Actually that's not what he means at all! you simply think that more choices the merrier which is not false concept from it's basis but personally doesn't fly for me as the ending of the ME trilogy i find the idea of getting a "happy ending" absurd because then by definition it would render the other grim and grey endings quite absurd and a punishment to players. it's not about one dark ending being the only viable choice it has more to do with certain perceptions that the endings keep in check
however back to my main point the idea of having an ending where shepard would walk away slowly would be firsthand insulting to the Reaper threat and the narrative itself and therefore would receive no respect from me. not just because "life is grim and harsh" but because the three endings that you get are coherent with each other they all have pros and cons so having more choices in this case would actually ruin that equilibrium. of course that doesn't mean that all RPGs should do grim endings necessarily (though i would deeply prefer this direction) and that these endings should be flawless however based on the three endings that we have providing more choices that allows you walk way alive and settle with someone is absolutely out of the question.
Then you must really hate the ME2 perfect ending. Look, I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting a grim ending. That's fine. I'm happy you get what you want. Me getting what I want in no way takes away from what you want, period. Why is this is even up for discussion? How are you hurt by me getting something I want.
There is something I think you all need to remember here.
SHEPARD SURVIVES. THE NORMANDY SURVIVES. THE SQUAD SURVIVES (well, other than EDI). Sorry to shatter your hearts. Sorry to insult the reaper threat. But there you go. The reaper threat isn't even what killed EDI and the Geth, either. It was the crucible. So again this doesn't give any credit to how dangerous they are, it just means they were friendly fire.
The perfect destroy ending has none of them dying (except EDI, I guess, for whatever crazy reason). Are you pissing yourself in rage that this is the case? Shepard doesn't have to die in the game as it is. Nor does the Crew. Nor does the Normandy have to get all wrecked. The foundation of a happy ending is already there. You wouldn't need to change anything. They'd only need to ADD to it. To give more variation and more options. The way you people act its as if by default ME3 is 100% dread and misery with no possibility of happiness. The bases for a happy ending is already there but they don't shine any light on it other than to nod that its exists. Oh, yah, heres a breathing scene so you know Shepard lived. Woo-hoo, party up in here ya'll.
My ending has the crew and Shepard survive. Does this hurt you? Does it, honestly? Does it take away from your experience? Rhetorical question because of course it doesn't. How then would having him get up and join his crew or see SOME closure as to what happens to the characters I spent years with in anyway hurt your ending? My cheese would not hurt you unless you're really, really vindictive over someone else not getting the same miserable story as you. I don't understand, I really don't. I see people on the forum here who have runs where they make radically different choices than me. Their experiences are definition NOT what I would want in my playthrough. Yet I don't think they're wrong for it, if thats what they want I think its AWESOME that they can tailor the story to fit their needs.
Them having what they want doesn't mean my experience is less for it. They can kill off all the characters I love and guess what? They're still fine in my game. I don't have to experience ME3 with Tali, Grunt and Legion dead. I don't want that experience, its not for me. Yet others do. Fantastic for the, I think it is great that Mass Effect gives you that level of tailoring for how you want your story to play out. How you play your game, how you tailor your story, your personal experience in Mass Effect does not take away from mine. So then why is it that mine would somehow take away from yours if mine was happier? Hm? There is no logic or reason to this.
Preferring one way over another is fine but don't act like it should forced on EVERYONE just because YOU'RE happy with it. That isn't fair no matter what side you're on.
what you have to keep in mind is that following the "more choices is always better" doesn't apply to every aspect of an interactive narrative especially since there are very few games like this out there and they have to have a narrative frame while providing certain liberty and freedom. i'm all for more choices in terms of companions (and of course if we apply the same logic to companions then more companions would be better and everyone would be happy which is not the case) LI choices i hope that this freedom just expands more and more not just by bioware but by all the gaming industry, however certain rules have to govern this liberty otherwise the overall tone and the structure of the game would fall apart.
The tone of the game has already fallen apart in ME3, especially, ESPECIALLY in the ending. Also, Im not saying "more choice in all aspects of narrative". I'm saying more choice in the ending. You know, that ending that was suppose to be radically different for every person and was suppose to be super-tailored for your Shepard's decisions throughout the trilogy we've been playing for years. Yeah, that ending. I want that tailored ending. I'm a crazy person I guess. 
@Valmar
Low EMS ending is different, because to get it you have to deliberately avoid game content and it doesn't require metagaming. Having low EMS as default will diminish other players' efforts who did complete all the game content the "right way". If you are a completionist and did everything there was to do, you must get more in return than those who didn't complete everything. The ability to finish the game in a perfect way does not diminish other players' efforts but it automatically assumes that every completionist player wants a happy ending. Having a little bittersweet added there can actually satisfy the majority of players from both groups but it's a thin line to walk.
