692 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I still can't believe he never edited the thread title.

[Clayless]

AlanC9 wrote...

I still can't believe he never edited the thread title.

I was expecting something better given the title. Or at least something remotely objective.

[durasteel]

I think the objective truth about the ME3 ending is best summed up in two statements. (1) Many people didn't like it. (2) It isn't going to change.

The first statement was received loud and clear by BioWare, who seem to have taken some lessons away from the experience. Whether they are the right lessons will be revealed in the next couple of game releases from BioWare.

The second statement is one which we (collectively) can't seem to come to grips with. It's over. The only way the story will change now is if some studio makes a movie, miniseries, or premium cable series out of it (which I'd watch, for the record.) Still, we can't seem to move past the topic in thread after thread.

Subjectively, after playing the first two games all the way through many, many times, I never completed a second play-through of the third game. For me, the whole experience of Priority: Earth was a huge disappointment leading up to a really abysmal ending. We can go around and around about the details of the ending and which bit caused the most eye-rolling, but what I remember is that by the time I got to red/blue/green, I really didn't care any more. I'd lost my immersion, I wasn't role playing, and I figured I was just picking among three nonsensical bridges between the annoying star kid and the rolling of the credits.

Take it for what it's worth.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

So you're fine with more options, as long as it's only more options that you like, not what other people might like?

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

I utterly fail to see how this is possible.  How does having options that some people want make your options less worthwhile? 

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

Then I think it's pretty clear that these endings were a bad emotional experience for a good number of people (we can quibble about exact numbers but it was certainly a larger number than Bioware anticipated)

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.

Probably "didn't" then.

And it's not about always getting what you want, it's about balance.  Reward vs cost. ME3's endings were grossly out of balance for me, for Mopotter, it seems, and for many others.

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...
I utterly fail to see how this is possible.  How does having options that some people want make your options less worthwhile? 

We've had this discussion many times, I'll try it again, even though you'll just slap your hands over your ears and say, "Nuh uh!  I can't hear you!"

A golden ending becomes the "right" ending by nature.  You can see it in Mass Effect 2.  Anything that doesn't end in everyone surviving is derided as a "Failshep" run.  Such a binary conclusion iinherently defeats the purpose of an ending in which there is (theoretically) no one "right" answer.

Any moral weighing or debate disappears in the presence of an obviously correct conclusion.  The two CANNOT exist simultaneously.  You can have a value discussion of the question "What is your favorite color?"  You CAN'T have a value discussion of the question "What is 1+1?" (Well, you can TRY, I suppose... but that's something that requires some heavy philosophical reading, some creative calculus, and probably several pints of Bailey's).

The moment Bioware decided they were going to attempt (and admittedly fail) a moral conundrum, your "happy" ending could no longer be valid.

If you don't like the entire conundrum, I wouldn't fault you... but that conundrum is what limits your variety, and justifiably so.

Modifié par chemiclord, 19 janvier 2014 - 12:33 .

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...
I utterly fail to see how this is possible.  How does having options that some people want make your options less worthwhile? 

We've had this discussion many times, I'll try it again, even though you'll just slap your hands over your ears and say, "Nuh uh!  I can't hear you!"

A golden ending becomes the "right" ending by nature.  You can see it in Mass Effect 2.  Anything that doesn't end in everyone surviving is derided as a "Failshep" run.  Such a binary conclusion iinherently defeats the purpose of an ending in which there is (theoretically) no one "right" answer.

Any moral weighing or debate disappears in the presence of an obviously correct conclusion.  The two CANNOT exist simultaneously.  You can have a value discussion of the question "What is your favorite color?"  You CAN'T have a value discussion of the question "What is 1+1?" (Well, you can TRY, I suppose... but that's something that requires some heavy philosophical reading, some creative calculus, and probably several pints of Bailey's).

The moment Bioware decided they were going to attempt (and admittedly fail) a moral conundrum, your "happy" ending could no longer be valid.

If you don't like the entire conundrum, I wouldn't fault you... but that conundrum is what limits your variety, and justifiably so.

And I will explain again, though without the insults:

I never said "golden ending" Never.  I said a "better" ending.  And we've already established that different people can have different definitions of "better".  Thus am questioning is the definition of an equivalent sacrifice.  Why is the price for Shepard's survival the extermination of the geth and EDI?  I assume Alan is aware that there are those who don't consider them alive, and so their loss isn't a sacrifice at all.  

What's the equivalent of that sacrifice that others could pay?

and fyo, There are people who pick and choose people to die in the Suicide Mission specifically because it made for a better story for them.  A Golden Ending isn't always as golden as you may think  

Tell me, which ending in Dragon Age: Origins is the "golden" ending?

