839 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It can function as one on a first playthrough because its likely you won't know which things you needed to do beforehand to make sure you have the Paragon/Renegade interrupt. So in that moment when the choices are the Geth or the Quarians, that is a dilemma. Chances are when you hit that point that avoiding it will require you to go back at least a few hours if you want to replay everything you need to in order to earn the third outcome. Thats two levels of dilemma. Within the game, do you choose the Geth or the Quarians, out of game, do I live with this conflict or dump the last several hours and replay it (assuming you keep diligent saves) to try to get the third option.

 

On subsequent playthroughs, it is no longer a dilemma. If you're lucky enough (and yes it is luck because there is no reasonable way to know) the first time to have the third option, that is also not a dilemma.

 

Probably a better example of the kind of dilemma I think would interest you is the Salarian/Krogan situation in ME3. Letting the Krogan live is the more hopeful optimistic choice most of the time but we've seen the Krogan still have a strong inclination towards violence and Wrex engages in some uncomfortable talk about wanting territories back. Do we give them that chance and risk them expanding again or do we let things continue as they are which has proven to at least be stable (barring the Reapers)? This is idealism vs cynicism, a theme Mass Effect deals with a lot, even turning it into a central game mechanic. 

No, I much preferred the Geth/Quarian situation than the Krogan/Salarian situation. The Salarian Dalatrass risking the galaxy by not sending the Salarian forces to help if the Genophage was cured is one of the most idiotic things anyone has ever done in that universe, which is ironic since the Salarians are supposed to be the smart race. Luckily Kirrahe and the Counsilor if they are both alive ignore her and send some support anyway. 

 

 

Exactly.

In that case, I don't want any "dilemmas" in these games. 

[Milan92]

In what mainstream movie/TV-show has the hero sacrificed himself to save the world?

 

Dragon Ball Z!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Dragon Ball Z!

Yeah, but as DBZ Abridged points out here. 

[Milan92]

Yeah, but as DBZ Abridged points out here. 

 

Yeah, I know

 

Can you imagine how boring Attack on Titan would be if they had Dragon Balls as well

[HellaciousHutch]

Happy endings are just as cliche as sacrificial endings. 

[Il Divo]

So why not just give each choice their positives and negatives instead of only giving negatives to the third option?

 

Well, that's kinda the point here, Certainly you can do that. But the question is what will be considered an "equivalent" ending for fans to still be considered happy? Each choice needs different positives and negatives for it to effectively be a dilemma. Say in one ending Shepard and his romance option are allowed to fly off into the sun set, what do fans consider a fair price in that regard to be satisfied with their choice but also realize there was some cost involved? 

[Felya87]

Happy endings are just as cliche as sacrificial endings. 

 

than I like clichè happy endings 

 

Is the more enjoyable kind of clichè. and if is enjoyable, is a good ending for me. sacrifical ending for me aren't enjoyable. so aren't good for me.

 

for "happy" I think most people intend the "my character and her LI are alive and can think of a future together". I would really not care about how big is the sacrifice I have to do to do for this kind of ending. really. I would be happy with just having it. I don't care about letting the world burn, if it is the case.

[Inprea]

Well, that's kinda the point here, Certainly you can do that. But the question is what will be considered an "equivalent" ending for fans to still be considered happy? Each choice needs different positives and negatives for it to effectively be a dilemma. Say in one ending Shepard and his romance option are allowed to fly off into the sun set, what do fans consider a fair price in that regard to be satisfied with their choice but also realize there was some cost involved? 

 

Well one way it could have been done is if Shepard sacrifices him/herself the galaxy is able to dissect the reapers and enjoy a major technological boom. Joker is cured of his condition and we see all sorts of illiness and suffering being cured. Sure the reaper war brought about untold suffering but at the end there was a new golden age. On the Shepard lives scenario though the reapers are completely destroyed and thus they can't be studied to the same extent. Healing from the war will be slower and there will be longer lingering pain.

