692 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

For those advocating the right to demand: what do you see as the difference between "ask for a change" and "demand a change"? No difference besides demand being a bit more forceful/resolute? I think those arguing against see some sort of legal distinction there, or perhaps corporate or moral.

DLC that you have to pay for.  Though I never demand, just requested aditional content.  Personally I get the idea that some of those who didn't want any changes, additons or extras felt that their choices would be of less value if it had happened.  More choices are allway better imo, and with a DLC if they didn't want it, didn't have to get it.

[Gkonone]

voteDC wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

voteDC wrote...

I genuinely don't understand why some think it wrong that some demanded a 'better' ending.

If I've paid money for a product and I'm not happy with it, then I am sure as hell going to demand a better a one.

Would you do it with book with ending you don't like? Or movie?

You can try to get money back for them, but demanding their change is simply too much.

Yes. I've been one of those pushing for a rewrite of Mass Effect: Deception.

Also its not as if books don't get 'changed'. Sherlock Holmes is the most famous example. He was killed off but massive public demand brought the character back to life.

Public demand changed the story

As to movies I must have been incredibly lucky because at the moment I genuinely can't think of one that I disliked the ending in. I shall have to have a ponder on it. I've seen movies with terrible endings of course but those happened to be in overall terrible films.

But I ask again, why is demanding a change too much. As long as you put your issues across in a polite manner, what's the issue.

Contrived is as bad as a pseudo intellectual and artistic ending. A contrived ending would have made sense though, what they came up with didn't.Billions did die, planets were ravaged, and all for nothing really, those war assets did nothing. And it did hit, and important characters were killed off, Anderson, Mordin (probably, depending on your choices).

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

c091n87 wrote...
How many choices did you expect to have? Ten? Twenty? I don't want to sound like a broken record, but all those choices you made in ME1+ME2 affected how the game as a whole played out. And you did see that. Don't say you didn't, because you did. May not have happened right in the last 5 minutes, but it did happen. The last 5 minutes is where you deal with the Reapers. The leaked script even states "Shepard must make one final decision to deal with the Reapers: Control, Destroy, or if you had a perfect game, become one with the Reapers (synthesis)". 
Saving the Council doesn't affect that, but you saw how that choice impacted during the course of the game.The entire game is one big ending where you get to see all your choices pan out from ME1+ME2. 

I don't think the Council really changes anything, the new council essentially just adds a snide remark about letting the old council die and one is now a girl, then they behave exactly the same as the old council. The Collector base decision is even worse, I think the only way to have it matter is to meta-game to obtain a super low EMS.
ME2 for all of it's trilogy problems has these two choices make a bigger impact, in my opinion.

I expected to have a choice that made sense considering what I did in the previous games. And the choices I made in the previous games did influence the rest of the game, it did not influence the last 10 minutes though. You do not introduce a new character at the end of a story that effectively negates almost everything that happened before. And that's the main problem.

[mopotter]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Gkonone wrote...

Why is a 'Disney' ending superficial really? Is a happy ending not intellectual enough or not artistic enough?

Shepard worked hard for 3 games to save the universe and he/she gets a star child out of nowhere that says 'no, you have 3 choices, despite whatever you did, and that's all you're going to get'.
Shepard earned him or herself a Disney ending, or at least one that made sense.

Honestly, knowing Anderson died is a hard hitting emotional image for me.  The MEHEM is perfect and maybe Bioware needs to hire the mod creator.  Frankly, you can tell from the MEHEM that Shep is all broken up over what happened.  She's not smiling.  She's damned upset, a wreck and ready to ball her eyes out (behind the scenes of course).  Bioware let someone else do the work for them and thanks to him, those of us who love our Sheps get an ending that's emotionally heart wrenching but our Sheps get to live on and help rebuild.

Yep,  I agree,

Anderson, I always got the books, because well their books.  And it said with the right ems I could "save" Anderson and Sheaprd would live.  Right. I guess I should have realized quotes mean HA not really, you can save him and watch him die later.   Without the MEHEM my Shepard was a charred body that people try to tell me is a good survival ending. Nope, to me it's a charred body.  While I might miss the other endings, The MEHEM is worth it or me.

[mopotter]

dreamgazer wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Gkonone wrote...

Why is a 'Disney' ending superficial really? Is a happy ending not intellectual enough or not artistic enough?

Shepard worked hard for 3 games to save the universe and he/she gets a star child out of nowhere that says 'no, you have 3 choices, despite whatever you did, and that's all you're going to get'.
Shepard earned him or herself a Disney ending, or at least one that made sense.

