I find it sad that the best ending ends up being Control, which the Illusive Man was for and everyone else was against, and you spent most of the game fighting against. Here is my take on the endings.
Destroy
Yay, the Reapers are dead! Yet so are the Geth and EDI who were your allies and friends and didn't deserve to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Sure, Shepard gets to live... but at the expense of billions of Synthetic Lifeforms with no guarantee that someday in the future organics won't create synthetics that eventually become worse than the Reapers? Bad ending.
Synthesis
Okay, Shepard dies... and everyone lives except they are forced into becoming synthetic/organic hybrids. While superficially this seems like the "best" solution as it fosters co-existence, it doesn't seem natural or fair and way too forced. What about the people who didn't want to be part machine? What about the synthetics that didn't want to be organic? Suddenly changing the entire galaxy into cyborgs, I can't even begin to think of the social problems this would cause and all the questions it arises. You're basically destroying society and replacing it with another one arbitrarily. IF (the Catalyst was just a super-advanced AI, it wasn't god and its assumptions shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth) synthesis is the eventual final evolution of all life, then it should be able to reach it naturally and of its own volition. Bad ending.
Control
EDI gets to live, all Organics and Synthetics get to keep their individuality and learn to co-exist naturally. Shepard leaves his mortal coil and essentially becomes a god-like being who values and respects all life. He uses the Reapers as a reconstruction and peace-keeping force across the galaxy, essentially becomes his friends' and the galaxy's guardian angel. Just like his/her name, Shepard, becomes the one who leads the many. Good End.
If controlling the Reapers instead of destroying them was the right thing to do... then why was everyone against the Illusive man and Cerberus?
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline these days.
Black_Heart on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline.
Haha this is hilarious.
I think you have misinterpreted the Control ending. The music is as ominous as hell. Do you really think Shepard is going to be a benevolent peacekeeper for all eternity--even renegade Shepard?
Hachface on
0
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline.
Haha this is hilarious.
Sorry, slightly amended my original statement. Not trying to derail the thread, but in recent years I find it hard to recall a single western developed game that had a storyline + conclusion that I genuinely enjoyed and felt was well-crafted.
Deus Ex Human Revolution
Fallout 3 + New Vegas
Skyrim
InFamous series
Prototype series
Bioshock series
Diablo 3
Pretty much any triple-A western developed game to come out in recent years has fallen completely flat in the storyline department or the ending has been nonsensical, lazy, and in opposition with the rest of the game's message or theme. Except Red Dead Redemption, that was perfect. Rockstar always seems to do a great job though.
Would also like to point out that your "haha he's so wrong!" condescending attempt at a counter-argument is incredibly childish and borders on trolling.
Black_Heart on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited July 2012
I would say that endings are difficult to write in general. I do not believe non-Western developers have a strong track record in this regard either.
I would say that endings are difficult to write in general. I do not believe non-Western developers have a strong track record in this regard either.
I'm willing to go with endings are tough, but some of the screw ups lately have seemed like an unfortunate product of people feeling they need to add a twist where a twist isn't needed, or try and be revelatory when nothing else demands it, and do so at the expense of hitting basic emotional notes.
I mean, a big part of the improvement in the EC endings for me
is that they show people. Lots of people. The galaxy. They don't feel so god damn lonely.
I would say that endings are difficult to write in general. I do not believe non-Western developers have a strong track record in this regard either.
Thats fair, its probably just my playing habits and taste in games + stories. While Japanese games are usually more simplistic in storyline, I find them to be more satisfying and giving me what I want.
Persona 3 + 4
Final Fantasy XIII
Xenoblade Chronicles
Catherine
Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
NIER
I loved the stories + endings in all those games. Its probably just my personal preference, but this is a trend that I keep seeing lately that I can't seem to shake.
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline.
Haha this is hilarious.
Sorry, slightly amended my original statement. Not trying to derail the thread, but in recent years I find it hard to recall a single western developed game that had a storyline + conclusion that I genuinely enjoyed and felt was well-crafted.
Deus Ex Human Revolution
Fallout 3 + New Vegas
Skyrim
InFamous series
Prototype series
Bioshock series
Diablo 3
Pretty much any triple-A western developed game to come out in recent years has fallen completely flat in the storyline department or the ending has been nonsensical, lazy, and in opposition with the rest of the game's message or theme. Except Red Dead Redemption, that was perfect. Rockstar always seems to do a great job though.
Would also like to point out that your "haha he's so wrong!" condescending attempt at a counter-argument is incredibly childish and borders on trolling.
You couldn't honestly say that you were expecting Diablo 3 to have a good story line though.
I would say that endings are difficult to write in general. I do not believe non-Western developers have a strong track record in this regard either.
Thats fair, its probably just my playing habits and taste in games + stories. While Japanese games are usually more simplistic in storyline, I find them to be more satisfying and giving me what I want.
Persona 3 + 4
Final Fantasy XIII
Xenoblade Chronicles
Catherine
Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
NIER
I loved the stories + endings in all those games. Its probably just my personal preference, but this is a trend that I keep seeing lately that I can't seem to shake.
You're gonna get a lot of disagreement on XIII, and while Xenoblade had a good ending it was basically the same ending as Xenogears and Xenosaga, thematically, just with a moderately different setting
I.E. the ending to all of them boils basically down to: History isn't what you think it is, but now we've outgrown 'god' and fuck that we're gonna make our own world, or own destiny now
Xenoblade just finally managed to communicate it without an overbearing story bringing you there.