 

And before anyone mentions synthesis. I find that disagreeable. The reason I don't see it as the same is the major biological change forced on every living being in the galaxy and that the reapers continue living. After what the reapers have done again and again I really want them to die horribly. That they just get their off switch hit in the destroy ending involves far too little pain for my liking. Those things and the catalyst deserve to die in agony with nothing but despair to fill their thoughts.

[King Dragonlord]

No, I much preferred the Geth/Quarian situation than the Krogan/Salarian situation. The Salarian Dalatrass risking the galaxy by not sending the Salarian forces to help if the Genophage was cured is one of the most idiotic things anyone has ever done in that universe, which is ironic since the Salarians are supposed to be the smart race. Luckily Kirrahe and the Counsilor if they are both alive ignore her and send some support anyway. 

 

 

In that case, I don't want any "dilemmas" in these games. 

 

You're assuming everyone in the ME3 universe is operating with all the knowledge that YOU have. Its already established via your interaction with the Council that the Crucible looks like a nebulous hail mary (and even we as we're building it have no idea what its supposed to do, just that its some kind of thing that might stop the Reapers, we're just that desperate). So you're asking the Dalatrass to risk resources that would otherwise defend her home world to support your project that is a gigantic unknown that may come to nothing and you're already building it anyway so why can't she just hunker down and defend her world and maybe hope that your project works. Its only worth that risk to her if she gets this concession out of you about the Krogan. That actually makes sense because if the Krogan start breeding like crazy, the Salarians may well need all the resources they have to defend themselves, especially with the Reaper threat.

 

The Krogan Salarian situation is easily the smartest written thing from start to finish about the Mass Effect series. 

[jtav]

The thing that really makes Tuchanka work (besides some really good writing) is that it forces even the player who knows how to manipulate variables to consider what they want. One combination of variables will get you a tearjerking heroic sacrifice and the salvation of the krogan, at the cost of losing some salarian support. Or you can save Mordin. The krogan are doomed but that's probably a good thing, considering Wreav's plans. Or you can maximize your War Assets, but you have to kill Mordin.

[Zjarcal]

Well one way it could have been done is if Shepard sacrifices him/herself the galaxy is able to dissect the reapers and enjoy a major technological boom. Joker is cured of his condition and we see all sorts of illiness and suffering being cured. Sure the reaper war brought about untold suffering but at the end there was a new golden age. On the Shepard lives scenario though the reapers are completely destroyed and thus they can't be studied to the same extent. Healing from the war will be slower and there will be longer lingering pain.

 

And before anyone mentions synthesis. I find that disagreeable. The reason I don't see it as the same is the major biological change forced on every living being in the galaxy and that the reapers continue living. After what the reapers have done again and again I really want them to die horribly. That they just get their off switch hit in the destroy ending involves far too little pain for my liking. Those things and the catalyst deserve to die in agony with nothing but despair to fill their thoughts.

 

Not sure if they could even feel pain to begin with.

 

But anyway, ignoring the "DIE REAPERS DIE" bit, that is indeed pretty much ME3's ending in a nutshell, so I guess you aren't opposed to the general idea they were going with each ending.

[Inprea]

Not sure if they could even feel pain to begin with.

 

But anyway, ignoring the "DIE REAPERS DIE" bit, that is indeed pretty much ME3's ending in a nutshell, so I guess you aren't opposed to the general idea they were going with each ending.

 

Except they put a gun to Edi and the Geth's collective heads. If it wasn't for the mass murder of a friend and allies I would be completely for destroy.

[Killdren88]

Happy endings are just as cliche as sacrificial endings.

Then give the option for both... or if one can only be chosen. The Happier ending. Something needs to break the mold of games trying to be dark or Bittersweet.

[Killdren88]

Except they put a gun to Edi and the Geth's collective heads. If it wasn't for the mass murder of a friend and allies I would be completely for destroy.

That is my biggest problem with Mass Effects Ending. I hate that Edi and the Geth have to die for the Reapers crimes. Not only that the implications of the endings don't sit well with me either. The ending tells us living in harmony is impossible regardless of past efforts it us or them. And the only way to make peace is to either sacrifice your humanity and forcing everyone to change or sacrificing your humanity to become Robo-God and force the peace through force.

