but a relatively happy ending.

Second part, different strokes for different folks indeed. 

[The Sarendoctrinator]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I actually rather agree with this sentiment very much.

I'd like to have variations on outcomes and conclusions. Really, for something like, say, Mass Effect, there's really only a small handful of conclusions you can reach overall: Galaxy wins, Reapers win, Everybody dies, Everybody (including Reapers) live (which I personally believe was an option that was very inconsistent with the established narrative up to the ending, let alone executed in a very poor manner). But the variations of what can happen:

For example, I certainly want my Shepard to be pro-Cerberus. I want him to live, I want him to be with Miranda, and I want to sacrifice galactic stability (even if the Reapers are destroyed) for that. My Shepard would use the instability to bring his own order to the chaos, one that is fairly extreme in its methodology but ultimately benevolent in its conclusion. I don't want to see Hackett, or the Council, or the alliance, or whoever in charge. I'd like to see the galaxy put in a state that my Shepard can manipulate.

Yeah, ME3's ending had a lot of writing that didn't fit my Shepards (and contradicted a belief they actually had to express in the previous games too), but that deals with a lot of spoilers so I'll focus on the forced sacrifice. It just felt meaningless to me. When people talk about how they enjoyed the ultimate sacrifice option in DAO, it's usually because that choice fit their character's own personality and beliefs, and that gives it meaning. If the game tries to force that... then the whole thing appears to be made with a different character in mind, not the one I was playing, and a roleplaying game that's based on choice should allow options for different types of characters. Not everyone wants to die to save the world.

What I said about roleplaying would apply to Cerberus as well. I had Shepards who supported them in ME2 and expressed frustration with the Alliance/Council, so ME3 started in a place my Shepards wouldn't be in (and also went against the established personality). To give a comparison to the DA universe, it would be like my mage freedom fighters turning themselves in to the templars.

Modifié par The Sarendoctrinator, 30 octobre 2013 - 02:42 .

[Iakus]

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...
Yeah, ME3's ending had a lot of writing that didn't fit my Shepards (and contradicted a belief they actually had to express in the previous games too), but that deals with a lot of spoilers so I'll focus on the forced sacrifice. It just felt meaningless to me. When people talk about how they enjoyed the ultimate sacrifice option in DAO, it's usually because that choice fit their character's own personality and beliefs, and that gives it meaning. If the game tries to force that... then the whole thing appears to be made with a different character in mind, not the one I was playing, and a roleplaying game that's based on choice should allow options for different types of characters. Not everyone wants to die to save the world.

What I said about roleplaying would apply to Cerberus as well. I had Shepards who supported them in ME2 and expressed frustration with the Alliance/Council, so ME3 started to start in a place my Shepards wouldn't be in (and also went against the established personality). To give a comparison to the DA universe, it would be like my mage freedom fighters turning themselves in to the templars.

Bolded for emphasis:

That's th heart of it.  When the player gets to make their own character, choose thier own path, and essentially make their own story, a single outcome is not going to fit for all these players. or their stories.  Some, sure, but not all.  Such a forced outcome is far too constrictive.

[Deverz]

I don't understand why having the protagonist live at the end is seen as "too happy". Like the hero living is somehow seen as this inherently bad thing. Really, does every hard journey have to end with a protag-death and a noble sacrifice? All I'm saying is if you can't figure out a better ending than the hero sacrificing himself you need better imagination.

[cjones91]

Deverz wrote...

I don't understand why having the protagonist live at the end is seen as "too happy". Like the hero living is somehow seen as this inherently bad thing. Really, does every hard journey have to end with a protag-death and a noble sacrifice? All I'm saying is if you can't figure out a better ending than the hero sacrificing himself you need better imagination.

Because having the hero die in the most painful way possible is currently the fad now.The dark and edgy crowd will settle for nothing less than the protoganist losing everything and dying in a dark hole alone.

[rekn2]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...

