304 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

Of course it becomes a problem when we have multiple choices for every conversation but not the ones that reflect our personal viewpoint... but in the ending the logical fallacy is so obvious that I can't believe BIoware missed it, and there's no excuse for not putting it into the extended cut.

 

From March to June 2012 Bioware had plenty of time to look at the most serious criticism to their game and we were practically all yelling here at BSN "I made peace between they geth and the quarian, why does Shepard ignore that when talking to the catalyst!?", and yet all we ever got was the option to say "How is this not conflict" and it's foused on the paradox that the Reapers being a solution for peace -- that's all fine and dandy, thanks for that, but how did Bioware not address the problem of the optimal outcome of Rannoch vs the final 10 minutes of the game, when it is probably the most fatal contradiction in the ending?

[God]

The game is not nearly responsive enough.

 

Reluctant leader?

Selfish and violent?

Devil may care?

Loyal to the Alliance?

Loyal to the Council?

Loyal to Cerberus?

 

The game plays out the exact same way and everyone reacts the same way. There is no sense of memory of what Shepard has done or a sense of who Shepard is. Everyone distrusts Shepard no matter his/her actions if the plot demands it and everyone naively expects Shepard to do the right things even with a track record that screams FIND SOMEONE ELSE FFS!

 

Indeed. I'm talking about the characterization of Shepard himself. There has to be some linear lines though for him to follow, and for the game to follow. Same with consequences. Not every ideology is equal. A paragon Shepard, in the end, isn't necessarily going to work as well as a Shepard whose more willing to do whatever it takes to succeed. That's something I think is justifiable.

 

However, they did undercut some of the internalized ideology or philosophy of Shepard when it came to choice. 

[Reedirector]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Shepard? 

 

A very good question.

 

From my point of view, Shepard is a conduit (oops excuse me I did a little pun) for the player, their values, their ideals, the roles they might want to fulfil in the ME Universe, with some added differences to make the roleplaying more exciting and engaging.* That is especially evident if you've been playing through all three games and develop connections with the characters of the series. So if Shepard is a reflection of myself within the game, then having him die is like severing my connection to the story, the characters etc. 

 

Also, the NPCs in the game would be affected (adversely, one hopes) by Shepard's death, and if I didn't feel a connection to Shepard then I did feel a connection to them.

 

If someone more eloquent than me would like to dive in and prevent me from looking emotionally and intellectually confused, I would appreciate it. If not, my rambling, incoherent explanation will have to do, I'm afraid. 

 

*I doubt someone ever made a Shepard character that was the exact opposite of themselves, although I think it would be interesting to see it done. 

[Linkenski]

I'm still waiting for that Bioware game where we get full control over our dialogue (as in, like ME1, ME2 or Inquisition, not literally!) and simulatniously we see our character grow and possibly change depending on what happens. If you lock in the choices you made as Shepard and turn it into a movie his character arc is not all tha impressive. Same goes for Hawke and Inquisitor. I think Bioware need to consciously plant a character growth arc through choices as in real character development for the protagonist but make perhaps 2-3 paths we can develop in while still giving the same amount of dialogue options per conversation as usual. Then I might be saddened if said character's ending is left open for me to interpret.

 

In ME1 and ME2 I definitely felt closer to my Shepard than ME3 though and perhaps that's also part of the reason why his death didn't have such a lasting effect on me.

[Valmar]

You shouldn't have to read additional comics and novels to make sense of the plot or characters of a computer game.

 

You don't.

[Iakus]

You shouldn't have to read additional comics and novels to make sense of the plot or characters of a computer game.
By all means have them as additional fluff but the games should be able to stand on their own two feet.

Yeah that's right up there with a "Buy DLC" ending message

[Pasquale1234]

A very good question.

From my point of view, Shepard is a conduit (oops excuse me I did a little pun) for the player, their values, their ideals, the roles they might want to fulfil in the ME Universe, with some added differences to make the roleplaying more exciting and engaging.* That is especially evident if you've been playing through all three games and develop connections with the characters of the series. So if Shepard is a reflection of myself within the game, then having him die is like severing my connection to the story, the characters etc.

Pretty much this.

In any RPG, the PC is the player's avatar and the vehicle through which the player interacts with the world.

 

DAO has an option for PC self-sacrifice, which would give Bioware some telemetry wrt how many people appreciate that option.  Of course, that was a single game - a far cry from a character you've played through an entire trilogy.