Modifié par iakus, 19 janvier 2014 - 12:59 .

[Chashan]

chemiclord wrote...

A golden ending becomes the "right" ending by nature. You can see it in Mass Effect 2. Anything that doesn't end in everyone surviving is derided as a "Failshep" run. Such a binary conclusion iinherently defeats the purpose of an ending in which there is (theoretically) no one "right" answer.

By whose standard? And is "Failshep" truly commonly associated with all PCs that did not get the whole team through, or wouldn't it rather be reserved for those cases where someone deliberately gets the whole crew, and even Shepards themselves KIA?

Basically, you are drifting off into an exchange of subjective opinion there too, now. 

I mentioned on the last page that I even favour the "immoral" outcomes of older BW-titles over the fairly standard "good" ones. Which probably has a lot to do with the fact that those were a product of the game's plot at large and tied seamlessly into it. The question of whether Revan reclaims their identity or embraces their clean slate in KotOR. The relationship of master and disciple between Spirit Monk and the Strategist in JE, and whether the disciple rejects and overcome their master's philosophy or conquers him based on just that.

"Why wouldn't you simply go for (Renegade) Control, then" you ask?
Comparing those plots with the one of ME3 should show one thing: unlike JE and KotOR, no serious effort is made to exposit in a varied manner what the end-game is well in advance to it, despite the very device that is supposed to end the Reaper-invasion being constructed by the galaxy's own hands.
Dumping that responsibility on a "character" that was not established before in a meaningful way at the very end is just far too little, far too late.


If a "moral conundrum", as you put it, was BW's goal, then they had the entire game's length worth of time to craft such a thing in a convincing way. And the developers just plain failed to do that, as you yourself stated.

Modifié par Chashan, 19 janvier 2014 - 01:08 .

[Singu]

chemiclord wrote...

Any moral weighing or debate disappears in the presence of an obviously correct conclusion.  The two CANNOT exist simultaneously.  You can have a value discussion of the question "What is your favorite color?"  You CAN'T have a value discussion of the question "What is 1+1?" (Well, you can TRY, I suppose... but that's something that requires some heavy philosophical reading, some creative calculus, and probably several pints of Bailey's).

I think the lead writer of Bioware had several pints of Bailey's when he wrote the final chapter. Passing it off as 'moral conundrums' and claiming that anyone having issues with it and wanting more optimal results(after all their input over three game) is just wishing for "happy" endings is objectively speaking rubbish.

Modifié par Singu, 19 janvier 2014 - 01:16 .

[chemiclord]

Singu wrote...
I think the lead writer of Bioware had several pints of Bailey's when he wrote the final chapter. Passing it off as 'moral conundrums' and claiming that anyone having issues with it and wanting more variety is just wishing for "happy" endings is objectively speaking rubbish.

Oh, I think Mac was slamming back SOMETHING, but that's beside the point.  Because you're right on that score.  There's a LOT that went wrong, and no one thing would have fixed it.

But in iakus's case, that is EXACTLY what he is asking for.  He wants a happy ending; but with the way it is currently structured, there really can't be.

Modifié par chemiclord, 19 janvier 2014 - 01:19 .

[Singu]

chemiclord wrote...

Singu wrote...
I think the lead writer of Bioware had several pints of Bailey's when he wrote the final chapter. Passing it off as 'moral conundrums' and claiming that anyone having issues with it and wanting more variety is just wishing for "happy" endings is objectively speaking rubbish.

Oh, I think Mac was slamming back SOMETHING, but that's beside the point.  Because you're right on that score.  There's a LOT that went wrong, and no one thing would have fixed it.

But in iakus's case, that is EXACTLY what he is asking for.  He wants a happy ending; but with the way it is currently structured, there really can't be.

I don't know what iakus wants from his optimal ending. But it's not my place to label it as "happy" - just as much as it's not my place to try to make some sort of mutually exclusive setup for what Bioware might have considered moral conundrums and a boucet of four endings that where destined to feel like having witnessed a horrible accident from four different angles.

Modifié par Singu, 19 janvier 2014 - 01:27 .

[chemiclord]

Singu wrote...

I don't know what iakus wants from his optimal ending. But it's not my place to label it as "happy" - just as much as it's not my place to try to make some sort of mutually exclusive setup for what Bioware might have considered moral conundrums and a boucet of four endings that where destined to feel like having witnessed a horrible accident from four different angles.

