249 réponses à ce sujet

[Remus Artega]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Remus Artega wrote...

But you should admit the possibility of them persuading you that their cause can be legitimate and may provide something beyond our mortal understanding.

 Beyond our mortal understanding, but within their mortal understanding (as they are mortal too)

 Arguably if it is beyond your understanding, you shouldn't agree to it; supporting it would simply be a deference to supposed authority

That is like saying...i don't get the string theory so I should not agree to it...it might be beyond my comprehension but that does not imply it is wrong or does it?

[Kronner]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Joining the Reapers would mean waste of time in entire ME3 trilogy.

Whole point was to stop them at all costs.

But you do not have all the information. Maybe their motivation for doing what they do makes sense. I mean, it sure makes sense to them.

Modifié par Kronner, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:49 .

[CroGamer002]

Kronner wrote...

But you do not have all the information. Maybe their motivation for doing what they do makes sense. I mean, it sure makes sense to them.

And we kinda don't agree with their way.


It would we cool if we could just agree to disagree, but they kinda need to kill us in their way.

So, f*ck them.


You have no right to force me to become "better".

[TobyHasEyes]

Remus Artega wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Remus Artega wrote...

But you should admit the possibility of them persuading you that their cause can be legitimate and may provide something beyond our mortal understanding.

 Beyond our mortal understanding, but within their mortal understanding (as they are mortal too)

 Arguably if it is beyond your understanding, you shouldn't agree to it; supporting it would simply be a deference to supposed authority

That is like saying...i don't get the string theory so I should not agree to it...it might be beyond my comprehension but that does not imply it is wrong or does it?

 It does not imply it is wrong, but if you don't understand something you should in general remain neutral towards it, especially when in the case of the Reapers it has such huge consequences

 If a scientist said 'here is my theory' and when you questioned it they said 'it would beyond your ability to understand, no matter how hard you try, but because I am a scientist you should accept it'.. that would be an appeal to authority, and not a very legitimate one; if they tried to convince you that accepting their theory meant you should help wipe out most of the sentient life in existence, then you should definately be skeptical

[l shneier]

Kronner wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Joining the Reapers would mean waste of time in entire ME3 trilogy.

Whole point was to stop them at all costs.

But you do not have all the information. Maybe their motivation for doing what they do makes sense. I mean, it sure makes sense to them.

yes we don't the info but why would the reapers give you the info

[Remus Artega]

l shneier wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Joining the Reapers would mean waste of time in entire ME3 trilogy.

Whole point was to stop them at all costs.

But you do not have all the information. Maybe their motivation for doing what they do makes sense. I mean, it sure makes sense to them.

yes we don't the info but why would the reapers give you the info

This can partially substitute the answer to Tobys post ... given the facts that Sovereign provided...they are each a nation and independent on others and we can easily derive that their behavior differs as well...Sovereign was more arogant than Harbinger while he was more "childish"...I can only hope that there might be a Reaper intelligent enough to deduce that while Shepard is in possession of creating a "weapon" that could destroy them it would be uttlerly unwise to not being more specific about why and what are they doing (not to mention that fans are craving for simillar convo that happened on Virmire)...

Modifié par Remus Artega, 22 janvier 2012 - 12:31 .

[PnXMarcin1PL]

l shneier wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Joining the Reapers would mean waste of time in entire ME3 trilogy.

Whole point was to stop them at all costs.

But you do not have all the information. Maybe their motivation for doing what they do makes sense. I mean, it sure makes sense to them.

yes we don't the info but why would the reapers give you the info

no worries, reapers will not give you any information
as stated by preston watamaniuk in one of first interviews shepard will visit reaper's base/home world and will be utterly shocked/suprised

Modifié par PnXMarcin1PL, 22 janvier 2012 - 12:31 .

[Sidney]

rhyddhau wrote...