What I feel like your complaint boils down to is that Japanese games aren't afraid to end stories, whereas Western RPG's tend to be more open-ended in the gameplay, and thus end up having endings that reflect that (i.e. aren't very concrete on details and leave a lot of things up for speculation).
Which is mildly ironic compared to movies where western movies tend to have more concrete themes/messages/endings and Japanese ones are much more open-ended and such; with either really out there endings, or have an endless number of sequels/sidestories.
It's just boils down to style and taste; not quality, necessarily.
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline.
Haha this is hilarious.
Sorry, slightly amended my original statement. Not trying to derail the thread, but in recent years I find it hard to recall a single western developed game that had a storyline + conclusion that I genuinely enjoyed and felt was well-crafted.
Deus Ex Human Revolution
Fallout 3 + New Vegas
Skyrim
InFamous series
Prototype series
Bioshock series
Diablo 3
Pretty much any triple-A western developed game to come out in recent years has fallen completely flat in the storyline department or the ending has been nonsensical, lazy, and in opposition with the rest of the game's message or theme. Except Red Dead Redemption, that was perfect. Rockstar always seems to do a great job though.
Would also like to point out that your "haha he's so wrong!" condescending attempt at a counter-argument is incredibly childish and borders on trolling.
I don't agree entirely, I think, but I can't argue with you if you put it like that. And more than a few of those examples I agree with.
I find it sad that the best ending ends up being Control, which the Illusive Man was for and everyone else was against, and you spent most of the game fighting against. Here is my take on the endings.
Destroy
Yay, the Reapers are dead! Yet so are the Geth and EDI who were your allies and friends and didn't deserve to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Sure, Shepard gets to live... but at the expense of billions of Synthetic Lifeforms with no guarantee that someday in the future organics won't create synthetics that eventually become worse than the Reapers? Bad ending.
Synthesis
Okay, Shepard dies... and everyone lives except they are forced into becoming synthetic/organic hybrids. While superficially this seems like the "best" solution as it fosters co-existence, it doesn't seem natural or fair and way too forced. What about the people who didn't want to be part machine? What about the synthetics that didn't want to be organic? Suddenly changing the entire galaxy into cyborgs, I can't even begin to think of the social problems this would cause and all the questions it arises. You're basically destroying society and replacing it with another one arbitrarily. IF (the Catalyst was just a super-advanced AI, it wasn't god and its assumptions shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth) synthesis is the eventual final evolution of all life, then it should be able to reach it naturally and of its own volition. Bad ending.
Control
EDI gets to live, all Organics and Synthetics get to keep their individuality and learn to co-exist naturally. Shepard leaves his mortal coil and essentially becomes a god-like being who values and respects all life. He uses the Reapers as a reconstruction and peace-keeping force across the galaxy, essentially becomes his friends' and the galaxy's guardian angel. Just like his/her name, Shepard, becomes the one who leads the many. Good End.
If controlling the Reapers instead of destroying them was the right thing to do... then why was everyone against the Illusive man and Cerberus?
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline these days.
i have to say ive never really understood the objections about some of the endings partially vindicating tim
i mean it would be boring as hell if the story established a bad guy at the beginning and all the way through the entire plot maintained that he was a super evil bad guy so anything he's ever done is clearly completely evil and you definitely shouldnae do it
i mean even right from the start
when he said he had a way to control the reapers i thought 'aye that sounds an alright idea if we cannae kill all of them but i trust you as far as i can throw you sunshine'
also even if it was the way youve described it, having the protagonist struggling throughout the story to prevent an antagonist from carrying out some action, only to discover that the only way they can prevent $bad thing x$ eg
gethnic cleansing
is to carry out that action themselves is actually a pretty compelling plot? so i really dinnae get your point ill be honest.
0
Captain ElevenThe last card is a kronkRegistered Userregular
Finally bit the bullet and finished it. The EC helps the endings, but IMHO a far superior ending would be:
Cut out Star Brat and picking an ending. From when Anderson dies, the Crucible fires and gives the Destroy ending. Lose the silly crashing on the planet sequence. Not perfect by any means but better than what that idiot Casey Hudson came up with in his basement or wherever he wrote it.
destroy is the least bad. Shepard lives and the Reapers die, that's a win in my book, or as close to a win as these goddamn, stupid, shitty endings will allow.
I find it sad that the best ending ends up being Control, which the Illusive Man was for and everyone else was against, and you spent most of the game fighting against. Here is my take on the endings.
Destroy
Yay, the Reapers are dead! Yet so are the Geth and EDI who were your allies and friends and didn't deserve to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Sure, Shepard gets to live... but at the expense of billions of Synthetic Lifeforms with no guarantee that someday in the future organics won't create synthetics that eventually become worse than the Reapers? Bad ending.
