333 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Ha. The films by and large butchered the main themes of LoTR. A poor example to use.

And a further thing, the ending of LoTR is bitter sweet - Frodo never overcomes his pain and the loss of the One RIng and departs forever. The Men Of Numenor are forever diminished, as are the Elves.

Much is lost by the destruction of the Ring, but the protagonists do so willingly to enable future generations to live free. It's a tad analogous to the destroy ending to be honest.

Frodo doesn't die alone on the slopes of Mount Doom though.  Nor does he have to throw himself into the fire to stop Sauron.  In fact, he passes into the West with his kinsman Bilbo, his friend Gandalf, and the other Ringbearers.  He doesn't go alone.  The Appendices even say that Sam eventually goes as well top join Frodo, along with Legolas and Gimli.

 

And while the elves and Dunedain are diminished, they are not slaughtered wholesale by the destruction of the One Ring.

 

But meh, this probably isn't an "artistic" enough ending 

[dreamgazer]

A poor example to use.

 

Indeed. Alas:

 

[Iakus]

a bit weak that analogy. the elves were already on decline before the story even started, as well as the Numenorans. Frodo leaving with the elves at the end isn't nearly as bad as ME3. If you want a better anology to the Destroy Ending, Tolkien would have to kill all the Dwarves because they always dig too deep (geth), and possibly Gandalf, Aragorn or Arwen (for EDI), as well as just stop writing after Mr. Doom and put in a slideshow of a few pictures instead of writing a long extensive ending that concludes the story.

Control Ending would be Frodo becoming the Fire of Mr. Doom and make Sauron and the Orks rebuild Middle Earth. What a JOKE.

And everybody in Middle Earth would be especially grateful for SYNTHESIS - when Frodo turns Elves, Dwarves, Men, etc. into Half-Orks, just so there wouldn't be danger of future wars...

Control would have been TOlkien's thoughts on how the story would have gone if it was based on the real world:

 

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion.  If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied.  Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth.  In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.

[von uber]

Tad =  a little.

[Malanek]

Wrong again. There's an ancient concept called "the hero's journey" (also "monomyth") in literatur.

You may want to read up about it here: http://www.thewriter...o's_journey.htm

Mass Effect follows that concept from the very start (eg. Shepard comes from a criminal background on Earth or the likes) until close to the end, but then suddenly destroys it's own narrative and logic in the end. That's why so many people feel wronged about it, and rightly so.

It's like making a nice cake with strawberries and cream, and at the very end you pour a bottle of tabasco over it. It just doesn't fit.

Can you do that if you think you're some kind of avant-garde cook? Sure you can, but most people aren't going to enjoy the end-product.

I didn't like the ending but cannot agree with the logic behind this comment at all. I do not want the writers to follow an archetype or a template. Moving away from such a thing should give them bonus points.

[Malanek]

"Dark Energy was something that only organics could access because of various techno-science magic reasons we hadn't decided on yet. Maybe using this Dark Energy was having a ripple effect on the space-time continuum."

"Maybe the Reapers kept wiping out organic life because organics keep evolving to the state where they would use biotics and dark energy and that caused an entropic effect that would hasten the end of the universe. Being immortal beings, that's something they wouldn't want to see.

 

 

 

 

This is effectively a global warming analogy. Personally I don't think this is very good because if you were the reapers why wouldn't you simply destroy civilizations that used biotics earlier while allowing non-biotic civilizations to survive longer, perhaps indefinitely. 

 

 

 

"Then we thought, let's take it to the next level. Maybe the Reapers are looking at a way to stop this. Maybe there's an inevitable descent into the opposite of the Big Bang (the Big Crunch) and the Reapers realise that the only way they can stop it is by using biotics, but since they can't use biotics they have to keep rebuilding society - as they try and find the perfect group to use biotics for this purpose. The asari were close but they weren't quite right, the Protheans were close as well.

