439 réponses à ce sujet

[WhiskeyBravo45]

What am I missing?

I think you are considering Saren's-Sovereign's motivation as the main factor. That was to control Saren.

What I meant was more subtle, not that it was presented as a good option or solution to the main problem (which maybe wasn't understood clearly at that point), but that the possibility of synthesis does exist. It's an oblique implication... e.g. 'synthesis is the future...' not for the reason Saren thought but nonetheless. It's possible I am reading too much into that. Sort of like TIM wasn't thinking that when they rebuilt Shep... but it still opens that door just a bit for the player to think about it.

[DesioPL]

Ah, so everybody dies. Awesome.

 

Working as intended.

[Valmar]

I don't agree. A classic happy ending would have greatly reduced the "drama" of the other endings. There's a massive difference between killing characters because you can (ME2 suicide mission) and because you can't do differently (Kaidan/Ash on Virmire) That's why i think the "ultimate sacrifice" from DA:O is more a dumb suicide than an actual sacrifice.

 

 

Thats fine, just don't get that ending then. Again how in anyway shape or form does me having an ending I want take away from the ending you want? You don't want a classic happy ending? That's totally cool. I have no problem with you having whatever ending you want. If drama is your thing, by all means, go for it man. Though to say that no on else should have the happy ending they want because YOU feel it would reduce the quality is inherently selfish and arrogant. You're enforcing your view of what you perceive is the best on everyone else.

 

I am completely and absolutely fine with there being no classic happy ending default. Infact if there was no way to have a 'crash and burn' then I would be upset because I'm all about giving the player choice. I'm not saying that the ending of Mass Effect should had been happiness, sunshine and butterflies. I'm not saying it had to end one way or another. I'm saying that it should have given the player the OPTION to achieve that if they so desire.

 

Giving others the choice to experience the ending they want in no way takes away from your experience. If my ending was cliche and cheesy how would that take away from your dark, gritty and dramatic ending? It wouldn't. Your ending would still please you and my ending would please me. We'd both be happy. Unless you're saying you'd be upset knowing that not everyone gets stuck with the same depressing dramatic ending that you think is so much better than the cliche happy one. In which case, again, its selfish. Isn't it enough that you get what you want, what does it matter if others get something different as long as everyone is satisfied?

 

 

 

Also to respond to some of the comments about the Suicide Mission being too easy to achieve full success... I disagree. I'm not talking about multiple playthroughs when you know everything. I'm talking about your first experience. You didn't lose anyone your first time? That's great. A lot of people did though. Not everyone knew they had to take on the collectors immediately. Not everyone knew they had to explore every line of dialogue to get the Normandy upgraded. Not everyone could regain loyalty or keep loyalty of both characters during the two 'arguments'. Yes, who does what during the suicide mission is pretty obvious. Though there is more to critical success than just who you assign to what. It isn't THAT easy and obvious for new players.

 

Also note that even loyal squadmates can be killed off if you don't have the right upgrades to the ship. There are quite a few variables to take into account and shouldn't be passed off as such a casual thing everyone achieves every time, generally speaking.

 

Infact, take a peek at some of the statistics for ME2 and ME3.

http://www.destructo...ng-188362.phtml

http://kotaku.com/59...tly-as-soldiers

 

Not everyone plays the game 'perfectly'. If they gave a 'happy' ending it wouldn't mean that suddenly the majority of players would get it by default and only way to get the dreary stuff is to force it. I sincerely believe that most casual players would end up getting a more dark and depressing ending, with only the diehards with full imports being likely to get the 'best' happy ending.

 

 

 

It should've been impossible to do the Suicide Mission without deaths. Colossal mistake if you ask me.

Just like it is impossible to finish ME3 and save everybody.

