580 réponses à ce sujet

[Derpy]

I think it is high-time for a new protagonist that is more customizable down to the race. IMHO Shepard is done and it is time for something new and fresh.

[Mcfly616]

iakus wrote...

Nate_Assassin wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nate_Assassin wrote...

Why can't we all just forget about Shepard? I mean he is done. dead. no more Shepard. His story is over and it is time to start a new one. Why can't we all just think like this?

Because we don't want the next character to suffer a similar fate.

Just because they create a new character doesn't mean they will be killed off in a confusing manner... 

Yeah well, I didn't think Bioware would make such a ridiculous decision in the first place.  Now I simply can't take it for granted anymore.

@McFly.  That's not the only issue.  Heck for me it's not even the biggest issue.  But it is the most blatantly obvious example of what was wrong with ME3 and especially its ending.  First saying "these are your Shepards" then forcing the player to literally burn "their Shepards" in some kind of artistic statement that is the exact opposite of player agency. 

I wanted to be a particupant of a story.  Not be told one.  If I wanted that I could take my pick of linear shooters that are out  there.

you were a participant. That doesn't mean you control the story and fictional universe. Just because you get to control your Shepard and make choices as Shepard, doesn't mean you control when his time is up.I'm my own person. I don't get to control when my time is up. 


You were not playing as an invincible god. You were playing as a mortal man. You had player agency as a mortal. Having a protagonist die =/= taking away player agency. If anything Mass Effect's ending gave you all the player agency in the world. You get to shape the foundation for the entire galaxy's future with your final choice (and if you live, you live out your days only how you know you would. BW didn't tell you what they 'think' your future is. Your future is your own.)


You didn't like it. Alot of people didn't. But the hate over Shepard dying is just flat out unwarranted and always has been. 

Modifié par Mcfly616, 11 février 2014 - 04:17 .

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...
you were a participant. That doesn't mean you control the story and fictional universe. Just because you get to control your Shepard and make choices as Shepard, doesn't mean you control when his time is up.I'm my own person. I don't get to control when my time is up. 

And that's what separates a story from real life.  I am not a protaginist in a story.  Shepard is.

You're cool with your character dying.  Fine.  But it's clearly not fine for others.  Bioware should have anticipated this  and made allowances for it. 

Now those disappointed fans have to ask themselves "Why should I get invested in another character when Bioware can make another artistic statement and take it away from me again"

You were not playing as an invincible god. You were playing as a mortal man. You had player agency as a mortal. Having a protagonist die =/= taking away player agency. If anything Mass Effect's ending gave you all the player agency in the world. You get to shape the foundation for the entire galaxy's future with your final choice (and if you live, you live out your days only how you know you would. BW didn't tell you what they 'think' your future is. Your future is your own.)

Yes, it is taking away agency.  Mac Walters even admitted that the ending takes choice away from the player, and was intended to.

You didn't like it. Alot of people didn't. But the hate over Shepard dying is just flat out unwarranted and always has been. 

The anger is totally warranted because to this day Bioware doesn't seem to get why people were so upset in the first place.  And seem more interested in saying "No, you're wrong" than figuring out where they went wrong to begin with.

There is no reason to think Bioware won't pull this stunt again and claim 'artistic integrity" Again.

This is why to me, it really doesn't matter if Shepard is the main character or not.  Why should I get invested in any character again?

[ElitePinecone]

iakus wrote...

The anger is totally warranted because to this day Bioware doesn't seem to get why people were so upset in the first place.  And seem more interested in saying "No, you're wrong" than figuring out where they went wrong to begin with.

There is no reason to think Bioware won't pull this stunt again and claim 'artistic integrity" Again.

