All well and good, but the point still stands.
It's not the path the audience wanted to take, and it's poignant because of that.
It's poingant because it's a path the audience is willing to take, knowing what was to happen. And as I said, it's a very, very difficult thing to accomplish.
It's poingant because it's a path the audience is willing to take, knowing what was to happen. And as I said, it's a very, very difficult thing to accomplish.
So it comes to willingness to make the choice in ME3 ending? You were unwilling and that's why you think it's bad?
So it comes to willingness to make the choice in ME3 ending? You were unwilling and that's why you think it's bad?
Yes. And that's why I say it's about more than Shepard living or dying. It's about the ramifications of RGB. Those are effects I'm unwilling to put into motion.
Shepard's forced death simply makes it all worse, more blatant.
The "Jesus" thing in video games is lame. Ramming some post-modernisitc pseudophilosophical bullsh*t down everyone's throat at the end of a video game for the ending is lame especially given the "action movie" genre of the story. Even NBA 2K12 had a better ending in season mode because you could win the NBA Championship - you felt like you won something. Borderlands 2 left you with the feeling of winning after you beat Handsome Jack, although I let Lilith kill him because Jack was such a good villain.
ME3 didn't give you the feeling like you won. It was a feeling of loss at the end. A feeling of emptiness. What was the point in that? It might work in a movie, but it doesn't work in a video game. Of the three games I've played the story of ME3 the least of the bunch. I get to where I finish the Citadel DLC and why go any further? It's all downhill from there. After you take down Cerberus, the game stops being fun to play. It goes into complete downer mode. Then you got to blow up the galaxy unless you sacrificed yourself to control the reapers because "releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy the mass relays." Which got changed, but tens of thousands had already traded in their games by the time the EC was released.
The writers need to understand: what is once seen cannot be unseen. The EC didn't significantly change anything.
I'm not really sure what to make of this. In my case, he is somewhat right. I disagree that "strongly foreshadowed" is true... but those dreams do hint at Shepard's death. Sure. As the only option? No.
Had I felt the death was worth it, or perhaps fitting is more correct.. I think I would be more at peace. As it stands, Shepard dies alone, abandoned, after making a galaxy spanning decision... that NO ONE will ever know about. Not a soul will ever know what Shepard faced in those final moments before the end. In any sequel, there will only be speculation ; "Yes, The Shepard made it to the Citadel, opened the arms and fired the Crucible... or so we choose to believe. Since it can't possibly have been anyone else...?".
I do fail to see a connection to The Walking Dead though. Shepard is a mutable protagonist. Lee is no more mutable than Geralt the Witcher. To me that is an important distinction to make. While Lee's death was sad, I did not feel any worse about that death than I did about Eddard Stark dying. Or any other book/tv/comic character.
Mass Effect 2 Shepard: "A bullet in the head solves everything."
Jack: "I know that now."
Mass Effect 3 Shepard: "I must be self-sacrificing...."
Player: WTF?
The "Jesus" thing in video games is lame. Ramming some post-modernisitc pseudophilosophical bullsh*t down everyone's throat at the end of a video game for the ending is lame especially given the "action movie" genre of the story.
ME3 didn't give you the feeling like you won. It was a feeling of loss at the end. A feeling of emptiness. What was the point in that? It might work in a movie, but it doesn't work in a video game.
Of the three games I've played the story of ME3 the least of the bunch. I get to where I finish the Citadel DLC and why go any further? It's all downhill from there. After you take down Cerberus, the game stops being fun to play. It goes into complete downer mode.
Priority: Earth is gritty, yes, but that's to be expected. I appreciate that they took the tone seriously, and the final battle is exhilarating.
Priority Earth is a shitty grindfest.
With bloody red telephone boxes.
And that god awful turret section.
And nonsensical geography - if you are going to set your last level in a real place, at least try going there!
Had I felt the death was worth it, or perhaps fitting is more correct.. I think I would be more at peace. As it stands, Shepard dies alone, abandoned, after making a galaxy spanning decision... that NO ONE will ever know about. Not a soul will ever know what Shepard faced in those final moments before the end. In any sequel, there will only be speculation ; "Yes, The Shepard made it to the Citadel, opened the arms and fired the Crucible... or so we choose to believe. Since it can't possibly have been anyone else...?".
The writers need to understand: what is once seen cannot be unseen. The EC didn't significantly change anything.
