23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Archonsg]

To paraphrase a quote Joe Ambercrombie (fantasy / science fiction author in case you don't know), in regards to Mass Effect 3's ending, "If the spike of a skyscraper is wonky because of poor foundation, giving the skyscraper a shinier, newer spike will not change anything. "

Or, in my own words, coating a roach with chocolate still won't change the fact that you were given a roach to eat.
Now, some of you are fine with eating roach, that is your prerogative, me I want my choice of deserts as was advertised before i bought this game.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

To paraphrase a quote Joe Ambercrombie (fantasy / science fiction author in case you don't know), in regards to Mass Effect 3's ending, "If the spike of a skyscraper is wonky because of poor foundation, giving the skyscraper a shinier, newer spike will not change anything. "

Or, in my own words, coating a roach with chocolate still won't change the fact that you were given a roach to eat.
Now, some of you are fine with eating roach, that is your prerogative, me I want my choice of deserts as was advertised before i bought this game.

Absolutely.
Variety in the endings-real variety.
Meaning to the endings, things prefaced within the games not something made up on the spot or as BearlyHere put it the timeworn shaggy god and deus ex ending.
Real fight with real meaning-a fight against extinction.  This stupid ending it like a whimper.  Oh, please mr. spacekid, don't ascend us.  Give me a break.  These are people fighting to exist and specifically one person who's been tasked with achieving that goal for them.  Where's the inner Krogan?

[Voodoo-j]

I wonder if they have any news for E3.

[Voodoo-j]

Looks like EA has a conference tomorrow..
http://e3.gamespot.c...nference/ea-e3/

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 03 juin 2012 - 05:15 .

[3DandBeyond]

Voodoo-j wrote...

Looks like EA has a conference tomorrow..
http://e3.gamespot.c...nference/ea-e3/

Might be interesting.

[Archonsg]

Not really, you know they'll screen anyone with anything negative to say, surrounding themselves with cheering "yes man" fans.

Sort of happened at PAX East, where I was expecting the audience to be sombre and would ask the Bioware Panel hard questions, instead I saw mostly cheering zombies.

Modifié par Archonsg, 03 juin 2012 - 05:45 .

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

Not really, you know they'll screen anyone with anything negative to say, surrounding themselves with cheering "yes man" fans.

Sort of happened at PAX East, where I was expecting the audience to be sombre and would ask the Bioware Panel hard questions, instead I saw mostly cheering zombies.

Actually, now that you say that, you are right and one of the things we've had real problems with here-no real dialogue between the company and fans, but stacked events with cheering sections.  PAX East was a cheerfest when they proclaimed they wouldn't change the ending.  They could have used the money from that (payoff?) to help fix the ending.

[BlueStorm83]

--- So, everyone. What do you think the Extended Cut will say? Like, they say it'll be explanations. What are they explaining? What about the ending might we not understand? Because it all seems pretty straightforward to me. I'll begin at the Starboy Elevator, list some things that make no sense, and give what I think their explanation may be. Then I'll point out why that explanation is irrelevant, because even the explanation makes no sense. I'll do the first 5 I can think of, and leave TONS for you all to jump in on.

1) Who is the Starboy? What we know now: he created and controls the reapers. Explanation EC may give us: He may have been the first Synthetic AI to destroy his creators, and then realize his mistake, and come to a solution where he "saves" organics by storing their genetic data in a Reaper. After all, an AI is the same in a body OR on a Flash Drive, right? Reason it doesn't matter: It replaces the antagonists at the last second, and reduces them to Trash Mobs or Random Encounters in an RPG, and then we give in to the enemy, instead of destroying him. Breaks Player Immersion.

2)How can he realize that he has more options, but not do them on his own? What we know now: He says he can't do them on his own. Explanation EC might give us; he has new data, but the same programming. He only has 2 settings, Make People Soup, and wait a little while before making People Soup. Why the Explanation is irrelevant: He is still the villain, and we have an ingrained need to defeat him; if not for what he may do in the future, at least for punishment for what he did in the past. If you kill my family, God may forgive you, but he WON'T save you from me unless he gives me a heart attack. Breaks Shepard Immersion.

