105 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

....and here we go again.......

 

You nailed it.  Same o same o.

[AlanC9]

Some seem to think that it refers to a flawless victory, a Golden Ending where no real loss is suffered. They derisively refer to it as a "unicorns and rainbows" ending. But that's simply not true. A happy ending can still be dotted with sadness and loss. As I said before, I do like Earn Your Happy Ending. Even MEHEM doesn't undo the losses accrued up until the docking of the Crucible.

So how can your proposed rule be operationalized? I'm not getting anything that isn't based on your personal tastes. How much "sadness and loss" is too much for you to handle? How can we quantify it?

Right now the project is sounding like trying to set a limit on garlic on pasta.

[Iakus]

So how can your proposed rule be operationalized? I'm not getting anything that isn't based on your personal tastes. How much "sadness and loss" is too much for you to handle? How can we quantify it?

Right now the project is sounding like trying to set a limit on garlic on pasta.

And that is where multiple endings come in.  Multiple different endings.  Like DAO

 

Though first off, they should do away with endings with far-reaching consequences altogether.  ME3 wrecked the Milky Way for future use.

 

Secondly, self-sacrifice, when offered, should be an option.  Some people like being the sacrificial hero.  Some may like it for certain characters and not others, and some simply don't like it.  But if you're going to force it on a player regardless of choice, you're going to breed resentment.

 

Third, as jtav and others have noted, the ending should follow the themes of the story.  Players who imported "good" world-states" from ME1 and ME2 ended up with the rug pulled out from under them because, while some sort of darkness and tragedy was expected, the price of "victory" still proved way too high. Perhaps those with higher casualties or no import at all found it less jarring.

 

If the player dumps a lot of garlic onto their pasta, let them.  If the player is careful to limit how much they put in, don't mince a half dozen cloves and dump them in at the very end.

 

Anyway, that's what I mean by multiple different endings.  Endings that actually follow the choices provided and respects them.

 

*awaits the usual sneering about "power fantasies"*

[UpUpAway]

And that is where multiple endings come in.  Multiple different endings.  Like DAO

 

Though first off, they should do away with endings with far-reaching consequences altogether.  ME3 wrecked the Milky Way for future use.

 

Secondly, elf-sacrifice, when offered, should be an option.  Some people like being the sacrificial hero.  Some may like it for certain characters and not others, and some simply don't like it.  But if you're going to force it on a player regardless of choice, you're going to breed resentment.

 

Third, as jtav and others have noted, the ending should follow the themes of the story.  Players who imported "good" world-states" from ME1 and ME2 ended up with the rug pulled out from under them because, while some sort of darkness and tragedy was expected, the price of "victory" still proved way too high. Perhaps those with higher casualties or no import at all found it less jarring.

 

If the player dumps a lot of garlic onto their pasta, let them.  If the player is careful to limit how much they put in, don't mince a half dozen cloves and dump them in at the very end.

 

Anyway, that's what I mean by multiple different endings.  Endings that actually follow the choices provided and respects them.

 

*awaits the usual sneering about "power fantasies"*

 

... assumes that Bioware wanted to re-use the Milky Way.  Perhaps they want the series to continually step out and explore other galaxies in the universe.

 

... perhaps the over-arching statement the authors always wanted to make was that the price of victory (or rather that cost of war) is always too high.  Didn't someone here post recently that DK's original vision for the series entailed the annilation of all humanity (and I'm not talking about the refusal ending)?

 

The style of ME (as I see it) is to touch on several different opposing themes (often involving a pseudo-commentary on real human politics, societies, empires, etc.)... not really following any one of them with any degree of faithfulness... thereby, allowing the player to head canon liberally based on what they wanted to accept, discount, or outright ignore throughout the story.

[Cyonan]

Third, as jtav and others have noted, the ending should follow the themes of the story.  Players who imported "good" world-states" from ME1 and ME2 ended up with the rug pulled out from under them because, while some sort of darkness and tragedy was expected, the price of "victory" still proved way too high. Perhaps those with higher casualties or no import at all found it less jarring.

 

I think the problem here is that the first two games spent so much time telling you about how screwed you were going to be when the Reapers showed up.

 

If the Reapers didn't come off as a very serious threat without a high cost of victory, the Reapers would have been extremely underwhelming as an enemy. I would have been playing ME3 thinking "Really? That's it? That's the big scary bad guys they've been building up for 5 years?"