 

 

And this is really just as bad. Why allow non-biotic civilizations to flourish? If you are racing the clock to a doomsday event you should be trying to hasten experiments and results. You should be geneering new organics and seeding new worlds. Non-biotic species should be eliminated as soon as recognised to make room for more possibilities.

 

I'm afraid I don't like either of these scenarios because they both fail very basic motivation checks. I would have really liked Bioware to have developed the Reapers motivations right at the start when they started ME1. It has a much greater chance of being coherent and logical if they did so. 

[Dr. Rush]

I still say the ending is merely a symptom of a trilogy-spanning design flaw in the morality system. The trilogy was built around giving players a big blue good guy button to push to get a happy ending and the few times the series deviated from that formula it was either brilliant (Geth rewriting) or catastrophic (ME3 ending).

 

Forcing players into a final and unwinnable choice was antithetical to everything the trilogy had established prior. Frankly, I think those are the best choices, and the kind that the entire trilogy needed more of. 

 

Having to choose between good and bad, optimal or sub-optimal, those are poorly designed choices. Having to choose between good and good, means you have to leave something good on the table. Having to choose between bad and bad means you have to weigh your values and determine what you personally think is the lesser evil. 

 

I think too many people were expecting a big blue button, the option to pick the happy and optimal outcome and when there was none, they felt betrayed by a trilogy that had established a formulaic morality system only to abandon it at the climax of the series. 

[dreamgazer]

Having to choose between good and bad, optimal or sub-optimal, those are poorly designed choices. Having to choose between good and good, means you have to leave something good on the table. Having to choose between bad and bad means you have to weigh your values and determine what you personally think is the lesser evil. 

 

I think too many people were expecting a big blue button, the option to pick the happy and optimal outcome and when there was none, they felt betrayed by a trilogy that had established a formulaic morality system only to abandon it at the climax of the trilogy. 

 

I like this human. 

[Gkonone]

Mostly artistic integrity and the idea that the story had to end in a deep, meaningful way, with a lot of pseudo philosophical thinking involved. A happy ending gives you no street cred as a writer, if you want to be taken seriously. That's probably what they were thinking.

Lets forget about the plotholes, continuity and that deus ex machina.

[Rittmeister64]

I didn't like the ending but cannot agree with the logic behind this comment at all. I do not want the writers to follow an archetype or a template. Moving away from such a thing should give them bonus points.

The logic behind this is that there are established forms of storytelling that humanity developed over thousands of years that just work and have a purpose.

Like the greek theater developing drama, satire, comedy. You have to follow through with whatever you set up. You can't write a children's book and have it end with chainsaw massacre. That wouldn't give you bonus points (except from a few people) but create an outrage. Of course you can stick to it and claim "artistic integrity" as your reason.

[Gkonone]

I still say the ending is merely a symptom of a trilogy-spanning design flaw in the morality system. The trilogy was built around giving players a big blue good guy button to push to get a happy ending and the few times the series deviated from that formula it was either brilliant (Geth rewriting) or catastrophic (ME3 ending).

 

Forcing players into a final and unwinnable choice was antithetical to everything the trilogy had established prior. Frankly, I think those are the best choices, and the kind that the entire trilogy needed more of. 

 

Having to choose between good and bad, optimal or sub-optimal, those are poorly designed choices. Having to choose between good and good, means you have to leave something good on the table. Having to choose between bad and bad means you have to weigh your values and determine what you personally think is the lesser evil. 

 

I think too many people were expecting a big blue button, the option to pick the happy and optimal outcome and when there was none, they felt betrayed by a trilogy that had established a formulaic morality system only to abandon it at the climax of the series. 

This sounds familiar, I posted something similar about the ending. I disagree on what you said about the series needing more choices that go against the overall spirit of the games though. One of the reasons I believe that the series are as popular as they are, is that you get to be a hero for better or worse, that saves the galaxy. Or are at least given the illusion of choice to do so.

[Rittmeister64]

Ha. The films by and large butchered the main themes of LoTR.

I dislike mostly in the movie the portrayal of Merry and Pippin as a homosexual couple.

