1005 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

If anything, happy ever after is a much bigger cliche and one utterly at odds with the series main theme.

Or not.

[KaiserShep]

The whole idea of cliche when it comes to the fate of the protagonist isn't really important. Heroes die in their stories all the time.

As for the series' main theme, I don't think that matters either, because you can simply defy it and get Shepard to live anyway.

[Ashira Shepard]

I've basically ignored the ending after the initial angry banshee screeching in favour of gleefully writing my own. Headcanon rules.

 

That aside, I'm not actively angry any more. It was a good lesson as a writer that even if you can be amazing you can also still mess things up.

 

Still mad. Still disappointed. Cold dispassionate loathing and all that. Maybe not loathing. Mainly disappointed. If they hadn't tried to transcend themselves it would've been amazing.

 

The third part of a trilogy, at the end of a story, is not the place to introduce a brand new character and conflict in fourteen lines of dialogue (vanilla version.) And I could go into a zombie-at-this-point horse ramble about the rest of it but I can't be bothered. Plus I'm pretty sure most people are tired of it.

 

I'll just leave this here.

[Blad3Zer0]

Well, thanks to MEHEM, I *am* at peace with ME3.

[Uccio]

If anything, happy ever after is a much bigger cliche and one utterly at odds with the series main theme.

Not really. Shepard was the overall superhero who practically brought everyone and everything unharmed to the end, just to get shot in the face in last scene.

[AlanC9]

Yes, yes.  You need EMS to get the Crucible working

 

But the thing is, all that stuff you're gathering?  It's just a number.  Fill the tank with numbers and you get the outcomes. 

 

What you gather doesn't matter.  Only the EMS number makes a difference.  We're just bolting stuff on without caring what it actually does for you.

 

Which I suppose makes sense because no one really knows what the Crucible does until the very end anyway. 

 

Exactly so. It's conceptually impossible for Shepard to look for devices to improve particular functions of the Crucible when Shepard doesn't know what those functions are yet.I suppose different categories of equipment could improve different functions without Shepard or the player knowing that in advance, but in practice this just means that you should play a completionist game if you want all the options, which is exactly where we are now.

 

But let's say it was possible to pick up different equipment to enable different functions. Shepard wouldn't be allowed to make that decision anyway. Hackett wouldn't accept something that improved Control or Synthesis even if you hand-delivered it to him, because he wouldn't want those options used if he knew they existed. I don't think you'd do any better with the Council, Victus, or any other authority figure, unless the quarians supported Control. (I figure Xen would go for it, at least.) Though I guess the game could be structured around Shepard sneaking onto the construction site to surreptitiously install such equipment, how would Shepard know in advance that he'd be the guy at the controls of the thing? Certainly nobody ever intended that.

[AlanC9]

Not really. Shepard was the overall superhero who practically brought everyone and everything unharmed to the end, just to shot in the face in last scene.

 

Different people see different things in ME, yep. Is ME about making the hard choices and enduring the consequences, or about avoiding those situations?

 

I have the impression -- no real data, just anecdotes -- that people who thought that the ME2 SM shouldn't have let Shepard bring everyone through alive are much more likely to react positively to the ME3 endings.

[Uccio]

Different people see different things in ME, yep. Is ME about making the hard choices and enduring the consequences, or about avoiding those situations?

I have the impression -- no real data, just anecdotes -- that people who thought that the ME2 SM shouldn't have let Shepard bring everyone through alive are much more likely to react positively to the ME3 endings.

That would still be the only option available. Getting my henchmen killed does not make me more acceptable for my pc's death. It just adds to the annoyance. ME is supposed to be a rpg (atleast at some level), so there should be more just one path. Heck had they just copied DA youcould have sent Anderson to do the sacrifice, even that would have been an impovement.

[Reorte]

Arbitrary deaths just for the sake of having arbitrary deaths ("because it's more realistic") are just plain bad dicking around with the player. Having it very, very, very hard to get through without any deaths is fine.

 

Mass Effect for the most part was plain straightforward old fashioned hero saves the day. Play The Witcher if you want something where I expect things to end badly for quite a few characters, if not the world.

[AlanC9]

That would still be the only option available. Getting my henchmen killed does not make me more acceptable for my pc's death. It just adds to the annoyance. ME is supposed to be a rpg (atleast at some level), so there should be more just one path. Heck had they just copied DA youcould have sent Anderson to do the sacrifice, even that would have been an impovement.

