23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Leem_0001]

KALCULATED wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

With regards to the happy ending - or at least the 'Shepard lives and get with his LI ending', I don't see what the problem is this being a possible outcome. I really don't.

People who feel that being a martyr is the only way for the story to end, there are ways to do this and boil it down to a choice. Maybe someone had to sacrifice themselves to fire the crucible or something, and Anderson, your squadmates, hell even the IM (in some gesture of redemption, if you manage to talk him down) all offer. Those that feel it is up to Shepard to sacrifice himself, they have their option.

Others could listen to Anderson, who could say that Shep has a future and humainty needs him etc. Or one of the squadmates etc. Imagine that kind of choice at the end of the game - you own life or one of those that you care about?

Of couse this would have required an entirely different ending, but it could have been so easily done.

The point is, why is it such a problem to have the option there for Shep to live? It annoys me when people start spouting rubbish like 'rainbows and bunnies happy ending'.

Utter crap. Are you trying to say that everyone who makes a difficult decision needs to die as atonement? Soilders who have been through hell for some reason need death for honour? Bull!

Bioware should have put the option in, this series was all about choice, instead of railroading us.

But you know what, if our choices in the previous games mattered, and we got a variety of endings of real quality, I would be on board with Shep dying as part of the story. I wouldn't complain. But I do think it is an overused cliche in storytelling at the minute that the hero needs to die to be that much more heroic.

Bioware, hire this person so we can have that option of a happy ending that all of us are desperate for. I don't want Shepard to be a galaxy-like Joan of Arc. My Shepard needs to fulfill her promise and come back to Garrus. 

Lol thanks, I'd be open to joining their team - then I would send info back to tell you all what is really going on at Bioware  Maximum infliltration.

But it just makes sense to me - if people want the sacrifice choice, its there, if they want to let another volunteer 'take the honour' so to speak, that choice is there too. Then the entire fan base is happy and they all think Biware is great.

Well, they endings following this choice would need to be up to scratch too, of course.

[Leem_0001]

[quote]feliciano2040 wrote...

[quote]Redbelle wrote...

We see no resolution of our choices, Just the same old footage 3 times with a 5% difference of content.[/quote]

I would say some of the most beautiful footage ever portrayed in videogames.

BUT, I can accept that the choice was rather shallow, to put it lightly, and that yes, Hudson and Gamble lied about it, even though this issue can very well end up deconstructed in nothing more than semantics.

[quote]Redbelle wrote...

If you think Joker jusitfiably bails then I'd like to hear your character analysis on Joker, and how it leads up to fleeing the war zone.[/quote]

The battle seems lost, Joker sees a giant energy signature approaching him, he acts with caution and decides to flee, since the wave might very well be dangerous, and so, he leaves.

Not just for flash did Joker say goodbye to Shepard before the latter left for Earth you know ? It was implicit that they might not see each other again.

Sometimes I wonder what exactly did people expect Joker to do ? Stay until the absolute bitter end ? Sacrificing himself ? Why are we not criticizing Shepard then ? For leaving Earth at it's most desperate time.

Joker has a good portion of a pragmatist to himself, if he believes he might die, he will do what is best to protect himself and his crew, if that means leaving because a giant explosion is looming in, then so be it. 

[quote]Redbelle wrote...

Seeing what happens to the characters? These were our buddies, some of them for 3 games. Good stories generate connection to characters. It happens,

The ending has made ppl think. But it has made ppl think in terms of 'scrutiny'. Throw that ending into a room full of aspiriong writers learning the science and art of story telling and they will point out that compared to what came before the ending loses it's narrative cohesion.
[/quote]

I want to see what happens to the characters as well, but I don't count a lack of expository scenes as criteria for why a piece of the narrative is or isn't bad.

The ending hasn't made people think, it has made a great portion of people react reflexively, pointing fingers in the wrong directions, making acussatory remarks towards the people who took their time and effort to make the game in the first place.

For example, why instead of smashing The Catalyst into oblivion, do they not better ask questions ?

Who is The Catalyst ? What is he ? Why does he resemble the child from Earth ? Is he a being of light ? Someone from Klencory ? How could he create The Reapers ? Why does he believe preservation is a better choice ? Does he have an end goal ? Can he die ? Is he synthetic or organic ? Is he actually a spiritual being ? Is it possible that there's a realm of Mass Effect's lore that science hasn't grasped ?

