44 réponses à ce sujet

[Manou1]

I just hope the ending was just in Shepard's mind and Shepard just passed out in London then some of the squadmate comes and wokes Shepard by yelling "C'MON Shepard! We gotta keep fighting! Don't give up yet!" or something like that ;-P

Modifié par Manou1, 09 mars 2012 - 02:56 .

[nitefyre410]

lasertank wrote...

Elishiaila wrote...

When you run a such game, you don't spend tens of thousands of hours to work on the story. But when your players surprise you with a "just perfect idea" you haven't thought about... You can react quickly. Bioware had a Matrix: Revealations type ending in their mind, and they haven't thought about many choices we would make, they haven't thought about some alternate endings. Because this ending was their story.

But with immersion, Shepard becames our hero, our legend, and the story becomes our own story. This is why Mass Effect is an RPG and people who call it a "shooter" just miss the point. This is where Bioware games are better than any other similar video game. Blizzard, Bethesda, etc. can't even come close to Bioware quality. But this is why our choices should be part of the game. At least for the most important choices.

Exactly. Bioware wants Matrix: Revolutions -style ending. But take a look on what Wachowski brothers did. They develop the history between humans and machines. The matrix:animation told the story about how the war begins. But ME3? What story did it tell about the inevitable confrontation between organic and synthetic lives? Especially after I solved the conflict between Geth and quarian, the talk given by the Catalyst seems to be nothing but nonsense.

 


The problem is that there is no point being made with endings of  Mass Effect  3 , its trying to be deep and philosophical with making any points what so ever. Especailly after I'm standing after  peaceful resolving the Quarian/Geth conflict. Honestly  I think the  whole  speech by the Catalyst at the end was cop out  by the writers so could aviod really jumping into the core of  whole deal. Why do seem to have this need  to destroy ourselves?   Its like the writing got the end and saw the question and said "Oh **** - we don't what to do with this...um..um."  Thats the feeling I get from the whole deal... 

[lasertank]

nitefyre410 wrote...

The problem is that there is no point being made with endings of  Mass Effect  3 , its trying to be deep and philosophical with making any points what so ever. Especailly after I'm standing after  peaceful resolving the Quarian/Geth conflict. Honestly  I think the  whole  speech by the Catalyst at the end was cop out  by the writers so could aviod really jumping into the core of  whole deal. Why do seem to have this need  to destroy ourselves?   Its like the writing got the end and saw the question and said "Oh **** - we don't what to do with this...um..um."  Thats the feeling I get from the whole deal... 

I got the exactly same feeling. The Catalyst speech makes no sense. It's like the writer wants the story ends right now and right here. No more question is allowed. No more choice you can make. And all decision you made in the past? Sorry, they don't matter.

[Elishiaila]

lasertank wrote...

I got the exactly same feeling. The Catalyst speech makes no sense. It's like the writer wants the story ends right now and right here. No more question is allowed. No more choice you can make. And all decision you made in the past? Sorry, they don't matter.

Let me reword it...

The game, with the content for everyone ends here.

Any decision that would lead to more story touches "optional" storylines. And such optional endings (their missions, etc) are good for DLCs / expansions.

The people who bought early can get some gifts. Remember for DA 2, we got an ME 2 download code. If we get a good gift and have to buy DLCs for various endings "we are even"  

[Valk72]

lasertank wrote...

I got the exactly same feeling. The Catalyst speech makes no sense. It's like the writer wants the story ends right now and right here. No more question is allowed. No more choice you can make. And all decision you made in the past? Sorry, they don't matter.

I disagree, the Catalyst speech make sense in most of the case. But it doesn't make sense if the Quarian and Geth have made peace because it actually proved that organic and synthetic can co-exist. That's why i found the endings of Mass Effect 3 flawed, not because they are not good, but because we should have at least one more ending which took note of our choices during the game, and more particularly the Geth/Quarian outcome...

I know i'm repeating myself, but i can't understand why the Dev Team didn't even think about something so logical and simple...

[Elishiaila]

@Valk72: I can understand it.

If you are busy trying to implement your idea well, it is hard to think about other ideas. If you DM tabletop (pen and paper, or how you want to call it) RPGs, you will see how in your own adventures you ignore possibilities. The only difference is: If you run a game as a live DM you can improvise.

If you develop a game as a company you notice how players are unhappy, check feedback, try tun assess how much damage the issue does to your brand, income, etc. try to come up with plans to fix it. Check their costs, calculate the income from a DLC to fix. When you see how various stuff would work financially and how would you have to reassign people, you propose it to bosses. Maybe if it is approved you start developing, then testing, then maybe you can release a DLC or a Patch.

I am sure EA and Bioware management seen how other projects (from SWTOR to next Dragon Age, etc) needs story writers, content creators, etc. and now they see we want them to create a fix with a DLC.

Presenting them with solid enough story, helping the writers, etc. can cut the costs of "alternate endings DLC" development. And can reduce the risks. If they have to think up new endings they risk: "what if people don't like them". But if they are presented with detailed and well explained options they can implement and see majority of players support them, it makes much more sense to start developing them.