I don't follow this. It's not like Shepard can't live through ME3. And what are you getting at with the italed?

[AlanC9]

Arbitrary deaths just for the sake of having arbitrary deaths ("because it's more realistic") are just plain bad dicking around with the player. Having it very, very, very hard to get through without any deaths is fine.

Why? Specifically, why is an arbitary perfect path better than arbitrarily not having one? It's arbitrary either way, since it's all deliberately scripted.
 

Mass Effect for the most part was plain straightforward old fashioned hero saves the day. Play The Witcher if you want something where I expect things to end badly for quite a few characters, if not the world.

That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Thanks.

[Mordokai]

I don't think Mass Effect really has a single main theme, but if it had to have one I would say it's unity and companionship which very easily lends itself towards a happy ending.

 

The theme of the third game?

 

Or not.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all have heard about how much you detest everything about the end and how much you love MEHEM. About n times by now, where n is very high number.

 

Give it a break already.

 

Not really. Shepard was the overall superhero who practically brought everyone and everything unharmed to the end, just to get shot in the face in last scene.

 

And I give Bioware credits for having the guts to kill Shepard. How much easier it would have been to make everything a happy ending, but they didn't. It takes guts to do that.

 

How much they screwed up with it is up for every individual for themselves to decide. Me, wasn't too phased by it. And you always have a High EMS Destroy.

[Iakus]

Exactly so. It's conceptually impossible for Shepard to look for devices to improve particular functions of the Crucible when Shepard doesn't know what those functions are yet.I suppose different categories of equipment could improve different functions without Shepard or the player knowing that in advance, but in practice this just means that you should play a completionist game if you want all the options, which is exactly where we are now.

 

But let's say it was possible to pick up different equipment to enable different functions. Shepard wouldn't be allowed to make that decision anyway. Hackett wouldn't accept something that improved Control or Synthesis even if you hand-delivered it to him, because he wouldn't want those options used if he knew they existed. I don't think you'd do any better with the Council, Victus, or any other authority figure, unless the quarians supported Control. (I figure Xen would go for it, at least.) Though I guess the game could be structured around Shepard sneaking onto the construction site to surreptitiously install such equipment, how would Shepard know in advance that he'd be the guy at the controls of the thing? Certainly nobody ever intended that.

So you see how silly the concept of "Building a superweapon we have no clue to the function of" is as a story?

[ImaginaryMatter]

And I give Bioware credits for having the guts to kill Shepard. How much easier it would have been to make everything a happy ending, but they didn't. It takes guts to do that.

 

How much they screwed up with it is up for every individual for themselves to decide. Me, wasn't too phased by it. And you always have a High EMS Destroy.

 

I wouldn't say it was a brave decision, just one done for drama, like poor old Legion. Guts would be giving the player a chance to Renegade interrupt Shepard shooting himself in the head because he had finally succumbed to Indoctrination... or something like that.

[Gkonone]

I have always been at peace with ME3. It has amazing gameplay, which is pretty much all that matters to me in a game. I don't care if the plot sucks, if the characters suck or if the ending sucks, as along as I had fun playing it, that's all that matters. If I had a different attitude then I wouldn't be a gamer anymore, because 99.9% of video game plots are utter garbage. 

You're really selling Mass Effect short as far as the story goes, or you just can't appreciate good stories. These type of games rely on a good story. It's not a platform game or a simple shooter.

I don't understand at all how you had fun playing the ME games if you didn't care for the plot, there's a lot of dialogue going on that drives the story.

If you take away the story and the interaction you could have just played nothing really. Most first person shooters have more going on than just shooting.

[AlanC9]

So you see how silly the concept of "Building a superweapon we have no clue to the function of" is as a story?

I think "absurd" is a better fit there. But what of it? Sometimes you find yourself in an absurd situation.

[Reorte]

Why? Specifically, why is an arbitary perfect path better than arbitrarily not having one? It's arbitrary either way, since it's all deliberately scripted.

Who said anything about an arbitrary perfect path? Ideally it should be no more arbitrary than which units survive at the end of an RTS game. If you've got to script things then you need to script enough to at least maintain the illusion that the player isn't just getting jerked around my some angsty scriptwriter. When it comes to games that's a necessary additional element of suspension of disbelief.
 