I don't think I can count beyond one finger the amount of people I've seen asking those questions, apart from myself perhaps [/quote]

No, sorry, if you are going down that line then why weren't we given the option to 'ask questions' of the catalyst when Shep spoke to it, instead of blindly picking one of these three options. As it is Bioware introduced a new antagonist to the series in the final moments. If you are as intelligent as you think you are, you will know this is terrible storytelling. It's basic.

And this fight was a fight for survival, if the fight is lost then humanity dies - Joker has always been fully commited to that cause and ready to give his life for it. There is nothing even hinted at that says he would abandon the fight. Oh, and if that explosion was from a relay, then he must have already been running away before it started. The ship crash lands with partial damage, implying it just got clear of the explosion before it died out. Read the codex, a ship, even the normandy, could not outrun a blast like this for the entirty of the explosions cycle. It was the outer fringes of the explosion that must have caught him, and this means he was a long way from earth. Again, this means he bolted very early in the fight and there is nothing in his character history to say he would abandon the fight.

So your argument is pretty flawed.

And as for the most beautiful footage ever portrayed in videogames. Sorry, I disagree. A sad soundtrack over things that dont make sense or follow established law is not beautiful.

'The ending has made ppl think. But it has made ppl think in terms of 'scrutiny'. Throw that ending into a room full of aspiriong writers learning the science and art of story telling and they will point out that compared to what came before the ending loses it's narrative cohesion.
[/quote]
Crap, there are thousands upon thousands of sci-fi stories that go directly against what you are saying here.

If you like the ending then fine, more power to you, but the reasons people have given for why they dislike them are valid.

[Redbelle]

feliciano2040 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

If you think Joker jusitfiably bails then I'd like to hear your character analysis on Joker, and how it leads up to fleeing the war zone.

The battle seems lost, Joker sees a giant energy signature approaching him, he acts with caution and decides to flee, since the wave might very well be dangerous, and so, he leaves.

Not just for flash did Joker say goodbye to Shepard before the latter left for Earth you know ? It was implicit that they might not see each other again.

Sometimes I wonder what exactly did people expect Joker to do ? Stay until the absolute bitter end ? Sacrificing himself ? Why are we not criticizing Shepard then ? For leaving Earth at it's most desperate time.

Joker has a good portion of a pragmatist to himself, if he believes he might die, he will do what is best to protect himself and his crew, if that means leaving because a giant explosion is looming in, then so be it. 

Gotta scoot off so I'll be quick.  I actually like your explanation of why Joker turned and ran. Thoughy Joker has proven himself to be a brave person, the ship is, by far and large, an extension of himself, at least in my eyes. Joker has mobility issues but the Normandy lets him fly anywhere. So I see the logic of flying away to save the ship.

The problem comes from the lack of context given to the player as to why Joker turns tail. So far ppl have come up with theories, but we have no way to test the theories to see which one is the most accurate. Had the narrative thrown in a line over the communicator about how all is lost and all attacking ships are to retreat to the mass realy we would have been prepared by the writing team for the Normandy to appear in that location.

Ditto our comrades who made the run with us when Harby shot at Shep. A line of dialogue along the line of all, 'ground forces, rendevous with your ships and prepare for aerial bombadment', would have prepared us for the location they turn up in.

Without narrative to explain why these things happened we the players, who have thus far had it easy story wise because BW wrote pretty solidly, have had to come up with explanations ourselves. This is good in the respect that we are thinking, but bad in that BW have left chunks of story to our imaginations when they have proven over the course of 3 games that they can write and write well.

On a related note. I've seen that post about how the ending was written by CH without peer review. It makes sense but I saw it a month back and also read that it may have been written as a wind up. Any confirmation that it was written by the said writee would be appreciated.

[jamez62982]

feliciano2040 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

We see no resolution of our choices, Just the same old footage 3 times with a 5% difference of content.

I would say some of the most beautiful footage ever portrayed in videogames.

BUT, I can accept that the choice was rather shallow, to put it lightly, and that yes, Hudson and Gamble lied about it, even though this issue can very well end up deconstructed in nothing more than semantics.

Redbelle wrote...

If you think Joker jusitfiably bails then I'd like to hear your character analysis on Joker, and how it leads up to fleeing the war zone.

The battle seems lost, Joker sees a giant energy signature approaching him, he acts with caution and decides to flee, since the wave might very well be dangerous, and so, he leaves.

