Questa discussione ha avuto 202 risposte

[Iakus]

There is nothing "daring" about railroading a player.  Forcing Shepard to die is exactly the wrong thing to do in a choice-based rpg.  This was not (or was not supposed to be) a linear shooter where we passively watch the cut scenes between bouts of pwning space zombies.  

 

As for Frodol:  

 

1) Lord of the Rings was a book.  I am a passive observer of Frodo's adventures, not guiding Frodo, or playing the part of him

2) Frodo was not forced to die, nor was he abandoned by all his companions.  Sam was with him until the end.  And later was rejoined by the other survivors.  And even when he had to pass into the West, Gandalf, Bilbo, Elrond, and Galadriel were with him.  So Frodo got a helluva lot better ending than even Shepard's best-case outcome (he wasn't forced to murder all the elves of Middle Earth in destroying the Ring either)

 

I don't see the original endings as higher risk/reward.  It's kicking the player where it hurts in the home stretch.  They should never have taken such a risk at the end of a trilogy.  Not when failure messes up the entire trilogy.  No credit for "at least they tried" when they failed so badly.

 

As for Anderson's death:  Of course it won't hit the player as hard as Shepard's death.  Because Shepard is the player's avatar.  See above about kicking the player where it hurts.  That wasn't "cashing in" on the emotional investment:  it was a mugging plain and simple.  A railroading done by a killer GM. 

 

But the death of Anderson:  Shepard's mentor figure.  The one who had his/her back from the beginning in a way no one but Joker had.  That still has resonance.  That's still a reasonable sacrifice for the end.

 

Sure It would be great if MEHEM offered a bigger range of possible outcomes.  But it offers one thing the original endings do not, and should have:  The possibility for a good outcome for Shepard.

[q5tyhj]

There is nothing "daring" about railroading a player.  Forcing Shepard to die is exactly the wrong thing to do in a choice-based rpg.  This was not (or was not supposed to be) a linear shooter where we passively watch the cut scenes between bouts of pwning space zombies.  

 

As for Frodol:  

 

1) Lord of the Rings was a book.  I am a passive observer of Frodo's adventures, not guiding Frodo, or playing the part of him

2) Frodo was not forced to die, nor was he abandoned by all his companions.  Sam was with him until the end.  And later was rejoined by the other survivors.  And even when he had to pass into the West, Gandalf, Bilbo, Elrond, and Galadriel were with him.  So Frodo got a helluva lot better ending than even Shepard's best-case outcome (he wasn't forced to murder all the elves of Middle Earth in destroying the Ring either)

 

I don't see the original endings as higher risk/reward.  It's kicking the player where it hurts in the home stretch.  They should never have taken such a risk at the end of a trilogy.  Not when failure messes up the entire trilogy.  No credit for "at least they tried" when they failed so badly.

 

As for Anderson's death:  Of course it won't hit the player as hard as Shepard's death.  Because Shepard is the player's avatar.  See above about kicking the player where it hurts.  That wasn't "cashing in" on the emotional investment:  it was a mugging plain and simple.  A railroading done by a killer GM. 

 

But the death of Anderson:  Shepard's mentor figure.  The one who had his/her back from the beginning in a way no one but Joker had.  That still has resonance.  That's still a reasonable sacrifice for the end.

 

Sure It would be great if MEHEM offered a bigger range of possible outcomes.  But it offers one thing the original endings do not, and should have:  The possibility for a good outcome for Shepard.

 

I'm not sure you really caught what I was saying. That LOTR is a book rather than a video game is irrelevant. Its still a narrative. And attempting to introduce new, unexpected elements at the end is indisputably "higher risk/higher reward" than going for a straightforward ending where things work out precisely the way that is implied throughout the rest of the story. Not really much to argue about there. Obviously you're not inclined to give them much credit for not taking the easy route, but in my estimation, nothing ventured nothing gained, go big or go home, yadda yadda yadda. Moreover, the fact that you and others have such a harsh reaction to Shepards death more or less proves my point- it has incredible emotional force. Its like alot of the deaths in the Game of Thrones series- you're genuinely attached to the characters, which is what makes it powerful.

 

But I guess this is just a fundamental difference in taste- that people look for fundamentally different experiences from art and narrative. Some people primarily want it to make them feel good- and they get mad when bad things happen to cherished characters. Others, like myself, don't really care about feeling good, but care about having it be a powerful experience, good or bad. In my mind, a story or piece of art that makes me feel genuinely sad, or angry, is every bit as great as one that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. If it has had a significant effect on me, then it was successful. And it'd be awfully boring, to me, to only view art that makes me feel good. Happiness represents only tiny fraction of the range of human emotions, after all.

