23455 réponses à ce sujet

[cindercatz]

This is not in response to the arguements in this thread, but I have no idea where BioWare is reading feedback on the ending, and this is still stickied, so I'll put it here. I responded in another discussion/poll with this post, but I want to make sure it's in the most visible threads. Also in the "suggested changes" thread, I'll post this and a few other things.

" I think it should basically depend on your EMS. It's impossible to save everyone in your squad, but depending on your EMS, you have a choice of who to save in a series of events during the battle. If you have very low EMS, most die, if very high EMS, you sacrifice a few.

Optionally, Shepard can sacrifice him/herself to save more of the squad. If EMS is very low, Shepard dies along with most of the squad. LI survives all scenarios, unless EMS is low and Shepard refuses to sacrifice him/herself to save them.

In all scenarios, Earth takes heavy casualties, as do the allied fleets. If EMS is high, the Battle for Earth is won, and significant survivors remain across all species. The allies go on to win the war. If EMS is very low, the Battle for Earh is lost, casualties are much higher, and the Reapers win. If medium low, the Battle for Earth is lost, but the war eventually won. Medium high EMS, the Battle for Earth is a push (both sides take severe casualties and withdraw), but there are more survivors and the allies win.

*When I refer to squad, I mean the entire squad across all three games. All of the surviving squad members should have visible roles during the final battle, encomposing that "series of events" I mentioned.

**I also reject the idea that this option results in "countless more casualties". It is the better option and therefore should be made clear to be such. Besides, how could any amount of standard warfare equal the destruction of the relays? If BioWare wants to remain consistent with their options, you see that wave basically disintegrating half the normandy, so the destruction of the relays must be a widely destructive event, not a Reaper off switch.

Also, I'd prefer BioWare to basically adopt the indoctrination theory wholesale, and then, if you reject starchild in the dream sequence, this is what results. If you choose "destroy", this still occurs, but there are later repercussions with EDI and the Geth. If you choose "synthesis", Shepard and a number of the human troops are fully indoctrinated and become enemies during the battle. If you choose "control", Shepard is indoctrinated and must be killed by his squad, which also takes a casualty or two in that scene. "

[sistersafetypin]

"Yes. We are listening"

lol. That never stops being funny

[Deihjan]

cindercatz wrote...

Also, I'd prefer BioWare to basically adopt the indoctrination theory wholesale, and then, if you reject starchild in the dream sequence, this is what results. If you choose "destroy", this still occurs, but there are later repercussions with EDI and the Geth. If you choose "synthesis", Shepard and a number of the human troops are fully indoctrinated and become enemies during the battle. If you choose "control", Shepard is indoctrinated and must be killed by his squad, which also takes a casualty or two in that scene. "

Read this

[Deihjan]

Agamoto wrote...

Hackett out

*salute and manly tear*

So many feels. So many..f-fe-feheheheeeeeels:crying:

[Anasystriel]

The only ending that is going to satisfy me is one where I kill off the Catalyst, get back to my ship and with the galaxy's forces at our back wipe out all reapers, star system by star system. Then I want to retire to a far-off little star system with my romantic interests in tow.

The Catalyst is uncategorically evil, indifferent to the endless cycles of sentient suffering as proven by the sequence of controlling sentient beings against their wills. Seriously, I handed over the Collector Base because I thought it would increase my end game challenge in wiping out reapers while dodging Cerberus. The most disturbing thing about the current ending is that no matter what you choose, evil wins the day. How twisted is that?

[Rh4p]

Uncle Jo wrote...

It's because of this kind of people (and there are many of them) that I've always thought Bioware was searching for a another audience... They're calling the actual space-magic ending valid/cool/great... And the worst of all, they enjoyed it

Ouch! It Hurts....  