Synthesis
Okay, Shepard dies... and everyone lives except they are forced into becoming synthetic/organic hybrids. While superficially this seems like the "best" solution as it fosters co-existence, it doesn't seem natural or fair and way too forced. What about the people who didn't want to be part machine? What about the synthetics that didn't want to be organic? Suddenly changing the entire galaxy into cyborgs, I can't even begin to think of the social problems this would cause and all the questions it arises. You're basically destroying society and replacing it with another one arbitrarily. IF (the Catalyst was just a super-advanced AI, it wasn't god and its assumptions shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth) synthesis is the eventual final evolution of all life, then it should be able to reach it naturally and of its own volition. Bad ending.
Control
EDI gets to live, all Organics and Synthetics get to keep their individuality and learn to co-exist naturally. Shepard leaves his mortal coil and essentially becomes a god-like being who values and respects all life. He uses the Reapers as a reconstruction and peace-keeping force across the galaxy, essentially becomes his friends' and the galaxy's guardian angel. Just like his/her name, Shepard, becomes the one who leads the many. Good End.
If controlling the Reapers instead of destroying them was the right thing to do... then why was everyone against the Illusive man and Cerberus?
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline these days.
i have to say ive never really understood the objections about some of the endings partially vindicating tim
i mean it would be boring as hell if the story established a bad guy at the beginning and all the way through the entire plot maintained that he was a super evil bad guy so anything he's ever done is clearly completely evil and you definitely shouldnae do it
i mean even right from the start
when he said he had a way to control the reapers i thought 'aye that sounds an alright idea if we cannae kill all of them but i trust you as far as i can throw you sunshine'
also even if it was the way youve described it, having the protagonist struggling throughout the story to prevent an antagonist from carrying out some action, only to discover that the only way they can prevent $bad thing x$ eg
gethnic cleansing
is to carry out that action themselves is actually a pretty compelling plot? so i really dinnae get your point ill be honest.
A lot of it boils down to contradiction and presentation.....
You spend the entire series trying to destroy the Reapers, then at the end you learn you were wrong? Siding with Anderson was the "Paragon" or "Good" choice in Blue for the majority of the series, yet his choice is shown in Red at the end and going with his choice of action results in the worst of three endings. Siding with the Illusive man was the "Renegade" or "Evil" choice in Red for most of the series, yet his option is shown in Blue and is the best of all endings.
What if at the end of the original Star Wars Trilogy is was shown the Empire/Emperor were right and what the galaxy needed, so Luke takes the Empror's place and rules the empire. It kind of defeats the purpose of all the previous events and contradicts itself.
What if at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, its shown that the Ring DIDN'T need to be destroyed and that by destroying it, the world explodes, so Frodo becomes the new Sauron?
Its conflicting to establish an enemy, spend a considerable amount of story espousing how wrong they are, yet at the end, the best possible outcome has you siding with them or using their methods. If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense and been an allegory on morality. Instead of a self-defeating contradiction whose message is reduced in poignancy and impact.
I find it sad that the best ending ends up being Control, which the Illusive Man was for and everyone else was against, and you spent most of the game fighting against. Here is my take on the endings.
Destroy
Yay, the Reapers are dead! Yet so are the Geth and EDI who were your allies and friends and didn't deserve to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Sure, Shepard gets to live... but at the expense of billions of Synthetic Lifeforms with no guarantee that someday in the future organics won't create synthetics that eventually become worse than the Reapers? Bad ending.
Synthesis
Okay, Shepard dies... and everyone lives except they are forced into becoming synthetic/organic hybrids. While superficially this seems like the "best" solution as it fosters co-existence, it doesn't seem natural or fair and way too forced. What about the people who didn't want to be part machine? What about the synthetics that didn't want to be organic? Suddenly changing the entire galaxy into cyborgs, I can't even begin to think of the social problems this would cause and all the questions it arises. You're basically destroying society and replacing it with another one arbitrarily. IF (the Catalyst was just a super-advanced AI, it wasn't god and its assumptions shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth) synthesis is the eventual final evolution of all life, then it should be able to reach it naturally and of its own volition. Bad ending.
Control
EDI gets to live, all Organics and Synthetics get to keep their individuality and learn to co-exist naturally. Shepard leaves his mortal coil and essentially becomes a god-like being who values and respects all life. He uses the Reapers as a reconstruction and peace-keeping force across the galaxy, essentially becomes his friends' and the galaxy's guardian angel. Just like his/her name, Shepard, becomes the one who leads the many. Good End.
If controlling the Reapers instead of destroying them was the right thing to do... then why was everyone against the Illusive man and Cerberus?
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline these days.
i have to say ive never really understood the objections about some of the endings partially vindicating tim
i mean it would be boring as hell if the story established a bad guy at the beginning and all the way through the entire plot maintained that he was a super evil bad guy so anything he's ever done is clearly completely evil and you definitely shouldnae do it
i mean even right from the start
when he said he had a way to control the reapers i thought 'aye that sounds an alright idea if we cannae kill all of them but i trust you as far as i can throw you sunshine'
also even if it was the way youve described it, having the protagonist struggling throughout the story to prevent an antagonist from carrying out some action, only to discover that the only way they can prevent $bad thing x$ eg
gethnic cleansing
is to carry out that action themselves is actually a pretty compelling plot? so i really dinnae get your point ill be honest.
A lot of it boils down to contradiction and presentation.....