3: Where did the Crucible Originate? What we know now: At least 200 cycles (two million years) ago, perhaps many many more. Explanation the EC may give us: Unknown. It could not have been designed by the first organics who created the Starboy, as Vendetta states the Catalyst was included in the design cycles after the original creation of the plans. Reason any explanation is irrelevant: It still reduces a galactic conflict to one man making one of 3 bad decisions in an isolated room, and removes the importance of anything you did previously. Even if your EMS does change the outcome, it does not feel that way while the encounter is happening. I did not realize the EMS connection until the internet told me. Breaks Shepard Immersion, Player Immersion, and Suspension of Disbelief.

4) Why does the Starboy bring Shepard up to his throne room at all? What we know now: He just kinda does, then congratulates Shepard for being the first organic to make it there. He later says that the crucible changed him. Explanation the EC may give us: The Crucible has remade the core programming of the Catalyst to make him more understanding, and he now sees the reapers as evil. Despite the Reapers still killing Organics. And Geth. Why any Explanation is irrelevant: If the Catalyst realizes that his solution will not work anymore, due to the introduction of the Catalyst, why is he still carrying out the Solution? Breaks Player Immersion, breaks Shepard Immersion, breaks Suspension of Disbelief, breaks Core Game Narrative.

5) Why does Shepard have no option to object, debate, or attempt to destroy the Starboy who has just admitted that he basically IS the Reapers? What we know now: Shepard is wounded and tired after the trek here. What the EC may explain: Shepard knows his injuries are most likely fatal, and he/she wants to end the battle while he's sure that he can, before dying and leaving it up to chance. Why this explanation is irrelevant: HE IS SHEPARD. Shepard has faith in his allies. Shepard does not give in to compromise. Shepard looks for other options. Shepard hates the Reapers. Shepard would die trying before caving to the enemy's whims. Breaks MASS EFFECT.

That's not all that's wrong, or how the EC may try to explain it, but I've left lots for you all to add to the discussion.

[LiarasShield]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

---  The problem with BioWare asking for fan input for Dragon Age 3 is that BioWare doesn't understand that many people who are outraged over Mass Effect 3 (not just the ending, but also the Mandatory Multiplayer, and the From Ashes Day One ON THE DISC Fiasco) are not interested in buying anything from them any time soon.

BioWare might have learned their lesson here.  They might make Dragon Age 3 their best game ever.  But for me, it's too late.

Imagine this.  I'm married.  I LOVE my wife; absolutely nuts about her.  We've got the perfect life.  Then one day while I'm at work, her ex boyfriend Manly McHero, an Army Ranger who used to be my best friend and who was presumed dead, shows up at the door.  In a flood of emotion and grief and whatever else, what was originally supposed to be a friendly reunion goes too far and they wind up in bed.  When I get home they're both ashamed, they tell me what happened, they're so so sorry, they want to die, he's going to lead a life of poverty and pennance, she swears she'll never do it again.  Maybe they are sorry.  Maybe they mean everything they say.  Even if they DO everything they say to me, that doesn't change what happened.  I loved the both of them; but now it's TOO ****ING LATE.

That's where this is for me, concerning BioWare.  It's too ****ing late.  My dissatisfaction with them began with playing Dragon Age Origins, getting my Dwarf Commoner Murin out of Orzamar, finding a dog, and finally making camp for the first time.  And there's some guy in my camp who needs my help!  And when I pick "Accept Quest" it takes me to a GODDAMN DLC PURCHASE PAGE.  What??? 

ON THE DISC IS AN NPC WHO WANTS TO SELL ME DLC.

Yep.  Dragon Age Origins was a MARVELOUS game to me in every other way.  The only thing I felt the ending lacked was that I couldn't get Alistair and that princess whatever, Kern Rogaine's daughter together.  I really do believe that with ALL my roleplaying, and all my emphasis on "just trust me and it always works out" that those two couldn't just give it a shot.  But that's a minor point, even in reality people don't listen to me no matter how right I am.

