202 réponses à ce sujet

[PunMaster]

(I'll probably regret joining in on this)

 

Honestly, even *if* we got the/a happy ending, there would still be complaints. What's considered a happy ending that the vast majority of people are satisfied with? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people who played have imagined their own "happy" outcome.

Shepard survives, sure, but I imagine people will want more than just Shepard standing on the Normandy going "Yep, I beat the reapers".

 

Does Shepard go back to the ones he loves? If so, what is the aftermath with them?

 

If Shepard doesn't have someone to love, what does he do? Reunite with his friends/crew? What are they all doing after the battle?

 

I feel as though there are an infinite number of ways that the happy ending would go down, everyone wants something different. Ideally for me, Shepard would go back with Tali to Rannoch and build that home. But hey, someone might have a happy ending where Shepard and Tali fly into a black hole and become fused into one person that can fly through space. They wouldn't be satisfied with the happy ending I wanted then.

 

I would love a happy ending to Mass Effect, but no generic ending would satisfy me, not after the investment I've put into Shepard.

 

So in a way, I'm kind of glad that there hasn't been a happy ending to ME3. It's forced me to imagine my own, and that will always be sweeter than a generic ending.

 

Anywho that's just personal opinion there.

[Iakus]

The thing is, with Shepard standing on the Normandy going "Yup, I beat the Reapers" any of those things are possible.  It's easy to imagine them happening.

 

With an incinerated Shepard, none of these are possible.  And a charred torso lying alone in rubble makes it very, very hard to imagine any of the above happening.

[Oni Changas]

Yo, to all those "happy' endings suck!" hipsters and justifiers of the RGB out there I got some words for ya: METAL GEAR F'N SOLID. Multiple endings, nothings happy-go-lucky and yet the protagonists survive as HEROES. Some folks get done up and die/live on in suffering (Big Boss, sOLiD Snake), others get bittersweetness (Otacon, Raiden, Miller), but when heroes die, it means something, and to step in further, MG's story is 10x complex with 3 times the mythology yet MAKES SENSE when things come full circle. It ain't even an rpg. It needed no dlc to make sense and each game justifies the last. Got questions about the bandana or Vamp's supposed immorality? It's answered. MGS4 went in so much that characters from METAL GEAR 1 are recalled. Yet each title gives endings we can buy into as a majority and without the lame ass grimdark or sacrifice GAWBAGE. I'm not picking up that mic either.

[Hazegurl]

IMO MEHEM is terrible and pointless. The only reason people like it is because they want anything that give them this so called happy ending, but the mod itself have no quality and can't stand by itself. I don't see why Bioware should contact the modder, he merely took advantage of a situation (people wanting a happy ending) and it made success for lack of a better option. Plus, people eagerness to throw anything they got at Bioware to show how much they f*cked up.

 

 About happy endings, the writers should be free to tell whatever story they want to tell. They shouldn't do a dark ending only for the sake of doing it, the same apply for happy endings. If they want to tell something that doesn't include a happy ending, they should do it. They aren't obliged to fulfill peoples need for happy ending or dark, for that matter, just because you paid for it. It's not like they wrote in the box "happiness included" or something like that.

IMO Some players are confusing the amount of control they have over the story. We control Shepard. We should be able to decide his actions, not the outcome. We shouldn't have full control over the story. Sometimes sh*t happen and we have no control over it, I like this aspect of the ending. Plus, I don't see it as a "unhappy ending". The threat ended, the galaxy is saved, Shepard die a hero. In my book, this is a happy ending...

I love the MEHEM. No, I do not believe I should have happy endings in every story. I actually am more attracted to darker stories with even darker endings. No, I do not believe that by doing "everything right" I should have a good outcome in a game. However, I do expect a game that advertises choices  to actually give them to me instead of a series of fake choices with one outcome. Now if Bioware advertised the player's ability to simply pick dialogue options, then I wouldn't have any issues. But that's not what is advertised.

 

As for my reasons for liking MEHEM. It gets rid of that stupid star kid and it's idiotic logic. it doesn't pigeon hole my Shepard into accepting this BS as logic when every dialogue option I've selected in the past has been against it. I don't like writers who throw a tantrum and reflect this in their writing when people wonder what the heck happened to the character they had been playing since ME1. Overall, my Shep is all about destroying the Reapers regardless of what happens to him in the end. MEHEM simply lets him do it without swallowing a bunch of BS along the way.