Not just for flash did Joker say goodbye to Shepard before the latter left for Earth you know ? It was implicit that they might not see each other again.

Sometimes I wonder what exactly did people expect Joker to do ? Stay until the absolute bitter end ? Sacrificing himself ? Why are we not criticizing Shepard then ? For leaving Earth at it's most desperate time.

Joker has a good portion of a pragmatist to himself, if he believes he might die, he will do what is best to protect himself and his crew, if that means leaving because a giant explosion is looming in, then so be it. 

Redbelle wrote...

Seeing what happens to the characters? These were our buddies, some of them for 3 games. Good stories generate connection to characters. It happens,

The ending has made ppl think. But it has made ppl think in terms of 'scrutiny'. Throw that ending into a room full of aspiriong writers learning the science and art of story telling and they will point out that compared to what came before the ending loses it's narrative cohesion.

I want to see what happens to the characters as well, but I don't count a lack of expository scenes as criteria for why a piece of the narrative is or isn't bad.

The ending hasn't made people think, it has made a great portion of people react reflexively, pointing fingers in the wrong directions, making acussatory remarks towards the people who took their time and effort to make the game in the first place.

For example, why instead of smashing The Catalyst into oblivion, do they not better ask questions ?

Who is The Catalyst ? What is he ? Why does he resemble the child from Earth ? Is he a being of light ? Someone from Klencory ? How could he create The Reapers ? Why does he believe preservation is a better choice ? Does he have an end goal ? Can he die ? Is he synthetic or organic ? Is he actually a spiritual being ? Is it possible that there's a realm of Mass Effect's lore that science hasn't grasped ?

I don't think I can count beyond one finger the amount of people I've seen asking those questions, apart from myself perhaps

+1

[ElMuchu]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

With regards to the happy ending - or at least the 'Shepard lives and get with his LI ending', I don't see what the problem is this being a possible outcome. I really don't.

People who feel that being a martyr is the only way for the story to end, there are ways to do this and boil it down to a choice. Maybe someone had to sacrifice themselves to fire the crucible or something, and Anderson, your squadmates, hell even the IM (in some gesture of redemption, if you manage to talk him down) all offer. Those that feel it is up to Shepard to sacrifice himself, they have their option.

Others could listen to Anderson, who could say that Shep has a future and humainty needs him etc. Or one of the squadmates etc. Imagine that kind of choice at the end of the game - you own life or one of those that you care about?

Of couse this would have required an entirely different ending, but it could have been so easily done.

The point is, why is it such a problem to have the option there for Shep to live? It annoys me when people start spouting rubbish like 'rainbows and bunnies happy ending'.

Utter crap. Are you trying to say that everyone who makes a difficult decision needs to die as atonement? Soilders who have been through hell for some reason need death for honour? Bull!

Bioware should have put the option in, this series was all about choice, instead of railroading us.

But you know what, if our choices in the previous games mattered, and we got a variety of endings of real quality, I would be on board with Shep dying as part of the story. I wouldn't complain. But I do think it is an overused cliche in storytelling at the minute that the hero needs to die to be that much more heroic.

Perfectly put.  A happy ending and consequences of all choices should be just as plausible and authentic as ultimate sacrifice.  One reality of war is that quite often you don't sacrifice the most important asset you have.  Or, you often do want to spare someone who can clearly motivate the masses in the aftermath.  Life has gone to hell, things are messed up, worlds damaged, even all but destroyed and you need a rallying point.  If for no other reason than in the context of what it would mean for the survivors, you need to have an option for Shepard to live.  Especially when you consider that all throughout the games, people would ask "who are you?" and they would immediately understand the importance of one word, "Shepard."  Batarians that had 300k people wiped out because of Shepard, still fought for him/her.  Who would you want to be there to help you carry on after all this?

Sure, you can turn it so that the rallying cry is a "do it for Shepard" kind of don't fail thing.  But, why shouldn't Shepard see that s/he helped so many to live? 

Ok, I'll say it-Vega, I could send Vega.  Or Ashley, I think.

Even better, send Allers.  "Diana.  There's this little glowing kid that would like to do an interview with you.  You need to go press a button up there so he can let you in."