 

In any case, this is why I would NEVER prefer something like MEHEM, even if I could somehow overlook the fact that it isn't the real ending, and why I sort of even feel sorry for those who do, I guess.

[Iakus]

I'm not sure you really caught what I was saying. That LOTR is a book rather than a video game is irrelevant. Its still a narrative. And attempting to introduce new, unexpected elements at the end is indisputably "higher risk/higher reward" than going for a straightforward ending where things work out precisely the way that is implied throughout the rest of the story. Not really much to argue about there. Obviously you're not inclined to give them much credit for not taking the easy route, but in my estimation, nothing ventured nothing gained, go big or go home, yadda yadda yadda. Moreover, the fact that you and others have such a harsh reaction to Shepards death more or less proves my point- it has incredible emotional force. Its like alot of the deaths in the Game of Thrones series- you're genuinely attached to the characters, which is what makes it powerful.

 

But I guess this is just a fundamental difference in taste- that people look for fundamentally different experiences from art and narrative. Some people primarily want it to make them feel good- and they get mad when bad things happen to cherished characters. Others, like myself, don't really care about feeling good, but care about having it be a powerful experience, good or bad. In my mind, a story or piece of art that makes me feel genuinely sad, or angry, is every bit as great as one that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. If it has had a significant effect on me, then it was successful. And it'd be awfully boring, to me, to only view art that makes me feel good. Happiness represents only tiny fraction of the range of human emotions, after all.

 

In any case, this is why I would NEVER prefer something like MEHEM, even if I could somehow overlook the fact that it isn't the real ending, and why I sort of even feel sorry for those who do, I guess.

 

It is relevant, however.  The reader has zero control over the narrative.  It's all on the author to shape the story.  I can't make Frodo female.  Nor can I decide he traveled to Mordor with Gimli instead of Sam, or have him decide to kill Gollum rather than tame him.  Or have him try to reason with Old Man Willow.

 

In a game like Mass Effect, however, the player can, to a limited degree shape the narrative.  And those choices help shape the narrative, providing different outcomes which help build the story.  And this is where the endings utterly failed:  No matter what choice Shepard makes, he/she burns for it.  That's not taking a risk.  Taking agency away from a player isn't risk-taking.  That's railroading.

 

So no, I'm not going to give them credit that.  They were already "going big" by making a trilogy with save imports.  The focus should have been in honoring that.  I'd have given them credit for taking a risk by providing numerous possible fates for Shepard.  My harsh reaction isn't to Shepard's death, but that they seemed to think it was the only ending Shepard should have.  I am frankly insulted by that.  They took agency away from me, took my character away from me, and burned it before my eyes. 

 

Yes, the emotion is powerful, but it's not something I want to experience in a game.  If I want to feel something powerful and don't care if it's good or not, i can always smack myself on the head with a hammer.  It's cheaper and more efficient.  There's plenty of stuff out there meant to make peple feel sad.  True Art is Angsty seems to be all the rage nowadays (thank you very much, George R R Martin) and any happiness on the part fo the protagonist is derided as "warm and fuzzy"

 

So keep your bleak tragic endings with all their "feels"  If you don't like MEHEM, that's cool.  I wouldn't want you to be forced to experience an ending you think is ridiculous.  But Bioware failed to provide anything but a very narrow emotional range of endings (something you seem to think is a bad thing anyway)  so leave me with one ending that actually reflects an outcome that should have been available, with al the hundreds, even thousands of chcoies we made over three games.

[Farangbaa]

But I guess this is just a fundamental difference in taste- that people look for fundamentally different experiences from art and narrative. Some people primarily want it to make them feel good- and they get mad when bad things happen to cherished characters. Others, like myself, don't really care about feeling good, but care about having it be a powerful experience, good or bad. In my mind, a story or piece of art that makes me feel genuinely sad, or angry, is every bit as great as one that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. If it has had a significant effect on me, then it was successful. And it'd be awfully boring, to me, to only view art that makes me feel good. Happiness represents only tiny fraction of the range of human emotions, after all.

 

This, a thousandfold.

[q5tyhj]

It is relevant, however.  The reader has zero control over the narrative.  It's all on the author to shape the story.  I can't make Frodo female.  Nor can I decide he traveled to Mordor with Gimli instead of Sam, or have him decide to kill Gollum rather than tame him.  Or have him try to reason with Old Man Willow.