 

In the future it'd probably be best to avoid building up the overarching bad guys as being virtually unstoppable.

[Puddi III]

I don't like the idea of save imports being taken for granted to the point where the only options are superficially different endings or massive setting changes.

[The Dystopian Hound]

Good endings are always the best.
I hate to see the main characters suffering or dying...

True. The only way Shepard could survive ME3 was to be selfish. More good endings are needed.

[mopotter]

I have played BioWare Games for years; Fall Out 3 on;  Elder Scrolls started with Morrowind; Borderland;  xcom Enemy Unknown;  Fable 2 & 3 and others.  

 

I enjoy playing games more than once or twice and I just don't like being depressed every time I play a game that gives me choices that effect the story.   Xcom Enemy Unknown, I enjoy playing this game and there is a character who dies each time I play but that's ok because it's basically the same story, same gameplay each time.  I do nothing to affect the story it's just fun killing aliens.

 

DAO I played, and still play this. More than one of my wardens has died.  But not every single one of them.  Some lived, became Queen, some watched her love die, joined up with an assassin or stayed with the wardens.  The choices I made in the game gave me the feeling that they mattered and it was fun.   

 

I loved the ME series, still love it.  I started it the first day ME1 came out for the xbox and didn't stop playing till I tried and failed to find the ending in ME3 where there was something other than the charred body taking a breath that was supposed to be the survival ending.  Yes I am still upset about that and anyone who says "just get over it" (and  you know who you are) can go jump in a cold pool and soak their head.       I have moved on, but in any relationship, and I had a long one with ME1, 2 & 3, you still have moments when you think what the heck were they thinking.

 

I don't mind dying sometimes in a game with choices.  I would have died in ME3.  Shepards Lover would have died in a game, most of my companions would have died in a game.  But dang it, if  your going to tell me there is a survival ending put my character in the hospital or tell me that they were found .  

 

Don't give me the freaking Jedi smile when they are putting up the name on the memorial board and show me a stupid body that really is unrecognizable.      That is done by someone who is just tired of the series and no longer cares.  It is not artistic.

 

So my big hope for this new game is they do give us the ending with fireworks and happiness with a moment of silence for those who didn't make it,  along with the endings where we die and as many options between that as possible.  

[Iakus]

I think the problem here is that the first two games spent so much time telling you about how screwed you were going to be when the Reapers showed up.

 

If the Reapers didn't come off as a very serious threat without a high cost of victory, the Reapers would have been extremely underwhelming as an enemy. I would have been playing ME3 thinking "Really? That's it? That's the big scary bad guys they've been building up for 5 years?"

 

In the future it'd probably be best to avoid building up the overarching bad guys as being virtually unstoppable.

ME1 left the Reapers trapped in dark space for who knows how long.  Decades?  Centuries?  Milennia?  It was later that, oops, they're only a few years away.

 

ME2 told us there is no problem that can't be solved by shooting enough mercs in the head.

 

In the future maybe they should establish strengths and weaknesses to the enemy in advance, rather than ruling by DM Fiat.

[Iakus]

 

Don't give me the freaking Jedi smile when they are putting up the name on the memorial board and show me a stupid body that really is unrecognizable.      That is done by someone who is just tired of the series and no longer cares.  It is not artistic.

 

Doesn't help that to get even that much requires my SHepard to (in his mind) essentially commit an act of genocide.

[iM3GTR]

The only thing to be happy about is that the war is over and it didn't last longer.

On the other hand, there would be no Asari left... Every cloud has a silver lining and all that.

[AlanC9]

And that is where multiple endings come in. Multiple different endings. Like DAO.

But the substance of the proposal is severe constraints on the types of multiple endings that can be presented, right? It's not like your problem with ME3 is that it doesn't have five or more major ending branches, it's that you didn't get one you liked. (Rephrase that to a description you're more comfortable with, if you like.)

So, what are the constraints?

Secondly, self-sacrifice, when offered, should be an option. Some people like being the sacrificial hero. Some may like it for certain characters and not others, and some simply don't like it. But if you're going to force it on a player regardless of choice, you're going to breed resentment.

Well, as usual, this is us not agreeing on what actually happened in ME3. We don't have a game-design disagreement here, we have an interpretation disagreement.