Very well said. I just read that which was posted before. It is incredible. 
http://www.gamesthir...s-casey-hudson/

How can one or two single guys can lead to such a failure?
Honestly I do not think it could be possible on such a big project. I respect Casey Hudson for the work done on the wirst two ME but maybe him and his lead team were too much confident. That is incredible, their are project managers not writers!

[MtOMajorCat0311]

^^^^^ The article cited above, if you have not read it, is very illuminating. I highly recommend.....

"Mass Effect 3 Writer Distance Himself From Game Ending, Blames Casey Hudson"

link posted byElMuchu above

[3DandBeyond]

feliciano2040 wrote...

For example, why instead of smashing The Catalyst into oblivion, do they not better ask questions ?

Who is The Catalyst ? What is he ? Why does he resemble the child from Earth ? Is he a being of light ? Someone from Klencory ? How could he create The Reapers ? Why does he believe preservation is a better choice ? Does he have an end goal ? Can he die ? Is he synthetic or organic ? Is he actually a spiritual being ? Is it possible that there's a realm of Mass Effect's lore that science hasn't grasped ?

I don't think I can count beyond one finger the amount of people I've seen asking those questions, apart from myself perhaps

Then I don't think you've done enough reading.  A lot of people have asked a lot of those similar questions.  The problem is it doesn't matter. What or who he is is of no consequence to this story because...he was not hinted at before, he removes us from the immediacy of the threat that has haunted us from ME1.  He takes away the villain of the piece and thus detaches us from the emotion of and anger for the evil of the Reapers.   He has an end goal, he says what it is.  But who cares?  It isn't in the context of the game.  It isn't a part of what you've been playing.  And you are not even allowed to ask.  Instead, this magical being that you think might be spiritual spouts the most illogical pile of garbage I have read in my recent memory.  Not since, "Love means never having to say you're sorry" have I felt so logically abused.

This glow kid says, "you have choices more than you know," but you don't.  You have crap.  The creator will always rebel against the created (meaning the created will destroy the creator so I must destroy you).  Double crap.  This is theory (mainly fodder for early dark SF) that has been thrown around ever since humans decided there might be the possibility of creating a sentient synthetic being.  ME3 even throws the ultimate idea of this rebellion (total annihilation of the Quarians by the Geth) out the window by allowing you the choice of uniting them.  But this union is not done through synthesis-it is done through mature choice and re-programming-not imposed, their decision.  The Geth were able to change their minds.  The Quarians were able to perceive the validity of this change.  To utilize a plot point of synthetics rising up against organics is to steal from a lot of melodramatic SF from a long time ago and to ignore a more nuanced approach to the question, in fact evidenced by the nuance of Legion's question, "Does this unit have a soul?"  It's why for some, killing the Geth and not allowing the upgrade was unthinkable.  Because you could conceive of co-existence.

The glow kid has removed a choice that Shepard already knew and already confronted, so that means "you have choices less than you know." Illogical, incoherent, out of context with the rest of the game.  It appears to be written by someone that did not know the story.


Furthermore, the inclusion of the vidkid is out of line with the rest of this story.  They introduced in the last 5 minutes of the game (of 3 games) a new antagonist.  This is not the enemy you have faced.  Your emotions drop off the cliff right there.  The reapers are the evil that haunts you.  Anything less, is not satisfying in a story setting.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 26 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[3DandBeyond]

Fandango9641 wrote...

feliciano2040 wrote...

For example, why instead of smashing The Catalyst into oblivion, do they not better ask questions ?

Who is The Catalyst ? What is he ? Why does he resemble the child from Earth ? Is he a being of light ? Someone from Klencory ? How could he create The Reapers ? Why does he believe preservation is a better choice ? Does he have an end goal ? Can he die ? Is he synthetic or organic ? Is he actually a spiritual being ? Is it possible that there's a realm of Mass Effect's lore that science hasn't grasped ?

I don't think I can count beyond one finger the amount of people I've seen asking those questions, apart from myself perhaps

Who is The Catalyst ? Casper, the deistic, hologramatic, toddler of nightmares.

What is he ? A really, really bad idea.

Why does he resemble the child from Earth ? Because brain farts and space magic.

Is he a being of light ? No, he is made from the dreams and tears of those of us who wanted a coherent ending to Shepards story.

Someone from Klencory ? No, Uranus.

How could he create The Reapers ? Space magic.

Why does he believe preservation is a better choice ? Green is its favourite colour.