I remember the first time I played Fallout 3.

Spoiler

About halfway through, I was spoiled to learn that the PC would have to sacrifice her life in the end. I accepted it, but my personal investment in the character and the story was lessened from that point forward. There was an outcry about it, and Bethesda released a DLC (Brotherhood of Steel) that allows the player to sacrifice another character instead.

 

*I doubt someone ever made a Shepard character that was the exact opposite of themselves, although I think it would be interesting to see it done.

I sometimes role-play characters who are very different from me. Sometimes inadvertently, since Shepard often seems to have a life of her own. 

[Massa FX]

@ Linkenski  So... why am I so obsessed with Shepard?

 

I don't get it myself, but, yes. I'm a Shepaholic. Something happened during ME1 ~ the whole you're a Spectre Shepard ceremony initially sucked me in. The ending of ME1 (Shepard lives and does that smirky smile) cemented a very good gaming experience despite the cheesy stuff. I was again sucked into ME2 thru DLC's, the music and the ending that was epic in the scope and the feels. (human reaper not withstanding)

 

I replayed ME2 in every conceivable way to prepare for ME3. Perhaps that's why... so many playthroughs you love the characters. You understand them.

 

Then ME3 released. At that point... I was spoiler free, but I knew there was a controversy. Played thru to the end on my legacy Shepard. Now understand, by legacy I mean this was my original ME1 Shepard that I'd replayed ME1 and ME2 several times to get this toon perfect (by my terms). To see her go out with tiny toons tasteless tacky talker (who I already disliked from the nightmares) was just beyond awful.

 

Stunned, I replayed to achieve the same results. Again and again. Before and after Extended Cut. So... I ended up here at BSN mid March of 2012 and stayed. Pissed and grieving for that original Shepard. 

 

And my legacy Shepard? She's still on my Xbox360. Alone. I deleted all my other Shepards.

 

Nowadays I play on the PC. It's easier somehow... Time does heal old wounds.

[Reedirector]

So I get blamed. 

 

Typical humans.

 

I seem to remember there being something about "made in His image" in that book of yours?

[DanishGambit]

I think it should've ended with Anderson. 

[Linkenski]

I think it should've ended with Anderson. 

Okay, so you think it should've faded to black when Anderson died and then credits?

 

The whole game we've been shrouded by the mystery of what the Crucible does and it ends up being a desperate plan to activate it and hope that it kills reapers. With all that mystery and ambiguity surrounding the Crucible it would've been cheap if it had just been a one-hit-kill-all-reapers device in the end and that's one thing I always liked about the ending even though it was executed poorly: The Crucible actually has an unexpected function.

[DanishGambit]

Okay, so you think it should've faded to black when Anderson died and then credits?

 

The whole game we've been shrouded by the mystery of what the Crucible does and it ends up being a desperate plan to activate it and hope that it kills reapers. With all that mystery and ambiguity surrounding the Crucible it would've been cheap if it had just been a one-hit-kill-all-reapers device in the end and that's one thing I always liked about the ending even though it was executed poorly: The Crucible actually has an unexpected function.

But it was a one-hit-kill-all-reapers device... Or maybe it was like Reaper repellent... Maybe something could've replaced the starkid but I didn't like what was there. Someone made a video comparing the ME ending to the ending of one of the Stargate shows and that was probably what they were going for. It had all the philisophical mumbo jumbo a sci-fi fan could want.

[Linkenski]

I have to admit I kinda liked the "sci-fi ending" bit. I just hate sci-fi endings when they make no sense and are just weird for the sake of being weird instead of having some purpose to it.

 

A straight-forward happy ending with all reapers killed and no answer to what their cycle was all about would've made me really disappointed. I liked the concept of the ending but like you I didn't like what was there because the execution is some of the worst I've ever seen for an ending, especially considering this was a trilogy.

[Valmar]

But it was a one-hit-kill-all-reapers device... Or maybe it was like Reaper repellent... Maybe something could've replaced the starkid but I didn't like what was there. Someone made a video comparing the ME ending to the ending of one of the Stargate shows and that was probably what they were going for. It had all the philisophical mumbo jumbo a sci-fi fan could want.

 

So a lot of things would be left up to the player to contemplate on and be layered in philosophical mumbo jumbo. Okay. How would this be any different from what we have, then?

[ImaginaryMatter]

A very good question.