I assure you; regarding the specific point I was making, this is not a relevant difference. I was making a point about narratives in general, and both ME and LOTR are narratives. The fact that in one case you have control (within a specified range) over certain things doesn't mitigate that, in general, predictable and generic endings are less powerful. And whatever its virtues, MEHEM is predictable, linear, and generic- push the button, win the war, we all go home. If ME3's ending had been along these lines, I likely would've been far more disappointed than I was with the actual endings.

 

And RE "railroading", "taking choice away", and removing any "happily ever after" type of ending from the range of possible outcomes, I don't see why you seem to think that one's own demise (and that of friends and loved ones), in accomplishing a hopeless task, would be something that would be under your control in the first place. Sometimes certain outcomes (like perfect win-win scenarios) are just out of reach, regardless of what choices we make- they simply aren't in the cards. This isn't railroading, this is realism. And if Shepard and everyone lives happily ever after, that sort of undercuts the seriousness of the conflict and storyline of the trilogy- if such an outcome was possible, then it would seem the Reapers weren't that dire of a threat after all, yes?

[Iakus]

I assure you; regarding the specific point I was making, this is not a relevant difference. I was making a point about narratives in general, and both ME and LOTR are narratives. The fact that in one case you have control (within a specified range) over certain things doesn't mitigate that, in general, predictable and generic endings are less powerful. And whatever its virtues, MEHEM is predictable, linear, and generic- push the button, win the war, we all go home. If ME3's ending had been along these lines, I likely would've been far more disappointed than I was with the actual endings.

 

And the point I'm making is that a game is a different narrative than a book, movie, tv show, etc.  And in particular games like Mass Effect, which make the claim of being built upon player choice.  Given that the player does have some control, there should have been a wide range of outcomes possible.

 

And given the popularity of MEHEM, I'd say that your so-called "general, predicable, and generic endings" hold a greater degree of power than you give them credit for. 

 

 

 

And RE "railroading", "taking choice away", and removing any "happily ever after" type of ending from the range of possible outcomes, I don't see why you seem to think that one's own demise (and that of friends and loved ones), in accomplishing a hopeless task, would be something that would be under your control in the first place. Sometimes certain outcomes (like perfect win-win scenarios) are just out of reach, regardless of what choices we make- they simply aren't in the cards. This isn't railroading, this is realism. And if Shepard and everyone lives happily ever after, that sort of undercuts the seriousness of the conflict and storyline of the trilogy- if such an outcome was possible, then it would seem the Reapers weren't that dire of a threat after all, yes?

 

No.

 

Because regardless of whether Shepard lives of dies, Billions of others unavoidably die.  The Citadel is filled with heartbreaking stories of tragedy and death.  Many of Shepard's own friends can die.  Several unavoidably die anyway.  We get to watch three homeworlds fall to the Reapers.  An entire race ended up cannon fodder to the Reapers, and more were being converted.  Frankly, I can't see how someone can go through all that and say "This still isn't enough.  It's too cheerful"  The Reapers proved themselves to be quite a dire threat well before the end of the game thanks

 

And yes, it is railroading.  Any GM who pulled this sh*t at a gaming table would find himself alone at that table before too long.

[q5tyhj]

And the point I'm making is that a game is a different narrative than a book, movie, tv show, etc.  

Obviously a game is different than a movie or a book. But they all contain a narrative, and in that respect, the same rules apply- surprising endings are generally more impactful and powerful than linear and predictable ones. I see no reason why the fact that the narrative in a video game can involve choice should somehow invalidate this fact, certainly the mere fact that it is a different medium does not. A story is story.

 

And in particular games like Mass Effect, which make the claim of being built upon player choice.  Given that the player does have some control, there should have been a wide range of outcomes possible.

That the actual endings were too homogeneous, and that ones choice in the matter was ultimately quite insignificant, are two pertinent criticisms of the endings, and probably two of the most major ones in my mind. But that they did not include a happily ever after ending, on the other hand, doesn't strike me as a very valid complaint. As I said, sometimes one simply cannot choose to have things work out perfectly- that isn't realistic.

 

And given the popularity of MEHEM, I'd say that your so-called "general, predicable, and generic endings" hold a greater degree of power than you give them credit for. 

I'm not denying that the happily-ever-after scenario isn't appealing to many people- clearly it is. I'd imagine alot of people would've preferred it if you-know-who didn't die in season 1 of Game of Thrones. That doesn't mean that it would have been equally powerful, as far as its impact on the story.

 

Because regardless of whether Shepard lives of dies, Billions of others unavoidably die.  The Citadel is filled with heartbreaking stories of tragedy and death. 

Digital NPCs we never even meet? That's not especially meaningful...