But ey, sorry for not stay at your level of TRUE FAN. And sorry for enjoy the game and the story in the way that BW give to us. I know that u prefer hear me crying and sayin "how its possible that my crew stay in the Normandy if they are with me in London??? How it's posible that Anderson arrives at the Citadel before me??? WTF is this **** of tricolor ending???" This kind of questions put me on your VIP zone of true fans  

But in one thing u are right. A lot of people enjoy the ending, a lot of people understand the ending, and trust me, a lot of people laugh when see the posts and posts with "true fans" crying about the ending 

Bye

[Voodoo-j]

The Shepard we've all been playing all along..
http://www.lyricsreg...way/Invincible/

The Shepard we seen at the ending..
http://www.tsrocks.c...tle_teapot.html

[3DandBeyond]

Deihjan wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Also, I'd prefer BioWare to basically adopt the indoctrination theory wholesale, and then, if you reject starchild in the dream sequence, this is what results. If you choose "destroy", this still occurs, but there are later repercussions with EDI and the Geth. If you choose "synthesis", Shepard and a number of the human troops are fully indoctrinated and become enemies during the battle. If you choose "control", Shepard is indoctrinated and must be killed by his squad, which also takes a casualty or two in that scene. "

Read this

Ok, I didn't read the whole thing, but I will.  Only thing is he starts off on a false note.  There was one place where people were having lucid "daydreams" and I think it was where you find Legion.  Whereever, it shows two lab guys talking about their wife and it ends up they are talking about the same wife-both of them think they have had the same experiences, dreams, and all.  So, it isn't at all out of line on that one point.

And, originally Bioware was going to include an Indoctrination part and gameplay, but they abandoned the idea as too complex.

[zarnk567]

Rh4p wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

It's because of this kind of people (and there are many of them) that I've always thought Bioware was searching for a another audience... They're calling the actual space-magic ending valid/cool/great... And the worst of all, they enjoyed it

Ouch! It Hurts....  

But ey, sorry for not stay at your level of TRUE FAN. And sorry for enjoy the game and the story in the way that BW give to us. I know that u prefer hear me crying and sayin "how its possible that my crew stay in the Normandy if they are with me in London??? How it's posible that Anderson arrives at the Citadel before me??? WTF is this **** of tricolor ending???" This kind of questions put me on your VIP zone of true fans  

But in one thing u are right. A lot of people enjoy the ending, a lot of people understand the ending, and trust me, a lot of people laugh when see the posts and posts with "true fans" crying about the ending 

Bye

I understand it, They tried to be deep and symbolic with their endings and failed. When you break the narrative cohesion of your entire story with an ending and a portion of your fan-base has their suspension of dis-belief in your universe broken. You as a writer have to reasses your ending and just where you went wrong in the story-telling process.
It's all right when a few people have a problem with your ending, that's expected. When you have this many people saying something is wrong with it .You as a writer know that somewhere during the story-telling process you screwed up, they are trying to fix it. But I really don't see how from a narrative standpoint you can, un-less you remove the Star-child.

p.s. Not saying you are wrong for liking the ending, just don't say that everyone who hates the ending does not understand it and the poorly executed meanings behind them. 

Modifié par zarnk567, 23 avril 2012 - 10:08 .

[MtOMajorCat0311]

Anasystriel wrote...

The only ending that is going to satisfy me is one where I kill off the Catalyst, get back to my ship and with the galaxy's forces at our back wipe out all reapers, star system by star system. Then I want to retire to a far-off little star system with my romantic interests in tow.

The Catalyst is uncategorically evil, indifferent to the endless cycles of sentient suffering as proven by the sequence of controlling sentient beings against their wills. Seriously, I handed over the Collector Base because I thought it would increase my end game challenge in wiping out reapers while dodging Cerberus. The most disturbing thing about the current ending is that no matter what you choose, evil wins the day. How twisted is that?

I concur. 

And, while I recognize there are a few people out there who actually are happy and satisfied with the current ending, it is difficult for me to understand as one who has played all 3 games and put in the countless hours weaving the detailed story of "Shephard" through numerous adventures.