[crashsuit]

I can't believe there's still any horse left to beat on.

[q5tyhj]

Yo, to all those "happy' endings suck!" hipsters and justifiers of the RGB out there I got some words for ya: METAL GEAR F'N SOLID. Multiple endings, nothings happy-go-lucky and yet the protagonists survive as HEROES. Some folks get done up and die/live on in suffering (Big Boss, sOLiD Snake), others get bittersweetness (Otacon, Raiden, Miller), but when heroes die, it means something, and to step in further, MG's story is 10x complex with 3 times the mythology yet MAKES SENSE when things come full circle. It ain't even an rpg. It needed no dlc to make sense and each game justifies the last. Got questions about the bandana or Vamp's supposed immorality? It's answered. MGS4 went in so much that characters from METAL GEAR 1 are recalled. Yet each title gives endings we can buy into as a majority and without the lame ass grimdark or sacrifice GAWBAGE. I'm not picking up that mic either.

Lol, talk about missing the boat... 

[Iakus]

I can't believe there's still any horse left to beat on.

 

Until we know how Bioware plans to dig their way out of this, there will still be horse.

[crashsuit]

Until we know how Bioware plans to dig their way out of this, there will still be horse.

I meant I can't believe people are still gassing on about the ending.

[q5tyhj]

Until we know how Bioware plans to dig their way out of this, there will still be horse.

Realistically, there's not any hole for them to dig their way out of. Even most of the hardcore pissers and moaners are still going to line up to pay $60 for the new Mass Effect title when it finally comes out. Talk is cheap. 

[Iakus]

Realistically, there's not any hole for them to dig their way out of. Even most of the hardcore pissers and moaners are still going to line up to pay $60 for the new Mass Effect title when it finally comes out. Talk is cheap. 

 

Not everyone is you.  Hard though it may be for you to believe, people are in fact still angry with Bioware about this.  And Bioware will have to deal with that.

 

 

I meant I can't believe people are still gassing on about the ending.

 

In a game with an import system, how you leave things in the last game is going to matter for future titles.  And they left a huge can of Red, Green, and Blue worms wriggling about.

[q5tyhj]

Not everyone is you.  Hard though it may be for you to believe, people are in fact still angry with Bioware about this.  And Bioware will have to deal with that.

It isn't hard for me to believe, I can read. But all Bioware will have to deal with at this point are the pissers and moaners swallowing their complaints the day the next Mass Effect title drops so they can fork over $60 to get the new game. Somehow, I think they'll manage. 

[crashsuit]

"Haters are just confused fans."

-Abe Lincoln

[frylock23]

I guess my problem with the endings is this:

 

ME has been billed as an RPG or a role playing game. In order for that to be true, part of the control of the protagonist has be ceded to the individual players in order for them to take the "role" of the protagonist and shape it for themselves, make it their own. Shepard should have been yours if BioWare was doing its job successfully, and between BioWare and the player, you had a partnership in developing the narrative of the ME trilogy. BioWare was playing the part of Game Master with the players moving within the narrative and shaping it to their own detailed specifications within BioWare's framework. In an actual RPG, this leads to many different outcomes ... or at least that's how the usual GM/player contract works, but at the last second BioWare reneged on the agreement and made the players passive to their own preferred outcomes for our protagonists.

 

In any tabletop RPG, this should never, ever happen. My own husband has been running tables for well over 15 years, and he never violates that agreement. It's the biggest way to lose players because their characters are their own. The only times he has ever wanted to "do something really cool" with anyone's PC in the manner that BioWare d***ed with our Shepard's he has always gone to them first and secured their agreement, and if they said "Hands off," then he wouldn't go there. Otherwise, any PC mayhem was ever only strictly though player agency.

 

Basically, BioWare broke the agreement, and the backlash shows it.

 

If they don't want to produce RPGs anymore, then they should just say so and be upfront about it. If they do, then they need to remember that the protagonist needs to stay in the hands of the players to the greatest degree.