 

From my point of view, Shepard is a conduit (oops excuse me I did a little pun) for the player, their values, their ideals, the roles they might want to fulfil in the ME Universe, with some added differences to make the roleplaying more exciting and engaging.* That is especially evident if you've been playing through all three games and develop connections with the characters of the series. So if Shepard is a reflection of myself within the game, then having him die is like severing my connection to the story, the characters etc. 

 

Also, the NPCs in the game would be affected (adversely, one hopes) by Shepard's death, and if I didn't feel a connection to Shepard then I did feel a connection to them.

 

If someone more eloquent than me would like to dive in and prevent me from looking emotionally and intellectually confused, I would appreciate it. If not, my rambling, incoherent explanation will have to do, I'm afraid. 

 

*I doubt someone ever made a Shepard character that was the exact opposite of themselves, although I think it would be interesting to see it done. 

 

I agree, I just use different terms. It's why he's replaceable in ME next.

 

It's also why I am not sad to see Shepard go. As a character he was not particularly interesting and as the series dragged on he became weighed down with this contrived idea that he was so central to the current cycle's survival.

[Iakus]

I have to admit I kinda liked the "sci-fi ending" bit. I just hate sci-fi endings when they make no sense and are just weird for the sake of being weird instead of having some purpose to it.

 

A straight-forward happy ending with all reapers killed and no answer to what their cycle was all about would've made me really disappointed. I liked the concept of the ending but like you I didn't like what was there because the execution is some of the worst I've ever seen for an ending, especially considering this was a trilogy.

 

The Reapers had been built up as this ancient mysterious entity "beyond our comprehension" that no answer would have sufficed.  The moment they gave the Reapers a mundane motivation, they were diminished.  Toto pulled the curtain back, and the Wizard was just a humbug.

 

Yeha, no explanation would have been better, imo.

[Linkenski]

I partly agree. I went into ME3 fully knowing that if I didn't get at least some kind of answer for what the Reapers were then I'd walk away disappointed. A cliche hero's journey or a WW2 in space plot isn't what I wanted... I wanted those answers... but I agree with you still that because of the Reapers being "beyond our comprehension" an all-in answer with all details resolved would've been unsatisfactory too. I just wanted a glimpse or a hint of what they were for me to speculate on and arguably that's what we got. I just wish it hadn't been in the ending and I wish Bioware had done a better job of thinking up what their purpose was.

 

Even something as simple as Reapers feeding on Organics to repopulate or gather resources would've been okay for me as simple as it sounds. Perhaps killing advanced civilization was not even their main purpose... it was just part of a bigger plot spanning the entire universe. IDK, there would've been lots of possibilities... I just wish it hadn't been the cliche "our synthetic creations will kill us some day!" AKA every other sci-fi story ever almost.

[wolfhowwl]

Lines like "you cannot even grasp the nature of our existence" are bluster from a villain trying to intimidate Shepard (or BioWare trying to impress the player with hot air so they don't have to explain anything yet) .

 

If they're anything other than chest thumping then stuff like "beyond your comprehension" is just ****. If it's beyond the comprehension of a human character then it is also beyond the comprehension of the human writers and now our antagonist has no motives. Great! There should be more than just empty speeches and wrecking havoc in service of the plot.

 

However there may have been some merit in not revealing the Reapers' motives just because by the time they were actually writing the ending they'd already pissed away 2 and 3/4 games of opportunities to build up to it. It would still be a cop-out though.

[Valmar]

Lines like "you cannot even grasp the nature of our existence" are bluster from a villain trying to intimidate Shepard (or BioWare trying to impress the player with hot air so they don't have to explain anything yet) .

 

If they're anything other than chest thumping then stuff like "beyond your comprehension" is just ****.

 

I used to think that myself. I've seen changed my stance on it. They're not wrong to doubt our capability to understand. Look at all the confusion you see online. There's a lot of people who didn't understand it. I think most people get get insulted at the notion that something might be beyond them so they instantly assume it isn't and that they have a clear understanding of it.

 

Hell, its clearly beyond Shepard in many aspects. Look at how long he keeps insisting the reapers are just machines, despite the revelations in ME2 and EDI directly coming out and smacking his face with corrections. Why the reapers think this is the guy to entrust with deciding the fate of the cycle is beyond me. Though the trilogy does like making people do stupid things just for the sake of letting Shepard come out as the hero. *cough* Council *cough*

[Linkenski]

Casey: "let's make the reaper motive so dumb and illogical that it becomes confusing, thus we keep in line with what sovereign said! People will love it"

Mac: "wuh, okay but what about the dialogue I had written to clarify?"

