23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

BearlyHere wrote...


I in fact remember reading last year that this would be the end of this series, and the series, if it continued, would feature new characters and a new storyline. I think they have already decided on where they want 4 to go. But hey, in the mean time, here's some more reasonably priced DLC adventures from before we killed off your character. I don't think they had plans for any post-ending DLC. Sacrifice is one thing, bittersweet is one thing, but unlike DA:O, we have no choice about the sacrifice, and we get the bitter, while they get the sweet, with the LI walking off the Normandy after Joker.  Or at least that's what happened in my three endings.

I've learned that reviews, especially on GameInformer, have to be taken with a grain of salt for the reasons already pointed out. They want to sell games, so they're not going to tell you the ending sucks so you don't buy or cancel your preorder. Yet I was looking at an article about an upcoming MP weekend event at one of the sites, and I won't say it was GI because I'm not sure. The line that jumped out at me after reading about what to expect was "MP is the only reason we're still playing this game." I really wish I had bookmarked it. The price is dropping only two months out.  And I still say that many of us would have cancelled our preorders if we knew how bad the endings were.

It's all the more bitter because most of us really loved this game. Even though I'm a mom, I would have worn the N7 hoodie or bought the coffee mug. I would have bought the DLC, even though DA 2's latest DLCs have been underwhelming and bugged beyond belief. I actually know someone who has the N7 hoodie and the mug, and he named his car "Mako."  We were loyal to Bioware, but I no longer feel that they're loyal to us. So no, I won't be buying any of their products, including future games unless I hear through word of mouth that they haven't extended their collective middle finger at us. But as Diana Allers points out, it's easy to lose an E-democracy.

What I recall reading is from the Final Hours app (yes, I got that) and it said they had not planned sequels to ME3, but might have a prequel or even what would amount to a big sidequest-stories that happen within the same timeframe as current ME games.  However, the wording as to ME3 that I remember is something like this:  The game would end Shepard's story arc but at the very end there's that blue screen that indicates planned DLC to continue Shepard's story.  That would be ME3 DLC so ME3 the total game wouldn't have ended.  Of course all of this is very ambiguous since they refuse to just plain talk to fans.

A very simple statement with maybe room for questions might have helped if not alleviated the problem if they had originally intended to continue Shepard's story in DLC for ME3.  "Hey guys, it's not really over.  We knew it would be hard to say goodbye to Shepard so the story will continue in DLC until we finally do complete the story arc.  There are reasons why the game 'ended' as it did which you will see in the DLC."  And then they could have had contests and such for download codes for the DLC and so on.  But, they don't have any back and forth conversations with fans.

Yes, I learned reviewers are just in bed with game companies and other product lines.  The fans are the reviewers that matter.

I'm probably one of the oldest fans here, but our diversity speaks to the huge demographics' pool they have appealed to.  For a company that has done such awesome work in defining some of the nuanced behavior that can spell victory and that has shown just how awesome redemption can be when it is heartfelt, recognizes error, and openly redresses wrongs that were done, they don't seem to know much about how to win people over.  Sometimes you just smile, sometimes you smile and look them right in the eye.  Sometimes you apologize for not explaining yourself well and sometimes you listen and indicate that you have heard. 

[Holger1405]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...


Well the problem is that a "win decisively" ending would render any "you have to sacrifice something" ending pointless, because it would be unwise to sacrifice yourself or others if you can win this in so doing.
Bioware wanted their "Bittersweet" ending, looking to the Mass Effect storyline, I can understand why they made this decision.

I admit, I am on the good side of the line here, because if Bioware are true to their statement, and only adjusting the endings, they will most probably fix the issues I have with it. If not, and they actual changing the endings, well, I could life very well with a full-blown Happy End. 

Either way, I hope the DLC will bring you at least something you like.

The thing is you are basing your opinion on what you want to see as an ending, but most of us see things differently.  You are entitled to want a sacrificial ending.  That's fine.  If you see the ending that is as a sacrificial one well great for you.  Personally, I see it as stupidity personified.  That does not mean I think you are stupid-I think they do want things seen as sacrificial.  I just don't think it works, well it doesn't work for me. 

In order to view it your way (at least partly because I still see it as dying or killing without using the brain), one must be meta-gaming.  That means you are seeing things as the player and you know the outcome.  This is contrary to what Casey Hudson said was how Bioware wanted players to end up playing the games.  The view was that you would see things as Shepard, not the player.

Casey Hudson:

"The Citadel is really big in this game. It’s bigger than it’s ever
been, in terms of stuff to do. But yeah, it’s those moments where
there’s fun and silly, neat stuff to explore. Once you get out into the
missions, it returns to seeing the face of the galactic war. What we’re
doing with Mass Effect 3 that’s a little bit different than what we’ve
done before is exploring the idea of getting the player to understand
and feel what Commander Shepard is experiencing versus just reacting to
other characters.

We end up exploring some spaces that maybe have never been done
before. Because interactive storytelling is still kind of new, there are
neat things to try. One of the things we’re trying in Mass Effect 3 is
the idea that we can let you feel something that is part of that
character’s experience versus strictly getting you to react to things
that you see and experience. We’re trying to tell a little bit of the
story Shepard would feel and seeing if the player feels that as well.
You saw that on the Earth mission, and you see it throughout the game.
It’s insight into how Shepard feels. I think that’s going to be one of
the things people remember."

What Shepard sees and knows is all that is revealed up to that point.  S/he knows Control has been the choice of the unscrupulous and it has failed, because they've been lied to when told they could control anything.  Shepard knows Synthesis is wrong.  It is deciding for others.  It is the end of evolution.  Shepard told EDI that there is more to life than merely surviving.  Your Shepard may not have said this, but A Shepard could and any choice that does not take into account each Shepard is a non-choice.  Destroy is similar to this, in that A Shepard could make choices that would render it abhorrent.  EDI says to MY Shepard that Joker unshackled her and that she learned much from others but the reason she truly felt alive was due to Shepard.  Destroy kills what Shepard gave life to.