I think this is being quite paranoid - do you seriously think they'd do anything remotely like ME3's ending ever again, knowing the reaction it generated? What's the incentive in controversy, in a new round of news stories, and pissing off a fair proportion of your fans? In an industry that's devoted to playing it safe, the business case for being absolutely risk-averse from here on is compelling, even *if* someone wanted to kill off the next protagonist. Hell, if I had to make a prediction, every single ending they ever make from now on will be some variation of the hero riding off into the sunset and a nine-hour LI epilogue.

ME3 was a miscalculation - a horrible, terrible miscalculation - and developers have already made vague noises about not anticipating how attached people got to the character. In case you hadn't noticed, literally every time they talked about Mass Effect 3 after the ending, it was pandering to the hardcore fans who were pissed off - just look at how often they mentioned the love interests. If they weren't aware before what people wanted out of the series, they sure as hell are now. I think you're seeing spite in their actions, rather than ignorance.

As for the lack of engagement, do you blame them? With the sort of language that was being thrown around in 2012, if I'd just spent two years working on a game only for someone to call it the worst thing ever in the history of everything, I wouldn't want to interact with this fanbase either. I wouldn't want to explain why I chose to write the ending a certain way, because what are the odds that *anybody* would've had a civil and reasonable debate? When people were inventing rubbish like Indoctrination Theory instead of taking what was written at face value, what other response was there than silence? To say anything would've been more controversy. 

And finally, what's to say Bioware hasn't had all those discussions about what went wrong - internally? They aren't obliged to make that public just to assuage you, but if there were any lessons from an ME3 post-mortem, I suppose we'll see them in future games. Again, if I had to make a prediction, the team now have a perfect roadmap for what never to do again - but why should they have to make that public?

[Dr_Extrem]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Nate_Assassin wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nate_Assassin wrote...

Why can't we all just forget about Shepard? I mean he is done. dead. no more Shepard. His story is over and it is time to start a new one. Why can't we all just think like this?

Because we don't want the next character to suffer a similar fate.

Just because they create a new character doesn't mean they will be killed off in a confusing manner... 

I'm not sure what all the rage is over the protagonist dying. Yeah, I hope it's emotional. It should be. But I fear the the player character's fate in nearly every game I play. And in a game such Mass Effect, against an invincible galaxy eating threat...I made the most of my time. I made my choices accordingly. I'm not sure where everybody all of the sudden just expects to control fate and their own mortality. There's always an end of the line, sometimes we're lucky enough to have some say in how we go out. 

And if people aren't feeling that type of focus, there's other games out there.

i actually do not have a problem that the protagonist could die (emphasis on COULD).

but i have a problem, if it happens in an illogical, stupid and unnecessary way. the being who is responsible for the order to kill shepard (by sovereign, the collectors, harbinger and the reapers in general) suddenly offers a way out because ... reasons.
the only condition is, that shepard either grabs 2 high tension power lines, shoots a tube at point blank range or jumps off a cliff. this is stupid beyond redemption.
why in the nine hells should shepard believe one single word from the being who wants to kill him/her for the last 3 years ... and who even was succesfull with it? it does not make any sense.
the problems pile up if you are play a "unifier"-shepard, who stood in for a united galaxy, democracy and the idea of "strength through diversity". It gets even worse, if you actually achieved the complete collaboration of all the free people of the galaxy despite their herritage/former quarrels. turiens and krogan, geth and quariens, batariens and humans, rachni and everybody else, all fighting side by side.

then, you either control them as a mighty overlord, take away their diversity or decide, that some lifeforms are .. "more equel" than the others. shepard pulls off an immelmann because the being who wants to kill him, tells him to do so ... and commit suicide the the process. 


i bet the catalyst was laughing off its backside.



short version: 

its ok if the pc can die .... but make it look like a logical consequence/blaze of glory etc.

[Dr_Extrem]

ElitePinecone wrote...

iakus wrote...

The anger is totally warranted because to this day Bioware doesn't seem to get why people were so upset in the first place.  And seem more interested in saying "No, you're wrong" than figuring out where they went wrong to begin with.

There is no reason to think Bioware won't pull this stunt again and claim 'artistic integrity" Again.