[3DandBeyond]

Rh4p wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

It's because of this kind of people (and there are many of them) that I've always thought Bioware was searching for a another audience... They're calling the actual space-magic ending valid/cool/great... And the worst of all, they enjoyed it

Ouch! It Hurts....  

But ey, sorry for not stay at your level of TRUE FAN. And sorry for enjoy the game and the story in the way that BW give to us. I know that u prefer hear me crying and sayin "how its possible that my crew stay in the Normandy if they are with me in London??? How it's posible that Anderson arrives at the Citadel before me??? WTF is this **** of tricolor ending???" This kind of questions put me on your VIP zone of true fans  

But in one thing u are right. A lot of people enjoy the ending, a lot of people understand the ending, and trust me, a lot of people laugh when see the posts and posts with "true fans" crying about the ending 

Bye

Ok, really. You are free to like the ending, but you really can't say we don't understand it.  We do understand it and it is stupid.  The star kid does not fit in with the rest of the game.  Again, it's the introduction of a new character at the very end of the game, that is a part of lack of logic, and lack of story cohesion.  The ending does not fit the rest of the game and the other ME games.

First off, Casey Hudson said we would not get an ABor C ending, which is what we got.  Why should we be happy about that?
Secondly, the endings completely go against other things you have done in the game.  It still would be crap, but might be better crap if you were allowed to argue that there is or should be another option, synthetics and organics work together like the Geth and Quarian.  Reapers leave.
Third, the "logic" this stupid kid uses is that you must be destroyed to keep you from being destroyed, basically.  The created (synthetics) will always rebel against the creator (organics), so to keep that happening every 50k advanced organics must be destroyed to keep them from creating synthetics that will destroy them.  Shut the front door!  Stupid.
Fourth, all along you make decisions based upon some real choices, but they do not matter in the end.  I can choose to make all the dumbest choices possible, get my teammates killed, not get too many war assets, and my ending will not be that different from yours.  Because they are basically the same.  You say that's a good thing, but you are way wrong.  People want to play these games in order to make different choices and get different endings.  Even if that was not the case, that is what Casey Hudson said would happen.  It is what we were told.  It is how the games have played out, but not how the games ended.

I don't want pretty colored explosions.  I don't want to see characters I don't know cheering as Reapers leave or are destroyed.  And, you are right, Joker leaving and being on that planet makes absolutely no sense.  Great that you like it, but we want things that make sense.  And, beyond that we want to see what happens to characters and worlds we have come to care about. 

[malhar34]

Rh4p wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

It's because of this kind of people (and there are many of them) that I've always thought Bioware was searching for a another audience... They're calling the actual space-magic ending valid/cool/great... And the worst of all, they enjoyed it

Ouch! It Hurts....  

But ey, sorry for not stay at your level of TRUE FAN. And sorry for enjoy the game and the story in the way that BW give to us. I know that u prefer hear me crying and sayin "how its possible that my crew stay in the Normandy if they are with me in London??? How it's posible that Anderson arrives at the Citadel before me??? WTF is this **** of tricolor ending???" This kind of questions put me on your VIP zone of true fans  

But in one thing u are right. A lot of people enjoy the ending, a lot of people understand the ending, and trust me, a lot of people laugh when see the posts and posts with "true fans" crying about the ending 

Bye

Your tragic understanding of the english language emulates your tragic understanding of the ending. Bioware was going for an emotional ending. Any intro to english writing class will tell you that a proper ending reflects and concludes on the story before. Writing a great story and then all of a sudden throwing a godchild with space magic defies all logical rules of english writing.

[Uncle Jo]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Rh4p wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

It's because of this kind of people (and there are many of them) that I've always thought Bioware was searching for a another audience... They're calling the actual space-magic ending valid/cool/great... And the worst of all, they enjoyed it

Ouch! It Hurts....  