So in my game, MY Shepard sees all 3 choices as non-choices.  Dying in making one of them is not sacrifice because sacrifice implies it is for the greater good.  The choices are not the greater good.

It is also so that MY Shepard would in no way trust what the star kid is saying.  Any human being standing at the precipice with the guy that has controlled the things that wish to kill trillions is the epitome of evil and not to be believed at all.  In fact, what the ending does is it changes the reapers from being the true evil into merely mindless beings under the control of glow boy.  They may not have any desire to do anything, but are merely acting upon the kid's desire.  So, no MY Shepard should and would not follow this kid's wishes.  As I've said the kid could be lying and if Shepard makes any choice it could turn the Crucible into a help the reaper's harvest faster weapon.  No one knows what the Crucible is supposed to do. 

Beyond that, there is no reason that a decisive win ending would preclude the inclusion of a truly sacrificial one.  Different gameplay was supposed to lead to vastly different endings.  I'd think also if you really mess up a lot within the game there could be a fullblown lose everything ending with an aftermath.  But a sacrificial ending could be something someone might have to have if maybe all the assets weren't there or for some other reason.

For the record, I don't see this ending as bittersweet at all.  Where's the sweet?  I certainly hope they don't think that was it when Joker and pals got off the crashed Normandy.  We've all said that's a truly childish scene.  So, I don't see anything sweet at all.

And just so you realize I do understand that your Shepard might make different choices from mine and might see things differently.  But again if any one type of Shepard sees things a certain way, then the game has failed if it didn't take that into account.  It would be like being forced to shoot Tali in the face for no good reason, after having had her as a Love Interest. 

And to make sure you do understand if I say something is dumb or stupid or brainless, it's not that I think you are.  On the contrary, I don't.  For me, the ending just is-all that we are expected to believe.  I put myself fully in the role of Shepard and I don't believe Shepard would follow their logic.  Most of the stuff that Shepard must do seems artificially imposed up him/her and not something that If I were Shepard, I could do.  This is the test for me and the ending failed the test.

No, I don't want a sacrificial ending, I didn't start the game thinking: OK, I want Shepard to sacrifice herself/himself or the Geth (Others) when this ends. (in short, a happy end would be fine for me too.)

All I say is that imho the Mass Effect 3 storyline wouldn't fit a "happily ever after" ending, and that I understand the reason way Bioware didn't go for the easiest exit. (And a full-blown Happy end would be the easiest and also safest way to end Shepard's story for Bioware.)

I think that the main problem is that we disagree about the Catalyst. You think that he can't be trusted at all, and I see things in the end game that gives him the benefit of the doubt. Plus, I consider at least two choices to be contradictory to his logic or his goals.
Furthermore, I disagree that you have to "meta-gaming" to draw this conclusions, they are reachable by in game events and logic only.

Well, you already made up your mind about the endings, (as I did too.) so I don't think another debate would change anything. 
I see things differently, but I respect your Opinion. I've said it before, I could life very well with a perfect solution in the very end, so I hope that Bioware will actually change the endings, but if not, and you don't at least consider another viewpoint, the DLC will probably disappoint you as well.
And that would be a shame, because you are obvious a great ME Fan.

[daveyeisley]

One thing that continually bothers me on a pretty deep level is that it seems a lot of the folks who are OK with the endings also seem to think that those who reject and dislike the endings have not earnestly and seriously considered many other possible ways to look at them in order to make sense of and accept them.

Its just not true. We love the game and the series.

Of course we have done our damndest to try and like the endings. Thats why we are upset, because no matter what point of view we try to analyze it from, it all breaks down. I am glad some folks are able to get past the holes, discrepancies, and pervasive bitterness in the endings and be satisfied.

I and many other have tried, but it doesn't work for us. Please be kind enough to grant us the credit that we have made an honest and extended effort to see things in a more positive way, but have valid reasons why we are unable to.

[LiarasShield]

.



again the catalyst isnt the good guy the enemy that has been destroying advanced organics for generations and then saying their going to save us from advanced synthetics but then use the geth to kill us or fight us with their reaper code after nearly destroying the galaxy and do this a thousand times over do you really think the reapers are just gonna sit down and drink milk and cookies with us I hardly doubt so

In A situation where the enemy that your fighting or brought all your forces to beat it makes no sense to automaticlly give into said enemy with circular logic that can be torn apart and then forced into 3 choices that either sound suicidal and ends up traping all your forces or commiting mass genocide to races like the geth and the quarians

Or turing everybody into half machines or half organic hybrids against their will destroying individuality evolution to affect real change to destroy the whole essence of bringing different people together to accomplish a goal

And No one has ever been able to control the reapers so it makes no sense why it would be able to work now when the illusive man and saren both failed to do so and how is shepard controlling the reapers if his or her body is destroyed how in hells name are the reapers being controlled and in any of the endings where the main villian lives what makes you think they won't try to harvest or commit mass genocide again it just


*Deep breath* dear god I just oooooih *Facepalms


Maybe from now on on every post I make I shall have this picture accompanie it

Thought this was kinda cool


[/quote]


Yeah a sacrifical ending is fine if you end up saving the people you sacrifice for but giving into the enemy and then having the enemy pick what you should or force you into 3 terrible choices that personally as player and as shepard would probably never do I'm sorry

I'd rather fight the reapers to the end and depending on how high ems is how bad we lose or how good we win with keeping the relays intact so all the forces can go home and have loyal squad stay with us and the fleets

And why Can't mass effect 3 have a good ending or at least a victory ending mass effect 1 had one mass effect 2 had one 99% of mass effect 3 despite the noble and sad sacrifices had heroic and well done moments so why in the ending where everything is suppose to make sense where we are suppose to be reaching a decent conclusion does everything lose cohesion losing gallons of blood or not I wouldn't give in or accept the cataylst without questioning my own sanity because he created the reapers he is using the reapers to destroy organics for aeons on end and is still using the reapers to destroy my forces as we are having this very conversation with the catalyst


And ultimately why would I Trapt my own forces or let the enemy that has been destroying life for thousand of years or is destroying us during most of the final game why in hells name would I let them live so that they can potentially kill us all over again I just sweet christmas U_u

Holger I honestly can't understand how you think the catalyst is the good guy or ultimately wants to help shepard I just can't grasp why anything that hes says or forces you into 3 locked railroaded decisions which help the reapers or trapt our forces is ok with you it is still baffling to me

[darkway1]

No matter what ending you pick,each choice creates a very different universe from that point on.....red-reapers destroyed,blue-reapers still exist but go away,green-organics and synthetics are fused.If Bioware produced a Mass4 any time after the events of Mass3,then which end scenario do they go with???...if they go with red and you picked green,then Mass4 makes the end events of Mass3 you experienced....VOID.