Honestly, knowing Anderson died is a hard hitting emotional image for me.  The MEHEM is perfect and maybe Bioware needs to hire the mod creator.  Frankly, you can tell from the MEHEM that Shep is all broken up over what happened.  She's not smiling.  She's damned upset, a wreck and ready to ball her eyes out (behind the scenes of course).  Bioware let someone else do the work for them and thanks to him, those of us who love our Sheps get an ending that's emotionally heart wrenching but our Sheps get to live on and help rebuild.

You're aware that MEHEM wouldn't exist without the Extended Cut that BioWare spent the time, money, and development resources poured into its creation, right?  I'd think twice about stating the bolded. 

Sure, and they could have added just a bit more, so we (I) didn't need the MEHEM but they didn't.  So I tend to agree, they let someone else satisfy their disappointed  fans, maybe so they wouldn't have to.

[Gkonone]

dreamgazer wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Gkonone wrote...

Why is a 'Disney' ending superficial really? Is a happy ending not intellectual enough or not artistic enough?

Shepard worked hard for 3 games to save the universe and he/she gets a star child out of nowhere that says 'no, you have 3 choices, despite whatever you did, and that's all you're going to get'.
Shepard earned him or herself a Disney ending, or at least one that made sense.

Honestly, knowing Anderson died is a hard hitting emotional image for me.  The MEHEM is perfect and maybe Bioware needs to hire the mod creator.  Frankly, you can tell from the MEHEM that Shep is all broken up over what happened.  She's not smiling.  She's damned upset, a wreck and ready to ball her eyes out (behind the scenes of course).  Bioware let someone else do the work for them and thanks to him, those of us who love our Sheps get an ending that's emotionally heart wrenching but our Sheps get to live on and help rebuild.

You're aware that MEHEM wouldn't exist without the Extended Cut that BioWare spent the time, money, and development resources poured into its creation, right?  I'd think twice about stating the bolded. 

His post is about the fact that Bioware screwed up with the ending, that people wanted some kind of closure perhaps, it's not about the actual making of the ending. The Mehem mod did what BW didn't and perhaps should have done considering how popular that mod is, or at least give that option.
I would assume that's what he meant.

Modifié par Gkonone, 18 janvier 2014 - 01:42 .

[mopotter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

It should. Or else what's the point of offering chocies?

Seriously? You think the only point of choice is choosing how happy or sad your playthrough is?

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

 I had Shepards who would have failed, I had Shepards who would have died, I had a Shepard who picked Synthesis, Eventually I would have even picked a controle, but my Shepard should have had a realistic survival (not the body) and a chance to survive with Edi and geth if past choices went in that direction.    

A major reason I loved the game so much was all the possibilites.  Half the time I think the people working on ME3 just got tired of it.  Didn't care any more and wanted to get it over with. And often I wish they had just made 3 separate games, didn't carry over Shepard.  It would have made the ending far less painful.

[Iakus]

mopotter wrote...

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

 I had Shepards who would have failed, I had Shepards who would have died, I had a Shepard who picked Synthesis, Eventually I would have even picked a controle, but my Shepard should have had a realistic survival (not the body) and a chance to survive with Edi and geth if past choices went in that direction.    

A major reason I loved the game so much was all the possibilites.  Half the time I think the people working on ME3 just got tired of it.  Didn't care any more and wanted to get it over with. And often I wish they had just made 3 separate games, didn't carry over Shepard.  It would have made the ending far less painful.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
People don't like ME1's Citadel run?

Weird. Personally, I thought it was the best part of the game: what with the race against time, the use of off-screen reinforcements and delaying tactics always fit the Chase theme I felt the game was going for. Unlike the Suicide Mission, which was overhyped and under-delivered, the Citadel Run made no pretensions and so was even more tense. (If that makes any sense.)

Plus, running towards and under Sovereign at that scale did more than anything in any other game to emphasize the disparity between our soldier and the Reapers.

Missed this until mopotter quoted it. I don't think people are complaining about the last ME1 mission; I'm not really complaining about it myself. But if long grinding missions with no choices and few special events are bad, then this mission was bad.

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
People don't like ME1's Citadel run?

Weird. Personally, I thought it was the best part of the game: what with the race against time, the use of off-screen reinforcements and delaying tactics always fit the Chase theme I felt the game was going for. Unlike the Suicide Mission, which was overhyped and under-delivered, the Citadel Run made no pretensions and so was even more tense. (If that makes any sense.)

Plus, running towards and under Sovereign at that scale did more than anything in any other game to emphasize the disparity between our soldier and the Reapers.

Missed this until mopotter quoted it. I don't think people are complaining about the last ME1 mission; I'm not really complaining about it myself. But if long grinding missions with no choices and few special events are bad, then this mission was bad.