But ey, sorry for not stay at your level of TRUE FAN. And sorry for enjoy the game and the story in the way that BW give to us. I know that u prefer hear me crying and sayin "how its possible that my crew stay in the Normandy if they are with me in London??? How it's posible that Anderson arrives at the Citadel before me??? WTF is this **** of tricolor ending???" This kind of questions put me on your VIP zone of true fans  

But in one thing u are right. A lot of people enjoy the ending, a lot of people understand the ending, and trust me, a lot of people laugh when see the posts and posts with "true fans" crying about the ending 

Bye

Ok, really. You are free to like the ending, but you really can't say we don't understand it.  We do understand it and it is stupid.  The star kid does not fit in with the rest of the game.  Again, it's the introduction of a new character at the very end of the game, that is a part of lack of logic, and lack of story cohesion.  The ending does not fit the rest of the game and the other ME games.

First off, Casey Hudson said we would not get an ABor C ending, which is what we got.  Why should we be happy about that?
Secondly, the endings completely go against other things you have done in the game.  It still would be crap, but might be better crap if you were allowed to argue that there is or should be another option, synthetics and organics work together like the Geth and Quarian.  Reapers leave.
Third, the "logic" this stupid kid uses is that you must be destroyed to keep you from being destroyed, basically.  The created (synthetics) will always rebel against the creator (organics), so to keep that happening every 50k advanced organics must be destroyed to keep them from creating synthetics that will destroy them.  Shut the front door!  Stupid.
Fourth, all along you make decisions based upon some real choices, but they do not matter in the end.  I can choose to make all the dumbest choices possible, get my teammates killed, not get too many war assets, and my ending will not be that different from yours.  Because they are basically the same.  You say that's a good thing, but you are way wrong.  People want to play these games in order to make different choices and get different endings.  Even if that was not the case, that is what Casey Hudson said would happen.  It is what we were told.  It is how the games have played out, but not how the games ended.

I don't want pretty colored explosions.  I don't want to see characters I don't know cheering as Reapers leave or are destroyed.  And, you are right, Joker leaving and being on that planet makes absolutely no sense.  Great that you like it, but we want things that make sense.  And, beyond that we want to see what happens to characters and worlds we have come to care about. 

You're loosing your time with this guy. He's beyond any salvation...

[Voodoo-j]

Rh4p wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

It's because of this kind of people (and there are many of them) that I've always thought Bioware was searching for a another audience... They're calling the actual space-magic ending valid/cool/great... And the worst of all, they enjoyed it

Ouch! It Hurts....  

But ey, sorry for not stay at your level of TRUE FAN. And sorry for enjoy the game and the story in the way that BW give to us. I know that u prefer hear me crying and sayin "how its possible that my crew stay in the Normandy if they are with me in London??? How it's posible that Anderson arrives at the Citadel before me??? WTF is this **** of tricolor ending???" This kind of questions put me on your VIP zone of true fans  

But in one thing u are right. A lot of people enjoy the ending, a lot of people understand the ending, and trust me, a lot of people laugh when see the posts and posts with "true fans" crying about the ending 

Bye

This is riding a line of  
Anyone posting a personal attack on staff, moderators or other Community members will, at the sole discretion of staff or moderators, be banned from the BioWare Social Network without notice and is no longer welcomed. 

I always respect what others may view, your happy with the ending? 
Great for you!!
You have an issue with someone that doesn't?
I ask that you give the same respect that everyone gives you, don't degrade the mojority of players that disagree with you.

Critique the game, the ending, but don't critique other players.  Ask why they feel a way, but don't head down the road of pursecution towards them.

[Benchpress610]

Uncle Jo wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Rh4p wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

It's because of this kind of people (and there are many of them) that I've always thought Bioware was searching for a another audience... They're calling the actual space-magic ending valid/cool/great... And the worst of all, they enjoyed it

Ouch! It Hurts....  