Also, as others have pointed out, the sheer knowledge that a Reaper victory exists in the game (regardless of the likelihood of this conclusion), and the fear of how unpleasant and horrifying that ending might be, would give the proceedings underlying Shepard's mission much more gravitas, urgency and sense of impending doom. That failure doesn't truly exist in a fully-fleshed state, even if 95% of players never saw said ending, automatically cripples any realism in the narrative (in-so-far as internal consistency within the game world is concerned) the developers have obviously be striving for.

It's a really wasted opportunity and, sadly, will likely diminish the gaming experience for many players.:/

could Irenicus win? Could Malak win? Could Sovereign win? Even in something like FNV where you have a more complex set of endings the NCR can't fail IF you try and help them. You live or die and living = success.

Winning is a condition that happens when you fail, as in die. When you don't do what you need to do they win. Now if you are committed to your concept don't reload when that happens.

The fact that in 99% of video games the only failure coniditon is death is a problem in game design but it is likely a response to customers who won't accept failure so anything less than optimal would be a reload.

[TobyHasEyes]

 May seem like a cheap anwer to Remus Artega's response, but if (and I may be wrongly interpreting which part of your response to I shneier was intended to answer my response too) a differently minded Reaper did explain the Reaper motive in a way that Shepard (and we) could understand, then by definition their motives would not be beyond human understanding.. it would just be something we hadn't thought of yet

 I will agree wholeheartedly that a Virmire-esque encounter would be great, and it would likely be a high point of ME3; I just don't think that hearing an argument which, even when explored in depth, didn't seem justified could ever be legitimately accepted in faith when the consequences is galaxy-wide annihilation

 And I recognise this is side issue, as I say I am happy with it as a narrative-fig-leaf, it was just a technical point

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 22 janvier 2012 - 04:23 .

[Iakus]

Mesina2 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

But you do not have all the information. Maybe their motivation for doing what they do makes sense. I mean, it sure makes sense to them.

And we kinda don't agree with their way.


It would we cool if we could just agree to disagree, but they kinda need to kill us in their way.

So, f*ck them.


You have no right to force me to become "better".

"Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place.  So now I'm asking more of you than I have before.  Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this: they will try again.  Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean.  A year from now, ten?  They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better.  And I do not hold to that.  So no more runnin'.  I aim to misbehave."

Commander Malcolm R Shepard 

Modifié par iakus, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:59 .

[The Interloper]

Ieldra2 wrote...


(10) If old team members are dead, different things may happen depending on the character. Sometimes a story arc will be completely lost, sometimes there will be a replacement character, sometimes the story will develop in a totally different way.

I hope the last one happens often.

Anyways, lots of new info here. Thanks.

[rhyddhau]

Sidney wrote...

could Irenicus win? Could Malak win? Could Sovereign win? Even in something like FNV where you have a more complex set of endings the NCR can't fail IF you try and help them. You live or die and living = success.

Winning is a condition that happens when you fail, as in die. When you don't do what you need to do they win. Now if you are committed to your concept don't reload when that happens.

The fact that in 99% of video games the only failure coniditon is death is a problem in game design but it is likely a response to customers who won't accept failure so anything less than optimal would be a reload.

I think this is a good point - but one that highlights why people are so disappointed with this news. I think there was a presumption that ME3 was a different, more complete, more evolved gaming experience than other RPGs such as BG2 and KOTOR, games that came out about ten years ago and that are fairly dated. We are probably still a ways off from a reality in video game media where, for example, Peter Molyneux's various promises about open-ended narratives are able to be actualized in reality ("You get to play as either the game's hero or as the supervillain!"), but the fact that so many people want these features and are subsequently crushed when the reality of the product is so inferior than what was hoped for should give developers a reason to keep trying.

What Casey Hudson has basically said, in the opinions of a large number of vocal posters on this board, is - "We didn't take our game to the next level in this particular area." I think the sizeable disappointment more than makes sense in the context of an RPG that's trying to give the consumer such a well-rounded experience, and in an area of the game that would have been fairly quick, cheap and easy to put together. The fact that BioWare's reasoning for this omission goes against logic for many people has therefore given rise to the rather heated, angry and shocked reactions. For a company that is trying to cater to as much of their fanbase as possible, it seems like a very strange bit of content to exclude.