You spend the entire series trying to destroy the Reapers, then at the end you learn you were wrong? Siding with Anderson was the "Paragon" or "Good" choice in Blue for the majority of the series, yet his choice is shown in Red at the end and going with his choice of action results in the worst of three endings. Siding with the Illusive man was the "Renegade" or "Evil" choice in Red for most of the series, yet his option is shown in Blue and is the best of all endings.
well lemme just say that i dispute your characterisation of control as best and destroy as worst
no to say i think theres no way they can be construed in that way just that the text can easily support other interpretations
What if at the end of the original Star Wars Trilogy is was shown the Empire/Emperor were right and what the galaxy needed, so Luke takes the Empror's place and rules the empire. It kind of defeats the purpose of all the previous events and contradicts itself.
What if at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, its shown that the Ring DIDN'T need to be destroyed and that by destroying it, the world explodes, so Frodo becomes the new Sauron?
those would both be amazing tho?
Its conflicting to establish an enemy, spend a considerable amount of story espousing how wrong they are, yet at the end, the best possible outcome has you siding with them or using their methods. If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense and been an allegory on morality.
of course its conflicting, thats the point! something that makes you question the assumptions youve been working on is way more interesting than something that presents you with a set of basic premises at the beginning and says 'aye stick with these its gaunnae be the same thing all the way through'
I find it sad that the best ending ends up being Control, which the Illusive Man was for and everyone else was against, and you spent most of the game fighting against. Here is my take on the endings.
Destroy
Yay, the Reapers are dead! Yet so are the Geth and EDI who were your allies and friends and didn't deserve to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Sure, Shepard gets to live... but at the expense of billions of Synthetic Lifeforms with no guarantee that someday in the future organics won't create synthetics that eventually become worse than the Reapers? Bad ending.
Synthesis
Okay, Shepard dies... and everyone lives except they are forced into becoming synthetic/organic hybrids. While superficially this seems like the "best" solution as it fosters co-existence, it doesn't seem natural or fair and way too forced. What about the people who didn't want to be part machine? What about the synthetics that didn't want to be organic? Suddenly changing the entire galaxy into cyborgs, I can't even begin to think of the social problems this would cause and all the questions it arises. You're basically destroying society and replacing it with another one arbitrarily. IF (the Catalyst was just a super-advanced AI, it wasn't god and its assumptions shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth) synthesis is the eventual final evolution of all life, then it should be able to reach it naturally and of its own volition. Bad ending.
Control
EDI gets to live, all Organics and Synthetics get to keep their individuality and learn to co-exist naturally. Shepard leaves his mortal coil and essentially becomes a god-like being who values and respects all life. He uses the Reapers as a reconstruction and peace-keeping force across the galaxy, essentially becomes his friends' and the galaxy's guardian angel. Just like his/her name, Shepard, becomes the one who leads the many. Good End.
If controlling the Reapers instead of destroying them was the right thing to do... then why was everyone against the Illusive man and Cerberus?
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline these days.
i have to say ive never really understood the objections about some of the endings partially vindicating tim
i mean it would be boring as hell if the story established a bad guy at the beginning and all the way through the entire plot maintained that he was a super evil bad guy so anything he's ever done is clearly completely evil and you definitely shouldnae do it
i mean even right from the start
when he said he had a way to control the reapers i thought 'aye that sounds an alright idea if we cannae kill all of them but i trust you as far as i can throw you sunshine'
also even if it was the way youve described it, having the protagonist struggling throughout the story to prevent an antagonist from carrying out some action, only to discover that the only way they can prevent $bad thing x$ eg
gethnic cleansing
is to carry out that action themselves is actually a pretty compelling plot? so i really dinnae get your point ill be honest.
A lot of it boils down to contradiction and presentation.....
You spend the entire series trying to destroy the Reapers, then at the end you learn you were wrong? Siding with Anderson was the "Paragon" or "Good" choice in Blue for the majority of the series, yet his choice is shown in Red at the end and going with his choice of action results in the worst of three endings. Siding with the Illusive man was the "Renegade" or "Evil" choice in Red for most of the series, yet his option is shown in Blue and is the best of all endings.
What if at the end of the original Star Wars Trilogy is was shown the Empire/Emperor were right and what the galaxy needed, so Luke takes the Empror's place and rules the empire. It kind of defeats the purpose of all the previous events and contradicts itself.
What if at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, its shown that the Ring DIDN'T need to be destroyed and that by destroying it, the world explodes, so Frodo becomes the new Sauron?
Its conflicting to establish an enemy, spend a considerable amount of story espousing how wrong they are, yet at the end, the best possible outcome has you siding with them or using their methods. If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense and been an allegory on morality. Instead of a self-defeating contradiction whose message is reduced in poignancy and impact.
but control isn't the best ending nor is destroy the worst, its up to you.
I've seen enough people argue for both sides that its dumb to make a whole argument around saying blue is the best and red is the worst.
And renegade and paragon never represented good and evil in the series, they are two different paths but neither is inherently better or worse
It does kind of seem like there's been a spate of really bad game endings lately, although I thought the ending of new vegas was all right.
control:
It's the same dilemma deus ex has been throwing at us for three games. Okay great, now you're an immortal machine god tasked with benevolently running the universe. The unasked question is always "for how long?"
Shepard runs the galaxy peacefully for a hundred years or so maybe, until the quarians start another dumbass war with the geth! Only this time instead of just punching an admiral and yelling about it, renegade shepard blows up rannoch's southern continent.