But ey, sorry for not stay at your level of TRUE FAN. And sorry for enjoy the game and the story in the way that BW give to us. I know that u prefer hear me crying and sayin "how its possible that my crew stay in the Normandy if they are with me in London??? How it's posible that Anderson arrives at the Citadel before me??? WTF is this **** of tricolor ending???" This kind of questions put me on your VIP zone of true fans  

But in one thing u are right. A lot of people enjoy the ending, a lot of people understand the ending, and trust me, a lot of people laugh when see the posts and posts with "true fans" crying about the ending 

Bye

Ok, really. You are free to like the ending, but you really can't say we don't understand it.  We do understand it and it is stupid.  The star kid does not fit in with the rest of the game.  Again, it's the introduction of a new character at the very end of the game, that is a part of lack of logic, and lack of story cohesion.  The ending does not fit the rest of the game and the other ME games.

First off, Casey Hudson said we would not get an ABor C ending, which is what we got.  Why should we be happy about that?
Secondly, the endings completely go against other things you have done in the game.  It still would be crap, but might be better crap if you were allowed to argue that there is or should be another option, synthetics and organics work together like the Geth and Quarian.  Reapers leave.
Third, the "logic" this stupid kid uses is that you must be destroyed to keep you from being destroyed, basically.  The created (synthetics) will always rebel against the creator (organics), so to keep that happening every 50k advanced organics must be destroyed to keep them from creating synthetics that will destroy them.  Shut the front door!  Stupid.
Fourth, all along you make decisions based upon some real choices, but they do not matter in the end.  I can choose to make all the dumbest choices possible, get my teammates killed, not get too many war assets, and my ending will not be that different from yours.  Because they are basically the same.  You say that's a good thing, but you are way wrong.  People want to play these games in order to make different choices and get different endings.  Even if that was not the case, that is what Casey Hudson said would happen.  It is what we were told.  It is how the games have played out, but not how the games ended.

I don't want pretty colored explosions.  I don't want to see characters I don't know cheering as Reapers leave or are destroyed.  And, you are right, Joker leaving and being on that planet makes absolutely no sense.  Great that you like it, but we want things that make sense.  And, beyond that we want to see what happens to characters and worlds we have come to care about. 

You're loosing your time with this guy. He's beyond any salvation...

Yeah...with that post he just showed his true colors. He's just another troll. The best thing to do is ignore him.

[Thanatos144]

Benchpress610 wrote...


Yeah...with that post he just showed his true colors. He's just another troll. The best thing to do is ignore him.

It must kill you that people disagree huh?

[Voodoo-j]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...


Yeah...with that post he just showed his true colors. He's just another troll. The best thing to do is ignore him.

It must kill you that people disagree huh?

I think this best fits... 

This is riding a line of  
Anyone posting a personal attack on staff, moderators or other Community members will, at the sole discretion of staff or moderators, be banned from the BioWare Social Network without notice and is no longer welcomed. 

I always respect what others may view, your happy with the ending? 
Great for you!!
You have an issue with someone that doesn't?
I ask that you give the same respect that everyone gives you, don't degrade the mojority of players that disagree with you.

Critique the game, the ending, but don't critique other players.  Ask why they feel a way, but don't head down the road of pursecution towards them. 

[seek37]

a story succeeds when it is understood and appreciated, the fact that so many people either saw it didn't understand it, or understood it and hated it means that the story failed. failed hard. there are just too many things that don't make sense. tbh i don't see this "listening" as BW calls it is going anywhere. I've had my fill of the multiplayer, you can only play Fire Fight (halo ODST ref.) for so long. so i think im just going to go back to playing some other game that actually seems to have thought behind it, and isn't associated with BW (very important).

Modifié par seek37, 23 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[Andy the Black]

cindercatz wrote...

This is not in response to the arguements in this thread, but I have no idea where BioWare is reading feedback on the ending, and this is still stickied, so I'll put it here. I responded in another discussion/poll with this post, but I want to make sure it's in the most visible threads. Also in the "suggested changes" thread, I'll post this and a few other things.

" I think it should basically depend on your EMS. It's impossible to save everyone in your squad, but depending on your EMS, you have a choice of who to save in a series of events during the battle. If you have very low EMS, most die, if very high EMS, you sacrifice a few.