After that, Dragon Age: Origins sequel was actually "Dragon Age Sidestory: Revenge of some Action Game with a complete Douche as a main character, with same sex party members where your only option is flirt with them or have them hate you."  Nothing against gays; but I'm not gay and I can have gay friends who I do NOT flirt with.  I accept them as gay, they accept me as STRAIGHT, and that's that.  More important, the strategic combat became BULL**** button mashery with enemies that spawn behind randomly mid fight, so **** any sense of strategic positioning.  **** it right out the window on prom night.

Then From Ashes.  "Don't worry, it's not a major part of the story, it's just a little flavor!"  BULL****.  There are more NPCs in the game that react uniquely to Javik than there are to any other character.  "It wasn't ready when the game went to disc!"  BULL****.  It's ON the Disc.  "It was made by different people!"  BULL****.  It's integrated into the game, meaning the same people who put it all together had to put this together with it all. 

"Multiplayer will be a different way to get the best ending.  You can get the same endings by completely ignoring Multiplayer!"  TRUE!  In that ALL THE ENDINGS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, BARRING COLORS AND AROUND 5% OF THE FOOTAGE.  However, there's the ONLY good thing about any ending: that Shepard may not die senselessly in a monumentally pointless and stupid way.  Therefore...  BULL****.

"People don't understand the ending!"  BULL****.  We understand it.  We understand it better than you do.  Starboy says "SYNTHETICS ALWAYS REBEL AGAINST AND KILL THEIR CREATORS!!!"  FACT: The Geth did not rebel against the Quarrians.  The Quarrians overreacted to Geth developing a very simplistic networked intelligence.  The Geth were even submitting to their own destruction until Quarrians started killing OTHER QUARRIANS who wanted to defend the Geth.  FACT:  The Geth, now truly intelligent, accept the Quarrians as their creators and VOLUNTEERED to return to their original role as helpers, only now as equals, not as servants.  People UNDERSTAND that the Ending is FORCED upon us by A FALSE PREMISE which OUR SHEPARDS would never EVER believe.  He's Commander Shepard, not COMMANDED SHEEP.

"People say it's too sad!"  BULL****!  I say that the ending isn't SAD ENOUGH!  I was full on prepared to have an ending where ONLY Shepard survives.  ALL of his allies die in the line of duty.  The Normandy is scrap, Joker's shattered body is lying lifeless in the wreckage, and the last one to die is my beloved (LOVE INTEREST NAME HERE) who has massive internal injury and chokes to death on her own blood in my arms.  Earth is a charred wreck, everyone he cares about is dead, but dammit, we saved the galaxy, and we did it on our own terms.

"It's Artistic!"  Yeah, it's artistic.  Once you do something creative, it's art.  The Mona Lisa (La Giaconda as it's actually titled by DaVinci) is art.  That jar full of ****** and a cricifix is art too.  Guess which one is more valuable?  The one that people LIKE.  Art doesn't occupy some sacred space that's immune to people's reactions.  Ever hear the term "Starving artist?"  Know where that came from?  Here's some history
In the reniassance, Artists had to find rich men to pay them for their art.  Be it music, sculpture, painting, bronze work, whatever.  Your Parton would pay for your materials, he would pay for your shop, he would buy your art, and he would advertise you to his other wealthy well respected friends.  Know why he did that?  Because he liked your art.
But what if nobody liked your art?  Then you didn't get supplies.  You didn't get a workshop.  You didn't get advertisements.  You didn't sell your art.  You didn't get any money.  You lived in a shack or an abandoned building, much like a drug addict would, and you survived on scraps or charity or theft.  If you were as bad at stealing, scavenging, and begging as you were at art, then you STARVED TO DEATH.
BioWare, I do not deny that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is art.  The whole game is art.  It's actually art made of the culmination of thousands upon thousands of lesser pieces of art.  However, the ending is not enjoyed by many of your Patrons.  And some of us have already begun withdrawing our advertising, deciding to not buy your new pieces, and withdrawing funding from your workshop.
Art can be changed!  If Michelangelo originally carved David with a gigantic penis on his forehead, and his Patron (THE POPE) didn't like that, he could say, "Michelangelo!  Take up your chisel and remove from David's brow that pendulous SCHLONG!"  Michelangelo could say "No, your Holiness!  THIS IS ART!"  Or he could chisel that dick off, and remain a famous, rich man.  All we're saying is that your otherwise FABULOUS work of art has an unnecessary penis hanging off its forehead.  Grab your chisel and make it nice, and we'll let you in on our next project.  P.S., we hope you like painting ceilings!