Does he have an end goal ? Yes, to ruin Mass Effect in order to facilitate the selling of pointless DLC.

Can he die ? No (I tried).

Is he synthetic or organic ? Asked and answered.

Is he actually a spiritual being ? No, the little blighter is very, very real.

Is it possible that there's a realm of Mass Effect's lore that science hasn't grasped ? According to the last 10 minutes of the trilogy, yes!

EDIT: Who else wants to play?

Absolutely brilliant!

[3DandBeyond]

I must add that in my opinion the truly fascinating conversation and debate that could be had over this game, does not involve the silver imp, but it gets overshadowed by the ending. The real exciting discussion could have been over the whole Geth/Quarian thing. The idea of the Geth deciding to change is a really well thought out, touching thing that is totally dashed at the end of the game. So sad all the lost potential.

[Rajalia]

Archonsg wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

I rather they just fix this one ending first.
Any and all DLC if there is no reason to play, for an end to get to, is a waste of time. Which essentially how this current ending made me feel.

That the past 5 years, Mass Effect 1, 2 and everything that went before those last 10 minutes was a complete waste of time.
I do not want Shepard to choose any of the three colored suicide choice.

Read the whole post above.....we are playing Mass3 Fantasy Fix........we decided to scrap the end with star child,we went for space battles and stuff...it's shaping up good.....even the fantasy DLC sounds good.:happy: 

Yeah, I noticed. But, if I really wanted a fantasy DLC, it would be a Romance DLC, assuming of course the ending is fiixed and there's a reason to pursue a romance.

It will be in three parts;
1) Main Game. More interactions with LI with deeper conversation and exploration of relationship between Shepard and LI.

2) Final moments / boss fight.
Again more interactions, because it's not just about popping Shepard's thermal clip. Also, have your LI play a larger role in how well you do in "the final fight", call it the lovers bonus or whatever but he or she should be invested in you and thus your well being matters.

3) Aftermath.
Reapers defeated. Shepard lives and...
Depending on LI, more interactions localized to each LI's Specific needs. Tali with her new home, Liara choosing between being a Shadowbroker or life with you, (or in my own head-canon dealing with her injury and life as a mother) Jack with her students and the notion that a family isn't a bad thing...and so on.
 
 

 

I love the idea of having your LI playing a bigger part in the ending.......gives you some thing worth fighting for,some thing more personal other than saving all life as we know it,lol..........given some thought there are a zillion idea's to make the ending to Mass epic and full of emotion,makes you wonder how the hell we ended up with the ending we presently have...............it's like they went out of their way to make the most depressing ending ever.

Say it with me ... "Artistic Integrity" ^_~

I'll say this... to reference a not so good movie "The Core", one of the characters was asked how he could bear the weight of saving the whole world. his response, to paraphrase was:

"I'm not trying to save the whole world. I'm just trying to save three" (or some other small number)

Shepard's overall drive could have been not to save the world but simply to save his loved ones and friends. It could have made it a bit more intimate to see him focusing more on that fact that if he failed... it meant more that he be failing to protect everyone he ever cared about. I mean... sure... there would have to be an insane amount of stress knowing an entire galaxy's life depends on you, but in the end... they're faceless. The thought of losing friends and family is what would have likely weighed on him a bit more.

[AmstradHero]

feliciano2040 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

If you think Joker jusitfiably bails then I'd like to hear your character analysis on Joker, and how it leads up to fleeing the war zone.

The battle seems lost, Joker sees a giant energy signature approaching him, he acts with caution and decides to flee, since the wave might very well be dangerous, and so, he leaves.

...

Joker has a good portion of a pragmatist to himself, if he believes he might die, he will do what is best to protect himself and his crew, if that means leaving because a giant explosion is looming in, then so be it. 

Except we have been told (informally by Patrick Weekes) that this was a special explosion that isn't like a supernova, not like the one in Arrival. This means that all the ships in the fleet won't have blown up.

So Joker can travel faster than the speed of light (though apparently so can the explosion), but he still would have had to have seen the explosion hit other ships before he disappeared. This means at its genesis, the explosion shockwave is travelling below the speed of light. If it wasn't, Joker wouldn't have seen it, and then he wouldn't have had a chance (or reason) to run. Presumably, the other ships in the fleet didn't explode, because if they did, then it's not a special explosion and they're all dead.