[Iakus]

I guess my problem with the endings is this:

 

ME has been billed as an RPG or a role playing game. In order for that to be true, part of the control of the protagonist has be ceded to the individual players in order for them to take the "role" of the protagonist and shape it for themselves, make it their own. Shepard should have been yours if BioWare was doing its job successfully, and between BioWare and the player, you had a partnership in developing the narrative of the ME trilogy. BioWare was playing the part of Game Master with the players moving within the narrative and shaping it to their own detailed specifications within BioWare's framework. In an actual RPG, this leads to many different outcomes ... or at least that's how the usual GM/player contract works, but at the last second BioWare reneged on the agreement and made the players passive to their own preferred outcomes for our protagonists.

 

In any tabletop RPG, this should never, ever happen. My own husband has been running tables for well over 15 years, and he never violates that agreement. It's the biggest way to lose players because their characters are their own. The only times he has ever wanted to "do something really cool" with anyone's PC in the manner that BioWare d***ed with our Shepard's he has always gone to them first and secured their agreement, and if they said "Hands off," then he wouldn't go there. Otherwise, any PC mayhem was ever only strictly though player agency.

 

Basically, BioWare broke the agreement, and the backlash shows it.

 

If they don't want to produce RPGs anymore, then they should just say so and be upfront about it. If they do, then they need to remember that the protagonist needs to stay in the hands of the players to the greatest degree.

If I could like this post more than once, I would.

[dreamgazer]

There was never any "agreement", though.   It's your version of Shepard, not your Commander.

 

There has always been a canon for Mass Effect, and it's always been a hybrid---hybrid's the key word here---of RPG and cinematic third-person (corridor) shooter.

[Iakus]

It isn't hard for me to believe, I can read. But all Bioware will have to deal with at this point are the pissers and moaners swallowing their complaints the day the next Mass Effect title drops so they can fork over $60 to get the new game. Somehow, I think they'll manage. 

 

No.  Bioware will have to deal with customers they have already burned once, and will remember that when it comes time to "fork over $60 to get a new game:"  

 

Games are expensive.  Why should they invest in a series that has already been shown to disregard their players?  As Frylock put it, they violated the roleplaying agreement and forced their own outcomes.  If I wanted to be a passive spectator, I'd watch tv.   

[Iakus]

There was never any "agreement", though.   It's your version of Shepard, not your Commander.

 

There has always been a canon for Mass Effect, and it's always been a hybrid---hybrid's the key word here---of RPG and cinematic third-person (corridor) shooter.

 

"Hybrid" implies elements of both.  The RPG aspect dried up really early on.

[dreamgazer]

"Hybrid" implies elements of both.  The RPG aspect dried up really early on.

 

It does have elements in both, an area where ME3 actually improved on ME2 quite a bit. 

[Iakus]

It does have elements in both, an area where ME3 actually improved on ME2 quite a bit. 

 

Yeah, workbenches, and...um...

 

Gimme a minute I'm sure I'll think of something else...

[dreamgazer]

Yeah, workbenches, and...um...
 
Gimme a minute I'm sure I'll think of something else...

Must have not played the same game as me, since you're also overlooking the overhauled morality/reputation system, actual plot responses to decisions made, mid-mission dispersal of XP, Glyph's research choices, loot, the weight system, and others. And yeah, the ability to customize weaponry based on class strengths.

[frylock23]

Then, as I said, if BioWare no longer intended for the player to have any say in how the narrative played out ... they should stop telling us this game is an RPG, even an action RPG. When you us the term RPG, it implies there is choice and control for the player within the framework.

 

ME3 violated this agreement. Had it not, there would not have been the backlash.

[dreamgazer]

Then, as I said, if BioWare no longer intended for the player to have any say in how the narrative played out ... they should stop telling us this game is an RPG, even an action RPG. When you us the term RPG, it implies there is choice and control for the player within the framework.

There is, though: limited choice and control, the way it's been since ME1.

If you wanted to refuse becoming a Spectre, wanted to choose anyone besides Kaidan or Ashley for Virmire duty, or wanted any other tactical option that didn't sacrifice tens of thousands of lives in the battle against Sovereign, you were outta luck.