---  WHEW, that was long.

Oh!  About 10 pages ago, one of the Salarians said that SOMEONE had suggested in the game that there might be an intelligence controlling the reapers, but he didn't know who.  I DO!

That was Vendetta, the Prothean AI.  He said that on Thessia.  He said that it was only his belief, and that the presence of another Master of the Cycles was only something that he presumed, but had never observed.

Far be it from me to question Vendetta, but that's a hell of a presumption, since there's NO evidence of it.  Especially since the Reapers have already claimed that they do the Cycles because that- well, they just do, and **** anyone who wants to know why.

Yup can't stop agreeing

[LiarasShield]

[quote]LiarasShield wrote...

[quote]BearlyHere wrote...

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

[quote]Redbelle wrote...

Aaaw, I liked that Mordin died........Ok, I didn't mean I 'liked Mordin died'. I mean I liked what he died for. Playing my paragon character the Tchunka mission saw Mordin hell bent on curing the genophage due to what I thought was his close relationship to Eve. But in my Renegade paythrough where Wrex is dead and the other Krogan is in charge, and Eve dies because I didn't save the genophage cure data in ME2 Mordin cracks and yells, 'I made a mistake'. I was then able to save him by essentually pointing out that with Wrex, the progressive leader dead. And with Eve, the calming influence on the new leadership dead, curing the genophage was likely to result inanother Krogan rebellion and Mordin said thanks for the perspective and didn't cure the genophage......... and lived....

Can I just say.......... Wow. Whoever wrote the pathways of how that scene plays out through the past choices of ME 1 and 2 deserves a medal.[/quote]

Yes, Mordin's story is my favorite of the game.  He's so flawed, but so wants to fix it.  Sorry, this really obviously was just tongue in cheek.

[/quote]

I was going to post that link to the definition of a shaggy god story, so I'm glad you beat me to it. I don't think I agree about Assassins' Creed 2 though.  But the shaggy god is as big of a cliche as the hero dies to save the world.

I didn't even know there was a way for Mordin to live until a friend sent said his uber renegade did it and sent me a link to another on Youtube. My renegade was able to get Wrex to back down (I'm sure a headbutt was invloved), so he had confidence in Wrex's leadership. He just couldn't go along with the dalatress's lie either. My paragon talked Wrex down and saved the genophage data, so in her world Wrex and Eve are the Krogan power couple. He told her at the end that she was already pregnant.

Does anyone know if you can find out who wrote particular characters or missions? Some of the writing is sublime, like Turchanka and Rannoch, and some of it is a shaggy god wrapped up in a diaper that hasn't been changed in a week, like the ending.



Yet what did we really save most of earth is destroyed our entire fleets is trapt around our damaged solar system by the reapers and our loyal squad and crew we had for all three games just diched us and said f you all to the entire galaxy?


I just want a ending where we can really beat the reapers and not give into the catalyst wether we truely beat them or not could be decided on ems and then show how our actions and alliances that we forged play a decent role in the end

[Motherlander]

I have a comment on artistic integrity.

Margaret Thatcher once said something like:

"Telling people you are poweful is the same as telling people you are a lady. If you have to say you are; then you aren't."

I think the same is true of art. If you have to tell people something is art, then it probably isn't.

[Blairian]

Motherlander wrote...

I have a comment on artistic integrity.

Margaret Thatcher once said something like:

"Telling people you are poweful is the same as telling people you are a lady. If you have to say you are; then you aren't."