Well, considering I was attempting to speak to him specifically, I'm not entirely certain what your complaint is.  I'm sure you have your own laundry list of what went wrong and how you would have done it differently, and I'm not trying to address them at all.

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...
Oh, I think Mac was slamming back SOMETHING, but that's beside the point.  Because you're right on that score.  There's a LOT that went wrong, and no one thing would have fixed it.

But in iakus's case, that is EXACTLY what he is asking for.  He wants a happy ending; but with the way it is currently structured, there really can't be.

Is it really?  Do you have any idea what my idea of a "happy ending" would be or could be?  Are you certain it would line up with your idea of one?  

And that'd the whole point.  I'm saying that we should have had more choice in what to sacrifice.  Because different players will value things differently. 

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

Is it really?  Do you have any idea what my idea of a "happy ending" would be or could be?  Are you certain it would line up with your idea of one?  

And that'd the whole point.  I'm saying that we should have had more choice in what to sacrifice.  Because different players will value things differently. 

This is a discussion we have ALSO had over the years.  Unless you've changed what you want to see, then no, it really doesn't line up.  I do recall we both agreed on a scenario that we would both have found palpitable, but it would have required pretty much a complete overhaul of the ending sequences to do it.  That... sadly... was not an option.

And that is where we continue to stumble.  You keep demanding things Bioware was never going to give you.  They aren't budging from this spot.  This is what we have to work with.  The ending, as they have constructed it, really doesn't allow for much variety in the "happier" direction.

Modifié par chemiclord, 19 janvier 2014 - 02:03 .

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

OK  "Of course. Giving you those better endings would make my experience worse"  Why would giving more endings with better results make your experience worse?  Would you never ever have a game with other results?  Are you one of those people who have to acheive the best results ever time so would never have a game where Shepard failed or died?  I've heard of people like that, just never met one.  

I don't know about you, but I seldom get what I want in real life, I like getting what I want in a video game sometimes.   I didn't expect Shepard to get what she wanted in every game.  Just once in awhile.  <sigh>  your right, I for one will never undersand.  It just does not make any sense to me. It does not compute.

[mopotter]

durasteel wrote...

I think the objective truth about the ME3 ending is best summed up in two statements. (1) Many people didn't like it. (2) It isn't going to change.

The first statement was received loud and clear by BioWare, who seem to have taken some lessons away from the experience. Whether they are the right lessons will be revealed in the next couple of game releases from BioWare.

The second statement is one which we (collectively) can't seem to come to grips with. It's over. The only way the story will change now is if some studio makes a movie, miniseries, or premium cable series out of it (which I'd watch, for the record.) Still, we can't seem to move past the topic in thread after thread.

Subjectively, after playing the first two games all the way through many, many times, I never completed a second play-through of the third game. For me, the whole experience of Priority: Earth was a huge disappointment leading up to a really abysmal ending. We can go around and around about the details of the ending and which bit caused the most eye-rolling, but what I remember is that by the time I got to red/blue/green, I really didn't care any more. I'd lost my immersion, I wasn't role playing, and I figured I was just picking among three nonsensical bridges between the annoying star kid and the rolling of the credits.

Take it for what it's worth.

I also played the first two many times, to the point my husband accused me of obsession.  ME3, made it through 3 full games trying to see if I had misses something and partway through a 4th realized there was no other option that I missed and left until the MEHEM was relased, then I started thinking about getting it for the pc and now i'm playing again.   Only choice live or die but I'll take it over charred any day.  

 

[mopotter]

chemiclord wrote...

Singu wrote...
I think the lead writer of Bioware had several pints of Bailey's when he wrote the final chapter. Passing it off as 'moral conundrums' and claiming that anyone having issues with it and wanting more variety is just wishing for "happy" endings is objectively speaking rubbish.

Oh, I think Mac was slamming back SOMETHING, but that's beside the point.  Because you're right on that score.  There's a LOT that went wrong, and no one thing would have fixed it.

But in iakus's case, that is EXACTLY what he is asking for.  He wants a happy ending; but with the way it is currently structured, there really can't be.

I think you may be getting Lakus and I mixed up here.  I'm the one who wanted ONE super heroic firework star wars YES WE WON survival happy happy but sad remembering those who passed ending. to conteract the ones where my Shepard died, the ones where both of her LI died, the ones where her friends died. The one where she was depressed and picked synthesis and the one where she was seduced by TIM's theory and picked controle.

 Because I would have picked them all at one time or another.    Just ONE ending without doubt without a blinking eyed body.  And there is no reason at all that they could't have done it if they had cared.  But I realize they didn't care, they didn't understand, they were sick and tired of Shepard and wanted to move on and they were probably slamming back that something you mentioned.  