Optionally, Shepard can sacrifice him/herself to save more of the squad. If EMS is very low, Shepard dies along with most of the squad. LI survives all scenarios, unless EMS is low and Shepard refuses to sacrifice him/herself to save them.

In all scenarios, Earth takes heavy casualties, as do the allied fleets. If EMS is high, the Battle for Earth is won, and significant survivors remain across all species. The allies go on to win the war. If EMS is very low, the Battle for Earh is lost, casualties are much higher, and the Reapers win. If medium low, the Battle for Earth is lost, but the war eventually won. Medium high EMS, the Battle for Earth is a push (both sides take severe casualties and withdraw), but there are more survivors and the allies win.

*When I refer to squad, I mean the entire squad across all three games. All of the surviving squad members should have visible roles during the final battle, encomposing that "series of events" I mentioned.

**I also reject the idea that this option results in "countless more casualties". It is the better option and therefore should be made clear to be such. Besides, how could any amount of standard warfare equal the destruction of the relays? If BioWare wants to remain consistent with their options, you see that wave basically disintegrating half the normandy, so the destruction of the relays must be a widely destructive event, not a Reaper off switch.

Also, I'd prefer BioWare to basically adopt the indoctrination theory wholesale, and then, if you reject starchild in the dream sequence, this is what results. If you choose "destroy", this still occurs, but there are later repercussions with EDI and the Geth. If you choose "synthesis", Shepard and a number of the human troops are fully indoctrinated and become enemies during the battle. If you choose "control", Shepard is indoctrinated and must be killed by his squad, which also takes a casualty or two in that scene. "

What this dude/dudette said. Though if indoctrination theory is implemented I think destroy should be Shep fighting off indoctrination and synthesis/control is Shep being indoctrinated, in which case the Galaxy boned.

[Kunari801]

 
I always thought my Shepard would sacrifice himself at the end to stop the Reapers thus I never thought I'd get to "retire with my LI".  However, I thought there would be more of a satisfying ending I expected about four endings: 

 - Reapers win 
 - "Stalemate" Reapers weakened and driven back to dark-space but not destroyed (cycle will probably occur again in 50K years though Reapers will be weaker next time) most of the squad and Shepard dies in this ending.   
 - Shepard "Wins" and many of the crew is saved however Shepard dies.
 - Shepard "Wins" and Shepard & most crew is saved as well.   (This ending would be HARD to get and require a almost PREFECT score and decsions from previous games to get) 

Stalemate would be the "default" ending, if you didn't get enough help Reapers would win.  Working harder would get you to the first "Win" level.   

With that variety of endings, your choices throughout the games would have felt like they mattered and if you wanted a "happy" ending, you could work for it. 

Modifié par Kunari801, 23 avril 2012 - 10:51 .

[vicendor]

I really hope they don't introduced anything indoctrination wised...Just silly to play Shepard all this time and at the last second..."oh hai I knowz u wer a realy gud fighta but noww rit at ze end u git controled bye us hehe!"

[AwefulShot]

Andy the Black wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

This is not in response to the arguements in this thread, but I have no idea where BioWare is reading feedback on the ending, and this is still stickied, so I'll put it here. I responded in another discussion/poll with this post, but I want to make sure it's in the most visible threads. Also in the "suggested changes" thread, I'll post this and a few other things.

" I think it should basically depend on your EMS. It's impossible to save everyone in your squad, but depending on your EMS, you have a choice of who to save in a series of events during the battle. If you have very low EMS, most die, if very high EMS, you sacrifice a few.

Optionally, Shepard can sacrifice him/herself to save more of the squad. If EMS is very low, Shepard dies along with most of the squad. LI survives all scenarios, unless EMS is low and Shepard refuses to sacrifice him/herself to save them.

