1814 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Which is what he said, they wanted a happy ending , the result (he later adds), this happy ending, is the breath scene where Shepard lives (Preston was the person he asked to).

How and why that came.to.be the case is beyond me

[crimzontearz]

Thank you Alan


I have another post in which he actually apologizes for the EMS issue even tho it was not his department....he is my fav dev.

[AlanC9]

dreamgazer wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Of course, APPARENTLY both Casey and Preston pushed for an optional non sacrificial ending....but that only resulted in the breath scene, why is beyond me comprehension

Just a reminder: even if one private inbox is to be admitted as a reliable source, you're trying to support this claim.

Even if you want to presume he's faking it, he was good enough to fake that exchange, he'd be good enough to do a proper screenshot. 

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that they're both talking about the breath clip but don't know it. (Does NG+ give you more WA points? Never tried it). It does make you wonder what that internal debate was about.

[crimzontearz]

He could not know it because, he explained later, devs were not allowed to import at work. So for all he knew the endings he got were for crappy straight non import/non NG+ runs of the game

[Iakus]

Mangalores wrote...

Just a note: Bioware made the story. It's their job to make people understand stuff like killing the protagonist. Plenty of movies and books do it just fine and they do not need to be very deep , the issue is about explaining _why_ the hero has to die aka create a situation and character connection that makes it sensible that 95% + of all people are crying but know that's what Shepard has to do.  I just watched Elysium, the movie is just made so the entire ending act boils down to explaining why the hero needs to die and that he is okay with it and would be mad at you if you as the audience would try to prevent it This is not a spoiler because the entire story is built to be a tragic hero story. If it didn't happen, that'd be not following through.

Structurally (without even talking about the ending itself) Shepard died _after_ Shepard died! The scene with Anderson and the big panorama sight as they had accomplished their mission was that scene! Anderson dead, Shepard bleeding out, cut to an Epilogue or a last thought of Shepard as he reminiscened all the friends and allies that will live in peace so he has accomplished his destiny would be just that scene.

The problem is they added a retconn after that.


What does Hollywood do when it reverts a supposed death scenes within minutes? They make the hero live. To me that is the stupid misunderstanding that people will say that were sad the hero died which says nothing about how much emotion they felt that he did. If any medium manages to make you feel any emotion because of the story then that's good. But Hollywood usually subverts that inpopcorn flicks because they think it's bad.

Problem is, BW subverts the subversion which is just stupid. They essentially structurally told everyone "No, no, no! Everything will be fine because it doesn't end here!" and then they kill Shepard again. I'd dare say 15 minutes before a lot of people would have been fine with Shepard dieing, 15 minutes after they have structurally subverted that very end goal so people were mad that Shepard needs to still die after he already cheated death by story standards.

And add all the other problems of those 15 minutes and you get "why people do not understand why Shepard needs to die" since that would have been at least a happy outcome that justifies those 15 minutes and is what structurally should happen based on common story norms: An author reverts a sad ending to turn it into a happy ending or vice versa but turning a sad ending into a sadder ending is not doing anything but frustrate the audience.

THe problem also is the question of agency.

For five years they've filled our heads with how all these choices are shaping the story, how there is no canon Shepard, how we are guiding the stroy.  

And tehn to ahve our Shepard, whom we've spent all this time shaping ending up as a charcoal briquette in all but one endings (and still looking pretty charred in that last one anyway) pretty much defeated the point of player agency.  If Shepard "has to die" then why give us agency?  

Why were they so surprised that people objected to the mass slaughter of the characters we spent so much time creating, customising, and making individually our own?

Shepard has to die in some outcomes?  Sure.  Go for it.  Dragon Age: Origins did it well.  But it's also important to make distinct endings where Shepard lives.  A tacked-on five second breath scene is more easter egg than distinct ending.  

Again, look at Dragon Age: Origins.  The endings where the Warden lives and dies are highly distinct from each other.

[Iakus]

crimzontearz wrote...

He could not know it because, he explained later, devs were not allowed to import at work. So for all he knew the endings he got were for crappy straight non import/non NG+ runs of the game

I can totally see how he'd get that assumption.