That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Thanks.

What, that in some other cases it would at least fit the tone, even if the arbitrariness is still the issue? Doesn't look like that's what you were talking about.

[Cainhurst Crow]

2 years after release, the ending is still the hottest issue of the gaming world.

 

Calling bullshit, never seen anyone outside bsn even bring it up. Now its all about DRM's and Ubisoft hate with EA ruins everything in general for old times sake.

 

Can't be at peace with something you were never thrown out of balance about. When I saw the endings, I thought "that's kinda weak" and never had a reaction more strong then that. I never understood getting so emotionally devastated by a video games ending, or any literature ending, that it would require even a month, let alone 2 years. As hated as this will be, folks who still aren't over it need to move on, get a life, and stop being so dependent on video game companies for their emotional and mental stability.

[DeinonSlayer]

Calling bullshit, never seen anyone outside bsn even bring it up. Now its all about DRM's and Ubisoft hate with EA ruins everything in general for old times sake.

Can't be at peace with something you were never thrown out of balance about. When I saw the endings, I thought "that's kinda weak" and never had a reaction more strong then that. I never understood getting so emotionally devastated by a video games ending, or any literature ending, that it would require even a month, let alone 2 years. As hated as this will be, folks who still aren't over it need to move on, get a life, and stop being so dependent on video game companies for their emotional and mental stability.

Just gonna drop in and say, that's the freakiest avatar I've seen in a while. Don't even notice until you actually make yourself look at it. Well done.

[AlanC9]

Who said anything about an arbitrary perfect path? Ideally it should be no more arbitrary than which units survive at the end of an RTS game. If you've got to script things then you need to script enough to at least maintain the illusion that the player isn't just getting jerked around my some angsty scriptwriter. When it comes to games that's a necessary additional element of suspension of disbelief. What, that in some other cases it would at least fit the tone, even if the arbitrariness is still the issue? Doesn't look like that's what you were talking about.

A path where nobody dies is perfect, right? (Unless we start adding in side-effects, of course.) And it's arbitrary because everything in the game is arbitrary.

I'm not quite following your point. Do you maybe mean that having everyone survive feels natural rather than arbitrary, whatever the substance? I don't share the intuition. Knowing that there's always a way out feels contrived too. This doesn't necessarily bother me since it's all contrived, but I prefer that choices go both ways. In the specific case of the SM I think it would have been better for that particular mission to be one of the ones without an escape hatch, especially given all the buildup. Edit: alternatively, one could keep the SM but restructure other parts of the game.

[Ryriena]

The thing is, I believe the reason people are still pissed off is not because of just one game. This was a **** storm that happened when the whole occupy movement was gaining steam, so it was a combination of things that left people with a bad taste in their mouths two years later. Heck, it lead to an creation of a gaming advocacy group called Hold The Line. However, I have still a bitter taste in my mouth but not, as much, when I saw them happening during my first play through.

[Iakus]

I think "absurd" is a better fit there. But what of it? Sometimes you find yourself in an absurd situation.

 

 And asking telling the player to make some massive sacrifice for something absurd is not the smartest move

 

I mean Joseph Heller or Stanley Kubrick might be able to pull it off.  But I don't recall seeing them in the writing credits...

[AlanC9]

And asking telling the player to make some massive sacrifice for something absurd is not the smartest move
 

Huh? By the time a possible sacrifice comes about we know what the Crucible does.

[Ryriena]

And asking telling the player to make some massive sacrifice for something absurd is not the smartest move

I mean Joseph Heller or Stanley Kubrick might be able to pull it off. But I don't recall seeing them in the writing credits...

Heck, even the author of Dragon Age could've pulled it off, if he had just left the whole other option out of the written narrative. As this is not about my new obsession, I will say yeah it was not a smart move to tell the player your killing yourself for something stupid. Yeah, I consider Starbrat logical conclusions stupid as it was morally against my characters belief. I also felt it mocks the ideals and beliefs of real transhumanism ideals to the point of being absurdly inaccurate betrayal of those beliefs.

[Iakus]

Huh? By the time a possible sacrifice comes about we know what the Crucible does.

 

 

Yes you had just learned minutes ago what the whole absurd process was about.

 

Not that there hadn't already been plenty of death, some of it pointless, already.