Similarly, I've got some respect for the thematic argument. Though it didn't harm my enjoyment of the game since I never had any real respect for the way the earlier games handled those themes. I've never liked the way Bio usually gives you a way out; I thought Redcliffe was badly designed and the DR was worse. The SM works OK as long as you force the Reaper IFF mission the moment it comes up.

If the player dumps a lot of garlic onto their pasta, let them. If the player is careful to limit how much they put in, don't mince a half dozen cloves and dump them in at the very end.

*awaits the usual sneering about "power fantasies"*

Actually, I was planning to sneer about rainbows and unicorns. But power fantasies might be a bit more on point, although not quite the way it usually comes up.

You used my garlic metaphor in a way I didn't intend, but in a clarifying fashion. I don't think an RPG player should be the chef. More specifically, I don't think that shaping the story is a mode of thought that an RPG should reward or encourage. The RPG player should be able to play his character, and that's it.

The problem is that, as I understand your proposal, I won't be able to avoid metagaming in this fashion. I'll always know that there's a way out. (Think of me as Sylvius without the compartmentalization.)

[goofyomnivore]

I wish there was like a 20 minute documentary on how BioWare came up with Mass Effect 3 endings. Was it just a bunch of yes man's agreeing with Casey/Mac? Did nobody stop and say what the hell? We're killing off the most important character in the franchise like this? How the hell does synthesis make any sense? How do you make an EMP blast that targets Reaper code? Why does it have to be a blast? Why not just a power off if the big bad is surrendering? We're offering Control? Right after we showed how horrible an option that is with how TIM ended up?

 

A good ending can be a bad ending, bittersweet, philosophical, idyllic, etc, but a poorly written and explained ending will be a bad ending no matter the tone. I'd take a quality depressing ending over a nonsensical good ending.

[Il Divo]

You used my garlic metaphor in a way I didn't intend, but in a clarifying fashion. I don't think an RPG player should be the chef. More specifically, I don't think that shaping the story is a mode of thought that an RPG should reward or encourage. The RPG player should be able to play his character, and that's it. 

The problem is that, as I understand your proposal, I won't be able to avoid metagaming in this fashion. I'll always know that there's a way out. (Think of me as Sylvius without the compartmentalization.) 

 

 

I think the problem we'll run into with this analogy is that most people would also say no chef would deny the customer what he wants: if you say no pickles on my sandwich, there is no room to implement pickles in the sandwich. 

 

Games are a bit more complicated because they're predesigned before release - everyone with slight variations gets the same sandwich - regardless of individual likes or dislikes, which means we're all fighting over having the sandwich be made as appealing to our individual preferences as possible.  

[DuskWanderer]

Idle curiosity: what crowd does "as unfunny as John Oliver" play well to? I'm not sure I know a single person in meatspace who wouldn't give me a blank stare if I said that; either I'd be obviously wrong, or they wouldn't remember who he is.

I don't understand. Are you trying to say John Oliver is funny, or that you don't understand what I mean. If so, I'll rephrase: The supposed "maturity" that current game writing goes for nowadays feels like a forced and unfunny joke, like one told by unfunny TV host John Oliver. 

[Lord Kiran]

ME2 might have a number of writing problems, but I'm not sure I'd call it grim dark - in any capacity. Compared to Virmire as a scenario, it's about as optimistic as writing gets, particularly in scenarios where no one dies on the suicide mission which is easily doable. Even Shepard's death ends up being a deus ex machina for an overly optimistic outcome - his resurrection/return as a messiah figure. 

 

Still, my comment was more directed at the general claim that "narratives which emphasize player-choice should have the option for happy endings". ME3 is an example where I understand that desire - but that doesn't provide any justification for extending it as a general rule - it just means that ME3 messed up. But there are more than a few examples of RPG's which have avoided that restrictive approach to game design. 

Your point is taken, though I will comment on one thing. I argue ME2 is an attempt at grimdark for a number of reasons, not just story related where'in an unspecified but still large number of innocent people are killed by the main villains of this story even if you do succeed, making it about as grim as ME3, differing only in scale. There are also general aesthetic considerations that go into that claim, from the gritty dark color choices that dominates the color scheme as a whole, to the creepy ambiance that is the score for a majority of the game.

 

I don't understand. Are you trying to say John Oliver is funny, or that you don't understand what I mean. If so, I'll rephrase: The supposed "maturity" that current game writing goes for nowadays feels like a forced and unfunny joke, like one told by unfunny TV host John Oliver. 