[crimzontearz]

Yeah well....I wish I could play halo 4 or deus ex HR to cheer me up LOL

[BaladasDemnevanni]

crimzontearz wrote...

GRRRR

http://imageshack.us...0305222626.jpg/

There

Well, that settles that, I suppose.

[crimzontearz]

Must be the 12th time I have posted that....

[rapscallioness]

crimzontearz wrote...

Which is what he said, they wanted a happy ending , the result (he later adds), this happy ending, is the breath scene where Shepard lives (Preston was the person he asked to).

How and why that came.to.be the case is beyond me

Okay, but if Casey and Preston were pushing for a happier ending, who were they pushing against? Somehow I don;t see EA being like "No! We want grim dark! Kill it all!"

[rapscallioness]

iakus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

He could not know it because, he explained later, devs were not allowed to import at work. So for all he knew the endings he got were for crappy straight non import/non NG+ runs of the game

I can totally see how he'd get that assumption.

Why were they not allowed to import? If they had, maybe somebody woulda caught the whole problem w/Shep face import.

[crimzontearz]

Mac Walters maybe? He is the one defending his Shepard's mandatory death no?

And yeah, they were not allowed

[rapscallioness]

@Mangalores, Lol! Yes, Shep did indeed die after Shep died. I was in fact fine w/Shep dying there. I felt my work here was done. A few quick cutscenes and that's a wrap.

Then Hackett calls out, "Nothing's happening." I yelled "Goddammit!' at my TV. Why won't they let me die already?

Everything after that felt like a near death experience.

Tbh, I fully expected Shep to die no matter what. So, for me, that was never the problem.

[rapscallioness]

crimzontearz wrote...

Mac Walters maybe? He is the one defending his Shepard's mandatory death no?

And yeah, they were not allowed

But did Mac have that kinda power? Over Casey and Preston? 

Yes, he is defending Shep's mandatory death. And whereas I don;t have a problem w/Shep's death--although I understand others that do and woulda liked the Option--I do have a problem with the screwy way it was executed.

[crimzontearz]

Honestly? No idea....

[AlanC9]

Maybe Mac just won the argument."There you go! Shepard lives in the breath clip. We're done here."

[Xamufam]

Mac said his favorite ending is the secret ending in jade empire, he wrote it
The article is on this thread

[o Ventus]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Hey 2012 brought us some great games too you know?

Mass Effect 3
Ninja Gaiden 3
Diablo 3
Resident Evil 6

Those were my most anticipated games for 2012. I was NOT a happy camper.

To be totally fair, Diablo 3 is actually a decent game, barring the mandatory online requirement and real-money auction house.

[o Ventus]

[quote]Karlone123 wrote...

I know new teams come with new ideas, but I did not like how they shoehorned the the whole thing between the Geth and Quarians in ME2 and made it the the main storyline within the last 10 minutes of the game.[/quote]

wait wat
[/quote]

[crimzontearz]

Maybe Mac just won the argument."There you go! Shepard lives in the breath clip. We're done here."

Makes you wonder if the crappy delivery is then for its own sake or if it is a final attempt to push his will (remember in the final hours images on his notepad he wrote "but why did he have to die?" ...sounds like he might not have wanted the breath scene at all)

The final "**** you" is to have his people then add insult to injury and claim "it is all up to interpretation, that could be his last breath" which explains the comicon troll incident and why Tully just stopped advocating his survival altogether


I am not sure whether I'd laugh of be angry if this was true

[CaIIisto]

Mac won the argument when he layed down the 'art' smackdown card. Who wants a videogamey end to a videogame? Madness.

[Mangalores]

iakus wrote...
...
THe problem also is the question of agency.

For five years they've filled our heads with how all these choices are shaping the story, how there is no canon Shepard, how we are guiding the stroy.  

And tehn to ahve our Shepard, whom we've spent all this time shaping ending up as a charcoal briquette in all but one endings (and still looking pretty charred in that last one anyway) pretty much defeated the point of player agency.  If Shepard "has to die" then why give us agency?  

Why were they so surprised that people objected to the mass slaughter of the characters we spent so much time creating, customising, and making individually our own?

Shepard has to die in some outcomes?  Sure.  Go for it.  Dragon Age: Origins did it well.  But it's also important to make distinct endings where Shepard lives.  A tacked-on five second breath scene is more easter egg than distinct ending.  