[Holger1405]

3DandBeyond wrote...

One interesting thing that I have learned in trying to find a way to get to 5000EMS without playing any multiplayer is a direct contradiction of Casey Hudson's statement that people play the game or are more directed in ME3 to play the game through Shepard's eyes and to make decisions they think make sense to Shepard.

Well, I know some people have gotten 5000 EMS or I believe they have because they've said so and if it's possible someone can just happen upon it, but it's damn hard to do without meta-gaming.

Consider that apparently in order to get more war asset points, one must have Wrex die in ME1 so Wreav heads the Krogan, destroy Maelon's data, save the collector base, let Bakara die, fake the genophage cure saving Mordin's life because Bakara is dead, and I believe you must let the council from ME1 be killed, save the Salarian councilor in ME3, rewrite the heretic geth, maybe letting Tali die, and so on. Some points are debatable as I cannot yet find one clear consensus on all this. There is more, but just so you get the idea, it is almost more being a renegade or for many doing things that go really far against the way many people naturally play the game.

And all these that seem to be a lot of negative nasty choices contained within are ones that supposedly lead to a higher offline EMS and to the possibility of the gasp ending if destroy is picked. So, it seems the player is "rewarded" for being nasty. Please don't quote me because I cannot say for sure these all play out as websites say they do.

You get more EMS when you kill or get Wrex killed in ME1 and than Kill Mordin in ME3 to prevent the cure from actual getting delivered. But it would be better to let Bakara alive, (thus do no destroy Melons data in ME2)
It would also be better for more EMS if you save the Council and destroy the Heretics.
If you let Tali die in ME2 you can't negotiate peace between the Quarian and the Geth, an you are forced to chose one race over the other, which leads to a much lower EMS Score as when you have both of them saved. Tali only dies in ME3 (besides the endgame) if you choose the Geth over the  Quarian's = same outcome regarding the EMS score than before. So Tali needs to be alive for the best EMS score.

Also you don't need to have 5000 EMS to get the Shepard breath scene, you only need 4000 EMS. But in this case you have to prevent that TIM kills Anderson. 

However, as a matter of fact, you can't reach even the 4000 EMS Points in SP only, it is just not possible.

Modifié par Holger1405, 27 mai 2012 - 02:56 .

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

No, I don't want a sacrificial ending, I didn't start the game thinking: OK, I want Shepard to sacrifice herself/himself or the Geth (Others) when this ends. (in short, a happy end would be fine for me too.)

All I say is that imho the Mass Effect 3 storyline wouldn't fit a "happily ever after" ending, and that I understand the reason way Bioware didn't go for the easiest exit. (And a full-blown Happy end would be the easiest and also safest way to end Shepard's story for Bioware.)

I think that the main problem is that we disagree about the Catalyst. You think that he can't be trusted at all, and I see things in the end game that gives him the benefit of the doubt. Plus, I consider at least two choices to be contradictory to his logic or his goals.
Furthermore, I disagree that you have to "meta-gaming" to draw this conclusions, they are reachable by in game events and logic only.

Well, you already made up your mind about the endings, (as I did too.) so I don't think another debate would change anything. 
I see things differently, but I respect your Opinion. I've said it before, I could life very well with a perfect solution in the very end, so I hope that Bioware will actually change the endings, but if not, and you don't at least consider another viewpoint, the DLC will probably disappoint you as well.
And that would be a shame, because you are obvious a great ME Fan.

Keep in mind that even if Shepard and friends lived and the reapers were destroyed with nothing else changed beyond what has already happened, the ending still would not be some overblown easy happy thing.  Billions of people have already died.  Friends still lay dead.  The reapers bodies lay literally everywhere or make their presence known as they float idle in space.  The aftermath itself is bitter even if everything else was intact.  Earth, Palaven, Thessia, and so on are in shambles at best-indications are that Thessia suffered the most and a huge percentage of the Asari have been wiped out.  This is not utopia.

You see a sad ending as the only possibility and I'm sorry but it's not.  It's not even the easiest nor the cheapest.  Having a hero die for no good reason other than to fulfill some kind of obligatory idea that happy is cliche and the safest or easiest to do is plain wrong.  Drama is far easier to do than comedy.  It is much easier to kill off someone than to see them overcome the aftermath.  Both can be done well and both should have been included within the ending.  In fact, in the aftermath people need live heroes more than they need dead ones.  And seeing someone rise from the ashes can have an even more powerful emotional impact than knowing that they died.

Actually, all along the game set the player up to believe Shepard would die.  It's in the last words to Thane, it's in the constant talk about who would die, in the dreams, and everywhere. 

But, I stll say that what we got was just mostly the gratuitous death of Shepard.  Shepard as most of us see it, did not die for some noble reason because none of the choices make sense.  And they don't make sense because the evil kid offered them.  Shepard does not know what making a choice will really mean.  The whole setup could be a lie.  Shepard continually says no one knows what the Crucible will do-Shepard also keeps asking if they've found out what it would do and no one knows.  They don't even know who started the design of it.  So, all these great minds can't tell if it's for good or evil (could be a gun in the hands of a child as Shepard says to Liara), but if a few short minutes Shepard believes the little evil guy who's been killing trillions of people?  If Shepard dies for any of this it is not for a noble cause-at that point, Shepard is saying that s/he doesn't know what else to do and is done trying.