Remember kids, if the audience doesn't laugh the first time, just repeat yourself even louder!

[Iakus]

But the substance of the proposal is severe constraints on the types of multiple endings that can be presented, right? It's not like your problem with ME3 is that it doesn't have five or more major ending branches, it's that you didn't get one you liked. (Rephrase that to a description you're more comfortable with, if you like.)

So, what are the constraints?
 

Actually, I'd say it broadens the types of endings presented.  I have no objection to dark or "bittersweet" endings.  Again DAO

 

But if a game, nay a trilogy of games can allow for suicide missions where no one dies, death and resurrection within the opening minutes of a game, the ability through out a trilogy to express confidence and hope in the face of overwhelming odds, the ability to beat up Cthulhu on foot in multiple instances, and to generally be an 80s action hero, there should be endings that reflect this presentation.

 

 

 

Well, as usual, this is us not agreeing on what actually happened in ME3. We don't have a game-design disagreement here, we have an interpretation disagreement.

Similarly, I've got some respect for the thematic argument. Though it didn't harm my enjoyment of the game since I never had any real respect for the way the earlier games handled those themes. I've never liked the way Bio usually gives you a way out; I thought Redcliffe was badly designed and the DR was worse. The SM works OK as long as you force the Reaper IFF mission the moment it comes up.

I have got to ask:  If you have no respect for Bioware or their storytelling methods, why do you play their games.  In fact, how did you get past the first Mass Effect game?

 

 

 

You used my garlic metaphor in a way I didn't intend, but in a clarifying fashion. I don't think an RPG player should be the chef. More specifically, I don't think that shaping the story is a mode of thought that an RPG should reward or encourage. The RPG player should be able to play his character, and that's it.
 

You are forgetting the G part of RPG:  Game.  Games are meant to be "won"  How one defines that in a narrative can be kinda fuzzy.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to define it as "coming to a satisfactory conclusion.  What that conclusion is will be dependent on what kid of story is being told.  A tragic end to a sad tale, a triumphant end to an epic struggle, or whatever.  

 

Perhaps the player shouldn't be a "chef" but they should be akin to a customer at a sandwich shop, ale to select what kind of meat, cheese, and veggies go on it.  And to not expect hot mustard on it if they didn't ask for it.

[Iakus]

I think the problem we'll run into with this analogy is that most people would also say no chef would deny the customer what he wants: if you say no pickles on my sandwich, there is no room to implement pickles in the sandwich. 

 

Games are a bit more complicated because they're predesigned before release - everyone with slight variations gets the same sandwich - regardless of individual likes or dislikes, which means we're all fighting over having the sandwich be made as appealing to our individual preferences as possible.  

Keep in mind Bioware touted over a thousand choices (or "selections") across the trilogy customizing individual games.  That they missed such an obvious preferred outcome as "no, please don't toast it" TWICE if you want to include EC, speaks a lot to Bioware's myopia.  We are not talking about highly customized meals here.  We are talking about something as basic as bread.

 

Now I'm hungry.

[Hair Serious Business]

You want happy endings?

Read kid's fairy tail or just go watch Disney. In here there is only one friend for you and that is...

[Toddler Tosser]

Ah, another thread about people dripping tears over the ending. Gotta love Andromecuck.

[KaiserShep]

I don't understand. Are you trying to say John Oliver is funny, or that you don't understand what I mean. If so, I'll rephrase: The supposed "maturity" that current game writing goes for nowadays feels like a forced and unfunny joke, like one told by unfunny TV host John Oliver. 

 

 

It can be difficult to get a point across when using erroneous statements for comparison. 

[Il Divo]

Keep in mind Bioware touted over a thousand choices (or "selections") across the trilogy customizing individual games.  That they missed such an obvious preferred outcome as "no, please don't toast it" TWICE if you want to include EC, speaks a lot to Bioware's myopia.  We are not talking about highly customized meals here.  We are talking about something as basic as bread.

 

Now I'm hungry.

 

The problem here is that you're using a standard that Bioware never actually promised. I've said on several occasions that Bioware needs to be more careful in their marketing, but this isn't the case of Bioware promising you a sandwich and pulling out the bread. It's more like Bioware promising to cook us some meal with "a lot of amazing ingredients", but without clearly telling us what the meal actually is. 