I think this is being quite paranoid - do you seriously think they'd do anything remotely like ME3's ending ever again, knowing the reaction it generated? What's the incentive in controversy, in a new round of news stories, and pissing off a fair proportion of your fans? In an industry that's devoted to playing it safe, the business case for being absolutely risk-averse from here on is compelling, even *if* someone wanted to kill off the next protagonist. Hell, if I had to make a prediction, every single ending they ever make from now on will be some variation of the hero riding off into the sunset and a nine-hour LI epilogue.

ME3 was a miscalculation - a horrible, terrible miscalculation - and developers have already made vague noises about not anticipating how attached people got to the character. In case you hadn't noticed, literally every time they talked about Mass Effect 3 after the ending, it was pandering to the hardcore fans who were pissed off - just look at how often they mentioned the love interests. If they weren't aware before what people wanted out of the series, they sure as hell are now. I think you're seeing spite in their actions, rather than ignorance.

As for the lack of engagement, do you blame them? With the sort of language that was being thrown around in 2012, if I'd just spent two years working on a game only for someone to call it the worst thing ever in the history of everything, I wouldn't want to interact with this fanbase either. I wouldn't want to explain why I chose to write the ending a certain way, because what are the odds that *anybody* would've had a civil and reasonable debate? When people were inventing rubbish like Indoctrination Theory instead of taking what was written at face value, what other response was there than silence? To say anything would've been more controversy. 

And finally, what's to say Bioware hasn't had all those discussions about what went wrong - internally? They aren't obliged to make that public just to assuage you, but if there were any lessons from an ME3 post-mortem, I suppose we'll see them in future games. Again, if I had to make a prediction, the team now have a perfect roadmap for what never to do again - but why should they have to make that public?

actually .. yes .. they thought it was deep and cool.

bioware developed a strange habit of reducing story elements to a minimum ... the reason maybe lies within the success of me2. a game with a (stupid) main plot that fits on one beermat, was the most succesful bioware game to that point. the problem is, that me2 was liked because of the characters and not the plot. we played it because of the dark atmo and the sidestories - the characters/crew.
in mass effect 3, they kept a stupid but "richer" main plot, but forgot what made us accept me2 despite its obvious flaws - the character interaction and stories. in me3, there is no "fluff" who is able to mask the weaknesses.

BUT ... the game was highly successful and therefore, it is very unlikely, that they will change the concept.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Why should I get invested in any character again?

It's probably better if you don't, if you are unwilling to accept anything but the narrow definitions of "choice" and "the purpose of games and game stories" that you impose upon BioWare and the rest of the gaming scene. Designating the purpose of games as "purely entertainment" is likely to put you at odds with many a creative mind in the industry.

For your sake, it's better that you read fan reviews after the game comes out and make an informed decision. I have no such issue, because I am fairly open when it comes to my expectations for game stories. If Bioware makes another ME3-type game where the game is fabulous and then has an atrocious ending, I will still have no regrets over my purchase.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 février 2014 - 06:10 .

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I view the Reapers are just some party crasher. Like some obnoxious drunk who comes in farting and burping and hitting on everyone and telling bad jokes no one wants to hear.

OK, maybe not quite.. but you know what I mean.

What's amusing is that these drunken, farting, obnoxious party crashers would have been the real "good guys" in the DE ending.

They're the good guys in our current ending too. <_<

They are absolutely not. A red herring is a thing.

[SwobyJ]

But it's not just a mindfrag. It's real.

Bioware wants their cake and to eat it too.

[SwobyJ]

Meh, Bioware's no stranger to this stuff.

Like their name is Bioware. Biological Hardware.

[Daemul]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Why should I get invested in any character again?

It's probably better if you don't, if you are unwilling to accept anything but the narrow definitions of "choice" and "the purpose of games and game stories" that you impose upon BioWare and the rest of the gaming scene. Designating the purpose of games as "purely entertainment" is likely to put you at odds with many a creative mind in the industry.