But beyond all this there is no reason not to have a happy as well as a sad ending.  No reason at all.  Look how many of us want a possible happy ending?  Why would any company especially a game company deny that and risk losing this many paying customers?  That doesn't mean I want some cheap and easy happy ending.  I want it to be done with the same sensitivity as the rest of the games were.  And I'd want it to have some context of the overall picture and aftermath.  As I said, that's when they need live heroes the most, to reclaim their shattered souls and lives.  To help bring people together to rebuild and to learn how to live again.  At that point they will have done well learning how to fight together against a common foe, but learning to live together (all these old enemies) will take some monumental efforts and leaders with a vision.  It could have been amazing.


And no, you can't reach these conclusions just in the game.  It absolutely is meta-gaming.  Shepard sees the kid as the killer of whole civilizations-the kid had the power all along to stop this and didn't.  The kid now says he will let Shepard stop it?  It's inconceivable that any person would think he's being truthful.  Someone else put it best.  The kid is telling Shepard "I will save you from me".  That can never make sense to anyone and in order to believe it you would have to know what happens after making a choice.  You'd have to know that he was telling the truth, but Shepard would not believe him.  And that means Shepard stops being Shepard if s/he makes a choice. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 mai 2012 - 03:08 .

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

You get more EMS when you kill or get Wrex killed in ME1 and than Kill Mordin in ME3 to prevent the cure from actual getting delivered. But it would be better to let Bakara alive, (thus do no destroy Melons data in ME2)
It would also be better for more EMS if you save the Council and destroy the Heretics.
If you let Tali die in ME2 you can't negotiate peace between the Quarian and the Geth, an you are forced to chose one race over the other, which leads to a much lower EMS Score as when you have both of them saved. Tali only dies in ME3 (besides the endgame) if you choose the Geth over the  Quarian's = same outcome regarding the EMS score than before. So Tali needs to be alive for the best EMS score.

Also you don't need to have 5000 EMS to get the Shepard breath scene, you only need 4000 EMS. But in this case you have to prevent that TIM kills Anderson. 

However, as a matter of fact, you can't reach even the 4000 EMS Points in SP only, it is just not possible.

Well, your last point is the one thing I've always believed for sure-I haven't found any way to do it.  The other stuff as I said wasn't my information, but just what I've found when trying to see how someone might get the highest possible EMS.  In my games I've ended up about 200 - 300 points shy of 4000 EMS without MP factored in and that is after I actually got more points from importing ME1 to ME2 to ME3 and got more story lines that opened up-some little sidequests and dialog that gave some more points.

What this of course means is that people that don't have internet or xbox gold or that don't play MP can't even get the happy happy Shepard gasps ending.  This requirement of MP for SP play should be dumped.

But the other point I was making is this is one more example of where meta-gaming comes into play.  The game wants you to make decisions contrary to what you might naturally do in order to get one ending you would want. 

Another funny thing is that saving the Collector's Base has very little impact on assets-some but not a huge impact and not much on the story as well.  Cerberus should be way more powerful.  But what it does impact is it lowers certain minimum EMS requirements in order to get the Control choice.

[Holger1405]

LiarasShield wrote...

Holger I honestly can't understand how you think the catalyst is the good guy or ultimately wants to help shepard I just can't grasp why anything that hes says or forces you into 3 locked railroaded decisions which help the reapers or trapt our forces is ok with you it is still baffling to me

See, this is the Problem.
You read that I am giving the Catalyst the "benefit of the doubt" and you jump to the conclusion the I think he is a good guy.

Be assured, I don't.
I already explained my views about it in many post's in this thread, if you are interested, go back and read them.

[BlueStorm83]

---  I'd like to talk about an ending to the series, but not an ending to Mass Effect 3.  I am, of course, talking about the victorious defeat ending of Mass Effect 2.

That's a legitimate ending to Shepard's story.  It's not any less real than the ending where everyone survives and Shepard and crew make it to ME3.  But that's NOT an ending that can lead into ME3.  This means a few different things.

1) BioWare didn't need samey endings if they wanted a sequel.  They could have picked their own favorite ending and simply launched a different game after that, that followed a whole different story.

2) They could have gone the way of divergent stories.  In essence, there can be a sequel to all 3 "endings" of this game that happen at the same time, but are completely different and exclude each other.  For instance, they could make "Mass Effect: Destruction" where we play as some new dude fighting some kind of galactic war in the wake of the destruction of the Reaers and the citadel, where friendly races are now our enemies, enemies are now our friends, and stuff is mad grim.  At the same time, they could make a game called "Mass Effect: Domination."  This game could be wildly different, since in the Control ending the Citadel survives.  Here we deal with humanity, of all people, becoming the bad guys by rebelling against a citadel government that accepts that the Reapers are no longer bad guys.  Both games follow one of the 3 endings, both games would be valid.

3) They already know how to pull off a Heroic Sacrifice ending WITHOUT drowning what they consider a sacrifice in nonsense or making it seem totally unnecessary.

---  Just some food for thought.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 27 mai 2012 - 03:26 .

[BlueStorm83]

And to resolve the Holger1405/LiarasShield Catalyst debate-

While it is possible for some to view the Catalyst as not necessarily 100% evil and just toying with all life, the fact that it is SO easy to doubt everything he says makes it a gamebreaker. Anything that takes at least 15% of the game's fans and makes them say, "That's BS, why would I do anything he says?" should have been caught and fixed in production.

[LiarasShield]

Holger1405 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Holger I honestly can't understand how you think the catalyst is the good guy or ultimately wants to help shepard I just can't grasp why anything that hes says or forces you into 3 locked railroaded decisions which help the reapers or trapt our forces is ok with you it is still baffling to me

See, this is the Problem.
You read that I am giving the Catalyst the "benefit of the doubt" and you jump to the conclusion the I think he is a good guy.