There are a few scenes where it is made quite obvious, like the farewell when they have to go different paths (I think that's in Rohan).

Both actors are damn ugly too (their silly hairstyle doesn't improve things either), which makes it worse.

[Mcfly616]

Watch out. You might get cooties.

[Element Zero]

I dislike mostly in the movie the portrayal of Merry and Pippin as a homosexual couple.
There are a few scenes where it is made quite obvious, like the farewell when they have to go different paths (I think that's in Rohan).
Both actors are damn ugly too (their silly hairstyle doesn't improve things either), which makes it worse.

Haha. I'm not seeing it, man. I see what you're saying, but I'm not "seeing it". Still, this made me laugh and I had to reply.

[von uber]

Merry and Pippin are the least of the crimes.
It's difficult to find a character that wasn't changed, nor a scene that wasn't butchered beyond recognition.
Oddly enough it got worse as the films progressed; the first wasn't too bad.

[Luke Pearce]

I still believe the Indoctrination Theory is correct. That's how I perceive what happened; I mean, it makes perfect sense to me!

[Rittmeister64]

I still believe the Indoctrination Theory is correct. That's how I perceive what happened; I mean, it makes perfect sense to me!

it is not a bad, but the problem is - you are left without any ending then if all the final fight was a hallucination.

So I rather discard it and use MEHEM and maybe CITATEL mod party + Armax Arena fun as the ending.

the mod allows you to run all around the Citatel after the ending and play the Arena challenges.

better than nothing.

If you play on consoles you are screwed unfortunately.

I really hate how consoles take away so much user freedom. Main reason I didn't buy PS4 or XBONE.

[Ithurael]

I still believe the Indoctrination Theory is correct. That's how I perceive what happened; I mean, it makes perfect sense to me!

 

You should read in this thread on my points:

http://forum.bioware...ned/?p=18283416

http://forum.bioware...ned/?p=18291250

http://forum.bioware...ned/?p=18294102

 

Basically, I cite the codex of the mass effect universe and I apply that knowledge directly to what IT is saying. ITs main points are:

- Everything is an illusion (post harbingers beam or at the very least the starjar convo)

- the reapers are tying to trick shepard into choosing blue or green and in doing so he becomes indoctrinated

- post destroy shep wakes up on earth

 

In my posts you can see me break down not only the symptoms of indoctrination but the way indoctrination actually works. Note, I am not speculating. I am using the facts from the game to determine an answer. And the answer I found is that indoctrination cannot create a dreamscape and it does not trick the victim and, most importantly, it cannot be broken like a spell - it is an absolute process.. If you want to discuss more you can comment in the linked thread.

 

IT does offer some better grasp on things, however, it too is a blatant retcon on the established lore and potentially creates bigger issues than the crappy ending we got.

[Display Name Owner]

I still say the ending is merely a symptom of a trilogy-spanning design flaw in the morality system. The trilogy was built around giving players a big blue good guy button to push to get a happy ending and the few times the series deviated from that formula it was either brilliant (Geth rewriting) or catastrophic (ME3 ending).

 

Forcing players into a final and unwinnable choice was antithetical to everything the trilogy had established prior. Frankly, I think those are the best choices, and the kind that the entire trilogy needed more of. 

 

Having to choose between good and bad, optimal or sub-optimal, those are poorly designed choices. Having to choose between good and good, means you have to leave something good on the table. Having to choose between bad and bad means you have to weigh your values and determine what you personally think is the lesser evil. 

 

I think too many people were expecting a big blue button, the option to pick the happy and optimal outcome and when there was none, they felt betrayed by a trilogy that had established a formulaic morality system only to abandon it at the climax of the series. 

 

Good point well made. 

