77 réponses à ce sujet

[Destroy Raiden_]

I don't mind shep dying in 3 he's just gotta not be commander idiot in order to achieve it. I hated how you deliberately had to want to screw up in order to die in 2. I would actually like one of the multiple endings to be shep dies and the galaxy lives and a shep dies and the galaxy dies end.

[Nightingale]

DarthSliver wrote...

I want the super happy successful ending and I want the super sad failure ending. I would like an ending where the Reapers can succeed like where Shepard succumbs to indocrination(SP?). But I dont think it would be fair if such endings were obvious to see like if I go full Paragon I know ill get the happy ending or if i go full renegade I know ill get the failure ending.

Exactly what I thought. I definitely do want to see a couple endings where Shepard can die, and I'd like to see at least one of those where the Reapers win. Maybe one where Shepard manages to defeat them, but still dies in the end. Don't get me wrong, I want my happy ending with my happy squad and happily ever after (I'd like it to be very happy, if you can't tell ) but I think, for a game that offers such depth in the consequences to your choices, there should be a few endings with Shepard dead. Hopefully where you don't have to try to get such an ending, too.

On a related (and somewhat spoiler-y) note, I don't think if you went full Paragon you're garaunteed a "good" ending and a "bad" ending for Renegade. The way they've set things up, sure Renegade may be a bit more difficult depending on the bridges you've burned, but BW has still given Renegade Shepards a decent chance. Now if you, say, didn't bother helping the Krogans, Asari, Salarians and Turians (assuming they're all options in ME3) and decided to blow up the Heretics in ME2 in addition to telling the Quarians to go to war, you might have a bit of a problem there...

Modifié par DrTsoni, 04 août 2011 - 08:50 .

[Fyk0]

No, not with the "good" ending. It would fuxor possible DLC missions and that would be bad for business.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If it's the uber happy ending I couldn't take it seriously. There has to be some sacrifices made. Some cost. Everyone has to come out of this with scars: some physical, some emotional.

A forced death could foxtrot utah the DLC unless the DLC has you play as someone else to set up a sequel.

[Requiem of Faith]

It would be better if he was confronted with a choice at the end. Like at the end the only way to kill the reapers is to arm some super bomb and the only way to do that is manually. Then Sheperd's most loyal squadmate (whoever you favor most or play with most) insists that they'd be the one to arm the bomb. Sheperd must decide wether or not to arm it himself and die, or to live with the guilt of letting his squadmate sacrifice themself for him/her.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

King Minos wrote...

Sir ulrich, actually it takes place before the final battle, the night before it all ends

That was my point just as LGTX also commented on right below my post.

Just because they said that DLC could be played post-OP doesn't necessarily guarantee that every ending will have Shepard surviving... just as with the Warden in DAO.

[Soccer FeverMan]

I really don't see why people care so much they said there will be multiple endings. So theres gonna be endings with pure happiness, others with pure failure. Me personally im going for living legend status, i wouldn't mind some squadmates dying, not the LI though. The only way my Shepard is gonna die is by saving Liara, but he gotta get the chance to implant his seed in her first ;D (my "canon"LI").

[TheWerdna]

I defiently thing there should be several endings were shepard dies, but also several others were he lives.

In the end of the day, dieing as the end should be decently likely, but avoidable if you made the right choices. That if you make good choices you are rewarded with a happer ending, when you made bad choices you get a not as happy ending.

I personally want a happy ending, though not super happy. My defeniton of happy in the case of mass effect is this. The Reapers are destroyed (or at least defeated) and the universe is saved. Millions of people died in the war and many areas of the Gallexy are devastated; though most if not every race survives the war. Even so, the future should look bright as the task of rebuilding starts, hopefully with new found cooperation between the surviving races.