Or after 200 years ReaperShepard thinks 'you know what this galaxywide merged consciousness thing is actually pretty awesome, maybe harbinger had a point to begin with
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Well in Deus Ex humanity willingly becomes a pseudo borg collective (thoughts are shared, but people aren't controlled) within a hundred years and decides to start colonizing space
In ME
Shepard uses her reapers to purge the last remaining Batarians
It does kind of seem like there's been a spate of really bad game endings lately, although I thought the ending of new vegas was all right.
control:
It's the same dilemma deus ex has been throwing at us for three games. Okay great, now you're an immortal machine god tasked with benevolently running the universe. The unasked question is always "for how long?"
Shepard runs the galaxy peacefully for a hundred years or so maybe, until the quarians start another dumbass war with the geth! Only this time instead of just punching an admiral and yelling about it, renegade shepard blows up rannoch's southern continent.
Or after 200 years ReaperShepard thinks 'you know what this galaxywide merged consciousness thing is actually pretty awesome, maybe harbinger had a point to begin with
Control:
Especially since 200 years is such a minuscule measurement of time when we're discussing the consciousness Shepard becomes. Shepard could run the galaxy peacefully for 10,000 years and the same could be said. Same for 500,000 years. What kind of perspective would Shepard have at that point?
Although a similar case could be made for the immediate timeframe considering Shepard how inherited all those memories. Maybe Shepard reaches the same conclusions that the Catalyst did. For me the most ominous part of Sherpard's monologue was the repeated use of "the needs of the many." Reminded me of the ruthless calculus that she and Garrus talked about. Perhaps Shepard decides that it is worth sacrificing a few trillion lives now to save a few quadrillion lives down the road.
I'm not too worried though. One of the reasons control has become my preferred ending is because it provides so many possibilities. On one hand you have the incredibly bleak Shepard-becomes-everything-she-fought-against possibility, but you also have the option that Shepard avoids it by implementing synthesis sometime down the road. Only this time with everyone aware of what's coming and being able to opt in voluntarily.
Especially since 200 years is such a minuscule measurement of time when we're discussing the consciousness Shepard becomes. Shepard could run the galaxy peacefully for 10,000 years and the same could be said. Same for 500,000 years. What kind of perspective would Shepard have at that point?
Well in Deus Ex humanity willingly becomes a pseudo borg collective (thoughts are shared, but people aren't controlled) within a hundred years and decides to start colonizing space
In ME
Shepard uses her reapers to purge the last remaining Batarians
Then blows up Rannoch because fuck the Quarians
yeah I thought about it some more and I kind of made the wrong analogy
deus ex has always offered a choice between 'great men running the world,' 'transhuman democracy/dystopia(?)' and 'burn it down and start over.' That's basically the choice presented in ME3, too. 'Great men' (control) is obviously problematic because as the games show you, the previous 'great men' started with good intentions and over a long enough timeline, wound up corrupt. The transhumanist ending (synthesis) sounds awesome but raises the issue of consent: shepard didn't ask everybody's permission before plugging them into the hive mind, which minus the whole kidnap-and-melt-down process is the raison d'etre of the entire reaper war. 'Burn it down' has always been the right choice because even if there are some shitty consequences, at least its still humans (asari/turian/whatever) making the decisions.
What's interesting for me is that offering the "this decision is too haaaaaard" option seems to be becoming a trend. Invisible War sucked for a bunch of reasons but I will always love it for its implementation of this ending.
ed: also ME3's iteration of it was terrible
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I find it sad that the best ending ends up being Control, which the Illusive Man was for and everyone else was against, and you spent most of the game fighting against. Here is my take on the endings.
Destroy
Yay, the Reapers are dead! Yet so are the Geth and EDI who were your allies and friends and didn't deserve to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Sure, Shepard gets to live... but at the expense of billions of Synthetic Lifeforms with no guarantee that someday in the future organics won't create synthetics that eventually become worse than the Reapers? Bad ending.
Synthesis
Okay, Shepard dies... and everyone lives except they are forced into becoming synthetic/organic hybrids. While superficially this seems like the "best" solution as it fosters co-existence, it doesn't seem natural or fair and way too forced. What about the people who didn't want to be part machine? What about the synthetics that didn't want to be organic? Suddenly changing the entire galaxy into cyborgs, I can't even begin to think of the social problems this would cause and all the questions it arises. You're basically destroying society and replacing it with another one arbitrarily. IF (the Catalyst was just a super-advanced AI, it wasn't god and its assumptions shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth) synthesis is the eventual final evolution of all life, then it should be able to reach it naturally and of its own volition. Bad ending.
Control
EDI gets to live, all Organics and Synthetics get to keep their individuality and learn to co-exist naturally. Shepard leaves his mortal coil and essentially becomes a god-like being who values and respects all life. He uses the Reapers as a reconstruction and peace-keeping force across the galaxy, essentially becomes his friends' and the galaxy's guardian angel. Just like his/her name, Shepard, becomes the one who leads the many. Good End.
If controlling the Reapers instead of destroying them was the right thing to do... then why was everyone against the Illusive man and Cerberus?