For your sake, it's better that you read fan reviews after the game comes out and make an informed decision. I have no such issue, because I am fairly open when it comes to my expectations for game stories. If Bioware makes another ME3-type game where the game is fabulous and then has an atrocious ending, I will still have no regrets over my purchase.

+ 1

[Iakus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I think this is being quite paranoid - do you seriously think they'd do anything remotely like ME3's ending ever again, knowing the reaction it generated? What's the incentive in controversy, in a new round of news stories, and pissing off a fair proportion of your fans? In an industry that's devoted to playing it safe, the business case for being absolutely risk-averse from here on is compelling, even *if* someone wanted to kill off the next protagonist. Hell, if I had to make a prediction, every single ending they ever make from now on will be some variation of the hero riding off into the sunset and a nine-hour LI epilogue.

I don't know.  I never thought they'd do anything remotely like ME3's ending in the first place!  I would have thought it would have been an intuitively obvious stupid move.  In fact when I first heard rumors about these endings, I dismissed them, thinking Bioware's a bunch of proffessionals, they'd never screw over their fans like that.

ME3 was a miscalculation - a horrible, terrible miscalculation - and developers have already made vague noises about not anticipating how attached people got to the character. In case you hadn't noticed, literally every time they talked about Mass Effect 3 after the ending, it was pandering to the hardcore fans who were pissed off - just look at how often they mentioned the love interests. If they weren't aware before what people wanted out of the series, they sure as hell are now. I think you're seeing spite in their actions, rather than ignorance.

If EC was anything more than "Let me explain the endings to you louder and slower" I'd agree:  it was a horrible miscalculation.  But they doubled down on the endings.  "There was no mistake, it still serves its purpose'

And going "Gee we never anticipated how attatched people got" qite frankly never paid attention to the fans to begin with:  the writing, the artwork, the cosplays, heck these very boards!  I mean, yeah the character and romance section eventually had to be sealed off like a radiation leak, but that also demonstrates how attatched people got to Shepard, the LIs and the rest of the cast.

I see spite rather than ignorance because frankly I can't imagine anyone who's that involved in the game being that ignorant.

As for the lack of engagement, do you blame them? With the sort of language that was being thrown around in 2012, if I'd just spent two years working on a game only for someone to call it the worst thing ever in the history of everything, I wouldn't want to interact with this fanbase either. I wouldn't want to explain why I chose to write the ending a certain way, because what are the odds that *anybody* would've had a civil and reasonable debate? When people were inventing rubbish like Indoctrination Theory instead of taking what was written at face value, what other response was there than silence? To say anything would've been more controversy. 

A few months after DA2, when the rage settled down a bit, several people from the DA2 team actually came to the boards and made a thread, asking people what they think went wrong with DA2.  It was suprisingly calm and respectful (with exceptions of course) 

So yes, a civil and reasonable debate could have happened, if an effort had actually been made.

And IT to me only emphasizes how people view these endings so badly they desperately want it to mean something other than face value.  

And finally, what's to say Bioware hasn't had all those discussions about what went wrong - internally? They aren't obliged to make that public just to assuage you, but if there were any lessons from an ME3 post-mortem, I suppose we'll see them in future games. Again, if I had to make a prediction, the team now have a perfect roadmap for what never to do again - but why should they have to make that public?

Internally?  Who knows?  I can only judge by what is stated externally.  And what has been said so far is in no way encouraging.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Why should I get invested in any character again?

It's probably better if you don't, if you are unwilling to accept anything but the narrow definitions of "choice" and "the purpose of games and game stories" that you impose upon BioWare and the rest of the gaming scene. Designating the purpose of games as "purely entertainment" is likely to put you at odds with many a creative mind in the industry.

"Commit suicide because art" is not a choice

"Do something monstrous to the galaxy or lose" is hardly a choice.

