Purkake

So you're not a jaded grumpy cynic, because a game didn't mach your unrealistic expectations? So what are you?

There's plenty of forums with non-cynical/bitter/jaded people out there. It's probably the post-Black Isle Syndrome. There don't seem to be any non-cynical/bitter/jaded people wherever I post... ...oh my god, it's me innit? The problem is me... NeoGAF's pretty chipper compared to all the old skool RPG depression pits... I'm sure there are others too.

There's plenty of forums with non-cynical/bitter/jaded people out there. It's probably the post-Black Isle Syndrome.

You can make a complex/emergent game in a smaller/less open environment. My point is to make a game based on the available resources, not reach for the stars and then wrap it up half way through because you ran out of time/skill/money.

Maybe developers should stick to less ambiguous games if it isn't possible to make them relatively bug free at that state? Reach exceeding grasp and so on.

Bioware continues to be serious business.

Blasphemy!

@Will: Not bad, not bad at all. I could see that happening. @HK: I've been here long enough that you should know the kinds of jokes I make...

He doesn't seem like a happy and well-adjusted individual to me. Have they said anything about a morality/reputation/"humanity" system? EDIT: Yeah, the trailer had a line about that as well. So it's about personal revenge then?

I thought we were all about snideness and sarcasm over here? Towing the party line and all that Plus, it's not like I haven't been snide and sarcastic the two last years...

You just can't appreciate my cynical genre-deconstructing humor.

Well, he's obviously grumpy when he says "I never asked for this". Do we actually know more about his character? I'm basing this just on the trailers.

The kind I asked and you didn't answer. Sorry I wasn't clear, but I was implying the question was stupid. Is something you watch different from something you do? Of course it is. I didn't think there was a need to point out that being an active participant is different to being a passive viewer. Does that make games inherently more emotionally involving than say books or movies? What about linear games, does just controlling the character make the whole narrative different? You can have both. A happy ending that comes out of nowhere isn't satisfying, but a happy ending that comes from making the right decisions and having your plan work is satisfying. Which was my point. I want a satisfying ending, whether it's happy or not. Then you aren't making yourself very clear. Before you said happy endings are cliche (or boring or overused) which is bad but now you're apparently okay with a happy ending as long as it is satisfactory. That's exactly what hurlshot is asking for, unless you think he wants an unsatisfying happy ending, which makes no sense. In ME2 I did all the companion missions and made the right choices in the end battle, and all my team members survived. To me this is a "happy" ending because all my teammates survived, and it's also a satisfactory ending because they survived based on my actions. I expect the same sort of thing from ME3. As Di pointed out, having failure forced on you means the choices you make are irrelevant. Forced failure is as bad as forced everybody lived happily ever after. I guess I wasn't too clear. My problem was asking for a happy ending, because you supposedly earn it by actively playing the game(as opposed to just reading/watching it). Which would imply that every game where "work" for your ending should have a happy one. I, on the other hand want a satisfying ending, whether its "everyone dies" or "everyone skips off into the sunset". So your argument this whole time was just "I don't want that cliche, I want this cliche". Again, that was a joke.

I want an epilogue where Shepard is a down and out alcoholic, having horrible Promethean flashbacks and nightmares about the people he lost along the way. Then you pull out and show that the world didn't learn anything from the experience, the council is still a bunch of backstabbing politicians, no one trusts the humans and Shepard is just another symbol to be used for whatever agenda they're pushing. End with Shep grabbing for his gun.

I think you're reading way to much into this in a effort to be negative. We see him using a bunch of his new powers, you really don't think he appreciates them? You want him to voice his appreciation every time he uses an ability? "I love that I can punch through walls." "I really like that these arm blades give me the edge in battle." "Cloaking is great, I can move around without being seen." "I really appreciate being able to fall from great heights without taking any damage." Maybe he can shout "OH HELL YEAH" with a big smile on his face every time he activates an aug. I was kidding... Maybe less of a debbie downer and more of a grumpy bear?

I would have been fine with the everybody dies ending if it had had a point and wasn't like that for its own sake. Might make it problematic for the sequels though.

He could run away and use his awesome powers to build houses for poor people in Africa or something. Probably just another case of being cursed with awesome and needing a driving internal conflict.

It means he can't appreciate the awesomeness of having cybernetic arms, punching through walls and turning invisible. (at least according to the trailer)

The kind I asked and you didn't answer. You can have both. A happy ending that comes out of nowhere isn't satisfying, but a happy ending that comes from making the right decisions and having your plan work is satisfying. Which was my point. I want a satisfying ending, whether it's happy or not. Just demanding a happy ending for all your hard work might get a tad bit boring after a while...

Nice aesthetics, but Adam is a bit of a Debbie downer.

So are video game endings different from endings in other media(other than there being multiple possible endings)? Does actually playing the character make a difference or is that just a personal bias? Bear in mind that I don't mean a "you fail, everyone dies" sad ending, that's just bad storytelling(or trying really hard to drive a point home). I mean having to make compromises, questionable decisions and losing yourself and/or people you care about along the way. I think there's a difference between a happy and a satisfying ending.

They need to tie up the Reaper storyline because they put it in the game. Whether it is necessary or not is irrelevant at this point. EDIT: If you mean why they need the Reapers for future ME products, then I wasn't implying that. They just need to end that storyline in a somewhat final manner to give some closure to the trilogy.

It's different for the last one, because the trilogy needs some kind of an actual ending instead of a "dun dun dun to be continued...". I mean Shepherd could go either way, but the Reaper storyline hast to end somehow and you'll need a canon ending if they want the franchise to continue(which they probably do...).

Torment wasn't good because of the amnesia, it was good despite it. It was a necessary crutch for the writers. Seeing as they were trying to deconstruct as many fantasy RPG tropes as they could, I was surprised that they didn't do anything more with the opening. You get interesting stories by playing with expectations and clich

So yeah, moving back to the comment I was referencing. Why do you want a happy ending after you've put 100h into a game, Hurly? (as opposed to any other kind)