I would never choose death for my character. I don't mind if the choice is there, like in DAO, as long as I have the option not to take it. I wouldn't accept it as a requirement no matter how well-written they think it is, because the way I see it, a sacrifice is not well-written when it doesn't fit the character. When I've been playing a character who expressed at every opportunity that their plan is to survive, and depending on the playthrough, one who doesn't really care about the lives of others, then it won't make sense to force a character like that to sacrifice themselves to save the world.

Personally, I care more about the character I'm playing than the world. It doesn't matter much to me if the world is better off when the one person in that world I cared about most isn't alive to see it.

And as for the character having an "empty life" if they survive... well, that depends on what you would consider empty. The world not approving of their choice and thinking they're a terrible person for doing what they did? Most of the characters I play wouldn't care less. Some of them have already made plenty of choices that the world might hate them for, and they're not going to lose sleep over it. They'll survive, and their lives won't be empty.

I found a quote that pretty much sums up how I feel about it -
"The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning."

I actually rather agree with this sentiment very much.

I'd like to have variations on outcomes and conclusions. Really, for something like, say, Mass Effect, there's really only a small handful of conclusions you can reach overall: Galaxy wins, Reapers win, Everybody dies, Everybody (including Reapers) live (which I personally believe was an option that was very inconsistent with the established narrative up to the ending, let alone executed in a very poor manner). But the variations of what can happen:

For example, I certainly want my Shepard to be pro-Cerberus. I want him to live, I want him to be with Miranda, and I want to sacrifice galactic stability (even if the Reapers are destroyed) for that. My Shepard would use the instability to bring his own order to the chaos, one that is fairly extreme in its methodology but ultimately benevolent in its conclusion. I don't want to see Hackett, or the Council, or the alliance, or whoever in charge. I'd like to see the galaxy put in a state that my Shepard can manipulate.

its not that i want to manipulate,...i just dont trust the idiots you mentioned. better i lead  than them.

[Mr.House]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...

I would never choose death for my character. I don't mind if the choice is there, like in DAO, as long as I have the option not to take it. I wouldn't accept it as a requirement no matter how well-written they think it is, because the way I see it, a sacrifice is not well-written when it doesn't fit the character. When I've been playing a character who expressed at every opportunity that their plan is to survive, and depending on the playthrough, one who doesn't really care about the lives of others, then it won't make sense to force a character like that to sacrifice themselves to save the world.

Personally, I care more about the character I'm playing than the world. It doesn't matter much to me if the world is better off when the one person in that world I cared about most isn't alive to see it.

And as for the character having an "empty life" if they survive... well, that depends on what you would consider empty. The world not approving of their choice and thinking they're a terrible person for doing what they did? Most of the characters I play wouldn't care less. Some of them have already made plenty of choices that the world might hate them for, and they're not going to lose sleep over it. They'll survive, and their lives won't be empty.

I found a quote that pretty much sums up how I feel about it -
"The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning."

I actually rather agree with this sentiment very much.

I'd like to have variations on outcomes and conclusions. Really, for something like, say, Mass Effect, there's really only a small handful of conclusions you can reach overall: Galaxy wins, Reapers win, Everybody dies, Everybody (including Reapers) live (which I personally believe was an option that was very inconsistent with the established narrative up to the ending, let alone executed in a very poor manner). But the variations of what can happen:

For example, I certainly want my Shepard to be pro-Cerberus. I want him to live, I want him to be with Miranda, and I want to sacrifice galactic stability (even if the Reapers are destroyed) for that. My Shepard would use the instability to bring his own order to the chaos, one that is fairly extreme in its methodology but ultimately benevolent in its conclusion. I don't want to see Hackett, or the Council, or the alliance, or whoever in charge. I'd like to see the galaxy put in a state that my Shepard can manipulate.

Man, I would love you guys to play a certain Atlus game.

Modifié par Mr.House, 30 octobre 2013 - 03:31 .