I know they aren't going to do anything.  They are all working on the next project and probably laughing at us. But I'l continue to be that tiny little voice making sure they don't forget, well at least till their next game comes out and I find out what they are doing.   

[ShadowLordXII]

Objective: StarChild makes Sovereign's role and actions in ME1 pointless and causes the entire plot to collapse in on itself.
Subjective: The ending for the series practically wrote itself...HOW DID YOU @$#^ THAT UP?

Nuff said.

[AlanC9]

mopotter wrote...

OK  "Of course. Giving you those better endings would make my experience worse"  Why would giving more endings with better results make your experience worse?    

It would change my experience of the choices themselves. Sure, I could still screw up and get a non-optimal ending. But that's the thing; I'd get there by screwing up, either deliberately or by stupidity. Weren't you looking for an ending to counteract other endings? I'm looking for them to not be counteracted.

I don't know about you, but I seldom get what I want in real life, I like getting what I want in a video game sometimes.   I didn't expect Shepard to get what she wanted in every game.  Just once in awhile. 

Sometimes is fine. Just not always. Shepard got his way plenty in ME3.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2014 - 03:30 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sometimes is fine. Just not always. Shepard got his way plenty in ME3.

The very end should be one of those "sometimes"

This is the moment of truth, when all of Shepard's efforts come together.  To have no chance of Shepard "getting his way" as you put it essentially means Shepard's efforts were wasted.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote..
Naturally, I'm using my own definition. Which includes sometimes having my PC faced with the unfairness of the universe.

So you're fine with more options, as long as it's only more options that you like, not what other people might like?

That's exactly backwards. Adding options that I like more is the problem. Adding options that I don't like has no effect on me at all. Adding more options at about the same level adds interest to the choice.

And it's not about always getting what you want, it's about balance.  Reward vs cost. ME3's endings were grossly out of balance for me, for Mopotter, it seems, and for many others.

Umm... reward vs. cost?  Reward is saving the galaxy.... you'd have to pile up some pretty big costs to overcome that.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

This is the moment of truth, when all of Shepard's efforts come together.  To have no chance of Shepard "getting his way" as you put it essentially means Shepard's efforts were wasted.

Except for that whole saving the galaxy thing, of course. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2014 - 04:54 .

[Chashan]

AlanC9 wrote...

It would change my experience of the choices themselves. Sure, I could still screw up and get a non-optimal ending. But that's the thing; I'd get there by screwing up, either deliberately or by stupidity. Weren't you looking for an ending to counteract other endings? I'm looking for them to not be counteracted.

Why would survival of Shepards worked and spelled out to its clear conclusion beyond the rather underwhelming breath do that for you, then? Why would Blue and Green as they are be "screw-ups"? I thought the macro-perspective is what's more important for both.

One can't deny their superiority on that front. Cleaner, faster reconstruction, physical upgrades for everyone etc.

The reason why and how those come about is the key problem, really, which ME3 did not cover well at all unlike earlier BW-titles, as I outlined. Beyond that, I fail to see why that would change your perception to such a degree.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

This is the moment of truth, when all of Shepard's efforts come together.  To have no chance of Shepard "getting his way" as you put it essentially means Shepard's efforts were wasted.

Ecxept for that whole saving the galaxy thing, of course. 

It's not enough.

Hooray, the galaxy didn't die isn't a "reward" for a well-played game.  It's a minimal expectation of a non-fail run.  Particularly since Bioware said there wouldn't be a Reapers win scenerio,

[AlanC9]

Chashan wrote...

Why would survival of Shepards worked and spelled out to its clear conclusion beyond the rather underwhelming breath do that for you, then? Why would Blue and Green as they are be "screw-ups"? I thought the macro-perspective is what's more important for both..

Like I said upthread, that's an issue of presentation, not content.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2014 - 04:54 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
This is the moment of truth, when all of Shepard's efforts come together.  To have no chance of Shepard "getting his way" as you put it essentially means Shepard's efforts were wasted.

Ecxept for that whole saving the galaxy thing, of course. 

It's not enough.

Hooray, the galaxy didn't die isn't a "reward" for a well-played game.  It's a minimal expectation of a non-fail run.  Particularly since Bioware said there wouldn't be a Reapers win scenerio,

So when you say Shepard's efforts were wasted, you don't mean anything of the sort, huh? That reward vs. cost thing you were talking about was about the player's hours put in rather than Shepard's decision? And the player deserves a happier ending after all those hours?

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2014 - 05:02 .