Be assured, I don't.
I already explained my views about it in many post's in this thread, if you are interested, go back and read them.

Actually most of your previous posts have been about defending the catalyst or saying I don't see the catalyst that way so now all of a sudden your changing your tune I find that hard to believe

[darkway1]

To be fair we have an ending that changed the goal posts at the last minute so to speak,the aim of the game is to stop the reapers and right at the end we get introduced to starchild,the relay's are a means of space travel but again at the end we are introduced to the concept that they are capable of doing so much more (fusing organic and synthetic life even)..... Shepard died or did he,Normandy running or was it,Illusive man dead or is he,crew dead or are they,relay's dead or are they...........I really don't know how anyone can have an opinion given that so much of the ending is just open ended.......when the new ending DLC comes I really wouldn't be surprised if they introduce a whole new spin on things....maybe the relay system can do time travel now as well,maybe they make coffee too???...who the frig knows anymore?

Considering that this is the end of the story....it sure seems a puzzling way to end some thing.

[3DandBeyond]

Again, Holger, it's like some guy controls a group of thugs and sends them to your town to kill people by putting them into a wood chipper. The guy says he's doing it to save people. Stupid logic part 1. You meet the guy and he says he will help you make it all stop. Stupid logic part 2. He says he will give you 3 choices based upon plans you know nothing about. You don't know who created the plans, you don't know how they work, you don't know what they will do. But the guy in control of the thugs says they will help you.

The first choice is to control the thugs-but your nasty neighbor TOM who kept trying to turn his friends into part thug has been trying to do this and found out he was already being controlled by the guy that controls the thugs. Another guy that you hated even more tried to do the same thing with the same results.

The second choice is to turn everybody into part thug and part friend. That means your nun cousin Freida will have no choice but to turn part thug. And you've always hated the idea that people can't make their own choices.

The third choice is to destroy the thugs, but that also means you will destroy anyone who's ever been a thug, even say your cousin Freida who used to run in a gang, but ran off to be a nun when they started popping people into wood chippers.

And, no matter which choice you pick you must die (well except for one that is based upon outside influences and an internet connection). And the reason you must die is well because you've been fighting thugs and the kid says so. Why would you think you should live? Now, someone else might ask for the real reason why you must die in order to make a choice you wouldn't make. To which the thug owner would answer, "BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THUGS and there's an asterisk alongside my choices. Read the fine print."

Choice1*
Choice2*
Choice3* **

*You die.
**Maybe not.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

---  I'd like to talk about an ending to the series, but not an ending to Mass Effect 3.  I am, of course, talking about the victorious defeat ending of Mass Effect 2.

That's a legitimate ending to Shepard's story.  It's not any less real than the ending where everyone survives and Shepard and crew make it to ME3.  But that's NOT an ending that can lead into ME3.  This means a few different things.

1) BioWare didn't need samey endings if they wanted a sequel.  They could have picked their own favorite ending and simply launched a different game after that, that followed a whole different story.

2) They could have gone the way of divergent stories.  In essence, there can be a sequel to all 3 "endings" of this game that happen at the same time, but are completely different and exclude each other.  For instance, they could make "Mass Effect: Destruction" where we play as some new dude fighting some kind of galactic war in the wake of the destruction of the Reaers and the citadel, where friendly races are now our enemies, enemies are now our friends, and stuff is mad grim.  At the same time, they could make a game called "Mass Effect: Domination."  This game could be wildly different, since in the Control ending the Citadel survives.  Here we deal with humanity, of all people, becoming the bad guys by rebelling against a citadel government that accepts that the Reapers are no longer bad guys.  Both games follow one of the 3 endings, both games would be valid.

3) They already know how to pull off a Heroic Sacrifice ending WITHOUT drowning what they consider a sacrifice in nonsense or making it seem totally unnecessary.

---  Just some food for thought.

Actually since it seems obvious there was some DLC content intended prior to this fiasco, they really could have played with the endings a bit.  For instance, make certain choices, fail certain things, and maybe some systems that are now closed, don't open up, but another one does.

Or as you put it, the variety of what could have happened leading to new games even could have been great.  I still see the introduction of some artificial choice as a core issue.  It's like saying I got drunk.  I decided to drive myself home.  I decided to drive in an area with some dense traffic and twisty turns.  I ran a red light into through traffic with plenty of cars passing through.  And then, all of a sudden having buttons pop up on the dashboard giving me 3 choices for the outcome.  I'd have rather had the seamless experience (ok this is a horrific example) of my stupid actions leading to inevitable consequences, rather than the insertion of choices.  Logically, at this point I would crash into some cars, but there may be some other things that determine this outcome and then what comes after.  Did I outfit my car with crash avoidance systems?  Was I implanted with a "you can't get really drunk" chip?  Or some chip that takes over and reacts for me.  The point is, the choices are a problem in so many ways, for me.

But I fully see heroic sacrifice and heroic victory as being possible.  Even as quickly as it happened in ME1, it was done well.  Shepard coming out of it when everyone thought Shepard was dead.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Holger I honestly can't understand how you think the catalyst is the good guy or ultimately wants to help shepard I just can't grasp why anything that hes says or forces you into 3 locked railroaded decisions which help the reapers or trapt our forces is ok with you it is still baffling to me

See, this is the Problem.
You read that I am giving the Catalyst the "benefit of the doubt" and you jump to the conclusion the I think he is a good guy.

Be assured, I don't.
I already explained my views about it in many post's in this thread, if you are interested, go back and read them.

The point isn't what you've said Holger-I do remember you saying the kid could have lied or something similar.  It's not what you've said-but that you still do seem to think that actually making any choice if the kid lied is something someone would do.