If you didn't want to cooperate with Cerberus, wanted to preserve the Collector base for non-Cerberus research, or didn't want to take your entire crew on the shuttle prior to the Normandy's invasion, you were outta luck. And that's not counting Shepard's first death.

If there was an agency "agreement", BioWare violated it a long time ago.

[q5tyhj]

No.  Bioware will have to deal with customers they have already burned once, and will remember that when it comes time to "fork over $60 to get a new game:

I honestly don't believe that ANY of the people obsessed enough with Mass Effect to still be mad about the ending, two years after the game was released, will somehow be able to stop themselves from buying the next title, just to make some sort of idealistic gesture. If you care enough about Mass Effect to be talking about it on BSN in 2014, you almost certainly care enough about Mass Effect to buy the next title, regardless of how mad you say you are about ME3's ending. 

[q5tyhj]

I guess my problem with the endings is this:

 

ME has been billed as an RPG or a role playing game. In order for that to be true, part of the control of the protagonist has be ceded to the individual players in order for them to take the "role" of the protagonist and shape it for themselves, make it their own. Shepard should have been yours if BioWare was doing its job successfully, and between BioWare and the player, you had a partnership in developing the narrative of the ME trilogy. BioWare was playing the part of Game Master with the players moving within the narrative and shaping it to their own detailed specifications within BioWare's framework. In an actual RPG, this leads to many different outcomes ... or at least that's how the usual GM/player contract works, but at the last second BioWare reneged on the agreement and made the players passive to their own preferred outcomes for our protagonists.

 

In any tabletop RPG, this should never, ever happen. My own husband has been running tables for well over 15 years, and he never violates that agreement. It's the biggest way to lose players because their characters are their own. The only times he has ever wanted to "do something really cool" with anyone's PC in the manner that BioWare d***ed with our Shepard's he has always gone to them first and secured their agreement, and if they said "Hands off," then he wouldn't go there. Otherwise, any PC mayhem was ever only strictly though player agency.

 

Basically, BioWare broke the agreement, and the backlash shows it.

 

If they don't want to produce RPGs anymore, then they should just say so and be upfront about it. If they do, then they need to remember that the protagonist needs to stay in the hands of the players to the greatest degree.

 

Unfortunately, this doesn't make much sense at all. As you admit, the player has "partial" control. Throughout the series, we have a limited amount of choice or control- we get to pick from among usually a couple of options the game presents us with. But the ending is no different- you still have partial control; you get to pick from among the pre-ordained choices the game gives you. The problem was simply that the alternatives weren't very different, and regardless of which you choose the endings all end up having glaring plotholes and violating certain themes or messages from the rest of the series. 

 

So even if there was some sort of agreement about player control, it doesn't seem like the endings violated it any more than any of a number of other sequences in the trilogy did. But there was no such agreement in the first place. The only "agreement" was the implicit one that you were buying a functional action RPG for xbox/ps3/PC- which you were. Now, you could say that Bioware essentially lied, because they did advertise that "all your choices will matter"- which, as far as the ending goes, is completely arguable. But that they violated an agreement about player control? Well, no.

 

Look, you're not going to get many people who disagree with you if you just want to say that the endings were bad. But implying that they were some malicious violation of a nonexistent agreement Bioware had made with its customers? Sort of ridiculous. 

[frylock23]

Yes, it does make sense.

 

By the time of the end, the players have made many choices and seen their own choices throughout the previous games make differences, sometimes major differences. There is/was no reason to think that the outcomes of the end would be any different, especially given what the representatives of the company itself had told us leading up to the release. The endings would also be very, very different. Instead, they all have the same implications for our protagonist, the one thing we have any control over, and the entire thing is prefaced by the character who forces the "choice" on us saying "You have choice, more than you know."

 

Uh-huh. So BioWare decided what the actual end would be and p***ed on legs and told us it was raining. All we got to choose about our funeral is whether it would have red, blue or green lighting.

 

Again, at the end of it all, the GMs decided that had something "cool" they wanted to do with our characters, so they broke the agreement. The backlash shows that.

 

If that was what BioWare wanted to do all along. I have no issue with this, but they should NOT have marketed the game as an action RPG because it ceases to be an RPG in any way at that point.