 

 Many of Shepard's own friends can die.  Several unavoidably die anyway.  We get to watch three homeworlds fall to the Reapers.  An entire race ended up cannon fodder to the Reapers, and more were being converted.  Frankly, I can't see how someone can go through all that and say "This still isn't enough.  It's too cheerful"  The Reapers proved themselves to be quite a dire threat well before the end of the game thanks

But so far as I can see, this only reinforces my point. If all this stuff has occurred over the course of the series, to have the final achievement of this hopeless, impossible goal cost relatively little in comparison just seems like a cop-out (and thus anti-climactic), and again, simply unrealistic.

 

 

And yes, it is railroading.  Any GM who pulled this sh*t at a gaming table would find himself alone at that table before too long.

If your complaint is that the endings weren't varied enough, and that the ending you saw ultimately had very little to do with the choices you've made over the course of the game (which we were constantly told were going to be absolutely crucial), then this seems like a perfectly valid complaint, and IMO this is the most glaring problem with the actual endings. But there's no reason to think that having Shepard die in all of them (sort of, i.e. breathe scene) is anything other than realism, and a reasonable narrative choice under the circumstances. Of all the flaws with the endings, this is probably the smallest, if it is even a flaw at all (I don't happen to think it is).

[Iakus]

 

Obviously a game is different than a movie or a book. But they all contain a narrative, and in that respect, the same rules apply- surprising endings are generally more impactful and powerful than linear and predictable ones. I see no reason why the fact that the narrative in a video game can involve choice should somehow invalidate this fact, certainly the mere fact that it is a different medium does not. A story is story.

 

 

Impactful =/=good.  That the endings provided a strong emotion is not in question.  But the emotion was, for a lot of people, very negative.  

 

And the fact that player choice was negated at the end was a strong contributor to that.  Players felt tricked.  Cheated.  Lied to.  Their hopes and expectations were disregarded when they felt they had a voice in it.

 

 

That the actual endings were too homogeneous, and that ones choice in the matter was ultimately quite insignificant, are two pertinent criticisms of the endings, and probably two of the most major ones in my mind. But that they did not include a happily ever after ending, on the other hand, doesn't strike me as a very valid complaint. As I said, sometimes one simply cannot choose to have things work out perfectly- that isn't realistic

 

After everything that's happened in the trilogy,why start being realistic now?

 

 

 

I'm not denying that the happily-ever-after scenario isn't appealing to many people- clearly it is. I'd imagine alot of people would've preferred it if you-know-who didn't die in season 1 of Game of Thrones. That doesn't mean that it would have been equally powerful, as far as its impact on the story.

 

Again, powerful negative emotions are counterproductive.

 

And you -know-who died at what is effectively the start of the greater story, and again wasn't under the control of the viewer.

 

 

Digital NPCs we never even meet? That's not especially meaningful...

 

To you, maybe.  Me I rushed past the PTSD asari after the first time I heard her story, it's just too sad to hear a second time

 

 

But so far as I can see, this only reinforces my point. If all this stuff has occurred over the course of the series, to have the final achievement of this hopeless, impossible goal cost relatively little in comparison just seems like a cop-out (and thus anti-climactic), and again, simply unrealistic.

 

Only if you disregard the path taken to get to that point.  Or was all that other sacrifice meaningless?

 

 

 

If your complaint is that the endings weren't varied enough, and that the ending you saw ultimately had very little to do with the choices you've made over the course of the game (which we were constantly told were going to be absolutely crucial), then this seems like a perfectly valid complaint, and IMO this is the most glaring problem with the actual endings. But there's no reason to think that having Shepard die in all of them (sort of, i.e. breathe scene) is anything other than realism, and a reasonable narrative choice under the circumstances. Of all the flaws with the endings, this is probably the smallest, if it is even a flaw at all (I don't happen to think it is).

 

Having Shepard die in all the endings is a big part of the endings not being varied enough.  Shepard burns, gets impaled on rebar, or is overcome by toxic fumes would not have significantly mixed things up.  Many players wanted a way for Shepard to live (ideally without doing something awful to the galaxy as well) and that feeling should have been both anticipated and respected.

[Farangbaa]

Impactful =/=good.  That the endings provided a strong emotion is not in question.  But the emotion was, for a lot of people, very negative.  

 

And the fact that player choice was negated at the end was a strong contributor to that.  Players felt tricked.  Cheated.  Lied to.  Their hopes and expectations were disregarded when they felt they had a voice in it.

 

Seriously though, what did you guys expect? That all those countless variables during ME1 all the way down to ME3 would somehow lead to a unique ending?

 

Listening to advertisements is one thing, believing them is another.

[Iakus]

Seriously though, what did you guys expect? That all those countless variables during ME1 all the way down to ME3 would somehow lead to a unique ending?

