416 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

nhsk wrote...

Nobody is asking for dark depressing endings.

Could've fooled me.

[True Zarken]

While I see a lot of people are wanting dark depressing endings I wouldn't mind one or two of those but I'd also like a super happy ending. Also if you want dark and depressing you might as well go play the Witcher 2. =P

Modifié par True Zarken, 23 juin 2011 - 02:48 .

[Kenthen]

As long as there's no dancing, singing Ewoks I don't care if there's some happy endings in the game.

[nhsk]

jamesp81 wrote...

Could've fooled me.

Well of course there will be dark depressing endings in the game, but people are not asking that they are the only endings...

And 1 squad death, is a kinda optimistic and more emotionally engaging than reading "2 millions dead" - "1 death is tragic, while 1 million is statistics"

[jamesp81]

nhsk wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Could've fooled me.

Well of course there will be dark depressing endings in the game, but people are not asking that they are the only endings...

And 1 squad death, is a kinda optimistic and more emotionally engaging than reading "2 millions dead" - "1 death is tragic, while 1 million is statistics"

Squad deaths should be directly related to player performance.

You can still drag the player to the depths of despair before letting him take the path to complete victory without doing another virmire.

[CaptainZaysh]

Kenthen wrote...

As long as there's no dancing, singing Ewoks I don't care if there's some happy endings in the game.

Leaked concept art for Paragon ending:



Coatee cha tu goo; (Yub nub!)
Coatee cha tu doo; (Yahwah!)
Coatee cha tu too; (Ya chaa!)

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 23 juin 2011 - 04:14 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

jamesp81 wrote...
Squad deaths should be directly related to player performance.

How many of your squadmates that die should be left up to the player's own preformance. But there should be casuelties.

[Kenthen]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Kenthen wrote...

As long as there's no dancing, singing Ewoks I don't care if there's some happy endings in the game.

Leaked concept art for Paragon ending:



Coatee cha tu goo; (Yub nub!)
Coatee cha tu doo; (Yahwah!)
Coatee cha tu too; (Ya chaa!)

Damn it!

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

mopotter wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

See if I was to scale those endings, I would like to see that it is easier to get A than it is G

Getting A shouldn't be solely about Shepard making tactical errors/blunders/player having to really mess with the system to ensure they get it

I don't think it has to be due to tactical errors.  I think that Shepard should feel that it's more important to finish them off as soon as possible no matter what the sacrifices are.  That would seem a reasonable goal, though not one I'd probably go with.

That would be a tactical error though, actually it would be a combination of all the things I said if Shepard was to do such a thing. Considering what we know from the fight against just 1 Reaper. Shepard would be an idiot to try and go in as quickly as possible without proper preparation.

Even on my worse playthrough I doubt I'll do that unless I've ensured that I've pretty much frelled up any chance of getting any allies due to my choices in the previous games and it is the only way (which as I've said before I really hope isn't the case) to get such an ending.

To all the people going on about us wanting just depressing endings, no we are not, go read Kainryc and Phaedon's posts again. We are basically stating that those endings should be there just as the 'super duper' happy ending but the latter should be harder to get.

We are going up against sentient starships whom have apparently for possibly millions of years gone through this cycle of letting biological races to rise to a certain level then come in and wipe them out. It ain't as if we're going up against some race like the Krogan or the Rachni... going up against the Reapers should make those battles seem like a childs playfight. If they are easily beaten it destroys the whole point of the Reapers being what they are.

As for squad deaths in comparison to the millions of nameless npcs that are most likely going to die, just because there is the latter definitly doesn't mean the former should have plot armor. We aren't just fighting for those nameless people that have fallen but for our squadmates, our allies and ourselves. We fight or we die, that's the plan!

Sorry... couldn't resist using that line :happy:

[gosimmons]

In my opinion, a war like this should seem like that there are some situations which you can't get control over just because you're a good tactician. The enemy's stronger than us, and sometimes there are too many things to account for,  more so when our situation has been built up as hopeless since the beginning.


Not to say I don't want to end on a satisfying or triumphan note, I just want to feel like we realistically achieved it. When the options are total genocide, or struggle against enemies that take a whole fleet to bring down, there are probably going to be casualties.

[KainrycKarr]

For the thousandth time, I'm okay with unavoidable casualties, as long as they aren't restricted to specific characters( Tali HAS to die, Miranda HAS to die.)

Sure, you have to lose SOMEONE, but your decisions and actions should be able to influence WHO.

That's all.