The one thing that I liked about the extended cut, was that it fixed the flashbacks. I was happy to see Sam as I fired at the tube.
Priority Earth is a shitty grindfest.
With bloody red telephone boxes.
And that god awful turret section.
And nonsensical geography - if you are going to set your last level in a real place, at least try going there!
The whole Space Jesus thing isn't posing questions and dishing out "deeper" moral dilemmas though. The ending is almost entirely an attempt at style over substance. Oooh, it'll feel all more sober if Shepard dies, that makes it all moody and meaningful. It's a really blatant attempt at playing the emotions and things happening just because the authors want them to happen so they're going to happen, necessary or not.Mass Effect has been posing questions and dishing out "deeper" moral dilemmas the entire time. You can't even get out of ME1 without throwing thousands under the bus for the destruction of one Reaper, and you have to consider galactic politics and the appearance of humanity, too, while a gun sits at the heads of the council. I don't agree with your assessment of the "genre".
I think he means that it clearly shows that the designers hadn't got the faintest idea what London is like, even allowing for some changes for the future, not that the place has been somewhat beaten up.I won't dispute the turret and I think they should have made war assets somehow usable like in Dragon Age: Origins, but I disagree. The geography is intended to be a mess. It should be a mess, and the experience of weaving through a harvest-in-progress Earth should be unpleasant.
I believe the reason for the turret at the FOB, was for the other soldiers to see Shepard out there fighting like they are to boost their morale.
That isn't really speculation, since Hackett knows Shepard's location on the Citadel when the Crucible fires.
Shepard also isn't required to die. To get the outcomes you want in Control and Synthesis, though, yes, Shepard must die.
Hackett knows someone opened the Citadel. That's it. The "Commander" calls he makes are made in the assumption that it has to be Shepard (since Shepard is the player character)
Yes, Shepard is required to die. In all endings. One is just more excruciating than the other two
Edit : Also my point stands about the future. Even if they somehow knew it was Shepard that ushered in the "new" future, no one will ever know what Shepard faced in those final moments. The Catalyst, the other possibilities, the sacrifices (possibly) made. Nothing. It's just a blank hole after Shepard went up the beam.
The geography is intended to be a mess. It should be a mess, and the experience of weaving through a harvest-in-progress Earth should be unpleasant.
My point is that Shep gets dropped oof from the shuttle roughly 1.5km from the beam (i.e. clearly on the banks of the Thames by Big Ben (Wtf happened to the rest of building to leave that standing, but I digress). The beam is approximately at Victoria Station.
She could jog there in a few mins. Hell the shuttle could fly for an extra minute and be there.
Hackett knows someone opened the Citadel. That's it. The "Commander" calls he makes are made in the assumption that it has to be Shepard (since Shepard is the player character)
Actually, Hackett's pronoun changes when he discusses the person who gets up to the Citadel. "She did it".
Yes, Shepard is required to die. In all endings. One is just more excruciating than the other two
Yes, because the purpose of showing a Finger Twitching Revival was to illustrate Shepard's death. Right, Tully?
My point is that Shep gets dropped oof from the shuttle roughly 1.5km from the beam (i.e. clearly on the banks of the Thames by Big Ben (Wtf happened to the rest of building to leave that standing, but I digress). The beam is approximately at Victoria Station.
She could jog there in a few mins. Hell the shuttle could fly for an extra minute and be there.
Get to close to the Reapers without an IFF and they'll blast you out of the sky.
London is torn apart, and the level designers used (some!) artistic license to complicate Earth in a future version of the city. It's far from the first time that's happened.
I believe the reason for the turret at the FOB, was for the other soldiers to see Shepard out there fighting like they are to boost their morale.
That, and to break up the goodbyes so the player wouldn't complain about the lack of infiltration during that time.
It still needed to go, I think.
Mass Effect has been posing questions and dishing out "deeper" moral dilemmas the entire time. You can't even get out of ME1 without throwing thousands under the bus for the destruction of one Reaper, and you have to consider galactic politics and the appearance of humanity, too, while a gun sits at the heads of the council. I don't agree with your assessment of the "genre".
I felt like I "won", but yes, it's tempered by sacrifice. Something Shepard's long acclimated to.
Hackett's association with the Japanese atomic bombs isn't without merit.
It does? Priority: Earth is gritty, yes, but that's to be expected. I appreciate that they took the tone seriously, and the final battle is exhilarating.