Shepard, LI and the a good number of former/current squad mates (i think at least a few deaths should be unavoidable, but specifically dies should be up to player choices and decisions) survive, and there will be a scene at the end showing Shepard and his/her LI (could be widely different depending on the LI

[Han Shot First]

The Interloper wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

They said a super happy ending is possible, so I doubt it will be mandatory.

Lame.

ME3 should not have a butterflies and rainbows ending just because some fans have an inability to accept a little tragedy. If Bioware truly confirmed an ending where everyone lives, they've also confirmed poor story telling.

Pretty sure the rainbows-and-candy ending isn't mandatory either.

It should be possible, right? Just like Nobody Left Behind.

I loved Mass Effect 2 but I did have some problems with the Suicide Mission.

My main complaint with the suicide mission was that it wasn't really a suicide mission at all. It is fairly easy to get your entire team through unscathed, and it actually takes more effort to get squadmates killed than it does to save them. The other issue with the suicide mission was that people only died if Shepard made tactical or strategic blunders, or if the player skipped content.

IMO the ME2 suicide mission shouldn't be used as the template for the end run in Mass Effect 3.

Instead there should be a few unavoidable deaths, though tactical decisions made by the player during missions would decide who lives or dies. Death is a reality in combat and sometimes people die even if a leader makes the right decision, or they die even because of it.

The endings should also play out like a reverse of Mass Effect 2, with the ideal end run being one where Shepard and his team make sacrifices that miminize the devastation to the galaxy. The less ideal end run would be one where Shepard was too unwilling to make tough choices and too often put his men before the mission, resulting in less casualties to his team, but more devastation to the galaxy.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 05 août 2011 - 04:50 .

[Homebound]

me3. the plot armor comes off.

[marshalleck]

Hellbound555 wrote...

me3. the plot armor comes off.

Liara's finally going to kick the bucket? 

[Had-to-say]

Shepard isn't really alive is he? He has Reaper battery power.

[vonBlitzkrieg]

since this is the end of Sheppard's story, I wouldn't mind having multiple endings that end in Sheppard's death

[shaneofthedead]

My squaddies can bring me flowers when my shep is dead and gone.

[Keatons]

Han Shot First wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

They said a super happy ending is possible, so I doubt it will be mandatory.

Lame.

ME3 should not have a butterflies and rainbows ending just because some fans have an inability to accept a little tragedy. If Bioware truly confirmed an ending where everyone lives, they've also confirmed poor story telling.

Pretty sure the rainbows-and-candy ending isn't mandatory either.

It should be possible, right? Just like Nobody Left Behind.

I loved Mass Effect 2 but I did have some problems with the Suicide Mission.

My main complaint with the suicide mission was that it wasn't really a suicide mission at all. It is fairly easy to get your entire team through unscathed, and it actually takes more effort to get squadmates killed than it does to save them. The other issue with the suicide mission was that people only died if Shepard made tactical or strategic blunders, or if the player skipped content.

IMO the ME2 suicide mission shouldn't be used as the template for the end run in Mass Effect 3.

Instead there should be a few unavoidable deaths, though tactical decisions made by the player during missions would decide who lives or dies. Death is a reality in combat and sometimes people die even if a leader makes the right decision, or they die even because of it.

The endings should also play out like a reverse of Mass Effect 2, with the ideal end run being one where Shepard and his team make sacrifices that miminize the devastation to the galaxy. The less ideal end run would be one where Shepard was too unwilling to make tough choices and too often put his men before the mission, resulting in less casualties to his team, but more devastation to the galaxy.