The only reason for the Normandy to be special is because of its Reaper IFF upgrades, so therefore the magical explosion might affect it differently... but there's no way Joker can know that. Heck, all he knows is that the Catalyst/Citadel is part of the weapon to destroy Reapers. If he knows that and alliance ships are unharmed by it, is he really going to have the intelligence to stop and think: "Wait, this could harm EDI?" Maybe, but I doubt it.

feliciano2040 wrote...
For example, why instead of smashing The Catalyst into oblivion, do they not better ask questions ?

Who is The Catalyst ? What is he ? Why does he resemble the child from Earth ? Is he a being of light ? Someone from Klencory ? How could he create The Reapers ? Why does he believe preservation is a better choice ? Does he have an end goal ? Can he die ? Is he synthetic or organic ? Is he actually a spiritual being ? Is it possible that there's a realm of Mass Effect's lore that science hasn't grasped ?

The problem is that in order to even in attempting to answer any of those questions, we discover that:
a) 14 lines of dialogue on a new character introduced at the very end of the game is insufficient to have any evidence to answer any of these questions.
In attempting to answer any of these questions based on what we are given, we either have to resort to "space magic" (rather than any attempt at a technical/scientific explanation, which is what the game has done for everything for the remainder of the series) or accept that the child is deliberating misleading the player or telling mistruths/half-truths.

At that point, the answers to those questions don't matter because the integrity of the ending and the entire series has already disintegrated.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 26 avril 2012 - 09:14 .

[3DandBeyond]

We are left with underdeveloped dialogue with an at-the-last-minute character introduction as opposed to themes that spanned 3 games, involved changing and evolving concepts and are expected by some to have a discussion about the "new guy".

There's not enough there to have a rational discussion about. It's not about some kind of conjecture over what has been presented, it's conjecture over stuff that hasn't been presented. You can't have a discussion without any real information. And what little info we've been given is nonsensical.

Themes that we could and should discuss like the Genophage and cure, Maelon's experiments and the decision to discard or keep the data, the collector base's horror and again the decision to discard or keep it, and the Geth/Quarian issue are all made moot by this "new guy". These other issues have a lot more meat to fight over and are the result of mature thought. The glow kid and his motivations, origins, and so forth can't matter because I don't care about him.  No, that's not true.  I hate him, but where I should hate him because he perpetrates evil or some such, I don't.  I hate him for being in the game.

Turn it on its head and instead of making him the antagonist at the end. How about he becomes the hero? It should be easily understood that there's just no way you would accept this. It's the same with him as antagonist. He's irrelevant to the games I've been playing.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 26 avril 2012 - 09:16 .

[xjmz250]

3DandBeyond wrote...

xjmz250 wrote...


Im absolutely with you that the indoc theory doesnt leave the game with an ending. Thats not really what im arguing. I believe the Indoctrination Theory because in my mind it makes sense. But i want an ending now. Shepard woke up so lets hop to it and kill some reapers. Idk where bioware is gonna take us with the extended cut but as of right now im just leaving it at shepard was fighting off indoctrination and after having to choose the destroy ending beat the reaper's attempts and woke up. so now the story can continue.

And i just want to say that the people that say the indoc theory doesnt make sense because then only one ending is the right choice and bioware couldnt do something like that, its the exact same thing as just moments before when the illusive man is going to shoot anderson. If you dont stop him from killing anderson you have no choice but to die. They didnt give you ways to let TIM shoot anderson and you live happy. You either have to make him kill himself or just do it yourself. They force your hand one way or another. So it is plausible for them to make the destroy ending the only correct one.


Oh and btw,  3DandBeyond i loved the fanfic. I thought it was a really nice way to give everyone a happy ending and it was well written =)

Thanks for your kind words.  They mean a lot.  Still working on it, but it's fun for me.

I have seen so much on IT and then people trying to refute it as plausible.  I actually do find it to be plausible and the only way they could keep the ending they have (not 'fix' it) and then make a decent ending.

If everything that happened after Harby's beam is not real, then the world's your oyster.  I mean, it's back to square one kind of.  There's no reason we couldn't see war assets in use, and so on.  And, just because some things don't seem to fit in with IT does not mean a decent writer can't make it fit.  Consider what they are now trying to pass off as plausible and almost anything else would make more sense. 