OK  I will freely admit that after playing ME2 and 3 parts of  ME1 is occasionally a bit of a chore, though I do like the last run, with my sniper rifle.  

But I LOVE the story so much and even after all these years, because I do still play it, when I see Shepard come through the wreckage I get a thrill and hear trumpets, every time.  

[AlanC9]

mopotter wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Seriously? You think the only point of choice is choosing how happy or sad your playthrough is? 

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

Nobody's arguing against more choices or more variability, all other things being equal.

And often I wish they had just made 3 separate games, didn't carry over Shepard.  It would have made the ending far less painful.

I wouldn't call the ending painful, myself. But so what if it was? RPGs are about experiences we can't have in our normal lives. Not about having experiences we'd want to have, necessarily.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2014 - 02:32 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Seriously? You think the only point of choice is choosing how happy or sad your playthrough is? 

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

Nobody's arguing against more choices or more variability, all other things being equal.

Odd, because it sounds exactly like  what some people are arguing against.

I wouldn't call the ending painful, myself. But so what if it was? RPGs are about experiences we can't have in our normal lives. Not about having experiences we'd want to have, necessarily.

Umm, personally, I don't like the idea of paying money for experiences I don't want to have and could otherwise avoid.

[TrevorMag]

I believe I have solved the issue. My solution is thus:
Instead of whining that none of the four endings suit "my" Shepard, I playthrough as a Shepard for which one of the endings IS suitable.

My Shepard is a paragon, pro-human sociopath.

In ME1 he romanced Ashley, because they shared common views. Ashley survived Virmire, but Wrex did not. My Shepard killed the Rachni Queen, and allowed the Council to die during Sovreign's attack on the Citadel.

In ME2 Shepard destroyed Maelon's data and the Collector Base, and chose Samara over Morinth. He gained everyone's loyalty, and ensured they all survived the suicide mission.
He remained faithful to Ashley, although enjoying some mild flirtation with Kelly Chambers.

In ME3, he sabotaged the Genophage, and managed to keep Mordin alive (and on good terms). On Rannoch he supported the Geth upgrades, giving some inane explanation to cover the real reason - that Quarians reminded him of Jews.
Afterwards, he had a brief, frantic affair with the ****ty reporter, because watching Tali go over the cliff had made him so goddam hard.

When confronted by the Starchild, it was a no-brainer. Destroying the Reapers left him alive, with hope of a future reunion with Ashley. The galaxy was free from Reapers, Rachni, Geth and Quarians, and the Krogan were still under Genophage control.

It was about as perfect an ending as he could have hoped for.

[Optimus J]

It's 2014, and Mass Effect 3 still sucking, and it will keep sucking FOREVER.
Rannoch and Tuchanka will be as always the only acceptable parts of the game, and the writing will be in infamy as long as it's brought to discussion.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Seriously? You think the only point of choice is choosing how happy or sad your playthrough is? 

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

Nobody's arguing against more choices or more variability, all other things being equal.

Odd, because it sounds exactly like  what some people are arguing against.

If you think that includes me and CronoDragoon, I think you're using the wrong definition of "all other things being equal." One of my other things is the balance and compromised nature of the choices; as long as you're adding endings that are no better than what we have, I'm all for it. For instance, detonating the Citadel Relay with the Crucible would be a fine addition. Most Reapers, 95% of the human race, Shepard, and all the ME2 squadmates die, followed by a conventional victory. We can split the difference on relays -- primaries still work since they're point-to-point, but without the network's coordination secondaries fail since they can't find the other relay anymore

Though honestly, I should have opposed mopotter's premise in that post, since there is an ending where Shepard survives with the LI and some of the team.

I wouldn't call the ending painful, myself. But so what if it was? RPGs are about experiences we can't have in our normal lives. Not about having experiences we'd want to have, necessarily.

Umm, personally, I don't like the idea of paying money for experiences I don't want to have and could otherwise avoid.

Unpleasant for the PC isn't necessarily unpleasant for the player, is it?

But this is just a taste thing. You and mopotter have tender sensibilities, while CronoDragoon and I don't. (Feel free to recast that distinction in whatever terms you care to.) Our tastes, and thus our interests, really are different.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2014 - 07:48 .

[JamesFaith]

mopotter wrote...

Yes.  I've never been to a movie where I can pick the stars lines.

I was.

It is fringe part of movie industry and most of modern ones are balancing on edge of videogames, but they are here since 1967. I even know one TV series where people were deciding fate of main hero by switching on lights and deviation in power take-off decided about next choice in series.