The point is that Shepard then going along with it all afterward is one other reason the game does not make sense here to us.  Since it is reasonable to assume the kid is lying or just evil or misguided, the logical conclusion is the choices are bad.  Then, making any choice is bad.  And making a bad choice that results in your death is suicide, not sacrifice.  You sacrifice for something you know will do something good-the right reason.  You suicide if you just give away your life for no meaning.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 mai 2012 - 04:22 .

[3DandBeyond]

I can find numerous possible meanings for the ending, but none of them make me like it any more or hate it less.

I can say that we are supposed to see that the kid is lying and make a choice, anyway. It could be seen as a metaphor for what we do as societies. That we know a leader is lying and we go along anyway and then claim we figured it was for the greater good or that we had no choice but to go along. And in so doing we actually commit a form of suicide, but see it as sacrifice, because we've been forced to see it that way. 

You could say we make choices like this when voting-one party wants to control everything, one is about destroying it all, and the third is some combination of the two sides within society itself. I could make a real assertion that this is all what it means. But that's not what I want in the ending of a video game that isn't called, "You Be the Politician in 2012".

I wanted an ending to Mass Effect, that was based upon things that happened in Mass Effect. I wanted something that made sense to the character Shepard. And I wanted things that would allow me personally as Shepard to shove a big shred your innards suppository up some reapers' butts. I didn't want to stop and have a "who's the bigger idiot" chat with glow boy.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 mai 2012 - 04:36 .

[daveyeisley]

Assets in question at the end of Priority: Tuchanka:

Wrex (30)
Wreave (25)
Mordin (25) *only available if convinced to allow fake cure with both Wrex and Eve dead
Krogan Clans (300 or 250 depending on Eve/Maelon's Data)
Krogan Mercenaries (75)
Clan Urdnot (300)
Salarian 1st Fleet (150)

I believe this is a pretty comprehensive list of the 9* possible outcomes:

1 ) If you keep Wrex and Eve alive, and actually cure the genophage, you gain Wrex (30), Krogan Clans (300), Clan Urdnot (300), the krogan Mercs (+75)

Net gain: 705

2) If Wrex is alive, Eve is alive, and you fake the cure, you gain the Krogan Clans (300), and the Salarian 1st fleet (150).

Net gain: 450

3) If Wrex is alive, Eve dead, and genophage cured, gain Wrex (30), Clan Urdnot (300), Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), Krogan Mercenaries (75)

Net gain: 655

4) If Wrex is alive, Eve dead, and genophage cure faked, gain Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), and Salarian 1st Fleet (150)

Net gain: 400 (possibly the worst EMS outcome).


5) If Wrex is dead, Eve dead, and genophage cured, you gain Wreave (25), the Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), and Clan urdnot (300).

Net gain: 575

6/7) If Wrex is dead, Eve dead, and the genophage cure is faked, gain Wreave (25), Mordin* (25), Clan Urdnot (300), the Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), and the Salarian 1st fleet (150)

Net gain: 750 -*725 if Mordin cannot be convinced

8) If Wrex is dead, Eve alive, and genophage cured, you gain Wreave (25), the Krogan Clans (300), and Clan urdnot (300).

Net gain: 625

9) If Wrex is dead, Eve alive, and genophage cure faked, you gain Wreave (25), the Krogan Clans (300), Clan urdnot (300), and Salarian 1st Fleet (150)

Net gain: 775 (possibly best EMS outcome)

While I still firmly assert that 4000 EMS is simply and completely impossible without multiplayer to boost readiness (until they change something), it does definitely seem that this data combined with the fact that letting the Geth die and not helping EDI can make the Destroy option palatable - this game is slanted towards Renegades quite clearly.

This was not the case with the previous games, and it makes me... kind of angry.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 27 mai 2012 - 05:01 .

[3DandBeyond]

daveyeisley wrote...


Assets in question at the end of Priority: Tuchanka:

Wrex (30)
Wreave (25)
Mordin (25) *only available if convinced to allow fake cure with both Wrex and Eve dead
Krogan Clans (300 or 250 depending on Eve/Maelon's Data)
Krogan Mercenaries (75)
Clan Urdnot (300)
Salarian 1st Fleet (150)

I believe this is a pretty comprehensive list of the 9* possible outcomes:

1 ) If you keep Wrex and Eve alive, and actually cure the genophage, you gain Wrex (30), Krogan Clans (300), Clan Urdnot (300), the krogan Mercs (+75)

Net gain: 705

2) If Wrex is alive, Eve is alive, and you fake the cure, you gain the Krogan Clans (300), and the Salarian 1st fleet (150).

Net gain: 450

3) If Wrex is alive, Eve dead, and genophage cured, gain Wrex (30), Clan Urdnot (300), Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), Krogan Mercenaries (75)

Net gain: 655

4) If Wrex is alive, Eve dead, and genophage cure faked, gain Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), and Salarian 1st Fleet (150)

Net gain: 400 (possibly the worst EMS outcome).


5) If Wrex is dead, Eve dead, and genophage cured, you gain Wreave (25), the Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), and Clan urdnot (300).

Net gain: 575

6/7) If Wrex is dead, Eve dead, and the genophage cure is faked, gain Wreave (25), Mordin* (25), Clan Urdnot (300), the Krogan Clans (250 due to loss of Eve), and the Salarian 1st fleet (150)

Net gain: 750 -*725 if Mordin cannot be convinced

8) If Wrex is dead, Eve alive, and genophage cured, you gain Wreave (25), the Krogan Clans (300), and Clan urdnot (300).

Net gain: 625

9) If Wrex is dead, Eve alive, and genophage cure faked, you gain Wreave (25), the Krogan Clans (300), Clan urdnot (300), and Salarian 1st Fleet (150)

Net gain: 775 (possibly best EMS outcome)

While I still firmly assert that 4000 EMS is simply and completely impossible without multiplayer to boost readiness (until they change something), it does definitely seem that this data combined with the fact that letting the Geth die and not helping EDI can make the Destroy option palatable - this game is slanted towards Renegades quite clearly.

This was not the case with the previous games, and it makes me... kind of angry.