Well, your ehem... odd... take on how the ME3 ending should be aside, I don't get where people get this idea where it's easier to save than kill in the Suicide mission. To save ALL companions, you need to do SUCCESSFULLY all character loyalty missions, fully upgrade the normandy, choose teammates correctly for all parts, get to all the shutdown valves before time runs out, which means more missions, more resource mining, and work within a time limit, if only for part of the mission. To get them killed you have to not do loyalty missions or fail to get their loyalty, not upgrade the normandy, and pick the wrong people for the wrong parts of the mission if you want to do a few loyalty missions for some level padding and DLC for upgrades and exp whcih IMO should be done before the Suicide mission anyway. Now, that's just my opinion, so if someone can in a *CIVIL* way explain how I'm wrong, I'm all ears... er... eyes.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Shepard won't die, Shepard will wake up and be on the way to his/her dry run of the SR 1...only nothing happens. There is no Saren and no Geth. The rest of the game with be Shepard being promoted to a desk job and playing paper football all day with Captain Anderson to pass the time.

[Zan51]

I loved the ME 1 Ending where my FemShep struggles out of the wreckagew to the game music playing a Success theme! It made me feel great. I also enjoyed the ME 2 ending for the same reason.

Hell, all you had to do was, as the OP put it, play the game as it was designed by do9ing all loyalty missions, etc. You had to WORK to kill off your crew and Shep! That's not playing the game, that's redesigning the game your way. Not that I have a problem with that, but hey, don't tell me the game should run your way, and not the way I like.

I want it to progress logically so that what you decide affects the outcome.

[Han Shot First]

Keatons wrote...

Well, your ehem... odd... take on how the ME3 ending should be aside, I don't get where people get this idea where it's easier to save than kill in the Suicide mission. To save ALL companions, you need to do SUCCESSFULLY all character loyalty missions, fully upgrade the normandy, choose teammates correctly for all parts, get to all the shutdown valves before time runs out, which means more missions, more resource mining, and work within a time limit, if only for part of the mission. To get them killed you have to not do loyalty missions or fail to get their loyalty, not upgrade the normandy, and pick the wrong people for the wrong parts of the mission if you want to do a few loyalty missions for some level padding and DLC for upgrades and exp whcih IMO should be done before the Suicide mission anyway. Now, that's just my opinion, so if someone can in a *CIVIL* way explain how I'm wrong, I'm all ears... er... eyes.

It was ridiculously easy to get your team through the suicide mission unscathed. Going into the end run completely unspoiled, I did it on my first playthrough.

I think when most people buy an RPG they are going to do most of the quests or missions to get the most out of the money they paid for the product. Why skip content unless the game forces you to with a race against time scenario? Most people are going to choose to do the loyalty missions, particularly when the game practically screams at you that you'll need your squad loyal during the end game.

Making sure the Normandy was fully upgraded before the final battle was also made just as obvious. Anyone who throught they could go into the final battle without upgrading the Normandy had either not been paying attention for 30 or so hours of gameplay, or was skipping dialogue.

Likewise delegating tasks to squadmates was also painfully obvious. Anyone who for example went into the end run thinking Jacob would be better for holding that biotic shield than Jack or Samara, or that Tali or Grunt would make an excellent team leader, also hadn't been paying attention to the game.

As for my ideas on ME3's ending being odd...





To explain it a little further, in the US Marine Corps a leader has two primary objectives:

1. Mission Accomplishment
2. Troop Welfare

Both are important priorities but the welfare of the men is always secondary to accomplishing the mission. While I'm using the US Marine Corps as an example, this is universal for all combat leaders. It would be cool if Mass effect 3 tied into that, with there being negative consquences for being too unwilling to place your squad mates in harm's way. Realistically, that is poor leadership.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 05 août 2011 - 08:49 .

[RocketManSR2]

Han Shot First wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

They said a super happy ending is possible, so I doubt it will be mandatory.

Lame.

ME3 should not have a butterflies and rainbows ending just because some fans have an inability to accept a little tragedy. If Bioware truly confirmed an ending where everyone lives, they've also confirmed poor story telling.

Seriously? A little tragedy?  Killing off a character that players created themselves and have fought through (soon to be) 3 games with is a "little tragedy?" Uh huh. Your post also comes off as near trolling. So everyone should have Shepard die at the end without any chance to change it because you want more tragedy and anything else means BioWare is fail? You are too funny.