 

For your standard to be applied, Bioware would have had to promise you a clear happy ending right from the start, which can't be proven from the above statements. 

 

Edit: All that said, looking at your post to Alan, I do think there are stylistic reasons to believe such an ending should have been possible, given Shepard's typical super hero status. 

[Lord Kiran]

Keep in mind Bioware touted over a thousand choices (or "selections") across the trilogy customizing individual games.  That they missed such an obvious preferred outcome as "no, please don't toast it" TWICE if you want to include EC, speaks a lot to Bioware's myopia.  We are not talking about highly customized meals here.  We are talking about something as basic as bread.

 

Now I'm hungry.

Honestly though a few people have pointed out to me that mass effect ends the exact same way in all three games. You pick an option at the end and get a different colored ending depending on it. After two strikes, what right did anyone have to honestly expect any different on pitch number three?

[Il Divo]

 

Your point is taken, though I will comment on one thing. I argue ME2 is an attempt at grimdark for a number of reasons, not just story related where'in an unspecified but still large number of innocent people are killed by the main villains of this story even if you do succeed, making it about as grim as ME3, differing only in scale. There are also general aesthetic considerations that go into that claim, from the gritty dark color choices that dominates the color scheme as a whole, to the creepy ambiance that is the score for a majority of the game.

 

If that's the standard we're applying, we're still going to run into a number of issues. We essentially just condemned every variant of the Hero's Journey ever told, using your first example. A large number of anonymous characters dying at the hands of the villain doesn't make a story grimdark - is Star Wars grim dark for blowing up a whole populated planet of people? That's typically the bare minimum for the Hero's Journey to even be implemented, since we need some credible external threat. 

 

Even if we consider the Creepy ambience: ME1 featured Feros, Noveria, and Eden Prime, all of which involved investigating some horror or mystery that befell a colony's population. Virmire itself involved a forced sacrifice, which is arguably more in keeping with the ME3 theme than anything we see in ME2. 

 

Regarding aesthetics: I've honestly never heard of aesthetics alone being used to claim that something is grim dark. If Bioware had committed to an actual darker-theme storyline, I could see where you're coming from. But the narrative itself is typically the most important element in establishing something as grimdark and it's not clear how or why you're placing ME1 on one end of the spectrum, while ME2 and 3 occupy the other end. As I said, ME2 commits to "Shepard wins the day" more fully than ME1 ever does. 

[Lord Kiran]

If that's the standard we're applying, we're still going to run into a number of issues. We essentially just condemned every variant of the Hero's Journey ever told, using your first example. A large number of anonymous characters dying at the hands of the villain doesn't make a story grimdark - is Star Wars grim dark for blowing up a whole populated planet of people? That's typically the bare minimum for the Hero's Journey to even be implemented, since we need some credible external threat. 

 

Even if we consider the Creepy ambience: ME1 featured Feros, Noveria, and Eden Prime, all of which involved investigating some horror or mystery that befell a colony's population. Virmire itself involved a forced sacrifice, which is arguably more in keeping with the ME3 theme than anything we see in ME2. 

 

Regarding aesthetics: I've honestly never heard of aesthetics alone being used to claim that something is grim dark. If Bioware had committed to an actual darker-theme storyline, I could see where you're coming from. But the narrative itself is typically the most important element in establishing something as grimdark and it's not clear how or why you're placing ME1 on one end of the spectrum, while ME2 and 3 occupy the other end. As I said, ME2 commits to "Shepard wins the day" more fully than ME1 ever does. 

The difference being that A new hope never personalizes those killed. In ME2 we see on camera what happens to the individual persons in the pods as they are slowly, and VERY PAINFULLY melted down into a slurry. Grotesque and horrible.

 

Me1 had it's creepy ambiance sure, but it didn't dominate the score the same way it does in ME2. I don't think there's a single mission in ME2 that doesn't have it.

 

Also I'd point out that the scenario at the end of ME1 and ME2 is actually the same, sans more dead people in ME2

 

At the end of ME1 the reapers plans have been delayed and they are still comming

 

At the end of ME2 the reapers plans have been delayed and they are still comming.

 

You can hardly call either one "Winning the day" really. Since in both cases the real fight has yet to begin. But really this is based on info we only have after ME2 was released. For all anyone knows at the end of ME1 the reapers have been stopped for good practically speaking. They are still out there of course but as far as anyone knows they aren't an immediate threat. They could be several thousands of years away.