 

Listening to advertisements is one thing, believing them is another.

 

How about an ending that didn't end up with Sheprd as a charcoal briquette?

 

Seriously, too much to ask?

[Chashan]

How about an ending that didn't end up with Sheprd as a charcoal briquette?

 

Seriously, too much to ask?

 

Not to mention one that doesn't disregard not just the previous installments', but even ME3's main arcs themselves to present exposition crowned by expressions such as "organic energy" and "a new..DNA". It's not lack of complexity that is ME3 finale's key problem, but an overabundance of weighty issues not in the story's spotlight up until those last few minutes, to the point of incoherency.

 

 

 

 

And RE "railroading", "taking choice away", and removing any "happily ever after" type of ending from the range of possible outcomes, I don't see why you seem to think that one's own demise (and that of friends and loved ones), in accomplishing a hopeless task, would be something that would be under your control in the first place. Sometimes certain outcomes (like perfect win-win scenarios) are just out of reach, regardless of what choices we make- they simply aren't in the cards. This isn't railroading, this is realism. And if Shepard and everyone lives happily ever after, that sort of undercuts the seriousness of the conflict and storyline of the trilogy- if such an outcome was possible, then it would seem the Reapers weren't that dire of a threat after all, yes?

 

While I see that we agree on the finale not being awfully diverse - I still got to wonder why Synthesis's update for everyone and everything, living and inanimate matter included, was not simply put into the Control-package - I find "realism" to be a poorly chosen argument in favour of all-but inevitable sacrifice of the PC. ME3 is a war-story, as claimed by some of its writers themselves, and wars are not decisively won by any one individual sacrifice.

 

Besides, what's so terribly "unrealistic" about 'making the other bastard die for his country'? Survivor's guilt can be an equally interesting concept to explore. MEHEM even does that to a degree in the memorial-scene, the overall ambience of which is rather sombre, actually, contrary to what you claim.

 

Otherwise, strictly speaking of sacrifice being an option to the player, BW could have handled that as simply as the following: in order to see the Crucible's activation through, either Anderson - who is not mortally wounded in this case - or Shepard need to remain behind, invariably resulting in the death of either.

[Farangbaa]

How about an ending that didn't end up with Sheprd as a charcoal briquette?

 

Seriously, too much to ask?

 

How is that even remotely related to this?

 

And the fact that player choice was negated at the end was a strong contributor to that.  Players felt tricked.  Cheated.  Lied to.  Their hopes and expectations were disregarded when they felt they had a voice in it.

 

So all would have been fine if Shepard lived? All that whining about your 'choices not mattering' (which is also bs) is just a cover up.

 

You're like a little kid that's finally, for his own sake, told he can not get the pacifier anymore. Except you're not a little kid. You just dress up your temper tantrum in a story about choices, narrative and thematics.

 

You're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that the story demands he dies. Or play MEHEM until you believe it's the truth.

[q5tyhj]

 

 

And the fact that player choice was negated at the end was a strong contributor to that.  Players felt tricked.  Cheated.  Lied to.  Their hopes and expectations were disregarded when they felt they had a voice in it.

 

 

And I agree that having the choices you make throughout the course of the series have virtually NO effect on the endings, and having the choice between endings not be particularly significant, are two major flaws with the endings. But for one thing, MEHEM doesn't fix this, and for another, this doesn't have anything to do with whether Shepard dies or not. They could've made the endings more customized to your game choices, and still have Shepard die in all of them.

 

 

After everything that's happened in the trilogy,why start being realistic now?

 

 

Well, there's realistic within the logic of a sci-fi/fantasy universe and realism in general- clearly a story involving aliens and monsters isn't realistic in the latter sense. But victory requiring sacrifice and loss is a pretty consistent theme within the trilogy- save the council, lose the ships. Save Kaiden, or save Ashley. Cure the genophage, or placate the Salarians and allow Mordin to live. Etc. 

 

 

Again, powerful negative emotions are counterproductive.

"Counterproductive" only if you think that the only productive result for quality art/storytelling are warm and fuzzy feelings. Many people, including many many artists, would vehemently disagree with you. Myself among them. I'd far rather read a story that made me feel strongly negative than one that made me feel mildly pleasant. This simply comes down to the different taste and expectations regarding art that I mentioned earlier.

 

 

And you -know-who died at what is effectively the start of the greater story, and again wasn't under the control of the viewer.

 

All this about "control" is a red herring in this context. The point is simply that some people prefer a story that makes them feel happy, than one that makes them feel anything else, even if this would require removing powerful narrative elements, such as the death of a beloved character. Are you perhaps slightly more attached to a character whom you've controlled throughout the course of the story? Probably. But the point remains the same either way.