 

This actually ties in with my earlier point about how Mass Effect was never on a pedestal as a dark and dreary game. Personally I have to agree it would had made a lot more sense of the suicide mission to have mandatory sacrifices. However it doesn't. You can totally beat it without losing people. You can get that cliche ending where the hero kicks the bad guy's butt, everyone survives and is home in time for tea. You get that choice if you dedicate enough time for it:

 

1. Doing all the loyalty missions for your squad BEFORE the reaper IFF mission (not including Legion)

2. Having enough paragon or renegade influence to MAINTAIN the loyalty (Jack/Miranda, Tali/Legion).

3. Talking to your squad about their thoughts on the Normandy to learn about upgrades.

4. Spending your time tediously scanning planets and probing for minerals just so you can upgrade the ship.

5. Making sure you tackle the suicide mission immediately after the abduction.

6. Assign the right specialist.

 

Point is that if you strive for it you can get a happy cliche ending. So giving ME3 a happy cliche ending would not be out of place. If the suicide mission did force mandatory sacrifices then I would agree that ME3 shouldn't go the cliche route. Yet that simply isn't the case. If they can be cliche happy ending with ME2 why are we denied that choice in ME3? Why does it decide now that it must jump on the angst train? Just one example of many where the ending lacks consistency with the trilogy.

 

 

I should have added to my post that lately as I've been playing ME2, I've been purposely manipulating the suicide mission to get a few deaths, and, well... I don't want to say I enjoy the game more because of it, because that's not really the case, but I do want to say that a few deaths here and there don't seem out of place either. 

 

Not to take away from what you've said, but the same would probably apply to ME3 too. I would have been amazed if, at the end of ME3, shep climbed out of the rubble, stood up, brushed her hands and smiled, and there was much rejoicing. I would have loved it, no question... and then the next time I played the game, I would have manipulated the end-game circumstances so that didn't happen, and I'd have been okay with that too. 

 

 

Being able to manipulate events like that is, imo, what a choice-based narrative is all about.  Telling different stories with different outcomes.  Even I have a "minimalist" run in ME2.  Not that I ever got around to importing it  I've done all four endings to DAO, and while I have a preference, I don' think any of them are the less for being able to choose another outcome.  Even the Ultimate Sacrifice. 

 

 

Thats the right kind of spirit.

 

Notice they aren't criticizing anyone's maturity for preferring one over the other yet instead sees the value of having both.

[Farangbaa]

Don't talk to me like I've never played the game, lol.

Yes, if you strive for it, you can get the super duper rainbow happy ending. I'm just saying that shouldn't have been possible. But it's far less out of 'character' for ME2 to end with a super duper rainbow happy ending, than it is for ME3.

You know, ME3, that game where every hour millions of individuals get turned to goo or are turned into Husks and the like. That game where homelands are laid to ashes and voided of inhabitants.

[WhiskeyBravo45]

Thats fine, just don't get that ending then. Again how in anyway shape or form does me having an ending I want take away from the ending you want? You don't want a classic happy ending? That's totally cool. I have no problem with you having whatever ending you want. If drama is your thing, by all means, go for it man. Though to say that no on else should have the happy ending they want because YOU feel it would reduce the quality is inherently selfish and arrogant. You're enforcing your view of what you perceive is the best on everyone else.

 

I am completely and absolutely fine with there being no classic happy ending. Infact if there was no way to have a 'crash and burn' then I would be upset because I'm all about giving the player choice. I'm not saying that the ending of Mass Effect should had been happiness, sunshine and butterflies. I'm not saying it had to end one way or another. I'm saying that it should have given the player the OPTION to achieve that if they so desire....

 

Right.  That seems to be what sets people off.  The idea that everybody SHOULD have been able to achieve the ending they wanted.  That turns out to have been a bad expectation, I believe mostly set by Casey Hudson but perhaps reinforced by others at Bioware.  In reality, the ME story was going to have a specific arc and (try) and resolve that critical challenge I mentioned.

 

I am also reminded of the number of people disappointed in the ending for The Last of Us.  I try no spoilers here... (there might be a 42 people left who don't know the ending...) but in that case the ending was (I believe) a surprise twist on purpose.  It turns out that game was really 'the Joel and Ellie personal tale" and not what was expected.  But I believe the ending was consistent within the framework of what they had built (limitations and all).  It worked in the dramatic sense, but wasn't geared to make people happy.  Some stories are like that.  The problem was players/fans were writing their own parameters in their heads while they played the game leading to the climax.  But it wasn't "your story"  it was "Joel's story".  Many people wanted his choice to be their choice but that wasn't the writers goal.  I was shocked, but enjoyed it as unexpected and atypical.  It's the dilemma of interactive gaming vs. narrative (like movies/books).  