I think the same is true of art. If you have to tell people something is art, then it probably isn't.

I agree whole heartedly. EA and Bioware released a game that broke promises and really broke a lot of well-placed rules in storytelling. I've been a published author since the age of 18, I've had a lot of time to learn about what goes into a good story; Bioware, I'm honest because I love you: That ending was a load of crap. Change the whole thing or don't bother. That's not an opinion; even liturature professors will tell you that your ending violates the rules of the storytelling formula you began, and that's a fact. You can't defend yourself against the truth; your fans are smarter than that.

[Landon7001]

just wanted to mention ive found yet another plot contradiction,albiet a small one....when talking to bailey on the citadel he says he killed executor palin some time ago, yet in the seconadry codez under attempted citadel coup it says executor palin and some salarians caught wind of udinas plans.....ok??

[3DandBeyond]

Landon7001 wrote...

just wanted to mention ive found yet another plot contradiction,albiet a small one....when talking to bailey on the citadel he says he killed executor palin some time ago, yet in the seconadry codez under attempted citadel coup it says executor palin and some salarians caught wind of udinas plans.....ok??

These are the warts that pop up to the surface that might otherwise be overlooked.  It's like noticing a blemish or pimple on your face-you see one and then all you start to see are pimples. 

[Holger1405]

daveyeisley wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

daveyeisley wrote...

While I still firmly assert that 4000 EMS is simply and completely impossible without multiplayer to boost readiness

It's not only a assertion, it's a fact.

The EMS issue is my greatest problem with ME3, still imho it doesn't mean that the game prefers Renegade actions. The difference between Paragon action and the Renegade Action is only 70 Points here. The most important Paragon action, making peace between the Quarians and the Geth, awards you with over 500 points more than the Renegade action.    

 

Back after a major PC repair that had me offline for almost a week.

One quibble with the above is that the decision to make peace is not solely a Paragon outcome. Those extra points can be gained by a renegade who sees the benefit of having both fleets intact and simply makes the quarians (mainly Han Gerrel) back down by threatening them with destruction at the hands of the Geth upgraded by Legions 'direct personality dissemination'.

Renegades can get the exact same points as Paragons in that situation, however, paragons cannot obtain the same points as Renegades in my previous example.

True, but this is part of the nature of things. A full Paragon is "bound" to high moral standards, a Renegade can do whatever he sees fit. 

Her is a list of the decisions that gave you the best EMS outcome:
www.rarityguide.com/articles/articles/1870/1/Mass-Effect-3-War-Assets-Guide/Page1.html

imho they are balanced all over.

[3DandBeyond]

Let me see how the world and words evolve.

Artistic is now defined as something the creator says is art.
Optional is now defined as required (as in MP is optional, the DLC is all optional).
Intellectual is now defined as something that can be understood (even if you don't want to understand it) but is nonsense and abhorrent, repugnant and juvenile.

Along with this, we are now treated to the idea of what constitutes a threat. A threat may now be defined (and worthy of reporting to media sources) as stating one will no longer purchase a product from a company that has failed to deliver what a customer feels they were promised or selling what a customer just does not like. So, in fact we are cannot say, "I don't like your product. Unless you fix it, I will never buy anything from you again" because that's a threat. CH says it is.

In all this wonderful rhetoric being lobbed at fans, apparently no one there has sought help from any PR firm or has ever taken CS training. I've worked CS and have a close relative with PR training-this ain't helping.

They need to really stop approaching this as an adversarial relationship. And stop talking to media sources-talk directly to fans. I will say this again-if you have a disagreement with someone, the best thing you can do is talk to them and not about them to others. And stop trying to prove your point to others-the people finding fault most want to like you and love and buy your games again. The other people think you will give them free stuff.

[lerpumpkinzero]

First of all, she.

Second.

What I really need from the EC is variety in the endings. I'm not asking for something happy or something bleak or something romantic. I don't need Shepard to live.
The original endings remind me of a bad madlib. The crucible shot out a (insert color) beam and (insert verb) all synthetic life... The changes between each one was so small and because there was so little variety, each ending seemed insignificant.
Huh, wow. That's a much shorter explanation than my previous post...