[King Dragonlord]

Except they put a gun to Edi and the Geth's collective heads. If it wasn't for the mass murder of a friend and allies I would be completely for destroy.

 

There's no point in even putting the other options in there if the Destroy ending just kills reapers and nothing else.

 

At that point it would be "hey, do you want to either, 1) win the war, 2) rule the universe, or 3) perform galaxy spanning science experiment? Only one of those is in character for Shepard, even a renegade Shepard. You'll notice that throughout the series they typically limited your choices to things that are in character for Shepard as an elite soldier and commander and hero (as opposed to Dragon Age Origins where you're given broader options to support the broader possibilities inherent in their Origins system, both approaches are valid). If Shepard could just win the war with no further cost, he/she wouldn't consider the other two. But facing the possibility of slaying EDI and the Geth and doing lots of infrastructural damage is enough to make him/her at least consider the other options.

 

This isn't KOTOR, there is no Dark Side for Shepard to get drunk on here. 

 

Now if you want to say "Then there should just be a Destroy option." Thats fine. A little disappointing in a Bioware game, but fine. But then lets be real about which of us is against choice in a game. 

[frylock23]

The problem is that there is no real logical reason for them to have put a gun to EDI and the Geth in destroy. It was done solely to force players to consider the other options. That is the only real reason it is there, and that is only the beginning of reasons why the endings fail.

 

Endings, particularly endings with those kinds of consequences need to make sure they make sense when put in context with the rest of the game or else the players will not buy them (i.e. the players stop suspending their disbelief). And if you lose the players, then your intent with the story has failed.

[Wulfram]

I think there were decent arguments in favour of Control there to be made.   Though it would have needed rewriting things further back than the ending to really make it fit - having Shepard spend the game arguing against it is a problem.

 

Probably the people who would pick Control would be a distinct minority, but I don't think that's a terrible thing.  A 50/50 choice isn't inherently better than a 90/10 choice.

[Inprea]

That is my biggest problem with Mass Effects Ending. I hate that Edi and the Geth have to die for the Reapers crimes. Not only that the implications of the endings don't sit well with me either. The ending tells us living in harmony is impossible regardless of past efforts it us or them. And the only way to make peace is to either sacrifice your humanity and forcing everyone to change or sacrificing your humanity to become Robo-God and force the peace through force.

 

That part about forcing the peace made me think of a game. Growlanser heritage of war. The peace maintenance brigade forces peace by having a super weapon no one else has. Imagine if one nation and only one nation had atomic weapons. What happens later though is another nation develops their own super weapon and then things get rough. We're talking 20 years of pent up hate and peace at gun point rough. 

 

Now I favor control but even I think. What happens when the organics manage to develop technology on the same level as the reapers? Of course I also see this problem with synthesis. Look at how well things went with the Krogan when the Selarians uplifted. How many decades will it take for these techno organic humans to remember, "Oh yeah! You killed my parents you space crawdad!"

 

There's no point in even putting the other options in there if the Destroy ending just kills reapers and nothing else.

 

At that point it would be "hey, do you want to either, 1) win the war, 2) rule the universe, or 3) perform galaxy spanning science experiment? Only one of those is in character for Shepard, even a renegade Shepard. You'll notice that throughout the series they typically limited your choices to things that are in character for Shepard as an elite soldier and commander and hero (as opposed to Dragon Age Origins where you're given broader options to support the broader possibilities inherent in their Origins system, both approaches are valid). If Shepard could just win the war with no further cost, he/she wouldn't consider the other two. But facing the possibility of slaying EDI and the Geth and doing lots of infrastructural damage is enough to make him/her at least consider the other options.

 

This isn't KOTOR, there is no Dark Side for Shepard to get drunk on here. 

 

Now if you want to say "Then there should just be a Destroy option." Thats fine. A little disappointing in a Bioware game, but fine. But then lets be real about which of us is against choice in a game. 

 

The loss of the technology and the benefits that come with it would be the penalty to choosing destroy.

[Zjarcal]

Except they put a gun to Edi and the Geth's collective heads. If it wasn't for the mass murder of a friend and allies I would be completely for destroy.