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline these days.
i have to say ive never really understood the objections about some of the endings partially vindicating tim
i mean it would be boring as hell if the story established a bad guy at the beginning and all the way through the entire plot maintained that he was a super evil bad guy so anything he's ever done is clearly completely evil and you definitely shouldnae do it
i mean even right from the start
when he said he had a way to control the reapers i thought 'aye that sounds an alright idea if we cannae kill all of them but i trust you as far as i can throw you sunshine'
also even if it was the way youve described it, having the protagonist struggling throughout the story to prevent an antagonist from carrying out some action, only to discover that the only way they can prevent $bad thing x$ eg
gethnic cleansing
is to carry out that action themselves is actually a pretty compelling plot? so i really dinnae get your point ill be honest.
A lot of it boils down to contradiction and presentation.....
You spend the entire series trying to destroy the Reapers, then at the end you learn you were wrong? Siding with Anderson was the "Paragon" or "Good" choice in Blue for the majority of the series, yet his choice is shown in Red at the end and going with his choice of action results in the worst of three endings. Siding with the Illusive man was the "Renegade" or "Evil" choice in Red for most of the series, yet his option is shown in Blue and is the best of all endings.
What if at the end of the original Star Wars Trilogy is was shown the Empire/Emperor were right and what the galaxy needed, so Luke takes the Empror's place and rules the empire. It kind of defeats the purpose of all the previous events and contradicts itself.
What if at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, its shown that the Ring DIDN'T need to be destroyed and that by destroying it, the world explodes, so Frodo becomes the new Sauron?
Its conflicting to establish an enemy, spend a considerable amount of story espousing how wrong they are, yet at the end, the best possible outcome has you siding with them or using their methods. If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense and been an allegory on morality. Instead of a self-defeating contradiction whose message is reduced in poignancy and impact.
But you don't find out the galaxy needs the Reapers, you find out they have an argument for it. Which, if you're going to be a decent bad guy, you better have. The point of having a Paragon character in Renegade colors and vice versa is to fuck with the paradigm because there is no pure Paragon/Renegade in your ultimate decision. If you're a dude that picks the blue one because you always pick the blue one, then you're screwed, because now you have to make an actual choice.
It doesn't necessarily feel good but it's not a rug-out-from-under-you swerve.
And the doubts been there since at least ME2. Harbringer didn't tell you to "prepare for ascendance" and "we are your salvation" over and over for giggles.
Its conflicting to establish an enemy, spend a considerable amount of story espousing how wrong they are, yet at the end, the best possible outcome has you siding with them or using their methods. If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense and been an allegory on morality.
of course its conflicting, thats the point! something that makes you question the assumptions youve been working on is way more interesting than something that presents you with a set of basic premises at the beginning and says 'aye stick with these its gaunnae be the same thing all the way through'
Thats not questioning assumptions though, its just poor storytelling. When I say contradictions, I mean flaws. A story that says "things are like this" then turns around and says "wait no, they're like this" is inaccurate and pointlessly deceptive. A GOOD plot twist is one you don't see coming or isn't just the opposite of what you thought was true.
A bad story design is: "I ate a hotdog. HAHA! Fooled you, I ate a hamburger!"
A good story design is: "I ate something.... and it turns out it was a hamburger."
I just felt the endings were incredibly hackneyed, poorly thought-out, and contradicting to the rest of the series and its goal.
Its conflicting to establish an enemy, spend a considerable amount of story espousing how wrong they are, yet at the end, the best possible outcome has you siding with them or using their methods. If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense and been an allegory on morality.
of course its conflicting, thats the point! something that makes you question the assumptions youve been working on is way more interesting than something that presents you with a set of basic premises at the beginning and says 'aye stick with these its gaunnae be the same thing all the way through'
Thats not questioning assumptions though, its just poor storytelling. When I say contradictions, I mean flaws. A story that says "things are like this" then turns around and says "wait no, they're like this" is inaccurate and pointlessly deceptive. A GOOD plot twist is one you don't see coming or isn't just the opposite of what you thought was true.
A bad story design is: "I ate a hotdog. HAHA! Fooled you, I ate a hamburger!"
A good story design is: "I ate something.... and it turns out it was a hamburger."
I just felt the endings were incredibly hackneyed, poorly thought-out, and contradicting to the rest of the series and its goal.
i dinnae see that being told things are one way and then being told theyre another, or actually finding out theyre another way is "inaccurate" or "pointlessly deceptive"
also, a couple posts ago you said "If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense ..." but now you're saying "A GOOD plot twist is one you don't see coming ..." so im no entirely certain where the problem lies. personally im no very fond of heavy-handed foreshadowing so im quite happy with unexpected elements coming into a plot late on
basically i think we more or less agree on what elements are present in the story and just disagree on whether they are good or not. handing down "a good story design is this, a bad story design is this" fiats disnae seem like a very interesting way to come to grips with a text tho, i reckon you can get way more out of something if you dinnae insist any deviations from preordained structure must be a flaw
I think the problem is more that few seem to know how to write a denouement, or realize how important one is. Your conclusion will most always contain the highest point of your story, but that doesn't mean you put the pen down and walk away once you hit it. This is even more prominent with games that have cliffhangers, especially of the "we're making a trilogy!" kind. You don't kill the bad guy, show 3 non-nonsensical scenes, and then cut to black. You need to come back down and level off. Which is what the EC does, and is so much better for it.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I think the problem is more that few seem to know how to write a denouement, or realize how important one is. Your conclusion will most always contain the highest point of your story, but that doesn't mean you put the pen down and walk away once you hit it. This is even more prominent with games that have cliffhangers, especially of the "we're making a trilogy!" kind. You don't kill the bad guy, show 3 non-nonsensical scenes, and then cut to black. You need to come back down and level off. Which is what the EC does, and is so much better for it.