In all scenarios, Earth takes heavy casualties, as do the allied fleets. If EMS is high, the Battle for Earth is won, and significant survivors remain across all species. The allies go on to win the war. If EMS is very low, the Battle for Earh is lost, casualties are much higher, and the Reapers win. If medium low, the Battle for Earth is lost, but the war eventually won. Medium high EMS, the Battle for Earth is a push (both sides take severe casualties and withdraw), but there are more survivors and the allies win.

*When I refer to squad, I mean the entire squad across all three games. All of the surviving squad members should have visible roles during the final battle, encomposing that "series of events" I mentioned.

**I also reject the idea that this option results in "countless more casualties". It is the better option and therefore should be made clear to be such. Besides, how could any amount of standard warfare equal the destruction of the relays? If BioWare wants to remain consistent with their options, you see that wave basically disintegrating half the normandy, so the destruction of the relays must be a widely destructive event, not a Reaper off switch.

Also, I'd prefer BioWare to basically adopt the indoctrination theory wholesale, and then, if you reject starchild in the dream sequence, this is what results. If you choose "destroy", this still occurs, but there are later repercussions with EDI and the Geth. If you choose "synthesis", Shepard and a number of the human troops are fully indoctrinated and become enemies during the battle. If you choose "control", Shepard is indoctrinated and must be killed by his squad, which also takes a casualty or two in that scene. "

What this dude/dudette said. Though if indoctrination theory is implemented I think destroy should be Shep fighting off indoctrination and synthesis/control is Shep being indoctrinated, in which case the Galaxy boned.

Which is why I think indoctrination is a construct of those seeking 'excuses' for the endings and isn't likely the true meaning of the endings from Bioware.  If indoctrination theory is true then 2/3rd's of the endings are 'you lose'.  I can't see in a million years that Bioware would have decided on a 1 of 3 = win only ending.

Modifié par AwefulShot, 23 avril 2012 - 11:48 .

[cindercatz]

I can, especially the way they left it. If the player doesn't know it's happening, he or she can determine for him/herself whether they believe it or not, and in that way nobody loses, no matter what, unfortunately. If they did play it out, you'd get to decide if you want to keep your initial choice or go back to that autosave to change it. The way I want it, any option would give a heck of a show either way.

Deihjan wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Also, I'd prefer BioWare to basically adopt the indoctrination theory wholesale, and then, if you reject starchild in the dream sequence, this is what results. If you choose "destroy", this still occurs, but there are later repercussions with EDI and the Geth. If you choose "synthesis", Shepard and a number of the human troops are fully indoctrinated and become enemies during the battle. If you choose "control", Shepard is indoctrinated and must be killed by his squad, which also takes a casualty or two in that scene. "

Read this

I've actually thought Shep has been fighting indoctrination since he or she was resurrected in ME2, and starting at that point. The game (ME3) tries two or three times to directly tell you no (Doctor Chakwas, Miranda, might be another), but why attempt to prove a negative? More likely, it's just not standard detectable. It's an effected thought process after all. (I wrote some huge posts debating this before ME3 came out. I can try to find the thread to post a link, but no promises.)
Here's the thread, it's six pages, so just scroll to 'em if you want:
http://social.biowar...3/index/8624920

Like I've stated elsewhere, Indoc Theory does not excuse the crappy ending. It merely explains that there is no ending. You fight indoctrination. Then what? It's not that the game ships with a horrible ending. It's that the game ships with no end at all. Which is worse? You be the judge.

Indoc Theory actually ties the game together, up to that point, pretty well, and for someone like me that expected it, I was actually looking for all those little things as foreshadowing.

Indoc Theory allows the existing choices to be used (along with a fourth rejection option, that should be there) to launch into an actual ending to the game and the trilogy. Otherwise, you're just asking them to throw out work, work that is useful in the final product if they choose to go that way.

Lastly, given the expansive time Shep could be fighting it (potentially years..), the evidence of how Indoc does work on other characters (codex, derelict reaper, Illusive Man, Saren, Liara's mom), and the numerous otherwise superfluous events in ME3 supporting it, using Occam's Razor, Indoc Theory is the simplest solution, therefore the most likely. Whether BioWare do their work and give us an actual satisfying ending to ME3 or not is on them. Don't blame IT. I'm on your side with this.