Yes, this is some of what I had based my conclusions on.  I agree that it seems slanted to a renegade play and possibly their way of trying to ensure people fine Destroy as acceptable.  I have one other item of proof.  I have an almost totally paragon character-only made like 3 renegade choices through the whole game.  I set the game to the options where it is based heavily on Narrative and I make no decisions at all.  I had a character that was based upon an imported ME2 character that also was almost full on paragon that had romanced Liara in ME1, continued in LOTSB and had no romance in ME2, not even Kelly.

I then loaded various saves and every choice the game made was renegade.  Shepard tells Liara (potential love scene before TIM's base) to go away.  In fact every choice there is that more "negative" one.  Shepard is ready to go and mad.

I loaded other saves and every decision was the renegade one.  I even went with the first one, Vancouver and the  point where James questions leaving Earth, where normally for me the paragon interrupt only pops up.  Well, it didn't.  The renegade interrupt popped up.  And this happened everywhere in it, so I truly have to wonder what is going on here.

[kacey166]

I agree that the sacrificial ending is fitting to the story, but it's a video game & I play it for fun. After all the hours I spent playing it, I want to bask in the glory of glory of saving the galaxy in front of billions of adoring people (& aliens). At the very least I'd like to walk properly when I commit suicide.

The right way to go would be giving people the CHOICE of sacrifice. I just feel the inevitablity of the ending totally ruins replayabilty. No matter how cool the game is why do I want to go through again just to blow up? I can tell you I won't be spending 1 cent on DLC unless the ending changes.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I wanted an ending to Mass Effect, that was based upon things that happened in Mass Effect. I wanted something that made sense to the character Shepard. And I wanted things that would allow me personally as Shepard to shove a big shred your innards suppository up some reapers' butts. I didn't want to stop and have a "who's the bigger idiot" chat with glow boy.

---  LMAO, A who's the bigger idiot chat.  I love it!

As to the game picking Renegade choices automatically, well, that KINDA makes sense.  See, if someone turns off choice, chances are they're more action gamers, not Role Players.  And Action Gamers want more action.  Renegade choices are typically more violent or actiony, so giving the automatic controls to the story may have been done in a way where the action gamers wouldn't have to sit through many many scenes of Shep telling everyone how much they mean to him and how everything's gonna be smiles and kittens.

In fact, I'd like everything to be smiles and kittens.  I want Shepard to stumble into the conduit, and be sent to the Citadel, and find himself in a hallway full of... kittens.  I want him to make his way forward where he finds Anderson and The Illusive man playing with kittens.  I want them all to take the elevator upward and it's revealed that the Crucible is actually a combination tinfoil ball and laster pointer.  Then reapers just kinda wander away and never come back.  Then everyone smiles.

In all seriousness.  Just finished some more multiplayer.  It's "Promote your dudes!" weekend.  Promoted my Vanguards, almost set to promote my infiltrators.  After that I think I'm gonna promote the Sentinels.  I like the weekend multiplayer operations.  Hey, IDEA!

Since BioWare really seems to want Multiplayer to influence endings, how's about we disconnect them both altogether?  Let Singleplayer deal with the Crucible and all that crap.  And have the cumulative Multiplayer that everyone does allow the multi-players get a totally different set of endings.  MILITARY endings.  Endings where we make the reapers blow up with GUNS, not a wave of skittles (Taste the rainbow!)

[Archonsg]

Point in note, in regards to a "sacrifice" which implies that Shepard made his (or her) choice freely with the OPTION not to die and suffer a less desirable outcome. The key things here is that it has to the the PLAYER'S (Shepard's) choice otherwise it is NOT a sacrifice but an arbitrary death sentence suicide.

The ending we got WASN'T a noble sacrifice at all but one where we see Shepard broken spiritually, broken bodily and broken in character when without protest accepts death at the hand of the thing that is responsible for the death of species and races over uncountable cycles past.

Noble Sacrifice my arse.

@ the whole "catalyst and can we trust it to mean what it says" issue.
I can't tell you what to think but this is what my own reaction was:

Right at the point when starbrat said "The Reapers are mine. I control them ...."

During that few nano seconds that took to register, I went from "W.T.F?! is this?!" to " W.T.F?! You, you are behind all this, you made the reapers kill every organic who could do calculus every 50,000 years, you little bloody murderous ****!"

What?
This entity tells you it controls the Reapers and it is responsible for all the horrors you see, because IT CONTROLS THE REAPERS. EVERYTHING THEY DID, WAS BECAUSE THIS ENTITY TOLD THEM TO. And you (and Shepard) didn't have any other reaction other then the one I had?

Seriously?

Then it tells you to go kill yourself, gives you some hooky "rewards" if you DO go kill yourself, while in the background, you CAN STILL SEE REAPER FORCES KILLING YOUR FRIENDS, and you still think this entity is on the level?

What I want to know is, how do those who find the starbrat's statement to be trust worthy that they are willing to accept it without question, and this is important, because if you at any point doubt the truth of the Starbrat's words, than why in all that is holy did you think it was a good idea to accept ANY choice or to think that ANY choice given by the Starbrat is "good"?

That goes double for Shepard. Why would Shepard, who does not have the player's outside "god's point of view" accept or trust anything said by Starbrat?

Modifié par Archonsg, 27 mai 2012 - 06:49 .

[Thanatos144]

Archonsg wrote...

Point in note, in regards to a "sacrifice" which implies that Shepard made his (or her) choice freely with the OPTION not to die and suffer a less desirable outcome. The key things here is that it has to the the PLAYER'S (Shepard's) choice otherwise it is NOT a sacrifice but an arbitrary death sentence suicide.

The ending we got WASN'T a noble sacrifice at all but one where we see Shepard broken spiritually, broken bodily and broken in character when without protest accepts death at the hand of the thing that is responsible for the death of species and races over uncountable cycles past.

Noble Sacrifice my arse.

@ the whole "catalyst and can we trust it to mean what it says" issue.
I can't tell you what to think but this is what my own reaction was:

Right at the point when starbrat said "The Reapers are mine. I control them ...."