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Seriously? You think the only point of choice is choosing how happy or sad your playthrough is? 

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

Nobody's arguing against more choices or more variability, all other things being equal.

And often I wish they had just made 3 separate games, didn't carry over Shepard.  It would have made the ending far less painful.

I wouldn't call the ending painful, myself. But so what if it was? RPGs are about experiences we can't have in our normal lives. Not about having experiences we'd want to have, necessarily.

If they hadn't done this  - ok here's a charred body that blinked, you decide is it alive or dead - I can use my imagination to pretend Shepard's suite has some kind of miracle gel that will keep infection and dead cells alive, but I don't think I should have to, and I excepted more from them.  My bigest problem is I always expect BioWare to be above and beyond other developers.

Experiences we haven't had,  No way in ____ do I ever want to experience being burned in 100% of my body.  I worked for a while in a burn unit when I was younger and thought nursing would be something I would want to do, which it wasn't, though I did like writing the reports up.

RPG's are fun fantasy.   There are a couple of single player shooter type games I play (borerlands, FA)  but I just don't play games that are going to depress me every time I play.  I can do that on my own.  And again, I would not/do not care about  the other endings, had Shepards who would have picked them, if they had just given me a definate survival option with and without LI. 

Not that there aren't other things I would be complaining about, because no game will ever satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time, but those issues would not have caused me to put the game up.

I suppose  I should have not have had any expectations from them based on their past games? (except for shattered steel, MDK2 and sonic which I haven't played).  Well, that's been taken care of.  I no longer have those expectations.  

[mopotter]

JamesFaith wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Yes.  I've never been to a movie where I can pick the stars lines.

I was.

It is fringe part of movie industry and most of modern ones are balancing on edge of videogames, but they are here since 1967. I even know one TV series where people were deciding fate of main hero by switching on lights and deviation in power take-off decided about next choice in series.

1967?   HOW did I miss this!!!!  

[mopotter]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Seriously? You think the only point of choice is choosing how happy or sad your playthrough is? 

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

Nobody's arguing against more choices or more variability, all other things being equal.

Odd, because it sounds exactly like  what some people are arguing against.

I wouldn't call the ending painful, myself. But so what if it was? RPGs are about experiences we can't have in our normal lives. Not about having experiences we'd want to have, necessarily.

Umm, personally, I don't like the idea of paying money for experiences I don't want to have and could otherwise avoid.

Yeah, there are quite a few who seem to want choices limited to only depressing ones.    

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Seriously? You think the only point of choice is choosing how happy or sad your playthrough is? 

Again, I don't get it.  The more choices you have the more fun for replaying it.  Do people assume that if there was one ending where Shepard survived with the LI and some of the team, that would be the only ending anyone would choose?

Nobody's arguing against more choices or more variability, all other things being equal.

Odd, because it sounds exactly like  what some people are arguing against.

If you think that includes me and CronoDragoon, I think you're using the wrong definition of "all other things being equal." One of my other things is the balance and compromised nature of the choices; as long as you're adding endings that are no better than what we have, I'm all for it. For instance, detonating the Citadel Relay with the Crucible would be a fine addition. Most Reapers, 95% of the human race, Shepard, and all the ME2 squadmates die, followed by a conventional victory. We can split the difference on relays -- primaries still work since they're point-to-point, but without the network's coordination secondaries fail since they can't find the other relay anymore

Can't replay for Lakus, but I don't include you two in that group.  But they do exist, I try to ignore them, though sometimes I get sucked in.

Though honestly, I should have opposed mopotter's premise in that post, since there is an ending where Shepard survives with the LI and some of the team.

Charred Body.  Imagination, blaaaaaa

I wouldn't call the ending painful, myself. But so what if it was? RPGs are about experiences we can't have in our normal lives. Not about having experiences we'd want to have, necessarily.

Umm, personally, I don't like the idea of paying money for experiences I don't want to have and could otherwise avoid.

Unpleasant for the PC isn't necessarily unpleasant for the player, is it?

But this is just a taste thing. You and mopotter have tender sensibilities, while CronoDragoon and I don't. (Feel free to recast that distinction in whatever terms you care to.) Our tastes, and thus our interests, really are different.

Yes, I have tender sensibilities.  I will kill anyone who threatens my team, puppies, kittens or kids, but I want at least one ending where I am positive I've survived with my LI. <sigh> and bioware gave me that for at least the last 10 years.  And forking out $80 for a game, I really did expect the type of game they gave me in ME1 & 2.