[l shneier]

i can't remember but you couldn't have a complete fail ending in heavy rain on the ps3

Modifié par l shneier, 22 janvier 2012 - 09:32 .

[Il Divo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I think Casey Hudson is dead wrong with the last statement. Games like Mass Effect we do not play primarily to win, we play to experience a story we can influence. Why else would so many players add a death or two to ME2's suicide mission voluntarily? And an ending where all Shepard can do is to warn the next cycle before the galaxy goes to hell would be absolutely awesome as a story. It wouldn't even be a total defeat, since there is still hope. For intelligent organic life in the galaxy, if not for humanity.

What I concede is that likely only a small minority of players would go for such an ending, and maybe that's enough reason not to spend resources on it, but it would be those players for whom Bioware writes all the incredible details no one else notices, those players who might appreciate the game as a work of art more than others. In the end, the lack of this "warn the next cycle" ending is not a great deal, but it is a lost opportunity that saddens me.

This is a pretty sensitive issue, and I think that one problem comes down to how the developers go about handling the material. As a player, I certainly want a story I can influence, but all good stories eventually have to end. That's where I feel that the Reaper wins ending is weaker. It may be the result of player actions, but the result is not something I'm satisfied with. Much like Jade Empire's neutral ending, I'll always end up reloading to take the ending which ends in some semblance of victory, even if that victory is not perfect. I can't say I've ever done an ME2 or Jade Empire playthrough where I designed my protagonist to lose at the end, despite knowing that's an option.  

Rather than Reaper wins endings, I think Bioware should focus on giving more depth to the potential choices and consequences which any Shepard can experience.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 janvier 2012 - 09:54 .

[bkjmaverick]

I purposely designed one playthrough with the sole intention of seeing the galaxy destroyed by the Reapers. Its a terrifying prospect and I was looking forward to seeing it play out, like a horror movie in a way. I've got my paragon ending, I've got a renegade ending, why not one where the reapers win?

The reapers winning was part of the motivation of mass effect (they're coming, we have to stop them.. blah de blah..) , and I was really looking forward to seeing what the galactic extinction would look like. Why not have an ending where everything goes wrong?

[omgodzilla]

bkjmaverick wrote...

I purposely designed one playthrough with the sole intention of seeing the galaxy destroyed by the Reapers. Its a terrifying prospect and I was looking forward to seeing it play out, like a horror movie in a way. I've got my paragon ending, I've got a renegade ending, why not one where the reapers win?

The reapers winning was part of the motivation of mass effect (they're coming, we have to stop them.. blah de blah..) , and I was really looking forward to seeing what the galactic extinction would look like. Why not have an ending where everything goes wrong?

This

[mjh417]

That a lot of seriously awesome info.

[Alamar2078]

Khran1505 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(11) There will be no "Reapers win" scenario, based on the reasoning that such an ending is unsatisfying for players and would lead to re-loading a saved game anyway. There will, however, be endings where whole species become extinct and many worlds are destroyed, including Earth.

You'll forgive me if I call BS on this. It's clear that the Reapers can win in this war, forget that such an ending is "unsatisfying", that's just further incentive to not mess up your save. Not to mention it's a very realistic turn on war with an omnicidal near-invincible race of bio-organic machines. That and the talk of endings where "whole species and worlds can be destroyed, Earth included" is pretty much (as a user already stated) a Reaper-Win-Scenario. Getting rid of such an ending only means you can win this no matter what, there are just heavier losses on certain grounds. No, the Reapers definately have a shot at winning, that's what makes the dread of losing hope all that more powerful and it really drives us as players to make the right decisions and save our galaxy from the Reapers.

Other than that, loving these pieces of info, very inspiring.

[BTW I'm late to the party] ...