During that few nano seconds that took to register, I went from "W.T.F?! is this?!" to " W.T.F?! You, you are behind all this, you made the reapers kill every organic who could do calculus every 50,000 years, you little bloody murderous ****!"

What?
This entity tells you it controls the Reapers and it is responsible for all the horrors you see, because IT CONTROLS THE REAPERS. EVERYTHING THEY DID, WAS BECAUSE THIS ENTITY TOLD THEM TO. And you (and Shepard) didn't have any other reaction other then the one I had?

Seriously?

Then it tells you to go kill yourself, gives you some hooky "rewards" if you DO go kill yourself, while in the background, you CAN STILL SEE REAPER FORCES KILLING YOUR FRIENDS, and you still think this entity is on the level?

What I want to know is, how do those who find the starbrat's statement to be trust worthy that they are willing to accept it without question, and this is important, because if you at any point doubt the truth of the Starbrat's words, than why in all that is holy did you think it was a good idea to accept ANY choice or to think that ANY choice given by the Starbrat is "good"?

That goes double for Shepard. Why would Shepard, who does not have the player's outside "god's point of view" accept or trust anything said by Starbrat?

You can always play something like God Of war or Final Fanatsy where you get no choice.....I am thinking maybe you need some perspective.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...


---  LMAO, A who's the bigger idiot chat.  I love it!

As to the game picking Renegade choices automatically, well, that KINDA makes sense.  See, if someone turns off choice, chances are they're more action gamers, not Role Players.  And Action Gamers want more action.  Renegade choices are typically more violent or actiony, so giving the automatic controls to the story may have been done in a way where the action gamers wouldn't have to sit through many many scenes of Shep telling everyone how much they mean to him and how everything's gonna be smiles and kittens.

In fact, I'd like everything to be smiles and kittens.  I want Shepard to stumble into the conduit, and be sent to the Citadel, and find himself in a hallway full of... kittens.  I want him to make his way forward where he finds Anderson and The Illusive man playing with kittens.  I want them all to take the elevator upward and it's revealed that the Crucible is actually a combination tinfoil ball and laster pointer.  Then reapers just kinda wander away and never come back.  Then everyone smiles.

In all seriousness.  Just finished some more multiplayer.  It's "Promote your dudes!" weekend.  Promoted my Vanguards, almost set to promote my infiltrators.  After that I think I'm gonna promote the Sentinels.  I like the weekend multiplayer operations.  Hey, IDEA!

Since BioWare really seems to want Multiplayer to influence endings, how's about we disconnect them both altogether?  Let Singleplayer deal with the Crucible and all that crap.  And have the cumulative Multiplayer that everyone does allow the multi-players get a totally different set of endings.  MILITARY endings.  Endings where we make the reapers blow up with GUNS, not a wave of skittles (Taste the rainbow!)

My point is I picked narrative play style, not rpg, or anything action related-it was full on story mode, the weakest action that could be chosen and I had an almost full paragon character.  I chose the opposite end of the spectrum from what you suggest.  To me, that doesn't make sense.  I get what you are saying, but in making decisions the game itself didn't take into account anything I had chosen.  I just saw irony in that.

I could see if I had chosen something more hardcore and so didn't want to be bothered by making decisions, but I would have thought there'd still be some mix.  In fact, if I play it straight up with full decisions, I don't get renegade interrupts I always get paragon ones.  But with this I was only getting renegade ones.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 mai 2012 - 08:06 .

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

Point in note, in regards to a "sacrifice" which implies that Shepard made his (or her) choice freely with the OPTION not to die and suffer a less desirable outcome. The key things here is that it has to the the PLAYER'S (Shepard's) choice otherwise it is NOT a sacrifice but an arbitrary death sentence suicide.

The ending we got WASN'T a noble sacrifice at all but one where we see Shepard broken spiritually, broken bodily and broken in character when without protest accepts death at the hand of the thing that is responsible for the death of species and races over uncountable cycles past.

Noble Sacrifice my arse.

@ the whole "catalyst and can we trust it to mean what it says" issue.
I can't tell you what to think but this is what my own reaction was:

Right at the point when starbrat said "The Reapers are mine. I control them ...."

During that few nano seconds that took to register, I went from "W.T.F?! is this?!" to " W.T.F?! You, you are behind all this, you made the reapers kill every organic who could do calculus every 50,000 years, you little bloody murderous ****!"

What?
This entity tells you it controls the Reapers and it is responsible for all the horrors you see, because IT CONTROLS THE REAPERS. EVERYTHING THEY DID, WAS BECAUSE THIS ENTITY TOLD THEM TO. And you (and Shepard) didn't have any other reaction other then the one I had?

Seriously?

Then it tells you to go kill yourself, gives you some hooky "rewards" if you DO go kill yourself, while in the background, you CAN STILL SEE REAPER FORCES KILLING YOUR FRIENDS, and you still think this entity is on the level?

What I want to know is, how do those who find the starbrat's statement to be trust worthy that they are willing to accept it without question, and this is important, because if you at any point doubt the truth of the Starbrat's words, than why in all that is holy did you think it was a good idea to accept ANY choice or to think that ANY choice given by the Starbrat is "good"?

That goes double for Shepard. Why would Shepard, who does not have the player's outside "god's point of view" accept or trust anything said by Starbrat?

You can always play something like God Of war or Final Fanatsy where you get no choice.....I am thinking maybe you need some perspective.

He just told you the game is actually not giving you any free will choice.  And if everyone had decided NOT to play any ME games at all (and that goes for most of the ending haters), then you would not have ever been able to play them either, for they would not exist. 

And speaking of playing something else, about 300 pages back you said you were way too busily occupied playing other games to be bothered with us, but here you are inserting your inanity where it is least appreciated.  You have every right to be here, but I can't for the life of me fathom why you would want to be when you are happy with what you got and nothing that happens beyond that will change what you now have.  Something threatens you, but I don't know what.