Again, look at Dragon Age: Origins.  The endings where the Warden lives and dies are highly distinct from each other.

I actually disagree with that. Neither ME1 or ME2 had distinct endings because "game over" doesn't really count as an ending. At the end there was always just one thing to do. The same with ME3.

Maybe their PR implied the agency to accomplish whatever but imo the stories were always fixed. The agency problem is not Shepard dieing but the lack of any variation on how he meets his end and the lack of convincing narration to tell people the game is up and Shepard is at the end of the rope.

I get that the sequence from the gauntlet up to the control room was meant to tell you that, but you get little to no input from e.g. your squadmates to give an emotinal connection and the starchild scene again subverts all the build up from before. It's a reset. They could have spent over 40 hours before to convince people that the Reaper fight can only be won through sacrifice, that Starchild scene is a reset button implying all that emotional build up is meaningless.
Again, usually you structure a story this way so the hero thinks he has failed to add this classical deus ex machina to turn the story around by unexpected intervention.

So yeah, maybe they did advertise wrongly, I still don't think that the lack of survival is a problem if you do it right.


I for one was perfectly okay with Shepard dieing. He was built up to this messianic figure and this is supposedly a desperate fight so yeah, I expected him to die no matter what. I just think that the way this was done was pretty badly done.


ME2 + ME3  remind me very much of Matrix 2 + Matrix 3, pretentious drivel that is actually only superficial action schlock and ends in a cluster****.

[Iakus]

Mangalores wrote...


I actually disagree with that. Neither ME1 or ME2 had distinct endings because "game over" doesn't really count as an ending. At the end there was always just one thing to do. The same with ME3.

 And this was justified as all Shepards needing to be in pretty much the same point for the next game.  With ME3, there would be no sewuel, so they could go nuts with the divergence.  It was delayed gratification which never came, aat least as far as Shepard goes.

Maybe their PR implied the agency to accomplish whatever but imo the stories were always fixed. The agency problem is not Shepard dieing but the lack of any variation on how he meets his end and the lack of convincing narration to tell people the game is up and Shepard is at the end of the rope.

there was no "implied" about it.  It was outright stated multiple times.

I get that the sequence from the gauntlet up to the control room was meant to tell you that, but you get little to no input from e.g. your squadmates to give an emotinal connection and the starchild scene again subverts all the build up from before. It's a reset. They could have spent over 40 hours before to convince people that the Reaper fight can only be won through sacrifice, that Starchild scene is a reset button implying all that emotional build up is meaningless.
Again, usually you structure a story this way so the hero thinks he has failed to add this classical deus ex machina to turn the story around by unexpected intervention.

So yeah, maybe they did advertise wrongly, I still don't think that the lack of survival is a problem if you do it right.

Lack of survival is a serious problem when you spend five years and three games showing SHepard as the quintiselltial survivor, who can get out of any situaton with enough brains, preparation, a silver tongue, or enough bullets.  All of Shepard's backgrounds show him/her escaping at least one near-death scenerio before the games even begin.

I for one was perfectly okay with Shepard dieing. He was built up to this messianic figure and this is supposedly a desperate fight so yeah, I expected him to die no matter what. I just think that the way this was done was pretty badly done.

See, there it is.  You are okay with it.  Others are not.  And Shepard wasn't a "messianic" figure any more than John McClanefrom Die Hard was before Mac took the reins

ME2 + ME3  remind me very much of Matrix 2 + Matrix 3, pretentious drivel that is actually only superficial action schlock and ends in a cluster****.

On this I am 100% in agreement.

[rapscallioness]

was a ME4 planned originally? you know, cuz they've got star wars now. sp BW version of star wars. maybe they really did want to ditch the ME IP and focus on the other sci-fi verse. maybe that's the reason behind the original rocks fall/no turning back? they didn't want 2 sci fi brands?

[rapscallioness]

and as much as I'm actually looking fwd to seeing what they do w/ a BW style SP Star Wars, I was hoping for something from a diff. genre entirely for a new IP.

Is Star Wars the new IP? Or, is it in addition to a third entry from BW? I'm a lil confused right now abt who's doing what.