*just wanted to state that I love ME3 otherwise. Excluding the lack of real ending, it's my favorite game in the series.

**on the red blue thing.. On the right side of the wheel, at least as shipped, the Paragon choices are often red this time, and renegade is often blue.

Modifié par cindercatz, 24 avril 2012 - 12:11 .

[HunterKiller_]

Hey.

Shepard can live through the ending on ME3, maybe they're making a ME FOUR!
And everything will be awesome again, just like the old days.

Right guys?

...
...

[Jason Ralph]

I hope the Indoc theory doesn't hold true.

In the first Mass Effect, you find out that the Citadel is the heart of all galactic civilization.  Even more surprising, it's been the heart of every single civilization prior, and in every case: they were all wiped out.  You soon find out that the Citadel is nothing more than a weapon, created by the Reapers.  The reason?  They knew it would be made the seat of the galaxies power, and it hid a truth: it was used by the Reapers to travel deep from dark space from where they hid, so, they could wipe out advanced organic life.  The galaxy was saved, momentarily, by Shepard and crew with the destruction of Saren and Sovereign.

Fast forward to Mass Effect 3.

Three of the biggest spoilers on how this will pan out, are found in your crew, in your squad.

The first being Garrus Varkarian, a turian CSec agent, turned Archangel, turned "turian expert on the Reapers".  The spoilers he gives?  The conversation he has with Shepard about killing 10 billion, to save 20 billion.  You can respond with the Paragon response of how that would make us, fighting for our very survival, like our enemies, the Reapers.

Next is Legion.  The spoilers he provides aren't as pronounced as Garrus' (there's more in the conversations with Garrus but that would take too much time to list).  In fact, you would have had to play close attention to what he says in ME2 and ME3 in the short time he's part of your party.  He expresses that he doesn't want to be controlled by the Reapers any more than humanity wants to be wiped out by them.  He even gives up his "life" in order to see this become a reality.

And lastly, Javik, a Prothean, the last of his people.  The Reapers were at war with his people long before he was born, and war with the Reapers is all he has known.  If you take a Paragon stance with him, he questions whether or not you have what it takes: to wipe out the Reapers, regardless of the cost.  He also informs you that it wasn't the Protheans who designed the Crucible, a weapon designed to destroy the Reapers.  Nope.  It's been made by the countless number of races and species wiped out over the eons by the Reapers, in hopes one race would discover it soon enough to destroy them.

This is a great irony: the Citadel, the heart of the galaxy, turns out to be a weapon used to destroy the galaxy, only to have it in turn, designed to be used on the destroyers.

In the end, I choose to destroy.  That has been the goal from the start.  How many countless of times was it pointed out how do you broker peace with a enemy that doesn't want one?  How do you live with one who wants to destroy you?  Add on The Illussive Man's comment on Mars, "that controlling, and using the Reapers would be bring about humanities apex in  the evolutionairy cycle", it only confirmed what I knew had to be done.

After the credits rolled, I felt pleased.  Shepard lived, as did Joker, Vegas, and Liara.  It would be nice to see what happened to the others, but the fact anyone survived was a conselation prize.  I went in prepared to give it all to save the galaxy.  And I feel that maybe this has to do with my military background: finish the mission at all costs.

Then the scene with the grandpa and his grandson came up and the boy asked for another story about "the shepard".  I soon realized that is what Shepard is: the protector of the galaxy.  If it means killing some so a few maybe, then so be it.  In the end it ended the way I wanted it: the Reapers destroyed, and the galaxy safe.  Far as Star Child, I couldn't believe anything it said, or he said or she said (still not sure what it is; I'm color blind and that whole scene I couldn't see a whole lot other than listen to it's eerie voice).  It's part of the Citadel: a weapon designed by the Reapers to destroy the galaxy.  Problem is they underestimated humanity, and it was used to destroy them.