 

I never liked going full paragon, in fact I disliked the way Shepard could just sweet talk or good-karma his way out of probability and consequence. I always went somewhat renegade, so my playthroughs never felt all 'hope will prevail', so maybe the ending didn't feel so contrary to everything else to me because I preferred the renegade way of necessary sacrifices and things not always working out. I never felt like we should be able to defeat the Reapers without big sacrifices, or that Shepard having a happy ending was mandatory, so losing EDI (the Geth were already gone in my playthrough), Shepard dying, several squaddies dying in the original ending - I didn't mind any of that. Although the galaxy being left in a perpetual dark age like in the original endings was a stretch too far.

[JeffZero]

If you play on consoles you are screwed unfortunately.
I really hate how consoles take away so much user freedom. Main reason I didn't buy PS4 or XBONE.

I prefer one of the real endings, probably two of them, come to think of it, over MEHEM. So thankfully I'm not screwed.

No disrespect intended whatsoever to the folks who poured their hearts into making MEHEM, but it looks cheap and ridiculous to me. I don't enjoy its presentation at all. I'm happy for the many who disagree, because it means the project achieved its goal of bringing some measure of peace to the minds of some of those who were most afflicted with angst over this ordeal. But yikes, I dislike it.

Much prefer EDI's delivery of my favorite line in the series.

/hipster glasses

[Iakus]

 

Having to choose between good and bad, optimal or sub-optimal, those are poorly designed choices. Having to choose between good and good, means you have to leave something good on the table. Having to choose between bad and bad means you have to weigh your values and determine what you personally think is the lesser evil. 

 

 

How about having to earn the good ending options?

 

Because from here, what we got to choose was between bad and bad.  With smiley faces stamped on them to try and make us feel better.

[Iakus]

I prefer one of the real endings, probably two of them, come to think of it, over MEHEM. So thankfully I'm not screwed.

No disrespect intended whatsoever to the folks who poured their hearts into making MEHEM, but it looks cheap and ridiculous to me. I don't enjoy its presentation at all. I'm happy for the many who disagree, because it means the project achieved its goal of bringing some measure of peace to the minds of some of those who were most afflicted with angst over this ordeal. But yikes, I dislike it.

Much prefer EDI's delivery of my favorite line in the series.

/hipster glasses

Well, there's also the JohnP's Alternate MEHEM where the changes are far more subtle (even allowing for Control and Synthesis, though Shepard still doesn't survive those) , but keeps the spirit of MEHEM

 

It even allows for stuff original MEHEM can't do yet 

[JeffZero]

Huh, I'll have to check that out when I'm home from work. That's neat.

[Dr. Rush]

How about having to earn the good ending options?

 

 

As ME2 proved, when there is a formula to get the best ending, people will create 100-page guides breaking down every single stat and variation, as that was exactly how it was handled in the past and will likely be handled again in the future. 

 

As long as an optimal choice exists, it is a bad choice. Choices in RPGs are supposed to be difficult to make, they make the player think and evaluate the values of the character they are roleplaying. Easy choices do not make players think like that, they do not demand thought and contemplation on behalf of the player. Easy choices do not promote or facilitate roleplaying a character. Hard choices do, and you will never have a hard choice when there is an optimal outcome. 

[prosthetic soul]

As ME2 proved, when there is a formula to get the best ending, people will create 100-page guides breaking down every single stat and variation, as that was exactly how it was handled in the past and will likely be handled again in the future. 

 

As long as an optimal choice exists, it is a bad choice. Choices in RPGs are supposed to be difficult to make, they make the player think and evaluate the values of the character they are roleplaying. Easy choices do not make players think like that, they do not demand thought and contemplation on behalf of the player. Easy choices do not promote or facilitate roleplaying a character. Hard choices do, and you will never have a hard choice when there is an optimal outcome. 

You're operating under the assumption Bioware games have been giving us this wide gambit of moral quandaries/decision making with a variety of consequences to begin with.  And besides, the choice at the end of ME 3 was hardly an alternative to what you described.  Instead of choosing between optimal or HOLY CRAP EVERYONE DIES, I instead got to choose between three methods of suicide.  Three. Methods. Of suicide.  That isn't really a hard choice either. 

 

And really?  You're defending the endings based on your distaste for metagaming?  Come on now.