[nhsk]

I think everyone will be pissed if we can't avoid Garrus dying unless he goes in a very epic 30 minute long cutscene, so yeah choices and mandatory

[gosimmons]

KainrycKarr wrote...
Sure, you have to lose SOMEONE, but your decisions and actions should be able to influence WHO.

That's all.

I could agree with that for the most part.
Though hopefully it's something more than every situation boiling down to having to choose between one race or another.

nhsk wrote...

I think everyone will be pissed if we can't avoid Garrus dying unless he goes in a very epic 30 minute long cutscene, so yeah choices and mandatory

I'll at least settle for longer scenes than the Hurk Blehs during the suicide mission. lol

Modifié par gosimmons, 23 juin 2011 - 04:56 .

[KainrycKarr]

gosimmons wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...
Sure, you have to lose SOMEONE, but your decisions and actions should be able to influence WHO.

That's all.

I could agree with that for the most part.
Though hopefully it's something more than every situation boiling down to having to choose between one race or another.

nhsk wrote...

I think everyone will be pissed if we can't avoid Garrus dying unless he goes in a very epic 30 minute long cutscene, so yeah choices and mandatory

I'll at least settle for longer scenes than the Hurk Blehs during the suicide mission. lol

I agree, the choices should be less obvious.

[jamesp81]

Lizardviking wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Squad deaths should be directly related to player performance.

How many of your squadmates that die should be left up to the player's own preformance. But there should be casuelties.

Then we'll just disagree then.  The number should range somewhere between 0 and All Of Them.

[catgirl789]

Phaedon wrote...

A. Everyone dies, brief epilogue by Anderson/Keith David, EDI becomes the new Vigil.

B. Shepard lives, only humanity survives, epilogue by TIM/Martin Sheen, splits to paragon or renegade ending (B1, B2)

C. Shepard lives, multiple alien civilizations live, humanity dies, epilogue by Sheen, Shepard and his human crew look at the sunset, as they are the last of their species.

D. Shepard lives, multiple alien civilizations live, humanity lives, epilogue by Keith David/Martin Sheen, splits to D1 and D2, humanity dominates, or every species work together

E. Shepard dies, humanity survives, again, human crew looks towards sunset etc etc

F. Shepard dies, humanity survives, multiple alien races live, epilogue by Keith David, everyone honours Shepard.

G. Everyone lives, relatively difficult to achieve ending, split to G1: Human Domination narrated by Sheen, or G2: Everyone works together narrated by David.

This is what I want. Thanks for summing it up so nicely.

[Phaedon]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

G. Everyone lives, relatively difficult to achieve ending.

That's impossible. Technically it would mean stopping the Reaper before they reach Earth, i.e completing ME3 before it begins, would be pretty dull don't you think.

Realistically, the Reapers can easily wipe out >90% of all human life on Earth in the first hours (at worst days). This doesn't give Shepard much time to assemble an army.

"Everyone lives" as in all races survive.

10-20% of the human race survives? That's enough. We are talking about billions of people.

Modifié par Phaedon, 23 juin 2011 - 06:10 .

[Phaedon]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

A. Everyone dies, brief epilogue by Anderson/Keith David, EDI becomes the new Vigil.

I think that is a brilliant idea, history repeats itself!

For an ending you see EDI the new Vigil and it skips forward a 100,000 years to a new race about to witness the Reaper invasion.

That was pretty much what I had in mind, a really small feature but it would definitely make even the "bad" ending be more than a 'critical mission failure'.

[Omega Torsk]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Teknor wrote...

Total survival cheapens the Reapers' deal hence the story.

Except total survival isn't possible already. Millions are already dead.
Hell, it's possible given the events of Arrival and what we've seen so far for ME3 that at least one race might already be extinct or near-extinct(batarians).

I just want the possibility of Shepard and his squad making it out alive. Is that really so offensive, just allowing the option?

This. There are already plenty of sacrifices happening. Heck, you need to leave Earth as it's just starting to get obliterated. 9 million people die on Earth in the first week, alone. And, as the OP mentioned, the Batarian homeworld has probably already been conquered. So I agree with the OP; give us at least one "sunshine and bunnies" ending. The others being a Shepard saves everyone, but dies (preferably with his LI, if applicable), a mix of the two, and then the two other "Lol, you have failed. We have found another way" endings; Shepard fails and the galaxy is lost or Shepard dies and the galaxy is lost.

[Aedan_Cousland]

jamesp81 wrote...

nhsk wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Could've fooled me.