As for artistic integerity, some art is executed very well, and other art is executed very poorly. Both are art. One sucks. The other doesn't. Being "artists" does not exempt Bioware from bad execution, the bad execution being the storytelling and what's shown in each ending sequence.

ALSO, I really can't accept Mass Effect as just art, in the sense of it only being fine art. If you do fine art and no one understands it, that's okay, because it's fine art. It's personal and it doesn't matter if no one else understands or gets the message. Mass Effect is commercial, and can also be considered art at the same time, in the same way that some people might consider illustration art, even though it is not the same as fine art. Mass Effect MUST be understood in order to be successful. The trilogy must end with acceptable clarity, which it seems due to the enormous backlash, it did not. Whether people are upset about the stories of the endings or the lack of variety of the endings, the message given was not clear (out of left field theme, little closure on the universe ((same as bluestorm83 said about wanting more explantions)), too open). The endings did not really conclude the series. The message of it was lost because of bad execution. Mass Effect is not fine art. Bioware can't get away with the audience not understanding the message that was given.

I want to clarify that when I say "understand" I don't mean that the audience did not understand what the Catalyst was telling Shepard or the ending sequences and what was happening in them. We could all clearly see that the reapers flew away because they were controlled, or exploded, so on and so on. We all understood what was going on, but the "artistic" message of the series was lost. Some could not accept the explanation given by the Catalyst, others felt the ending was not at all true to the Shepard character (and I can sort of agree, renegade or paragon), and without the variation in each ending, a lot of people did not feel the need to replay, or at least not as much as they did with the previous two games in this series. I think that means the endings, and perhaps other flaws in the game as well, failed to present Mass Effect in the way that the creators intended to. Their intention was lost, hence, misunderstanding.

To make a long story short, I'll reiterate what I said a few paragraphs up. Artistic integrity does not, and should not, be an excuse for bad execution.

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

True, but this is part of the nature of things. A full Paragon is "bound" to high moral standards, a Renegade can do whatever he sees fit. 

Her is a list of the decisions that gave you the best EMS outcome:
www.rarityguide.com/articles/articles/1870/1/Mass-Effect-3-War-Assets-Guide/Page1.html

imho they are balanced all over.

The problem is, Holger, you've tried to claim other things for a full Paragon.  You stated that a full Paragon could choose to kill the geth and EDI, but that is not in keeping with high moral standards.  A full Paragon will be told in London by EDI that s/he helped EDI become alive.  A full paragon helps give life to the geth, who were the injured parties in the geth/quarian conflict.  And a full paragon repeatedly throughout 3 games makes statements saying you don't sacrifice some here to save others over there.  If you choose to say something different you do not get paragon points.

But, you've claimed your paragon could decide upon destroy because it saves some-but then that isn't what a paragon would do-a paragon would look for another way and not find it in any of the choices.  A renegade might find a choice, but not because of doing just whatever he sees fit.  A renegade picks the fastest, easiest choice with little forethought-they can turn out to seem more evil or less nice, but often it's really to just get things done. 

And the only reason the EMS is as you say balanced is because of the poor job done in clearly making some choices have more impact than they do.

Case in point-the collector's base.  Save it or destroy it and it really doesn't matter that much.  But it should.  Saving it should mean Cerberus and TIM are way ahead.  Destroying it should means something different.  A lot of things are fairly even as far as the effect on EMS and where the real difference hits is if the player doesn't do much and doesn't get many war assets or if the player doesn't reach the magical "gasp" threshold.  Otherwise, most of the outcomes/choices mean the same thing.