 

I think we have the same issue in general with Mass Effect... except they told us "the Shepard story is YOUR STORY!!!"  (yeah! go buy one today!) so I totally understand why people were pissed on that point.  But in reality they can't write content for TEN GAMES and cram it into one.  I mean in ME3 they already had x2.5 the normal size content and script of ME2 or any normal game  (think about that from a business perspective).  Not to be an apologist (not my intent), but Bioware meant saving Krogan counts, saving Geth counts, saving Rachni counts, etc. except that doesn't really change the CORE ANSWERS to the main issue.  It's like Bioware was "getting high on their own supply" of marketing hype.  I expected a Fallout-style treatment to be honest.  I'm just saying I can see why the train wreck of misunderstandings happened.  I hope that makes sense.  That's easy enough to see, right?

 

Again, that's kind of late analysis for why so many people were irked. (using a mild term).   I have an N7 sticker on my car window and one guy told me (half joking) he wanted to scratch my car as a result.  At least I think he was joking. 

 

I think we were talking more about what the ending should have been.  I have ideas for cut-scenes I would have loved to see (e.g. you should watch EDI die if you chose Destroy you Renegade bastard! (haha, just kidding a bit).  I guess I was assuming we were focusing on a limited number of core endings... but sure, why not list the 10 endings we thought we would see?  Or all the little tweaks?

 

It sounds like most people are arguing for variations on the DESTROY option, but with the tweaks they like.  I like the few "4th options" that have been added so far.

[Vazgen]

I'll be honest, I didn't expect a choice in the end of Mass Effect 3. For me, that story should've ended with one fixed ending which can fluctuate a little based on your EMS. The fact that they actually gave us a choice is awesome IMO.

@Valmar, you asked "how in anyway shape or form does me having an ending I want take away from the ending you want?". For me, the mere possibility of survival and happy ending takes away from the drama of the sacrifices you have to make in the end. I'm a completionist, do everything there is to do in the game before going to the final mission. That's the reason I didn't have any quests, non-Depleted planets, upgrades, cabin decorations, weapons, armor etc. left when I went after Reaper IFF on my first run. Legion offered his loyalty mission almost immediately after activating him I assigned Garrus as a fire team leader because I trusted him the most, sent Legion into the vents because risking synthetic felt more right than risking an organic squadmate, I sent Mordin with the crew, because he seemed the weakest of all, Samara was holding the bubble, because she volunteered and I've seen her biotics in action. Everyone survived and it was a great fun! However, now that I know the possibility exists, I have to deliberately kill squadmates to have less ideal SM outcome. It takes away from the idea of having losses - they die because of your laziness (deliberate or not), not because the mission called for it.

From the moment ME3 started I knew that it won't have a happy ending. I was ready to make sacrifices and stop the Reapers, no matter the cost.

@WhiskeyBravo45, I don't think Alliance option is possible with the way the Reapers are established. One example of synthetics and organics cooperating would not be enough for them (especially, considering how that peace was achieved). Returning to the dark space will mean losing the advantage they have. Races of the galaxy already know about them, working together they'll create means of fighting and defeating Reapers conventionally.

[Cobwebmaster]

Because it was the most obvious name for him and it had much more meaning and easier to interpret than "Catalyst"

 

Also, whole child line in ME3 is so stupid. Shepard is not supposed to be that flimsy to obsess over one child. Especially if she's Ruthless Earth-born Renegade ffs. 

How about See-Ta-Dell? As good a name as any other construct and with megalomaniac overtures

As regards the child Shepard obsesses about it all through the game during nap time so considering his consistent proximity to reapers and reaper tech throughout the series, I'm surprised that he wasn't more "indoctrinated". 

[WhiskeyBravo45]

How about See-Ta-Dell? As good a name as any other construct and with megalomaniac overtures

As regards the child Shepard obsesses about it all through the game during nap time so considering his consistent proximity to reapers and reaper tech throughout the series, I'm surprised that he wasn't more "indoctrinated". 

 

A little off-topic… but this raises some interesting questions.  So here is how I thought about the dream/child plot element.  At first I thought they added it to show that Shepard was still human, and not a one-dimensional combat robot.  

 

But then I realized this actually lines up with some symptoms of Combat Fatigue or PTSD.  It’s not unusual for combat vets to exhibit these symptoms-  recurrent, unwanted distressing memories of a traumatic event, reliving the event, upsetting dreams about the event, strong reaction to things that remind you of the event, etc.  Those are symptoms from the Mayo Clinic website for PTSD.  I am not diagnosing Shepard with PTSD, as a veteran myself I know that can get complicated.  Just pointing out they may have put some thought into that and it isn’t silly.