Modifié par mopotter, 18 janvier 2014 - 01:11 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

If you think that includes me and CronoDragoon, I think you're using the wrong definition of "all other things being equal." One of my other things is the balance and compromised nature of the choices; as long as you're adding endings that are no better than what we have, I'm all for it. For instance, detonating the Citadel Relay with the Crucible would be a fine addition. Most Reapers, 95% of the human race, Shepard, and all the ME2 squadmates die, followed by a conventional victory. We can split the difference on relays -- primaries still work since they're point-to-point, but without the network's coordination secondaries fail since they can't find the other relay anymore

Though honestly, I should have opposed mopotter's premise in that post, since there is an ending where Shepard survives with the LI and some of the team.

By whose definition of "better" are we using?  My idea of what's better clearly isn't the same as yours.  And Mopotter undoubtably has different ideas than either of us what defines a "better" ending.

Besides which, isn't the whole point of this discussion is that a lot of us think the endings sucked and wanted better ones to begin with?

And to be perfectly accurate, unless you're including MEHEM (hehe) there are no endings where Shepard survives with the LI or any of the team.  There is one ending where Shepard is hinted to survive and they may find him/her at some unknown point in the future.  It will not be definitive unless whatever game comes next declares it so (and I think we all know it won't)

Unpleasant for the PC isn't necessarily unpleasant for the player, is it?

But this is just a taste thing. You and mopotter have tender sensibilities, while CronoDragoon and I don't. (Feel free to recast that distinction in whatever terms you care to.) Our tastes, and thus our interests, really are different.

So are we talking about physical or emotional experiences here?  ME, I didn't experience sympathetic burns that one time I experienced Biwoare's ending.  But I did feel like I had somehow done something wrong.
 
And I really don't see why Bioware couldn't have created endings to appeal to a wide variety of tastes.  It only makes sense if they really are trying to broaden their audience.  You could have your endings and we could have ours.  And neither would have the "better" ending.

Modifié par iakus, 18 janvier 2014 - 04:27 .

[Chashan]

iakus wrote...
And I really don't see why Bioware couldn't have created endings to appeal to a wide variety of tastes. It only makes sense if they really are trying to broaden their audience. You could have your endings and we could have ours. And neither would have the "better" ending.

 

Indeed.

It's not like the "golden ending" was barred in earlier BW-titles. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate the darker, grittier path in those. Or even favour it.

In fact, I give ME3 at least that much credit: its mishap of a finale motivated me to have a long look at BW's earlier titles again, "Dark Side"/"Closed Fist"/Renegade included. And I found to appreciate those greatly.

[Massa FX]

I can't be objective about ME3's endings. I Destroy the Reapers in my games. I accept the consequences of that decision. I understand that the dev team is done with Shepard. What else is there to do?

ME3 of 2012 is past history...I Let it go. The 4th game is coming which is what I focus on. ... And I play ME2 and ME1 for fun. I play ME3 to Citadel DLC for fun.

Modifié par Massa FX, 18 janvier 2014 - 04:48 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote..

By whose definition of "better" are we using?  My idea of what's better clearly isn't the same as yours.  And Mopotter undoubtably has different ideas than either of us what defines a "better" ending.

Naturally, I'm using my own definition. Which includes sometimes having my PC faced with the unfairness of the universe.

Besides which, isn't the whole point of this discussion is that a lot of us think the endings sucked and wanted better ones to begin with?

Of course. Giving you those better endings would make my experience worse. Except maybe in the case of high-EMS Destroy, since, your rhetoric aside,  that's an issue with presentation rather than content

So are we talking about physical or emotional experiences here?  ME, I didn't experience sympathetic burns that one time I experienced Biwoare's ending.  But I did feel like I had somehow done something wrong.

Primarily emotional. Physical isn't all that interesting in this medium.

And I really don't see why Bioware couldn't have created endings to appeal to a wide variety of tastes.  It only makes sense if they really are trying to broaden their audience.  You could have your endings and we could have ours.  And neither would have the "better" ending.

Nobody's saying Bio couldn't do that. I presume you mean "shouldn't."

And yeah, you don't understand. I'm not quite sure it's explainable.  I don't want us to all always get what we want from the choices. Or rather, I don't want this to be possible for me; what happens to you just isn't my problem.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2014 - 06:57 .

[Argetfalcon]

When I see the old script and imagine what could have been I get sad

[Clayless]

Nonesense OP. Bioware's statement was never used as a shield, the lies and slander the Retake movement perpetuated tried to make it that way though. The fault Bioware made there was trying to use logic to communicate to them.

That's as far as I got in the OP. Calling a thread an "objective look" with an opening like that would be like making a thread saying this isn't an IT thread, and immediately saying that IT is real.