 

 

To you, maybe.  Me I rushed past the PTSD asari after the first time I heard her story, it's just too sad to hear a second time

 

 

I'd imagine I'm hardly the only one to whom the imaginary deaths of digital NPCs that you never even meet doesn't have any serious significance. And nobody can claim that the significance is on the same order as the death of the protagonist or other central characters. Its simply apples and oranges. 

 

 

Only if you disregard the path taken to get to that point.  Or was all that other sacrifice meaningless?

 

 

On the contrary. If the journey involved so much loss, then it is implausible and anti-climactic to suppose that the achievement of the goal would be relatively painless. It sort of cheapens "all that other sacrifice".

 

 

Many players wanted a way for Shepard to live (ideally without doing something awful to the galaxy as well) and that feeling should have been both anticipated and respected.

 

Ok, but why? Why would it be reasonable to think that its as simple as choosing to have everything work out perfectly? Why would anyone ever choose otherwise? 

 

In my opinion, one thing that makes the Mass Effect trilogy and the fantasy universe in which it takes place so good and so unique is that it ISN'T your typical, cookie-cutter fantasy/sci-fi story- there is actual moral complexity, there is realism, and there is this theme about victory requiring sacrifice and loss. These are things which make the series better, in my estimation. Having a stereotypical happily ever after ending would be as much a betrayal of the themes and logic of the series as many aspects of the actual endings turned out to be. In that sense, I don't see how it could be an improvement at all.

[Iakus]

 

And I agree that having the choices you make throughout the course of the series have virtually NO effect on the endings, and having the choice between endings not be particularly significant, are two major flaws with the endings. But for one thing, MEHEM doesn't fix this, and for another, this doesn't have anything to do with whether Shepard dies or not. They could've made the endings more customized to your game choices, and still have Shepard die in all of them.

 

 

 It is true that MEHEM doesn't fix this.  Modding limitations being what they are.  But what it does do is offer one more option:  To install the mod and play out the new endings.  If it could be thrown into the mix and keep the original endings, I'd be all for it.

 

But what you don't seem to understand is that people want a voice in the fate of their character avatar.  His/her ultimate fate is a major plot point.  Making it the same regardless of chcoie is a slap i nthe face to those trying to craft their own Shepard's stories.  Sure there are those who llike tragic ends, but there are those who like happy ones too.  WHy should they be denied?  Why should they only cater to one subset?

 

 

 

Well, there's realistic within the logic of a sci-fi/fantasy universe and realism in general- clearly a story involving aliens and monsters isn't realistic in the latter sense. But victory requiring sacrifice and loss is a pretty consistent theme within the trilogy- save the council, lose the ships. Save Kaiden, or save Ashley. Cure the genophage, or placate the Salarians and allow Mordin to live. Etc.

 

 

And this victory does require sacrifice and loss.  It's unavoidable.  But why does it require this loss?  Why must the player give up their character (and yes, we were told "These are your Shepards") to make it a "true" sacrifice?  All the examples you gave involve choice.  Save this person or that person.  Save those people or these other people.  Where's the either/or with Shepard?  Where's the choice?

 

 

"Counterproductive" only if you think that the only productive result for quality art/storytelling are warm and fuzzy feelings. Many people, including many many artists, would vehemently disagree with you. Myself among them. I'd far rather read a story that made me feel strongly negative than one that made me feel mildly pleasant. This simply comes down to the different taste and expectations regarding art that I mentioned earlier.

 

 

And clearly, many, many people who played Mass Effect 3 disagree with your assessment.  If Bioware is trying to broaden their audience, they have clearly failed.  Tehy should have found a way to offer both kinds of endings.  And yes, it can be done.  They managed it just a few short years ago.

 

 

 

All this about "control" is a red herring in this context. The point is simply that some people prefer a story that makes them feel happy, than one that makes them feel anything else, even if this would require removing powerful narrative elements, such as the death of a beloved character. Are you perhaps slightly more attached to a character whom you've controlled throughout the course of the story? Probably. But the point remains the same either way.

 

 

And as I said before, there is no reason both could not have been offered.  None.

 

 

 

I'd imagine I'm hardly the only one to whom the imaginary deaths of digital NPCs that you never even meet doesn't have any serious significance. And nobody can claim that the significance is on the same order as the death of the protagonist or other central characters. Its simply apples and oranges.

 

So, what, your "feels" have a greater priority than my "feels"?

 

 

 

On the contrary. If the journey involved so much loss, then it is implausible and anti-climactic to suppose that the achievement of the goal would be relatively painless. It sort of cheapens "all that other sacrifice".