 

Anecdotally, I hear some veterans discuss that although they grew hardened to the violence they had to face in combat, an incident with a child would break through those defenses and affect them deeply.  Nightmares about injured or killed children are not unusual.  As are nightmares about one’s own impending death.  (I mean people still comment on Lincoln and MLK dreaming they were going to die, etc.).  Once I saw Shepard’s premonition of his/her death I was convinced it was coming.  I think they used foreshadowing (to use a technical term) intentionally to build tension too. 

 

I think it’s likely the writers just meant it to show the years of fighting were taking a toll on Shepard – does that make him/her look weak? Or just more realistic?  We all judge that subjectively so I don’t claim there is any one right answer.  However, maybe this element strikes some players are stupid because they’ve never seen the subject dealt with at all in a game?  It’s just a question.  As we carry the character through the whole trilogy it makes sense to me- but of course again we can speculate about other ways to achieve the same goal.

 

The Star Child clearly says it took that form in response to Shepard’s memories, right?  So while I don’t think this HAS to indicate any previous influence/indoctrination clearly the Catalyst has access to Shepard’s mind, so that can still be an open question.  Personally, I thought the Catalyst should have taken some other form, such as a Reaper, Leviathan, Harbinger, etc.  but then how much sense does it make for Shepard to have a nice/neutral conversation with it?  I mean if it looked and sounded like a Reaper then Shep should be hostile and distrustful. Maybe the child form but the Harbinger voice- that would be creepy.

 

Given all that, if I were writing ME3 I think I would try and include some similar elements.  

[angol fear]

 

I think it’s likely the writers just meant it to show the years of fighting were taking a toll on Shepard – does that make him/her look weak? Or just more realistic?  We all judge that subjectively so I don’t claim there is any one right answer.  However, maybe this element strikes some players are stupid because they’ve never seen the subject dealt with at all in a game?  It’s just a question.  As we carry the character through the whole trilogy it makes sense to me- but of course again we can speculate about other ways to achieve the same goal.

 

I agree with you and I'll just add that in Mass Effect 2 in the DLC Lair of the Shadow Broker, Shepard says to Liara at the end of the DLC that he is tired of that fight against the reapers. So yes, it can be seen this way, because it was written this way.

[Valmar]

The Star Child clearly says it took that form in response to Shepard’s memories, right? 

 

Does it? No, honestly, does it? I've been using MEHEM so long I've forgotten some of the finer details (for which I am grateful). I don't recall the star child EVER  giving any explanation whatsoever as to why it looks like the kid from Shepard's nightmares.

 

Somewhat unrelated but have you ever tried a game called Spec Ops The Line? It handles PTSD. I was expecting it to be another boring generic shooter but was actually impressed with the depth of the story because of it. Made it memorable to me. The best thing is that you go the whole game not really realizing it until the end when the pieces start to come together. Spoiler. Lol.

 

 

I agree with you and I'll just add that in Mass Effect 2 in the DLC Lair of the Shadow Broker, Shepard says to Liara at the end of the DLC that he is tired of that fight against the reapers. So yes, it can be seen this way, because it was written this way.

 

Isn't that just one optional line of dialogue that Shepard can say? Or is it actually a mandatory default line? If not I can't see using it as justification to claim such and such is written in any which way. A lot of Shepard's character is decided on by the player, after all. It was kinda one of the biggest selling points of the game.

[SilJeff]

It's more of a "I looked at what was given and came to that conclusion" than a "he outright told me". The Catalyst never outright tells us why it took that form.

[KaiserShep]

I agree with you and I'll just add that in Mass Effect 2 in the DLC Lair of the Shadow Broker, Shepard says to Liara at the end of the DLC that he is tired of that fight against the reapers. So yes, it can be seen this way, because it was written this way.

My Shepard wasn't tired of jack squat, and never told anyone anything of the sort.

[AlanC9]

Giving others the choice to experience the ending they want in no way takes away from your experience. If my ending was cliche and cheesy how would that take away from your dark, gritty and dramatic ending? It wouldn't. Your ending would still please you and my ending would please me. We'd both be happy. Unless you're saying you'd be upset knowing that not everyone gets stuck with the same depressing dramatic ending that you think is so much better than the cliche happy one. In which case, again, its selfish. Isn't it enough that you get what you want, what does it matter if others get something different as long as everyone is satisfied?