You claim I am imposing on the purpose of games?  I say Bioware is imposing on me.  No games are not "purely entertainment"  But that is their primary purpose.  And a game series that claims to be trying to broaden its audience, and shaping the story based on player choice should cast as wide a net as possible.  Not restrict the outcome to some sort of railroaded artistic statement.

For your sake, it's better that you read fan reviews after the game comes out and make an informed decision. I have no such issue, because I am fairly open when it comes to my expectations for game stories. If Bioware makes another ME3-type game where the game is fabulous and then has an atrocious ending, I will still have no regrets over my purchase.

Oh I intend to.  I understand that the journey and the destination are one and the same.

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Meh, Bioware's no stranger to this stuff.

Like their name is Bioware. Biological Hardware.

I don't think the name came from any sci-fi concept though?

The founders were from the medical field. I think they had something else in mind at first. Heh

1)Yes, both founders are medical doctors, and have both operated in the emergency room.
2)Yes, I think Bioware meant something more general before.
3)But yes, I think 'BioWare' has become something different over time. This partially may have to do with Casey's affinity for certain things (technology), and Mac Walters' background (in psychology).

Mass Effect is also a medical term. For brain cancer causing pressure and bleeding in the head.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mass shift all the way.

[SwobyJ]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mass shift all the way.

Oh no you didn't...


(*highfive* I thought it was a weird concept at first but now can totally imagine it working.)


~~~


@Streetmagic: Uh what? I thought I told you about Mac! Anyway, between his personal history and that "End of first Matrix" and "But why did Shepard have to die?" notes in Final Hours app, it's not hard for me to think of things as rather 'unreal'.

But it's not something most of BSN would accept, let alone actively speculate about. That's not speaking even against them - they're just looking for something that is different from what I am.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 11 février 2014 - 11:14 .

[Mcfly616]

Hmm I'm not sure where this mentality originated.....the whole "it's a videogame, therefore I should have a choice if my character lives or dies in the end. I should have absolute control over the narrative."


Riiiight...


Good luck with your other gaming endeavors.

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Hmm I'm not sure where this mentality originated.....the whole "it's a videogame, therefore I should have a choice if my character lives or dies in the end. I should have absolute control over the narrative."


Riiiight...


Good luck with your other gaming endeavors.

I don't necessarily believe that, but I think failure or success should be more interactive. Not strictly because of writing.

At the end of the day, they are still games. Not just stories. Performance needs to be relevant right up until the end, just like in a game of ping pong or basketball. Or other video games, for that matter. You can kill King Koopa if you time your shots right. If you're don't, you're dead. Simple.

Mass Effect allowed the player to "interact" in true Mass Effect fashion all the way til the end. Shooting aliens.Dialogue wheels and choices. All the way til the final cinematic plays. That's what the experience gives us. Performance is relevant right until the end. You perform a choice. (unless you find a galaxy altering choice 'irrelevant')

This "taking away control" or "lack of player agency" complaints all over Shep dying are just indefensible. They hold no water lol. You either hate it because he dies OR you don't like the way it was written/executed. Bottom line. 

And no, it doesnt have to be anything like the simplicities of ping pong. Nor the straight forward linearity of Super Mario running left to right in order to save a princess. It is a modern interactive experience in which you control a character throughout a branching narrative.

Shepard can die due to player control just as Mario can. We the player can press continue and continue playing. So what? This has no relation to the narrative whatsoever. It is a gameplay mechanic in order to allow the player to "continue" playing the game to its conclusion. Nothing more. I've seen you use this argument in similar discussion over Shepards fate, and you should know it really doesn't help your stance. 

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

Just to add, I think the end is "interactive" enough btw. I just don't think Crucible itself is. I think the whole monolithic nature of it makes it boring, gameplay wise. It should have been seperated into components or something.. and had accompanying missions to certain features.

I don't know. Something's missing.

War assets in action, and variation based on that, while Shepard makes his way towards activating the Crucible.