 

 

 

On the contrary, I'd say it validates it further.  Their sacrifice means less loss later. 

 

 

 

Ok, but why? Why would it be reasonable to think that its as simple as choosing to have everything work out perfectly? Why would anyone ever choose otherwise?

 

Because different people have different definitions of "work out perfectly"  Seriously, check out Dragon Age: Origins

 

Because people roleplay different Shepards, who make different choices, and expect different outcomes.  Some where Shepard would live, and others not. 

 

What's getting lost here is that Mass Effect was supposed to be a role-playing game.  A game where we, as the players, tell the story of Commander Shepard.  And not just of one Commander Shepard, but many.  And with many choices, many strategies, one expects many outcomes.  Both good and bad. 

 

Believe it or not, people rigged the Suicide Mission many different outcomes, including suboptimal bloodbaths, just to see the outcomes.

 

That's where you get complexity.  Not just taking differnt paths to the destination, but arriving at different destinations

[q5tyhj]

 

But what you don't seem to understand is that people want a voice in the fate of their character avatar.  

I do understand that. I just don't think its reasonable to be mad that certain outcomes are NOT subject to choice, because, as I've pointed out, there are things that we cannot simply choose to have happen. Some things are under our control, some things are not, and it seems perfectly legitimate to have there be certain outcomes that one simply can't attain, even in a video game.

 

 Sure there are those who llike tragic ends, but there are those who like happy ones too.  WHy should they be denied?  Why should they only cater to one subset?

Because it isn't the responsibility of the artist to have their product be all things to all people, even with a game like Mass Effect. The writers clearly felt that the story sort of necessitated Shepard's death (again, sort of- let's not forget that there is an outcome where Shepard survives), and myself and several other posters, at the very least, can understand that. If they wanted their story to have a bittersweet end rather than a warm and fuzzy one, they are well within their rights to do that. 

 

 

And this victory does require sacrifice and loss.  It's unavoidable.  But why does it require this loss?  Why must the player give up their character (and yes, we were told "These are your Shepards") to make it a "true" sacrifice?  All the examples you gave involve choice.  Save this person or that person.  Save those people or these other people.  Where's the either/or with Shepard?  Where's the choice?

 

Well, for one thing, they aren't really "giving up their character"- whether the story ends with Shepard dying or living, its not like you can continue to play him either way. And its not like the fact of his death at the end means you can't import the save and start a new game. Its just a narrative. 

 

For another, other NPC's dying doesn't have the same effect that Shepard dying does. He's the hero. And a hero that dies in accomplishing his goal is, in a certain sense, more heroic- they have given the ultimate sacrifice. I find this to be appropriate for a figure such as Shepard. He's made out to be the next thing to Jesus Christ over the course of the series, after all.

 

 

And as I said before, there is no reason both could not have been offered.  None.

 Well but that isn't true. You just don't agree with the reason, which we've been talking about already- there is a powerful, emotional aspect to having the hero die. The writers clearly thought that it was appropriate, necessary even, for their story. If they had compromised their artistic vision (as they saw it), simply to make people happy, or "broaden their audience" this would've essentially been selling out. 

 

 

So, what, your "feels" have a greater priority than my "feels"?

That's hardly what I'm saying. You suggested that the deaths of a bunch of NPC's you never even meet could be as powerful and perform the same function in the story as Shepard's death, but that isn't very plausible. I care about Shepard- I don't really care that much about the deaths of a bunch of unnamed, imaginary NPCs who populate the Mass Effect universe.

 

 On the contrary, I'd say it validates it further.  Their sacrifice means less loss later. 

Um... ok... Its still uneven and anti-climactic, and thus just feels like a cop-out. All these people die in the lead-up to this great conflict, but relatively few (or relatively insignificant, as far as the player is concerned) in its resolution? Mmmmk... 

 

Because different people have different definitions of "work out perfectly"  Seriously, check out Dragon Age: Origins

 

Because people roleplay different Shepards, who make different choices, and expect different outcomes.  Some where Shepard would live, and others not. 

 

What's getting lost here is that Mass Effect was supposed to be a role-playing game.  A game where we, as the players, tell the story of Commander Shepard.  And not just of one Commander Shepard, but many.  And with many choices, many strategies, one expects many outcomes.  Both good and bad. 

 

Believe it or not, people rigged the Suicide Mission many different outcomes, including suboptimal bloodbaths, just to see the outcomes.