This. And it's not limited to just gaming though - movies and TV lately have the same problem, they just don't do proper epilogues anymore.
Especially since 200 years is such a minuscule measurement of time when we're discussing the consciousness Shepard becomes. Shepard could run the galaxy peacefully for 10,000 years and the same could be said. Same for 500,000 years. What kind of perspective would Shepard have at that point?
"How are these goddamn voluses still alive!?"
Nice. Could've also gone with.
"I'M COMMANDER SHEPARD AND THESE ARE MY FAVORITE RUDIMENTARY CREATURES OF BLOOD AND FLESH ON THE CITADEL."
Especially since 200 years is such a minuscule measurement of time when we're discussing the consciousness Shepard becomes. Shepard could run the galaxy peacefully for 10,000 years and the same could be said. Same for 500,000 years. What kind of perspective would Shepard have at that point?
"How are these goddamn voluses still alive!?"
Nice. Could've also gone with.
"I'M COMMANDER SHEPARD AND THESE ARE MY FAVORITE RUDIMENTARY CREATURES OF BLOOD AND FLESH ON THE CITADEL."
System Shock 1 takes place on Citadel Station. Wait a minute...
Posts
Destroy
Yay, the Reapers are dead! Yet so are the Geth and EDI who were your allies and friends and didn't deserve to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Sure, Shepard gets to live... but at the expense of billions of Synthetic Lifeforms with no guarantee that someday in the future organics won't create synthetics that eventually become worse than the Reapers? Bad ending.
Synthesis
Okay, Shepard dies... and everyone lives except they are forced into becoming synthetic/organic hybrids. While superficially this seems like the "best" solution as it fosters co-existence, it doesn't seem natural or fair and way too forced. What about the people who didn't want to be part machine? What about the synthetics that didn't want to be organic? Suddenly changing the entire galaxy into cyborgs, I can't even begin to think of the social problems this would cause and all the questions it arises. You're basically destroying society and replacing it with another one arbitrarily. IF (the Catalyst was just a super-advanced AI, it wasn't god and its assumptions shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth) synthesis is the eventual final evolution of all life, then it should be able to reach it naturally and of its own volition. Bad ending.
Control
EDI gets to live, all Organics and Synthetics get to keep their individuality and learn to co-exist naturally. Shepard leaves his mortal coil and essentially becomes a god-like being who values and respects all life. He uses the Reapers as a reconstruction and peace-keeping force across the galaxy, essentially becomes his friends' and the galaxy's guardian angel. Just like his/her name, Shepard, becomes the one who leads the many. Good End.
If controlling the Reapers instead of destroying them was the right thing to do... then why was everyone against the Illusive man and Cerberus?
ME3, coupled with so many other disappointing western games makes me think western game devs just do not know how to write a satisfying storyline these days.
Haha this is hilarious.
It really is.
Why I fear the ocean.
Sorry, slightly amended my original statement. Not trying to derail the thread, but in recent years I find it hard to recall a single western developed game that had a storyline + conclusion that I genuinely enjoyed and felt was well-crafted.
Deus Ex Human Revolution
Fallout 3 + New Vegas
Skyrim
InFamous series
Prototype series
Bioshock series
Diablo 3
Pretty much any triple-A western developed game to come out in recent years has fallen completely flat in the storyline department or the ending has been nonsensical, lazy, and in opposition with the rest of the game's message or theme. Except Red Dead Redemption, that was perfect. Rockstar always seems to do a great job though.
Would also like to point out that your "haha he's so wrong!" condescending attempt at a counter-argument is incredibly childish and borders on trolling.
I'm willing to go with endings are tough, but some of the screw ups lately have seemed like an unfortunate product of people feeling they need to add a twist where a twist isn't needed, or try and be revelatory when nothing else demands it, and do so at the expense of hitting basic emotional notes.
I mean, a big part of the improvement in the EC endings for me
Thats fair, its probably just my playing habits and taste in games + stories. While Japanese games are usually more simplistic in storyline, I find them to be more satisfying and giving me what I want.
Persona 3 + 4
Final Fantasy XIII
Xenoblade Chronicles
Catherine
Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
NIER
I loved the stories + endings in all those games. Its probably just my personal preference, but this is a trend that I keep seeing lately that I can't seem to shake.
How can you say that when Mike can't even sail off into the sunset with SIE?
You couldn't honestly say that you were expecting Diablo 3 to have a good story line though.
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
You're gonna get a lot of disagreement on XIII, and while Xenoblade had a good ending it was basically the same ending as Xenogears and Xenosaga, thematically, just with a moderately different setting
What I feel like your complaint boils down to is that Japanese games aren't afraid to end stories, whereas Western RPG's tend to be more open-ended in the gameplay, and thus end up having endings that reflect that (i.e. aren't very concrete on details and leave a lot of things up for speculation).
Which is mildly ironic compared to movies where western movies tend to have more concrete themes/messages/endings and Japanese ones are much more open-ended and such; with either really out there endings, or have an endless number of sequels/sidestories.