Well of course there will be dark depressing endings in the game, but people are not asking that they are the only endings...

And 1 squad death, is a kinda optimistic and more emotionally engaging than reading "2 millions dead" - "1 death is tragic, while 1 million is statistics"

Squad deaths should be directly related to player performance.

You can still drag the player to the depths of despair before letting him take the path to complete victory without doing another virmire.

I disagree completely.

The problem with linking deaths to player performance is that those that want the story to be darker, more realistic, or have more emotional impact have to get it at the expense of their main character. ME2 is a perfect example of this. It is possible to lose many people on your squad but only if you didn't get the necessary upgrades (stupid, plus it involves skipping content) , didn't gain your squad's loyalty (makes Shep a poor leader, involves skipping content) or Shepard makes bonehead tactical decisions like making Grunt a team leader or taking a weaker biotic over Samara or Jack.

That is the worst possible thing they could do with ME3. Squad mate deaths should not be linked solely to player performance. There should be some instances where Shepard makes all the right decisions but can't avoid losing someone, or loses someone *because* he made the right tactical decision.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 23 juin 2011 - 09:22 .

[AlanC9]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...
The problem with linking deaths to player performance is that those that want the story to be darker, more realistic, or have more emotional impact have to get it at the expense of their main character. ME2 is a perfect example of this. It is possible to lose many people on your squad but only if you didn't get the necessary upgrades (stupid, plus it involves skipping content) , didn't gain your squad's loyalty (makes Shep a poor leader, involves skipping content) or Shepard makes bonehead tactical decisions like making Grunt a team leader or taking a weaker biotic over Samara or Jack.

However, note that there is a tradeoff for skipping content in ME2. Unless you delay doing the IFF mission (and you don't know you ought to do that unless you're metagaming), finishing up the LMs results in more of your crew being eaten.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AlanC9 wrote...
However, note that there is a tradeoff for skipping content in ME2. Unless you delay doing the IFF mission (and you don't know you ought to do that unless you're metagaming), finishing up the LMs results in more of your crew being eaten.

Am I one the few who knew that the Reaper IFF mission was going to be something of a "endgame opener" of some sort and therefor should be played last?

[Aedan_Cousland]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...
The problem with linking deaths to player performance is that those that want the story to be darker, more realistic, or have more emotional impact have to get it at the expense of their main character. ME2 is a perfect example of this. It is possible to lose many people on your squad but only if you didn't get the necessary upgrades (stupid, plus it involves skipping content) , didn't gain your squad's loyalty (makes Shep a poor leader, involves skipping content) or Shepard makes bonehead tactical decisions like making Grunt a team leader or taking a weaker biotic over Samara or Jack.

However, note that there is a tradeoff for skipping content in ME2. Unless you delay doing the IFF mission (and you don't know you ought to do that unless you're metagaming), finishing up the LMs results in more of your crew being eaten.

Honestly with the supposed 'suicide mission' of ME2 you had to work a lot harder to get people killed than to keep them alive. I went into the game completely unspoiled and with no idea how the game would play out, and got everyone through on my first attempt. I've also read many similar stories from other players on these boards, so my first playthrough was hardly unique.

The suicide mission was a lot of fun but certain aspects of it shouldn't be used as a template for ME3. One aspect I did love that I hope returns, is that the suicide mission seemed to involve the whole team, rather than just Shepard and two squad mates. I hope the end run for ME3 is similar, with your whole squad going into battle and individual squaddies being tasked with different roles.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 23 juin 2011 - 09:45 .

[jamesp81]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

nhsk wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Could've fooled me.

Well of course there will be dark depressing endings in the game, but people are not asking that they are the only endings...

And 1 squad death, is a kinda optimistic and more emotionally engaging than reading "2 millions dead" - "1 death is tragic, while 1 million is statistics"

Squad deaths should be directly related to player performance.

You can still drag the player to the depths of despair before letting him take the path to complete victory without doing another virmire.

I disagree completely.

The problem with linking deaths to player performance is that those that want the story to be darker, more realistic, or have more emotional impact have to get it at the expense of their main character. ME2 is a perfect example of this.

That's not my problem.  The game is best when it is configured to allow the players to experience it as they wish.

This is what annoys me.  It's not enough for you to have an ending you like.  You have to make sure I can't have an ending I like.

[xSTONEYx187x]

marshalleck wrote...

Teknor wrote...
 Bioware might come up with something new.

I'm almost in tears here.

You're easily pleased. 

Depressing sod. 

<_<