Casey: *looks at Mac with stare which Mac recognizes from many time earlier*

Mac: "It's scrapped, less dialogue, less sense. *laughs nervously*"

[ZipZap2000]

For me it was "Wake up!" 

 

Honestly i thought the game was over at 'best seats in the house' and was about to call BS on everyone complaining about the ending. It was when Hackett started babbling on about the arms not opening (and the tone of voice he uses almost implies Shepard is slacking off) that it gets weird. Then of course there's the catalysts own version of the chaos theory and the fact he takes the form of a 6 year old. 

[New Kid]

The first time I played, after Anderson died and the 'weirdness' music started.

 

With extended cut and Leviathan in-hand... I'm okay with the destroy ending and pretending the other options are jokes.

 

(at a stretch I'm okay with control, but it could have been handled better)

[Paulomedi]

Shepard: Solution? To what?

 

Child: Chaos.

 

Chaos of what? Sovereign had said something about the chaos of organic evolution, but nope. Not that. The kid said "The created will always rebel against their creators."

 

Well we don't find out until the Extended Cut that the Catalyst rebelled against its creators and created the first true reaper - they did not approve. The more Bioware writes in this this scene the deeper the hole they dig. The Leviathans were pulled out their asses to justify the original ending.

 

So with the ending it is the word "Chaos," because nothing after it makes any sense. The solution is to chaos, and the galaxy was pretty orderly before the reapers showed up.

 

It is here where you found out you were in an entirely different story than what you had played for 119 hrs 50 minutes. For the next several minutes you were now in a different story with a different plot, having to accept a different premise. You might as well had just skipped everything and gone straight to the Battle for Earth and charged up the beam, because nothing before it mattered except for feels. You chose how The Illusive Man died: suicide or kill him. Then you talked to the kid. Picked your favorite color. The End.

 

Stop trying to find something deep in this story. The first story is a 1970s sci-fi action drama. ME2 is a late 1980s sci-fi action movie filled with one liners. And ME3 is a late 1990s verson of the same. Then the writers tacked a 2011 BS ending on it. It doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. The ending needed a complete rewrite.

 

/thread

[wolfhowwl]

I used to think that myself. I've seen changed my stance on it. They're not wrong to doubt our capability to understand. Look at all the confusion you see online. There's a lot of people who didn't understand it. I think most people get get insulted at the notion that something might be beyond them so they instantly assume it isn't and that they have a clear understanding of it.

 

Hell, its clearly beyond Shepard in many aspects. Look at how long he keeps insisting the reapers are just machines, despite the revelations in ME2 and EDI directly coming out and smacking his face with corrections. Why the reapers think this is the guy to entrust with deciding the fate of the cycle is beyond me. Though the trilogy does like making people do stupid things just for the sake of letting Shepard come out as the hero. *cough* Council *cough*

 

Some people on the Internet got confused by a poorly written and presented ending, so what? The problem isn't people getting insulted by something being beyond them or if the Reapers are right to doubt, it's that if it actually is beyond humans then it has dire consequences because the story and antagonist are also being written by humans. The writers should understand the Reapers' motives because that is what their actions should be in service to.

 

If they're not understandable to a degree then that is certainly a cop-out and a failure of writing ambition. ME1 had already begun giving us pieces of the puzzle. You can see that an entity is interested in regulating the existence of organic civilizations through the cycle and their technological direction with the relays. One of their agents, although very powerful, isn't so different that he can't communicate verbally with us. Things that we can try to understand and be explored in later games would be how is organic life relevant to them and why does it need to be harvested periodically? What is all this ultimately in service of?

 

Stuff like "beyond your comprehension" is just weak. The writers are blasting out platitudes so they don't have to explain anything or even hint at it. At this point we know why too (they had nothing). It's going to be inevitably contradicted anyways when the Reapers are developed later. If you're going to be spending an entire trilogy on fighting them, they have to be. BioWare realized this even if their execution sucked. An interaction with the antagonist could be used for more than empty buffoonery and this gem:

 

Shepard: Why you doing this?

Sovereign: ur too dumb lol!

 

It was well presented, I will give them that.

[Valmar]

If they're not understandable to a degree then that is certainly a cop-out and a failure of writing ambition.

 

It's a good thing that its understandable to a degree, then.