 

This is a bit confused. You're asking for a different set of choices, right? Well, if you're getting a different set of choices, then so am I . If you get the escape hatch that lets you reach the classic happy ending, then I get that escape hatch too. Sure, I can still refuse to use the escape hatch by deliberately screwing up, but my play experience is still different because now I'm deliberately screwing up.

 

I don't see any way that this isn't a zero-sum game. A dilemma either has an escape hatch, or it doesn't. You can't satisfy both preferences simultaneously, can you?

 

Edit: I think the confusion comes in because this isn't just about the final results, it's about the process of reaching them.

[Iakus]

This is a bit confused. You're asking for a different set of choices, right? Well, if you're getting a different set of choices, then so am I . If you get the escape hatch that lets you reach the classic happy ending, then I get that escape hatch too. Sure, I can still refuse to use the escape hatch by deliberately screwing up, but my play experience is still different because now I'm deliberately screwing up.

 

I don't see any way that this isn't a zero-sum game. A dilemma either has an escape hatch, or it doesn't. You can't satisfy both preferences simultaneously, can you?

 

Edit: I think the confusion comes in because this isn't just about the final results, it's about the process of reaching them.

You think the Dark Ritual is an "escape hatch" in DAO, don't you? 

 

Which is odd, because I don't.  In fact, I don't even see it as an "optimal" outcome. 

 

But I guess if you see one ending as "obviously" better than the others, and cannot be disuaded otherwise, to the point where anything else is simply screwing up, then I guess there's nothing to say but to disagree.

[Stronglav]

I would have some kind of heroic epic run to The-Reaper-Control-Panel

and push the:die-you-mother-f*ckers button.

But since its a suicide run the entire team dies too.

[WhiskeyBravo45]

Does it? No, honestly, does it? I've been using MEHEM so long I've forgotten some of the finer details (for which I am grateful). I don't recall the star child EVER  giving any explanation whatsoever as to why it looks like the kid from Shepard's nightmares.

 

It's more of a "I looked at what was given and came to that conclusion" than a "he outright told me". The Catalyst never outright tells us why it took that form.

 

Yep, you guys are right...  I watched the dialogue again, it is not there in the script.  I must have jumped to the conclusion and imagined the dialogue as we have seen the same explanation used in other stories.  I thought maybe it was added in the DLC, but nope and not with Leviathan either.  Would have been so easy to add 1 line when Shepard asks "what are you?" but I guess they left it out... on purpose or an oversight I wonder?  Maybe it would have given more ammo to the "indoctrination theory" crowd.

[Valmar]

This is a bit confused. You're asking for a different set of choices, right? Well, if you're getting a different set of choices, then so am I . If you get the escape hatch that lets you reach the classic happy ending, then I get that escape hatch too. Sure, I can still refuse to use the escape hatch by deliberately screwing up, but my play experience is still different because now I'm deliberately screwing up.

 

I don't see any way that this isn't a zero-sum game. A dilemma either has an escape hatch, or it doesn't. You can't satisfy both preferences simultaneously, can you?

 

Edit: I think the confusion comes in because this isn't just about the final results, it's about the process of reaching them.

 

I see a lot of mentions of escape hatches and I'm going to assume, given the context of other posts, that it has something to do with Dragon Age. I know nothing about Dragon Age so if its referring to something else, sorry. I'm trying to understand what you're saying here but your metaphor is over my head.

 

Anyway, I'm not precisely asking for different choices... rather the inclusion of MORE choices. If you finished the trilogy completely and did everything you possibly could to ensure you had the maximum EMS scores possible then why not give you the option to have an ending that destroys the reapers without having Shepard killed or crushed in rubble. Having that as an option in no way takes away from having non-optimal endings. I also don't believe its necessary for you to deliberately 'screw up' to get the non-optimal endings. Not everyone has all the DLC or does all the missions on time or makes all the 'best' choices. Not everyone has perfect runs. Nor does everyone choose Destroy.

 

The amount of effort you put into the trilogy (not to mention real cash, for that matter, with all the DLCs) should all attribute to getting you a happier ending with more closure. If you want to complain about how you'd be 'forced' to not do all the missions or purposely hinder your EMS to get another destroy outcome then why not too complain about how you have to 'force' yourself to get the Lowest EMS settings to get the worst EMS destroy ending that turns earth to ash. Since if you're the kind of person who does all the missions its probably going to be impossible for you to get the 'worst' ending.