I am not saying low EMS is default. No ending should be default, it should be tailored to your playthrough. The argument you make against happy ending is still the same, however.
I'm saying for sake of argument assume you want to play everything. You don't want to skip things or purposely avoid them. You want to play the whole game. BUT you love the low-EMS story. You love how bleak and dark it is. You want that to be your ending, you feel it is the the most realistic and satisfying. Well guess what? You're going to have to change the way you play if you want to achieve that aren't you? Does that mean that ending or any other ending has no meaning? No, it doesn't. It just means that if that is the ending you want then you have to work for it, even if that work involves purposelessly hurting your EMS score to achieve it. I think it is FANTASTIC that the game actually gives you that choice.
If you want to complain that you want the a less happy ending but DON'T want to skip anything then the complain is the same exact premise for complaining about the low-EMS ending. Besides, like I said, there are ways they could had implemented it so you can avoid that. Repeatable quests being one of them.
As the game is now if you want to do EVERYTHING but still get the absolute WORSE ending... its pretty impossible. So wheres your complaint for this, hm? Why doesn't that ****** you off? I mean if you're upset over the idea that doing EVERYTHING gets you a happy ending when you dont WANT that happy ending, why can't you be upset for others who may want the WORSE ending while still being able to do everything?
What I'm seeing here in some of these comments is a whole lot of "well, Im happy with this so everyone else should be too".
Giving others the option and/or ability to play the game and get the experience they desire out of it, as I've said many times now, in no way takes away from your game. I cannot believe there are actually people who are AGAINST giving others something they want when it in NO WAY effects them personally. Again, if you don't like it, thats fine. That's cool. It isn't mandatory. Do and experience what you want in your game but don't tell others that its wrong for them to want something different.
About Mass Effect not being built up as a tragic story, I agree, but it doesn't mean it was meant to be a happy story either. I think ME1 clearly emphasized that there are sacrifices needed for the victory. In ME2 it gets thrown away with happy Suicide Mission.
Your arguing that it should be allowed to be inconsistent with the rest of the narrative then, aren't you? Just because they've done happy ending before doesn't mean they should allow the option now. Just because it wasn't always tragic doesn't mean it shouldn't only be tragic now.
To put that in another context just because the story was about the reapers doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make it about the collectors now. A complaint a lot of people had about the second game was this shift of focus from one type of story to another. I'm not even in that boat since I loved ME2 and didn't feel the collectors were that out of place yet I still acknowledge that others felt differently.
Happy ending would've required a different game. Why did it have to concern Shepard and his squad? Because Shepard is the protagonist, the sacrifice has much stronger impact when we have to choose the one we know, not some unknown soldiers we've never seen (ME1). For me, the best ending is high EMS destroy - Reapers are dead, everything related to them too (mass relays, EDI and geth), Shepard's alive, every other squadmate is alive.
I have no idea wtf you're talking about here. Different game? It would be the same. Just with more content. Ironically you follow this up by saying the best ending with reapers dead, Shepard alive and every other squadmate alive. There is your foundation for a happy ending. How would showing more than just Shepard alive under a bunch of rubble change the fact that he is alive? How would showing the crew getting back together and rejoicing the victory take away from the fact that they're alive already? It wouldn't change anything, just add to it. The fact that this is even being arguable about is, in my mind, ridiculous.
Honestly the only thing you can say would possibly change is that maybe they decide that destroy doesn't have to kill EDI and the Geth. However them 'changing' this is a minor detail since the other endings have them surviving anyway. Would it be such a huge stretch to say that thanks to all your huge amounts of EMS and crucible studying the scientists figured out how to narrow the range of the blast down so it targets only the reaper's as it was intended? For god's sake, even the prothean VI is able to distinguish reaper agents from those that aren't so it isn't like the bases isn't there. Plus the ending was also supposed to kill Shepard yet if you have enough EMS Shepard survives it. What the kid says isn't absolute or written in stone. If high EMS can save Shepard why can't it save EDI or the Geth?
Wait... are you really saying that you don't know the "escape hatch" metaphor? I thought this one was pretty standard in English. It's just a generic term for having a way out of a situation you'd like to avoid.
I was under the impression that it was with context referring to Dragon Age since I've seen it mentioned numerous times and generally it was followed up or pretext with "like in Dragon Age". I assumed there was an ending that lets your character survive something by going into an escape hatch or something. I was perhaps taking it too literally.
Also, no, I'd never heard of the "escape hatch" metaphor. Other than in relation to Dragon Age, anyway. Which is why I associated it with being a literal reference to an ending in DA:O.
Yes, you've been clear what you're asking for. The problem is that inclusion of more choices changes the context of the other choices. (Note that we also apparently have a disagreement about what actually happens to Shepard.)