It's just boils down to style and taste; not quality, necessarily.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Edit: Apparently not in my region though. Must be 4th of July sale on the American Apple Store.
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
I don't agree entirely, I think, but I can't argue with you if you put it like that. And more than a few of those examples I agree with.
i have to say ive never really understood the objections about some of the endings partially vindicating tim
i mean it would be boring as hell if the story established a bad guy at the beginning and all the way through the entire plot maintained that he was a super evil bad guy so anything he's ever done is clearly completely evil and you definitely shouldnae do it
i mean even right from the start
also even if it was the way youve described it, having the protagonist struggling throughout the story to prevent an antagonist from carrying out some action, only to discover that the only way they can prevent $bad thing x$ eg
I can't decide which morbid term I prefer.
There's also some terms from an electrician apprenticeship that would fit.
A lot of it boils down to contradiction and presentation.....
What if at the end of the original Star Wars Trilogy is was shown the Empire/Emperor were right and what the galaxy needed, so Luke takes the Empror's place and rules the empire. It kind of defeats the purpose of all the previous events and contradicts itself.
What if at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, its shown that the Ring DIDN'T need to be destroyed and that by destroying it, the world explodes, so Frodo becomes the new Sauron?
Its conflicting to establish an enemy, spend a considerable amount of story espousing how wrong they are, yet at the end, the best possible outcome has you siding with them or using their methods. If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense and been an allegory on morality. Instead of a self-defeating contradiction whose message is reduced in poignancy and impact.
well lemme just say that i dispute your characterisation of control as best and destroy as worst
no to say i think theres no way they can be construed in that way just that the text can easily support other interpretations
those would both be amazing tho?
of course its conflicting, thats the point! something that makes you question the assumptions youve been working on is way more interesting than something that presents you with a set of basic premises at the beginning and says 'aye stick with these its gaunnae be the same thing all the way through'
I've seen enough people argue for both sides that its dumb to make a whole argument around saying blue is the best and red is the worst.
control:
Shepard runs the galaxy peacefully for a hundred years or so maybe, until the quarians start another dumbass war with the geth! Only this time instead of just punching an admiral and yelling about it, renegade shepard blows up rannoch's southern continent.
Or after 200 years ReaperShepard thinks 'you know what this galaxywide merged consciousness thing is actually pretty awesome, maybe harbinger had a point to begin with
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
In ME
Then blows up Rannoch because fuck the Quarians
clearly any ending without
Control:
Although a similar case could be made for the immediate timeframe considering Shepard how inherited all those memories. Maybe Shepard reaches the same conclusions that the Catalyst did. For me the most ominous part of Sherpard's monologue was the repeated use of "the needs of the many." Reminded me of the ruthless calculus that she and Garrus talked about. Perhaps Shepard decides that it is worth sacrificing a few trillion lives now to save a few quadrillion lives down the road.
I'm not too worried though. One of the reasons control has become my preferred ending is because it provides so many possibilities. On one hand you have the incredibly bleak Shepard-becomes-everything-she-fought-against possibility, but you also have the option that Shepard avoids it by implementing synthesis sometime down the road. Only this time with everyone aware of what's coming and being able to opt in voluntarily.
yeah I thought about it some more and I kind of made the wrong analogy
What's interesting for me is that offering the "this decision is too haaaaaard" option seems to be becoming a trend. Invisible War sucked for a bunch of reasons but I will always love it for its implementation of this ending.
ed: also ME3's iteration of it was terrible
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
It doesn't necessarily feel good but it's not a rug-out-from-under-you swerve.
And the doubts been there since at least ME2. Harbringer didn't tell you to "prepare for ascendance" and "we are your salvation" over and over for giggles.
Thats not questioning assumptions though, its just poor storytelling. When I say contradictions, I mean flaws. A story that says "things are like this" then turns around and says "wait no, they're like this" is inaccurate and pointlessly deceptive. A GOOD plot twist is one you don't see coming or isn't just the opposite of what you thought was true.
A bad story design is: "I ate a hotdog. HAHA! Fooled you, I ate a hamburger!"
A good story design is: "I ate something.... and it turns out it was a hamburger."
I just felt the endings were incredibly hackneyed, poorly thought-out, and contradicting to the rest of the series and its goal.
i dinnae see that being told things are one way and then being told theyre another, or actually finding out theyre another way is "inaccurate" or "pointlessly deceptive"
also, a couple posts ago you said "If the doubt and the possibility of you being wrong had been a theme throughout the entire game series, it would have made sense ..." but now you're saying "A GOOD plot twist is one you don't see coming ..." so im no entirely certain where the problem lies. personally im no very fond of heavy-handed foreshadowing so im quite happy with unexpected elements coming into a plot late on
basically i think we more or less agree on what elements are present in the story and just disagree on whether they are good or not. handing down "a good story design is this, a bad story design is this" fiats disnae seem like a very interesting way to come to grips with a text tho, i reckon you can get way more out of something if you dinnae insist any deviations from preordained structure must be a flaw
This. And it's not limited to just gaming though - movies and TV lately have the same problem, they just don't do proper epilogues anymore.
new
neat endings where everything is tidily wrapped up are worse than genocide
Nice. Could've also gone with.
nah