[Void Of Humanity]

Thanks Chris for keeping us informed,

Favourite moments, with such an emotionaly powerful game far to many to mention, Legion & Tali, Geth History, the return of many a great character such as Grunt, thought he was a gonner but to see him return, well bought a Tear to a grown Mans Eyes, as did all of the Game/Games, Mordin's sacrifice as well, especialy when he starts to sing,

When i lost Jack in ME2, man was i a wreck, sounds daft but it effected me quite a bit, she was a powerful & intriguing character, left quite a hole,

As far as Smileys go, BRING EM ON! Love Smileys,

[3DandBeyond]

I'm going to state something again about happy endings. Having one does not mean you shouldn't still be able to get your dreary sad everyone dies ending, but...
at some point, hasn't Shepard suffered enough? How much is enough? Ok, I understand now. It isn't valid unless Shepard gives up any chance at a life and ends up a bloody messy pulp of human tissue laying in a heap amidst the cheers of those who survived-people much less deserving of survival.

I'm being sarcastic of course, but again how many of us in real life want some "unhappily ever after" ending, but we get a lot of it all throughout our lives. Why should our entertainment be infused with that gosh darn awfulness we all experience sometimes too often as we go along. There's a reason why happy ending blockbuster movies do better than tragic ending movies. People like them. So, really, when you say the only valid real true ending to Shepard should be one that forces him/her to sacrifice his/her life (a life Shepard never even had a chance to have), think about it.

This game already is as BearlyHere put it so well, a shaggy god story at the end.
It also has a deus ex machina ending.
Now, it needs to have a space Jesus ending as well?

Just how many cliches can one ending contain?

[Andy the Black]

Voodoo-j wrote...

I wonder if they have any news for E3.

Not sure if this has been brought up but it doesn't look like there will be a lot of info.
https://twitter.com/...119081931943936 

[3DandBeyond]

Andy the Black wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

I wonder if they have any news for E3.

Not sure if this has been brought up but it doesn't look like there will be a lot of info.
https://twitter.com/...119081931943936 

  indeed.

[Holger1405]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

True, but this is part of the nature of things. A full Paragon is "bound" to high moral standards, a Renegade can do whatever he sees fit. 

Her is a list of the decisions that gave you the best EMS outcome:
www.rarityguide.com/articles/articles/1870/1/Mass-Effect-3-War-Assets-Guide/Page1.html

imho they are balanced all over.

The problem is, Holger, you've tried to claim other things for a full Paragon.  You stated that a full Paragon could choose to kill the geth and EDI, but that is not in keeping with high moral standards.  A full Paragon will be told in London by EDI that s/he helped EDI become alive.  A full paragon helps give life to the geth, who were the injured parties in the geth/quarian conflict.  And a full paragon repeatedly throughout 3 games makes statements saying you don't sacrifice some here to save others over there.  If you choose to say something different you do not get paragon points.

Please point me to the Post where I supposedly made this statement.

3DandBeyond wrote...
But, you've claimed your paragon could decide upon destroy because it saves some-but then that isn't what a paragon would do-a paragon would look for another way and not find it in any of the choices.  A renegade might find a choice, but not because of doing just whatever he sees fit.  A renegade picks the fastest, easiest choice with little forethought-they can turn out to seem more evil or less nice, but often it's really to just get things done. 

True, a full Paragon can't choose destruktion, but I already explained way I think that control is the Paragon choice.

3DandBeyond wrote...
And the only reason the EMS is as you say balanced is because of the poor job done in clearly making some choices have more impact than they do.

Case in point-the collector's base.  Save it or destroy it and it really doesn't matter that much.  But it should.  Saving it should mean Cerberus and TIM are way ahead.  Destroying it should means something different.  A lot of things are fairly even as far as the effect on EMS and where the real difference hits is if the player doesn't do much and doesn't get many war assets or if the player doesn't reach the magical "gasp" threshold.  Otherwise, most of the outcomes/choices mean the same thing.

I was referring to the balance between renegade and paragon choices regarding the EMS Points. I already said clearly that I think that the EMS System itself is bad balanced.

Modifié par Holger1405, 03 juin 2012 - 11:25 .