You, the player, aren't throwing thousands under the bus in ME1. You do that only if you let the Council die. IMO that was one of the most asinine calls they allowed the player to make. Hackett was the fleet admiral and should have made the call. It is a fairly simple call to make.
Choices in a game do not make the genre. It was an "action movie." It was full of action movie one-liners. Mass Effect 2 was like playing inside an Arnold movie. Even the music was perfect for it.
I guess you can say that scene was tempered by sacrifice.
An ending with sacrifice works in movies and TV shows, and plays. But this is a video game. It is interactive. It is a different media. Unlike a Shakespeare tragedy where you know the MC is going to die in the end, and you're watching someone give the performance, or if you're the actor you know your character is going to die so you give the performance, this is one where the player doesn't know this in advance.
Game: a game is something that you either win, or lose. If one perceives loss at the end no matter what the intent of the writers, it is a loss. Perception is reality.
London is torn apart, and the level designers used (some!) artistic license to complicate Earth in a future version of the city. It's far from the first time that's happened.
Possibly. But it is very jarring for someone who lives there and goes past it everyday.
Adn again.. red phone boxes? Why didn't they have Mounties in Vancouver guarding Shep?
The whole Space Jesus thing isn't posing questions and dishing out "deeper" moral dilemmas though. The ending is almost entirely an attempt at style over substance. Oooh, it'll feel all more sober if Shepard dies, that makes it all moody and meaningful. It's a really blatant attempt at playing the emotions and things happening just because the authors want them to happen so they're going to happen, necessary or not.
First, yes, but that's the way writing works. That's the reason anything happens in Mass Effect: the writer made it happen through their own contrived rules, every last one of them.
Second, no, style over substance would be a conventional/military victory. I know better than to discuss the "substance" here to any degree, but it's certainly not the most egregious presentation of style over substance that could have come out of the situation.
Third, "the whole Jesus thing" is all about the question posed to Shepard about the organic-synthetic conflict, The Reapers' purpose of creation, and the path the galaxy needs to take next, along with their sacrifice to enact the decision. One can make the complaint about "moody and meaningful" in any piece of fiction they don't like where the character dies.
You, the player, aren't throwing thousands under the bus in ME1. You do that only if you let the Council die. IMO that was one of the most asinine calls they allowed the player to make. Hackett was the fleet admiral and should have made the call. It is a fairly simple call to make.
Choices in a game do not make the genre. It was an "action movie." It was full of action movie one-liners. Mass Effect 2 was like playing inside an Arnold movie. Even the music was perfect for it.
Game: a game is something that you either win, or lose. If one perceives loss at the end no matter what the intent of the writers, it is a loss. Perception is reality.
First, yes, but that's the way writing works. That's the reason anything happens in Mass Effect: the writer made it happen through their own contrived rules, every last one of them.
"Contrived rules" would have been an improvement. This was completely arbitrary. They had an idea, and hammered it in no matter how poorly it may fit
Second, no, style over substance would be a conventional/military victory. I know better than to discuss the "substance" here to any degree, but it's certainly not the most egregious presentation of style over substance that could have come out of the situation.
Why does a military victory have to equal "conventional victory"?
Why does a nonconventional victory have to equal Shepard's death?
Third, "the whole Jesus thing" is all about the question posed to Shepard about the organic-synthetic conflict, The Reapers' purpose of creation, and the path the galaxy needs to take next, along with their sacrifice to enact the decision. One can make the complaint about "moody and meaningful" in any piece of fiction they don't like where the character dies.
Still doesn't answer why they felt it was vital that Shepard die. Twice!
You realize that Shepard having to "die for the galaxy's sins" is the crux of the whole Space-Jesus thing, right?
Actually, Hackett's pronoun changes when he discusses the person who gets up to the Citadel. "She did it".
Yes, because the purpose of showing a Finger Twitching Revival was to illustrate Shepard's death. Right, Tully?
Get to close to the Reapers without an IFF and they'll blast you out of the sky.
London is torn apart, and the level designers used (some!) artistic license to complicate Earth in a future version of the city. It's far from the first time that's happened.
Seriously, I am getting tired of debating the same stuff with you every time.
http://forum.bioware...ruction-ending/
Shepard dies. In every ending. Only BioWare can prove me wrong. And they won't.
Retour en haut