 

That doesn't bother me cuz I just imagine both can be rebuilt. I mean EDI already died once.

 

Though even assuming that can't happen, eh, I can live with it... but then different opinions and all.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You're assuming everyone in the ME3 universe is operating with all the knowledge that YOU have. Its already established via your interaction with the Council that the Crucible looks like a nebulous hail mary (and even we as we're building it have no idea what its supposed to do, just that its some kind of thing that might stop the Reapers, we're just that desperate). So you're asking the Dalatrass to risk resources that would otherwise defend her home world to support your project that is a gigantic unknown that may come to nothing and you're already building it anyway so why can't she just hunker down and defend her world and maybe hope that your project works. Its only worth that risk to her if she gets this concession out of you about the Krogan. That actually makes sense because if the Krogan start breeding like crazy, the Salarians may well need all the resources they have to defend themselves, especially with the Reaper threat.

 

The Krogan Salarian situation is easily the smartest written thing from start to finish about the Mass Effect series. 

I disagree, but this isn't a Mass Effect thread so won't say more on that. However in DAI and other future games I hope for a lot more Geth/Quarian type situations than Krogan/Salarian ones.

[frylock23]

My biggest problem with Control, aside from the space dictator angle which is problematic in and of itself, is that I am putting a mortal consciousness into an immortal role. Humans are not meant to live forever; our psyches are not geared to endure forever. What will happen to Shepard's psyche after decades, centuries ... longer? Is it possible that Shepard will even stay sane? How would you remain empathetic to a universe of beings who live and die in the blink of your own eye? I think Control just delays the cycle really.

[Kimarous]

I think people are getting a bit off-topic as far as Dragon Age goes, given that the main component of the last major conversation is based on Mass Effect.

[Iakus]

 

To be clear, I don't think for a second that every decision at every point in a game should be a tragedy. But neither do I think it's a game's responsibility to in every instance present the player with a clear solution to their problems (which Bioware has done a few times, to ill effect). 

But the final decision needs to be made with utmost care.  It has to feel like a choice worth making.  Not necessarily a clear solution, but a worthwhile one.

 

And for a lot of people who have invested themselves in a character, especially in a long-running franchise, survival will be a part of that.  It's very very difficult to  make unavoidable death seem worthwhile, especially if there are other negative consequences associated with that choice.

 

If a character can die, it should be for something worth dying for.  If a character can live, it should be for something worth living for.  That's where DAO succeeded and ME3 failed for me.  DAO had options worth living or dying for.  ME3 had neither.

[Iakus]

There's no point in even putting the other options in there if the Destroy ending just kills reapers and nothing else.

 

At that point it would be "hey, do you want to either, 1) win the war, 2) rule the universe, or 3) perform galaxy spanning science experiment? Only one of those is in character for Shepard, even a renegade Shepard. You'll notice that throughout the series they typically limited your choices to things that are in character for Shepard as an elite soldier and commander and hero (as opposed to Dragon Age Origins where you're given broader options to support the broader possibilities inherent in their Origins system, both approaches are valid). If Shepard could just win the war with no further cost, he/she wouldn't consider the other two. But facing the possibility of slaying EDI and the Geth and doing lots of infrastructural damage is enough to make him/her at least consider the other options.

 

This isn't KOTOR, there is no Dark Side for Shepard to get drunk on here. 

 

Now if you want to say "Then there should just be a Destroy option." Thats fine. A little disappointing in a Bioware game, but fine. But then lets be real about which of us is against choice in a game. 

 

Baldur's Gate, Throne of Bhaal, had two choices:

 

Destroy the Bhaalspawn essence and live the rest of your life as a mortal, with no other consequence

Claim the essence for yourself, shed your mortal body, and become a god and a powerful force for good (or evil), leaving all your companions and LI behind.

 

So it's not like such a choice hasn't been done before.  Successfully.

[myahele]

I liked the DAO "happy ending" because it wasn't a perfectly happy ending, especially if you use fridge logic:

1.The darkspawn/blight will always be a looming threat
2. The OGB
3. Then there's the epilogue slides
4. The taint will catchup and kill you eventually


The blight is over for now so I'll let future generations deal with it