[Han Shot First]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

They said a super happy ending is possible, so I doubt it will be mandatory.

Lame.

ME3 should not have a butterflies and rainbows ending just because some fans have an inability to accept a little tragedy. If Bioware truly confirmed an ending where everyone lives, they've also confirmed poor story telling.

Seriously? A little tragedy?  Killing off a character that players created themselves and have fought through (soon to be) 3 games with is a "little tragedy?" Uh huh. Your post also comes off as near trolling. So everyone should have Shepard die at the end without any chance to change it because you want more tragedy and anything else means BioWare is fail? You are too funny.

I'm not saying Shepard necessarily has to die.

But there should be some deaths, whether that is Shepard, some of his squad, or both. I absolutely don't believe that there should be an ending where no one dies. That is weak storytelling.

[shaneofthedead]

if anyone does die on whatever the final mission. I do desire to jetison their coffins out in space like


Spoiler Alert



Spock in Wrath of KAHN!!!!!!!!!!!


Cause I really wanted to that in at the end of the SM in ME2. Missed opportunity in my opinion.

Modifié par shaneofthedead, 05 août 2011 - 09:00 .

[RocketManSR2]

I can see your point. I just don't want BioWare to create a bunch of mandatory cheap Virmire situations. In the first game, I wasn't as familiar with the characters so it wasn't a really tough choice (IMO), I romanced Ash, I chose her. If it was Liara, usually Ash got vaporized. 

- The "best" ending (whatever that ends up being) should also be really tough to get.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 05 août 2011 - 09:01 .

[Keatons]

Han Shot First wrote...

Keatons wrote...

Well, your ehem... odd... take on how the ME3 ending should be aside, I don't get where people get this idea where it's easier to save than kill in the Suicide mission. To save ALL companions, you need to do SUCCESSFULLY all character loyalty missions, fully upgrade the normandy, choose teammates correctly for all parts, get to all the shutdown valves before time runs out, which means more missions, more resource mining, and work within a time limit, if only for part of the mission. To get them killed you have to not do loyalty missions or fail to get their loyalty, not upgrade the normandy, and pick the wrong people for the wrong parts of the mission if you want to do a few loyalty missions for some level padding and DLC for upgrades and exp whcih IMO should be done before the Suicide mission anyway. Now, that's just my opinion, so if someone can in a *CIVIL* way explain how I'm wrong, I'm all ears... er... eyes.

It was ridiculously easy to get your team through the suicide mission unscathed. Going into the end run completely unspoiled, I did it on my first playthrough.

I think when most people buy an RPG they are going to do most of the quests or missions to get the most out of the money they paid for the product. Why skip content unless the game forces you to with a race against time scenario? Most people are going to choose to do the loyalty missions, particularly when the game practically screams at you that you'll need your squad loyal during the end game.

Making sure the Normandy was fully upgraded before the final battle was also made just as obvious. Anyone who throught they could go into the final battle without upgrading the Normandy had either not been paying attention for 30 or so hours of gameplay, or was skipping dialogue.

Likewise delegating tasks to squadmates was also painfully obvious. Anyone who for example went into the end run thinking Jacob would be better for holding that biotic shield than Jack or Samara, or that Tali or Grunt would make an excellent team leader, also hadn't been paying attention to the game.

As for my ideas on ME3's ending being odd...





To explain it a little further, in the US Marine Corps a leader has two primary objectives:

1. Mission Accomplishment
2. Troop Welfare

Both are important priorities but the welfare of the men is always secondary to accomplishing the mission. While I'm using the US Marine Corps as an example, this is universal for all combat leaders. It would be cool if Mass effect 3 tied into that, with there being negative consquences for being too unwilling to place your squad mates in harm's way. Realistically, that is poor leadership.