Except that it doesn't. Shepard and squad can still survive as it is. Seeing a more happy outcome other than Shepard being alive under a bunch of rubble is not going to suddenly change everything. Shepard is still alive in that ending, even right now. I know because I played it. How would them adding more context to that make the other choices any less? It seems to me that the other choices got their share of attention in EC. Control gives you the "The man I was" speech from Shepard so you see what happens to him and the like. Synthesis gives you some special dialogue from EDI.
Why can't destroy give my surviving Shepard some extra love so that the last I see of him isn't lying in some rubble somewhere? The only thing I can remember off hand that is specifically changed for that variation is the fact that your LI won't put your name on the wall. WOAH GAME CHANGER.
You all make it sound like I'm asking to change all the endings so that Shepard always survives and always gets a happy ending. This is not what I'm saying AT ALL. Keep what we have, its good to have options. Just give us an option for the happier ending if we want it. The foundation is ALREADY THERE. They wouldn't have to change things they just add more what we already have. Jeeze.
Playing a game with the ending in mind is something I don't do ... at least, not until the third or fourth playthrough when metagaming becomes necessary if I don't want to see the same content all over again. I just play my characters and whatever happens, happens. (In terms of GNS Theory I play as a simulationist, but I prefer the games to be constructed according to narrativist principles.) So this hypothetical isn't relevant to me; that's not how I play the games in the first place. I'm interested in the choices I'm going to face, and your goal is (apparently!) to change those choices in a way that will make them less interesting to me.
I don't do that either. Infact I hate playing the game with a gamer-perspective and like to base all my decisions off what my Shepard would do in the situation. For example as a player I know the Illusive Man is indoctrinated and working for the reapers yet Shepard doesn't know this so I wouldn't choose to destroy the collector base just because I know how it turns out.
I know that the only way to get the 'optimal' genophage sabotage is to kill Wrex and destroy the data but this isn't something my Shepard would do so I don't do it, even if the future outcome is something I might prefer myself. I base it off what Shepard would do at that time with the data given to him, not based off what things will turn out to be in ME3.
The hypothetical wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at Vazgen. It is also very valid, imo. Vazgen is saying that the he prefers the ending having some dread and drama, yadda yadda, yet he also wants to play everything and get high EMS. So by making the 'best' destroy ending happy would force him to get it because otherwise he'd have to change how he plays. That's what you're both saying, really. You're fine with what you have and you don't want to have to change anything to just to keep your preference.
The same principle applies to someone who WANTS and PREFERS the low EMS destroy outcome. If that is the outcome THEY prefer then they're forced to play the game a certain way to get it. Yet neither of you seem to complain about that. Why? Because you're already satisfied with what you have and don't care what the others want, apparently. You're good, thats all that matters. Others need to learn to just like what you like and get over it, yeah?
Also you're gravely misunderstanding me if you think I want to change your choices. I want to ADD to them. Give you MORE choice. More agency. How on earth is giving you MORE options going to hurt your preference? Your ending and experience can still be there for you if you so desire it. Nothing is changed, only extended. Expanded. You get more, more substance and more content. The fact that anyone can view this in a negative light is mind-boggling.
The actual happiness of the outcomes for my PC isn't all that important for the quality of the decision, except in that I don't see a good way to construct difficult choices out of completely happy outcomes. If you force me to choose between creme brulee and tiramisu for dessert I might find have trouble making a decision, but it's not a very compelling dilemma.
The difference is that taking away that option helps you by not giving making you choose. Adding the option will allow you to still get what you want but make you 'choose' to get it, while ALSO allowing others to who DIDN'T want the one you wanted to also get what they want. Everyone gets what they want, the difference is now that you're in a situation where you have to choose to get it yourself instead of having it just given to you. I don't want to have to choose between happy or dark so I declare EVERYONE must get dark so I don't feel like I'm being forced to make a choice. Because that's totally fair, right.
I still think its important for you to all remember that Shepard and Crew can already survive the ending. How does giving more content or options to make that happier hurt you? It's not like I'm asking them to bring the dead back to life here.
Retour en haut
seeking a promotion and greater influence within the Alliance; © becoming the new human councillor (only in the "diplomatic" ending); or (d) retiring from combat duty and taking an assignment to a reconstruction project (Mindoir for Colonists, Earth for Earthborns, and um...I dunno, maybe a new Arcturus Station for Spacers?). If Shepard died by being "absorbed," we have a brief scene with Hackett and the Normandy crew reviewing the video footage from the Citadel, which cuts out just before the Catalyst manifested itself, leaving Shepard's ultimate fate a mystery to the survivors.
That is usually a sign of bad writing. Dreams, ok that's different.