[BlueStorm83]

---  In a perfect world, Mass Effect 3 would not be out for another two years.  It would be at least twice the size.  For every character that you kept alive in Mass Effect 2 you would have a Guest Star mission, where you would go with them to a unique planet to follow up on something they found out, to help the war, before they left to give their own contribution.  If they died in ME2, you would instead find a DIFFERENT mission out there, something that had they survived they would have already taken care of on their own, validating multiple playthroughs with endings varying from the Everyone Lives to the absolute Train Wreck.

---  In this perfect world, we'd have 2 or 3 missions with James Vega before the main action of the game, to get a feel for how he fits in with the good old crew.  He was a good character, but too easily ignored to hang with old friends.

---  In that perfect world, you would have a special "Play as Kaiden" mission if he lived, or a totally different "Play as Ashley" if SHE lived mission.  Keep in mind, we already had a "Play as Joker" mission, so there IS precedent.  Difference would be that they would do all the dialogue themselves, we'd just take care of the combat.

---  In that same perfect world, the Train Wreck dead-shep ending from Mass Effect 2 would STILL let you play Mass Effect 3, only starring as a new character, I'll call him Mitch (Or Michelle) Connor.  The story would be that with Shepard dead, the Alliance pressured the council into inducting a new Human Specter.  And during Mitch's training, he'd be conveniently exposed to some prothean tech to allow him to interact with the beacon on Thessia.  Let's be honest, that beacon interactivity is really the only thing that only Shepard could have done.  Mitch would be handled differently by Anderson and Hackett than how they deal with Shepard.  Connor would constantly be going farther to prove himself, since they don't believe he can get it done the way Shepard could have.

---  In the perfect world, Mass Effect 3's Multiplayer would be truly optional, offering a "Multiplayer Only" ending where the characters you make in MP would be seen on the ground beating back reaper forces, on various planets simultaneously (36 characters in total so far!) as the fleets fought off reapers in space.  Single Player's endings would depend on everything you did up to and including the last mission, and truly be as varied as BioWare had promised.  Though made of little scenes, each varying depending on all the decisions you'd made, there would be WELL over 2304 varieties (only counting variables in who would live or die in ME2, Kaiden or Ashley, Shepard or Mitch Connor, Wrex alive or dead, and Genophage cured or not.  Multiply by 2 for every other either/or decision or possibility since the begining of ME1, then multiply by 6 to account for the final scene where Shepard kills Harbinger's brain using his class-specific abilities.)  Sure, my Wrex Alive, Genophage Cured scene would be the same as YOUR Wrex Alive, genophage cured scene, but mine was prefaced by the Malon alive scene, wherein before your Wrex scene, since you killed Malon, you just saw the Aria T'loak retaking Omega scene.

---  In that very same perfect world, I'd then spend up to and well over 200 dollars for three to five years of DLC for Mass Effect, because it would have been everything I'd been waiting for. 

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 03 juin 2012 - 11:32 .

[akenn312]

I just played through the ending again just to see if your squadmates actually run down with you to get to the beam and sure enough, I turn around and see Garrius and Ash are right behind me. This has probably been talked about before but that's just crazy they didn't notice this. This is on Xbox360 not modded by a PC.

Try it yourself, when you get halfway down your squad will appear behind you and stay with you until you get blasted with the beam, you can even walk backwards looking right at them and still get blasted with the beam. Then poof they are gone.  

This was actually left in the game, people can defend the ending all they want saying we got more than we deserved but  proof like this says we should have had better ending and have a right to say so. 

Here is the pic, sorry it's blurry but i just snapped it quickly with an iPhone. 



So now there is proof your squadmates are right behind you when you get blasted so that means they should have been dead or survived just like Anderson. Bioware meant for your squadmates to run down with you. So them being on the Normandy is not just a slight plot hole it's just bad development and writing. They just missed this completely and didn't bother to correct it. 

Honestly I hope Bioware takes as much time as it needs to fix this. EC really needs to be just an all out effort to fix all of the story and game mechanic mistakes. They can PR all day and say they are just clarifying but they really need to change stuff like this. Why they didn't double check or think we would be too dumb to notice these things is beyond me. This is their fault not the fans speaking up about it. 

Modifié par akenn312, 03 juin 2012 - 11:58 .