Well "I accomplished the mission, but willingly sent all/most my troops to their deaths" is equally poor leadership. And what might seem cool for you might seem pointlessly vindictive and backwards of BW to others. "What's that? You actually want to save the people close to you instead of/while sending them into a deadly situation like in essentially every other game we've released this generation? How dare you! Punishment!"

You also missed the point I was trying to make with the post, that not being that most people will everthing since the game tells them it's important. It was that in the suicide mission, having squadmates survive means 1) They need to be loyal and 2) You need to place the right person in the right position, where someone trying to kill them doesn't have to do either. Not to mention the very simple act of not upgrading the Normandy results in 3 automatic deaths with no input from the player.

Just to get this out of the way, there is no 'nobody dies' scenario in ME2, there's just a 'none of the visitable crew on the normandy or your squad' dies scenario. Tens of thousands of human colonists still die, 305 thousand batarians with Arrival, not to mention all the Asari/Quarians/Salarians/Krogan/Turians and additional humans that die through the story, character missions, side quests, and other DLC like LOTSB. Lillith will always die no matter how fast you go the Collector base too.

Hm, didn't think I'd ramble like that, huh.

[Han Shot First]

Well "I accomplished the mission, but willingly sent all/most my troops to their deaths" is equally poor leadership. And what might seem cool for you might seem pointlessly vindictive and backwards of BW to others. "What's that? You actually want to save the people close to you instead of/while sending them into a deadly situation like in essentially every other game we've released this generation? How dare you! Punishment!"

On my canon playthrough everyone made it through unscathed. Everyone made it through unscathed because the only way to lose squadmates during the Suicide Mission was to kill them intentionally, or for Shepard to make tactical or strategic blunders. Shepard losing people only because the player metagamed it, or because Shepard made tactical or strategic blunders is not cool to me at all. Or at least it isn't if that is the only way to lose squad mates.

In Mass Effect 3 Shepard should face some unavoidable deaths, or lose people even because he made the right tactical decision. That is the reality of combat, and that is what I'd like to see.

You also missed the point I was trying to make with the post, that not being that most people will everthing since the game tells them it's important. It was that in the suicide mission, having squadmates survive means 1) They need to be loyal and 2) You need to place the right person in the right position, where someone trying to kill them doesn't have to do either. Not to mention the very simple act of not upgrading the Normandy results in 3 automatic deaths with no input from the player.

You are missing the point.

I don't want to 'kill' squad mates at all. That is why everyone on my canon playthrough made it through unscathed. It is not a case of me saying, "I don't like character X, and want to kill him." On the contrary I want Bioware to set up a scenario where I lose characters I like especially during the end run. I want the game to have some emotional impact. 

Sure, you could lose characters in the ME2 end run but only if you metagame it or roleplay your Shepard as tactically inept. Losing Garrus in ME2 for example, would not have the same emotional impact as Virmire because it would come at the expense of Shepard being an incompetant combat leader.

Just to get this out of the way, there is no 'nobody dies' scenario in ME2, there's just a 'none of the visitable crew on the normandy or your squad' dies scenario. Tens of thousands of human colonists still die, 305 thousand batarians with Arrival, not to mention all the Asari/Quarians/Salarians/Krogan/Turians and additional humans that die through the story, character missions, side quests, and other DLC like LOTSB. Lillith will always die no matter how fast you go the Collector base too.

All those hundreds of thousands that die are nothing more than a statistic. You never meet any of those people and don't have an emotional connection to them. Lilith is on screen for probably about 60 seconds at most between Horizon and the Collector Base, and while she isn't a faceless casualty, the player also doesn't have an emotional connection to her. We barely know her.

In Mass Effect 3 simply saying that x amount of people died on Earth or Palaven isn't going to have any emotional impact. It sets up the backstory for what is going in the war, but would come no where near to having the same emotional impact as say, losing Garrus or Tali. We need to lose characters we've gotten to know and love over three games for the story to have any emotional impact at all.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 05 août 2011 - 05:58 .