So none of my character where I'm actively trying to get a "Reaper-win" scenario are worth my time .. .humbug.

Honestly I think that the absence of a Reaper-win scenario is unsatisfying.  I was really hoping to see endings where it's Shep speaking on the beakons to the next generation warning them of the Reapers ....

[KennethAFTopp]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(11) There will be no "Reapers win" scenario, based on the reasoning that such an ending is unsatisfying for players and would lead to re-loading a saved game anyway. There will, however, be endings where whole species become extinct and many worlds are destroyed, including Earth.

Some people would call that a "Reapers win" scenario.

More a Pyrrhic victory.

[GnusmasTHX]

Mesina2 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(2) At the start, people on the Citadel will believe that the war isn't their problem. This will drastically change in the course of the story.

Oh, f*ck those bastards!

If it wouldn't doom entire galaxy, I would let Reaper take over Citadel.

I'd maneuver my way so that the Citadel is destroyed right before I destroy the Reapers, to pave way for my new Human Empire.

[1136342t54_]

Il Divo wrote...

This is a pretty sensitive issue, and I think that one problem comes down to how the developers go about handling the material. As a player, I certainly want a story I can influence, but all good stories eventually have to end. That's where I feel that the Reaper wins ending is weaker. It may be the result of player actions, but the result is not something I'm satisfied with. Much like Jade Empire's neutral ending, I'll always end up reloading to take the ending which ends in some semblance of victory, even if that victory is not perfect. I can't say I've ever done an ME2 or Jade Empire playthrough where I designed my protagonist to lose at the end, despite knowing that's an option.  

Rather than Reaper wins endings, I think Bioware should focus on giving more depth to the potential choices and consequences which any Shepard can experience.

I have to agree with this. While a Reapers win ending would be rather interesting (due to the spoilers I've seen I think it is in there) it just wouldn't be no more than a big easter egg. A good one and done right could be pretty damn emotional but in the end it wouldn't fill like a good conclusion to the series. I would just reload and take the ending in which we win.

Depending on the sacrifices it take to get there would be what I want expanded upon. The casualties could be from Billions to Trillions and we end up winning through MAD and barely anyone survives. Reapers winning would have no real extra expansion on the story it would be nothing more than throwing something extra in for the players.

[cactusberry]

(4) If you enter Reaper-controlled territory, there's a chance the Reapers will try to hunt you down and you must do something to avoid them. That's referred to as a minigame.

(5) Reaper-controlled territory will change as the story progresses, but only main plot decisions trigger these changes. You'll have all the time you need for sidequests.

(14) The Citadel will be bigger than ever before and you'll meet many characters you know from the first two games. Many loose ends from the first games will be tied up, including the mystery of the Keepers. (I hope I'll meet Chorban again).

(17) Shepard will not command fleets or move around armies.

(19) There will be a menu listing everyone's contributions to the war assets. Casey Hudson: "For example, there may be an entry for the quarian fleet, which is worth a crazy amount of points, and an entry for a single guy you've met in a bar and convinced to join the army, who is possibly worth a single point."

--

Glad to hear all of those.

[Lars10178]

I'm so ready for this game, I guess I'll go back in ME1 and get as many side quests as possible

[Merchant2006]

(9) All missions may influence your reputation with NPCs (unclear whether this only refers to team members). That in turn may influence your interaction with them in future. NPCs differ in what they prefer, some may be more impressed by Renegade decisions, some more by Paragon decisions, but all will be influenced by decisions affecting their species.

Oh god yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I wanted haha.

[No1Codename47]

 Sorry for the bump, only just read about this info. I know a lot of people have been up in arms about the lack of Reapers win ending but it makes me wonder if something has been lost in translation or somewhere along the lines plans for the certain endings changed (or maybe their interpertation). Back last year sometime, Bioware actually confirmed that there WOULD be a Reaper win ending in the game, so who knows.

http://www.nowgamer....in_bioware.html