 

Yet having that ending as a choice for others who want it doesn't ruin your experience in anyway. If others choices made YOUR experience less enjoyable then you shouldn't even be playing Mass Effect. This is like getting upset over someone playing Action Mode. I couldn't dream of ever playing the game like that but how does having the option for those who WANT it hurt me? It doesn't. If I don't like that option I can easily opt out of it. Others can get what they want without it hurting my experience. The same is true for the ending, the principle is the same.

 

And yes, you can satisfy both parties. How on earth would it NOT? Consider this, just for sake of argument:

 

Johnny prefers the darker, drearier ending with more death and loss. He plays the game with this in mind and achieves the ending and experience he prefers and is happy about it because he gets the tailored story experience he so desired.

 

Timmy want cheesy happy ending. Timmy does what is required to achieve it and make the right choices that lead to that option. Timmy is satisfied.

 

So now both get the ending they want. But wait, now Johnny is upset. Because oh no, even though Johnny got the ending he wanted  he just found out that, to his great dismay, that others got a happier ending. Their ending isnt as dark as his. Blasphemy! How dare they ruin his game, how  dare they ruin HIS ending by they not suffering too! Everyone must be miserable, because he demands it to be so!

 

Timmy finds out that others endings aren't all happy ones but are instead  are dark, dramatic and depressing with the squad all dying and Shepard getting crushed by space rubble. Now Timmy is pissed, his ending, experience and choice now mean nothing because others are different. Oh noes however will he move on. No, he demand that you must not have your ending because it will make his pointless. Others getting what they want hurts him, it tears at his soul.

 

 

 

This ridiculous hypothetical situation is what it would take for someone to be upset over someone else getting a different ending from them. I reiterate my earlier point: someone having a happier ending that you OR EVEN a darker ending in NO WAY effects YOUR experience. Giving them the option, giving them choice does not take away from your game or your choices. Forcing others to get the same miserable **** that you get just because you prefer it that way is not in anyway fair. Forcing others to get the same happy ending just because they prefer it isn't in anyway fair. We, as the player, should be able to decide the kind of experience we want to have.

 

Mass Effect is not a novel with a singular story or tone. It is a game for which story is suppose to revolve around our decisions, our actions. Everyone's experience is suppose to be a little bit different. My story, my experience is different from yours. Some people conquered the suicide mission without losing a soul while as others lost the whole crew and few crew mates. Mass Effect is about our Shepard's and how our decisions effect our game. Why is it so wrong to want the ending to give us the same level of choice?

 

If you hate cheesy corny endings where the good guy lives and conquers the baddies and feel that it should be darker, fantastic. That choice is certainly there for you. You can get what you want. If however you want that cheesy ending, you're **** out of luck. Giving players choice, again, in no way shape or form takes away from your choice. You can give both dark and happy. Mass Effect has done it before, why not again.

[Vazgen]

I just can't see how you're going to implement it. I play all DLCs and finish all missions but I still don't want that happy ending you mention. How would you write it so I can get a grim ending despite doing everything "right"? Put a choice option in the end? Pick one option and you get a happy ending, pick another and you get a grim ending? Sorry, but I'll feel wrong for not picking the happy option just because I "like grim". In fact, it's not that people like grim endings, it's the fact that they feel that grim ending is closer to reality. Having a way to get that happy ending breaks that feel

[Reorte]

A selection of all plausible endings should be possible (somehow putting aside the fact that if the Reapers weren't idiots the only plausible ending is a Reaper curbstomp). All of the Normandy crew surviving is a plausible ending if any of them surviving is (especially if most of them are just sitting on the ship). The entire galaxy surviving unscathed is not. Arbitrarily killing anyone or anything off just because "hey, it wouldn't be realistic otherwise!" is just so much bull.

FWIW the Normandy and everyone on board getting toasted should've been a quite likely outcome.

At no point is any particular death absolutely necessary, the cumulative odds of "none" just get higher and hence the probability lower the more survivors you have.

You shouldn't be "picking" any particular ending on the miserable - happy spectrum, it should be a reflection of skill (and luck, although including luck in it may be too unpopular) throughout the entire story. Ideally it should be possible for characters to die on routine missions although that raises serious implementation issues.