Shepard could have been indoctrinated "differently".  His/her mind and willpower was unique compared to those that had been known to be indoctrinated.  Shepard's experiences were different.  And, the understanding of indoctrination seriously could not have involved that many subjects or render a complete picture.  Some of it is based on Saren and Benezia.  Well, they weren't human, nor were they even average for their own cultures.  Age could play into it and so on and on and on.  You can make things fit if determined enough.

The way to tie things together need not be complex either.  I posted something earlier on this.  A simple road map, but one that actually would lead to a variety of endings.

Personally for me it was the ACAVYOS video that set my mind strongly on the IT. If you didnt see i strongly recommend it because its a very straightforward way of telling the facts and is also very visually appealing in my opinion.

Heres the link:

Its a bit long but a good video. I just hope that the extended cut proves this all right because then even though theres not an actual ending to mass effect...... THAT JUST MEANS MORE MASS EFFECT and i would gladly play any more of the series as i can get my hands on because its probably the most invested ive ever been emotionally into a game for as long as i can remember

[chassan1]

I just remembered another game that EA ruined by rushing it to publication: Dante's Inferno by Visceral Games. The first four levels were pure gold, but after that, the only thing that changed was the area you were fighting in. The same enemies kept on being recycled. I mean, they had unbaptised infants attacking you while you in the Eighth Circle - Fraud. If anything, the enemies there should have been the EA executives.

[kessleas]

Why am I here, reading this - instead of playing the game? Because I cannot bring myself to get to that horrible ending only to die again. I cannot bring myself to make a choice between three possible terrible futures. I am so, so sad.

[ghost9191]

any real reason to chat here? or are we just grasping at straws hoping their silence means they are going to change the ending?

I mean how bout a alternate ending dlc for those who want a happier ending, or hell a ending that is actually bittersweet and not just bitter

Modifié par ghost9191, 26 avril 2012 - 11:30 .

[Ubergrog]

I will confess.. I -really- want to see more cinematic fleet combat... Especially with the geth fleets and the destiny ascension.

[daveyeisley]

@Casey Hudson

If it is true that yourself and Mr. Walters wrote the ending sequence to ME3 yourselves, I (and I am sure many others) would very much appreciate more details on the decision making process that went on between the two of you.

I totally understand reluctance to share these details, but I would like to point out that the reason(s) for the reluctance then become more significant. If you have pride and confidence in the course charted, it may be helpful to explain this. Lack of explanation invites mistrust and more criticism.

To clarify, this is not a request for the content of the upcoming DLC that explains the endings of the game. I am rather requesting more insight into the thought and decision process that produced the ending(s).

If it is not true that yourself and Mr. Walters wrote the ending without additional input, a small, single sentence clarification of such would help close the issue.

I respect everyone who worked on the game, and while I have expressed my disappointment at a small part of the game, the whole series has been incredible and is something I will never forget.

I just want to better understand the decisions. I want to understand because I care.

Most importantly, if you feel any shred of doubt that maybe a mistake has been made, please tell us. Its not too late. Many of us love your work and want to support you in making it better.

[LiarasShield]

just the ending having only two out of the hundred writers working on it plus no input or review yeah that isn't really a great way to go about something

[LiarasShield]

they keep saying their listening to us but instead of fixing the plot holes and the broken circular logic they just want add onto it I just don't get that U-u

[daveyeisley]

I am confident that the intent of the writers was not to leave players unsatisfied.

I am also confident that was what accidentally took place for many players.

I am struggling to understand why the intent and result were so far apart, and what the issues with offering more options were.

Wouldn't have a problem if one ending was labelled as "canon", as long as the others are of equivalent quality and allows for most players to be satisfied.

[LiarasShield]

see at least that sounds reasonable but eh looks like that won't happen

[3DandBeyond]

alleyd wrote...

I noticed 3 points in a book that I have on e-business. The author states it better than I ever could

Under the term Business Lessons

1:-Embrace bad news to learn where you need the most improvement
2. your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning
3. Implement policy and business structures that tie complaints to a fast solution

There was a single line that also stood out

You should examine customer complaints more often than company financials.

Exactly on point.  One common statement is often quoted in retail, "A happy customer may tell 5 people.  An unhappy one will tell everyone."  You are so right.  In very real terms, an unhappy customer is a company's best friend.  I'd make that more that a louder customer is, because they will give you feedback and they are motivated.  The silent group offers you no insight into anything.  The loud customer will answer the questions, "how are we doing?  How can we do it better?"