This is why I focus on DLC proposals and try to get into details

[wilji1090]

I'd like to toss my two cents into this shindig.

For the most part, I love the game. Up until you face the Illusive Man, I like.

However... here's what I'd think would have been a far more appropriate thing as opposed to Star Kid. The Catalyst would be the Citadel surely, but the Protheans could have engineered a virus so to speak to where you wouldn't sacrifice so much and get so little back.

You get to the chamber and you meet up with Anderson after the Crucible is locked onto the Citadel. Anderson explains the necessity of destroying the Reapers, while the Illusive Man steps in [Reaperized or not, your call] and explains the perks of controlling them, which should add dialogue if you're a Colonist saying something like "If the Alliance had Reaper fleets under their command, Mindoir would never have happened!" or something like that in typical Cerberus "I am Humanity" fashion.

Both Anderson and the Illusive Man would fight to get you to see the perks of destroying or controlling both holding viruses to affect the Reapers. Anderson's would be the Prothean type to disable them allowing the fleets to wipe them out and the Illusive Man's would allow the Reaper fleets to be controlled at his discretion.

Or if we simply could not have this, then why not merely have debate with the Catalyst about free will, the sanctity of life, etc. etc. I mean, in Fallout 3, you could convinced Eden to self destruct using sheer logic. If you could do that, then is it really inconceivable to convince the Catalyst to simply shut down the Reapers pointing out failed logic? If the Reapers are the past civilizations preserved, then technically, the Catalyst is destroying them all the same and not preserving life.

I dunno. It made sense to me, wondering what you guys think?

Modifié par wilji1090, 10 mars 2012 - 02:26 .

[Elishiaila]

wilji1090 wrote...

However... here's what I'd think would have been a far more appropriate thing as opposed to Star Kid.

Star Kid is Star Kid because it assumes form based on your imagination. So Star Kid and structure is ok. Even keeping existing options is ok. This is why I speak about extra choices. And yes, speaking with the AI and changing its programming are options.

Have you wondered why a Geth ship has any consoles? Why it has any lockdowns? Geth doesn't need consoles with keyboards. They have consensus. They don't have any lockdowns you hack. The Geth inside the ship platform simple keeps its door close. It is just a mental command for him. Inside a Geth ship you find passages compatible with organics, while Geth could use smaller places and use specialized units if they have to visit them...

Know why?

Because the Geth seeked cooperation with organics. They made sure organics can visit their ship. It is linked to the story why we had Legion and why they welcomed back their creators even after the war. The Star Kid explains why syntethics rebel and occupy the universe. Yet, Reapers haven't done that. And we see how Geth seeked cooperation for long enough time to build a fleet. It isn't about how you made Peace. But synthetics don't rebel. Have keepers on the citadel rebeled? I doubt that, and if they are created by reapers, etc. they are synthetic.

On the other hand: Protheans enslaved the universe. Saren was racist. TIM Is racist and would enslave other races. The real threat isn't from synthetics, it is from organics.

Why we have an 50000 years long cycle if the catalyst can see when a race is getting this dominant and exactly when the universe needs the reapers?

If the reapers fought with disorganized Protheans for 100 years, why they have so fast conquests? Why they don't have any "nukes"? If they devastate the planet anyway, and the damages to infrastructure poisons it anyway...

This is why I see negotiation or changed programming would be the key  

[Elishiaila]

I heard how Bioware can't announce anything now, as some people still had no time to finish. I hope soon we will hear some news.

[Rail Tracer]

I was afraid something like this would happen a lot of epic story-lines build up a great immersive world and then fail completely at the end.

Very linear endings all three are very similar to each other may as well be the same ending, Shepard still sacrifices herself regardless of the choice, which really annoyed me with all that I invested into the character. I really wanted her to have a happily ever after ending. (I know im kinda boring but I want the option of a happy ending). Her survival or death should be on the table like if not quite enough assets were acquired for example she would be required to sacrifice herself to stop the reapers or something.

In all three endings all the mass relays still blow up (doesn't that like cause nearby stars to explode) so i guess Sol went up with the Charon relay. This also just screwed over the entire galaxy entire sectors are cut off from each other now, travel time to other areas of the galaxy would be measured in years instead of days.

Endings only differs in three ways, Merging together synthetics and organics (is it just me or is this like a Deus ex 2 ending), destroy synthetics, or control reapers. This complete throws what happened on Rannoch out the window, like if you manage to forge a peace between the Geth and Quarians and essentially makes all previous choices in the game pointless where they have no bearing on the end game decisions.

Essentially they really need to rewrite the game ending if to fix the massive plot holes if nothing else but I wont hold my breath.

Modifié par Rail Tracer, 10 mars 2012 - 04:45 .

[Elishiaila]

I am not sure about that sacrifice that much. And it is one of the plot holes. Cloning and rebuilding a body is possible. And with small adjustments Reapers can assume direct control. If you control reapers, you can probably assume control of a rebuilt body.

With reapers you can rebuild quickly and have the whole universe in a known state *without* the 50000 years long cycle.