If people die because it feels like a rational outcome of the events of the story that's fine. If they start dying because it feels like the writers have decided "Hmm, not had enough deaths yet, that's unrealistic, better kill someone" then it's not.

[Reorte]

I just can't see how you're going to implement it. I play all DLCs and finish all missions but I still don't want that happy ending you mention. How would you write it so I can get a grim ending despite doing everything "right"?

Do the best job possible and you should get the best possible outcome. If you could metagame and replay real events in the same way the same thing would happen.

[Vazgen]

Do the best job possible and you should get the best possible outcome. If you could metagame and replay real events in the same way the same thing would happen.

Except the best possible outcome having nothing negative about it is non-realistic, just as the Suicide Mission with everyone surviving. Except in case of Suicide Mission you can attribute to blind luck, but on a scale of galactic war that doesn't apply

[Reorte]

Except the best possible outcome having nothing negative about it is non-realistic, just as the Suicide Mission with everyone surviving. Except in case of Suicide Mission you can attribute to blind luck, but on a scale of galactic war that doesn't apply

See my other post; I certainly don't think "everyone in the galaxy survives" should be there and neither does anyone else as far as I'm aware.

Which particular bit of the Suicide Mission did someone absolutely, have to die on? If there answer is "none" then it's realistic enough in a way, just too easy. Have team members go down or caught and shot up if you don't get to them in time, things like that, don't make it too easy to get to them in time, and do that a few times and it becomes unlikely but still possible for everyone to come out of it. Tali's in the pipe, needs the next panel hitting, Garrus has gone down (not scripted, just because he's been overwhelmed), last save was ages ago, if you get to Garrus to get him back on his feet in time you may not have time to open the pipe for Tali, if you go straight for the pipe Garrus is dead... Would've made the whole thing even more tense. If you'd managed your squad better, shot better yourself, the situation wouldn't have arisen, but keeping that going all the time would be very hard...

Got to be careful with "realistic". After all you're going through the entire game vastly outnumbered. Whilst that's part of the genre / practical conventions for a game that it's easy to overlook it does make it quite hard to pull off deaths that don't look arbitrary, and arbitrary death isn't any better than arbitrary surival.

[Vazgen]

See my other post; I certainly don't think "everyone in the galaxy survives" should be there and neither does anyone else as far as I'm aware.

Which particular bit of the Suicide Mission did someone absolutely, have to die on? If there answer is "none" then it's realistic enough in a way, just too easy. Have team members go down or caught and shot up if you don't get to them in time, things like that, don't make it too easy to get to them in time, and do that a few times and it becomes unlikely but still possible for everyone to come out of it. Tali's in the pipe, needs the next panel hitting, Garrus has gone down (not scripted, just because he's been overwhelmed), last save was ages ago, if you get to Garrus to get him back on his feet in time you may not have time to open the pipe for Tali, if you go straight for the pipe Garrus is dead... Would've made the whole thing even more tense. If you'd managed your squad better, shot better yourself, the situation wouldn't have arisen, but keeping that going all the time would be very hard...

Got to be careful with "realistic". After all you're going through the entire game vastly outnumbered. Whilst that's part of the genre / practical conventions for a game that it's easy to overlook it does make it quite hard to pull off deaths that don't look arbitrary, and arbitrary death isn't any better than arbitrary surival.

You replied to my comment which was in response to Valmar who seemed to want "cheesy happy ending". Overall, I agree with you, ideally the ending should've been the result of all your choices throughout the trilogy, however I doubt it would've been possible to implement with the time constraints and hardware limitations of that time. It can work for Suicide Mission, like in your example, but a galactic war is a much bigger scale and needs a lot more variables accounted and implemented.

I haven't played Witcher games but as far as I know they feature a similar idea of influencing the ending through your decisions during the gameplay. However, as far as I know, they simply disregard a lot of player choices in each consequent game. I've only heard of Mass Effect that implemented full-fletched save import with all the variables.

[Obadiah]

I don't think rational people or characters engage in machinations/choices that generate a dark story just to have one, people are thrust into dark situations because of circumstance. That's the ME3 ending. These stories are still likeable.

I don't think the dev team owed it to us to put a happier ending in there just because some of us want it.

[TheBunz]

With a game transfer back to one. Game ends with shep going back in time because reapers won in 3.