 

That's where you get complexity.  Not just taking differnt paths to the destination, but arriving at different destinations

But all this is basically just to say what I've already noted- that the endings should have been more varied, and should have reflected your choices throughout the series more. And I agree with that 100%. But that doesn't entail that its unreasonable or unfair to not have a happily ever after scenario among the possible outcomes. As I've said, having it all turn out hunky-dorey sort of contradicts probably the central premise to the whole story- that the Reapers represent an absolutely singular and dire threat to the galaxy. If its possible to neatly dispose of the Reapers and have everyone get home for dinner, that clearly belies the premise of the entire story.

[zestalyn]

MEHEM imo is a little too cheese and convenient. It didn't feel right to see Shepard up and running like nothing happened, all nice and cleaned up enough to put Anderson's plaque on the wall. Doesn't convey all the pain and suffering a victory would'v required from Shep. I'm rather content with the Destroy extended cut. The impact of Shepard's sacrifice is still there, but those little seconds of his/her breath implies hope for Shep to finally "have it all", to get what he/she deserves one day, and leaves all of it to imagination. 

[CaIIisto]

I'd rather have not had the breath scene. Shepard clearly lives in that ending so why stop there. I found it to be very unsatisfying. In some ways I prefer low EMS Destroy.

I can also appreciate the position of those that feel the choices should have been wider ranging. Stacking the tone of the choices the way they did, they were always going to p1ss a lot of people off. It's BW's story, and they told it how they wanted to, fair enough, but how many people were enticed into emotional investment on the basis of them being able to make a difference? Yes, there are examples throughout the series where certain actions and outcomes are railroaded, I didn't really see the ending being one of them. Oh well......

[Iakus]

MEHEM imo is a little too cheese and convenient. It didn't feel right to see Shepard up and running like nothing happened, all nice and cleaned up enough to put Anderson's plaque on the wall. Doesn't convey all the pain and suffering a victory would'v required from Shep. I'm rather content with the Destroy extended cut. The impact of Shepard's sacrifice is still there, but those little seconds of his/her breath implies hope for Shep to finally "have it all", to get what he/she deserves one day, and leaves all of it to imagination. 

 

The original version had Shepard still in the melted armor.

 

Later iterations put Shep in dress blues, but you can still see Shepard's face is badly bruised and bloody.

 

And of course, Shepard's expression is very sad in all of them

[CaIIisto]

And of course, Shepard's expression is very sad in all of them

Probably realising the disturbing parallel that he/she has with the Geth - totally fcuked over by their own creators.....

[fronken]

The whole topic is going to be moot anyway when ME4 comes out and the happy ending doesn't jibe with the narrative.  Then it will just be a curiosity, like if someone had made a fan edit of The Empire Strikes Back in 1981 where Vader dies at the end.  People may have loved something like that at the time, but in the end it just. doesn't. fit.

[Iakus]

The whole topic is going to be moot anyway when ME4 comes out and the happy ending doesn't jibe with the narrative.  Then it will just be a curiosity, like if someone had made a fan edit of The Empire Strikes Back in 1981 where Vader dies at the end.  People may have loved something like that at the time, but in the end it just. doesn't. fit.

 

For myself if I have no intention of purchasing a sequel if I can't use it or something similar as my narrative.

[fronken]

For myself if I have no intention of purchasing a sequel if I can't use it or something similar as my narrative.

 

You know.. I actually understand where you're coming from with that.  If this were about pretty much any other game, I would laugh at you, but there is definitely something extremely personal about the way I interacted with Mass Effect.  It makes a lot of sense to me that you'd want to end it on your terms.  I replayed the suicide mission in 2 a couple of times to save people that I just couldn't bear the thought of losing.  At the same time, though, as a writer and lover of storys, I really appreciate that the decisions at the end of 3 were all terrible choices.  It was never going to be as easy as pushing a button to kill the reapers and make the galaxy A-OK.  If it had been, I would not have liked it.  I'm not saying that the ending was good.. I thought the catalyst was a stupid way to resolve the whole thing and the "three button choice" was just as lazy as you can get, but as far as the actual endings go, I liked the one I got, bittersweet as it was.

[fronken]

*

[q5tyhj]

 I'm rather content with the Destroy extended cut. 

 

I'm with you.*

 

*That isn't to say I don't have my problems with the endings. Also, I can forgive quite alot just for that one sequence where "An End, Once and For All" is playing. All the rest of the BS ending aside, that particular sequence is absolutely AWESOME.

[I Miss Minsc]

There is no time in RL where you KNOW it will end pretty well...

 

That would require Clairvoyance .....

 

With this Add on MOD,  I play this game again, CERTAIN that the Hero WILL Live....cool as it is to kill them off....

 

 

This ALONE, makes this a worthwhile MOD.

 

 

 

"Mods make the Difference"