The question is: Would unity fall apart? Would we see organizations like Cerberus? Even if Shepard is here forever and has a power to "summon" reapers, how can someone save civilizations from each other without destroying everything? As you see this question can be raised.

An with this a control ending isn't a "bad" ending, it can be a happy end. Come on, Reaper can accelerate rebuilding, they might have healing tech.

But as I said the endings are bad because we don't have meaningful choices

[Chief Martini]

My opinion on the matter can be found here, if you wish to read.

http://social.biowar...5/index/9749993

[Elishiaila]

I think that is a broken link

[KainrycKarr]

i agree, so ****ing much.

[TheBandit554]

 Don't mean to burst anyone's bubble here, but if you play through a second time, you'll have the closure you want 

[Turbo Chaos X]

You basically hit the nail on the head.

I was so distraught to find out, I got the "good" ending. That wasnt good, everyone in the galaxy is stranded, and plunged into a complete dark age!

After the lack of speech options, difficulty tryng to find every side quest and complete it, and struggling to make the galaxy more ready, You know what I wanted? When I talked to Garrus, he said after this war, that we should find a nice tropical place to hang out. Thats what I wanted, I just wanted a time of peace, a time for me and my crew to just unwind and have a good time before we went back on duty. We all knew we werent done with trouble in the galaxy, there will always be those who cause it. But we could all rest easy knowing that the reapers were destroyed, or hell, Id love an ending where we are all playing poker in the lounge, me, Anderson,and the other squad members, tellin lies, and drinking to our hearts content.

Thats all I wanted. In Mass Effect I met everyone, they were all still new to the crew, but they were good people, In ME2 I got to know them all on a personal level, and many of us, if not all of us became good friends. In 3, I felt it, I felt like these people were my friends, but those last minutes, those very last minutes of ME3...I feel as Bioware has BETRAYED me. I am dissapointed, no I am angry with Bioware, and I dont care who gave the order to cut edges on the game, but they need to swallow their pride and listen to us. We all feel betrayed in some way, but they can still fix this, and even if they charged, I hate to admit it, but Id buy it, AS LONG as they took theyre time pattening it and making the endings feel right for us.

Modifié par Turbo Chaos X, 11 mars 2012 - 08:48 .

[Elishiaila]

TheBandit554 wrote...

 Don't mean to burst anyone's bubble here, but if you play through a second time, you'll have the closure you want 

That would be strange as people have checked all video files, etc. and found no "Good ending" videos, etc.

[Leshoyadut]

This thread got me thinking about what I really want to see from the end of ME3. First, I agree with Elishiaila in that the current endings are fine and should stay, but they shouldn't be the only endings to the game. Here is what I'd suggest:

1) As mentioned above, keep the current endings. They can be the baseline worst case scenarios, saving the galaxy but at a terrible cost.

2) Make it a conversation wheel choice: The current choices on the right side (controlling the Reapers on top, synthesis in the middle, and destruction of the synthetics on bottom), with the Paragon and Renegade options suggested in the OP on the left in their usual spots.

3) My idea for the neutral option, stick it in the middle of the Paragon and Renegade choices: Base it off of succeeding at both bringing the krogan and turians together, and the quarians and geth, as well as having a very high reputation rating (make it off the combined total, not the individual amounts; it's supposed to be neutral, after all). You convince the Catalyst to stop the Reapers due to being able to broker peace between such conflicting peoples as the krogans and turians, as well as synthetics and organics (EDI and the geth). The Catalyst then agrees to turn off the Reapers.

I thought about the people suggesting it should be based off of just the geth and quarian decision, but I didn't think that it should be based off of a single choice like that. For the absolute best case scenario to work? You have to work for it. Hard.

[Elishiaila]

Leshoyadut wrote...

I thought about the people suggesting it should be based off of just the geth and quarian decision, but I didn't think that it should be based off of a single choice like that. For the absolute best case scenario to work? You have to work for it. Hard.

It shouldn't. But it doesn't depend on a single scenario.

I think there are 4 or 5 things you can tell to the Reaper.

Geth and EDI are important because it shows the "Synthetics vs Organics" conflict isn't here. In fact keepers didn't turn rogue. Reapers only do their original job no attempt to dominate.

Invention, technological progress as "technological evolution" is present for organics, more and more advanced tech is used by them, so technical domination isn't present anyway. Your past successes indicate this. Bulding crucible, etc. is here to show what you can build. But biotic chips in your biotic friends can show it as well. (Synthetic organic hybridization started already)

They can worry about races that are "latecomers" and didn't have any recognition for most of the cycle as older races dominate. You can show your position as a human Spectre, and you can show how you unite council and non-council races. And no force in there. They simply recognize you for what you are. (Geth databases included)

In the End you move away from destroy options, trying to negotiate because as an important leader who united people don't and won't support Genocide. Not even for reapers. Self defense is here, but you aren't a monster. So while you are present, while you are a working example, etc. all races are safe.

And your effective military strength shows how many old enemies are united now...Even without giving out more examples.

[Elishiaila]

As I see people started to vote with their money. And companies and their investors are interested in one thing: bottom line.