23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Archonsg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Andy the Black wrote...

Well, of course there are consequences, not as many as one hoped for the ending as it is, but I'm referring to the hypothetical 'Shepard lives' chioce. I feel that if such a choice was given to the player that it should have a heavy price attached to it, such as the death of a LI or the near annihilation of the galactic fleet. I feel giving players a 'free' Shep lives choice, even if it's only for those who got max ems, would somehow cheepen said chioce and that Shep's final choice in the game should be the hardest.

Also, I agree there should be a ' the reapers win' ending. Hell, if I had my way there would be a 'the reapers win go back and play the whole trilogy again 'till you get it right' ending .

Yes, I agree with that if the ending was really well done and decisions and all mattered-if you messed up that bad, then there's no easy do over. 

And I agree as to consequences.  I do think as it is there's no corollary between things you do and what can happen, other than really bad and supposedly, gasp, good.

MP shouldn't matter as far as EMS and EMS should really have points for war assets that relate to things in some meaningful way.  It should be the quality of choices and not just how much stuff you found while avoiding the reaper tag game.  Why for instance are some things like whole teams of people worth the same as or just a little more than one person?  There's no rhyme or reason for the war asset amount given per asset and I really hate the whole EMS thing anyway.

I keep saying it, but why for instance once you get a certain EMS score, does it say you have an even chance of winning?  I've said it before, if that's the case then I'd rather take my chances there than make any choice out of the 3.

There is another aspect of EMS that should have been implemented in the game but wasn't. Why only in Multi-player can one effect such a huge jump in EMS? And Why ONLY in Multi-player can one effect Galactic readiness? 
There should have been ways for BOTH MP and SP to effect your EMS but no,  due to the money grabbing nature of wanting to sell Equipment Packs, they made sure ONLY MP has the real means to bump up your EMS score up the wazoo. 

If multi-player wasn't the focus of the Mass Effect series, then there should have been ways and means for the Single-player campaign to improve Galactic Readiness and to "gather" (or farm/grind if you prefer that term) EMS.
It wasn't and there isn't. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 09 juin 2012 - 08:38 .

[BlueStorm83]

---      

---  That's the final scene from the "Lavos Ending" of Chrono Trigger.  To get the Lavos Ending, all you have to do is engage in battle witht he boss of the game, which can be done from multiple points throughout the game or from LITERALLY any point in the game if you're on a second playthrough.  And then you have to lose.  You get treated to a scene of the future, the year NINETEEN NINTEY NINE!  Lavos erupts from the ground, and rains fire and death upon the Earth.  You watch 16 bit cities crumble, people run in fear, and then you get the smoky, gray charred Earth pictured above.

That's kinda dark and depressing, especially fora  SNES game that came out in 1995.  Of course, there are more endings.  More upbeat endings. 
One ending has the main character marry his 16 bit, never really fleshed out love interest.
Another is a glorified Credits Reel with humorous interaction by 3 VERY minor NPCs in the background.
A third ends with two robots in love.

There's many more, based on how you've changed the timelines based on when and how you defeat Lavos.  One ending even puts you in The End of Time where you can chat with NPC versions of the people who made the game!

IN NINETEEN NINETY FIVE, in a non-decision based, non-free roaming, scripted, linear, story driven JAY ARR PEE GEE (Japanese Role Playing Game) we had fifteen endings.  Or thirteen endings, there are two sets of endings that have more or fewer people in them depending on HOW you get to the endgame boss.

In Mass Effect, even if you count the Breath scene as a separate ending, even if you multiply by two to include the Buzz Aldrin scene, there are 14 variations of endings.  14 in Mass Effect 3, all nearly identical.  Or 15 in Chrono Trigger, only 2 pairs nearly identical, one where the world is destroyed, one where the main characters marry, one where a Frog fights a wizard to the death, one where that same wizard avenges his family in a palace under the ocean, another where you talk to the game makers, another one where you accidentally **** up time and can replay the entire game again but where Humanity has been replaced by a scaly prehistoric lizard race called Reptites, ANOTHER ending where a little boy goes to challenge the leader of the fiend army... only to claim victory after we've already killed him...  Oh, and I discounted a few minor changes that happen in an ending or two where Glenn's regained his human form or not, Magus is there or he's DEAD, Lara's standing up or she's paralysed from the waist down...  You know, variables that depend on WHAT WE DID.

Seventeen years later, BioWare poops the bed.  And then rolls in it.  And then hangs the sheet (that's covered in... sheet) for all to see and claims its their masterpiece.  And we just don't understand how artistic the sight (and smell) is.

[3DandBeyond]

Wow, 1995. That's actually pretty impressive, but then also depressing, sort of. I've played a lot of games in my time and I know there were others that had some different endings based on what you did and they were pretty linear games (ME3 ends up being just as linear as any other).

As for the points Archonsg makes, one thought which I know he's brought to light is they said the endings would be due to our choices in the game. We know they really aren't, in fact. You don't have to really care about the choices in order to even get the "gasp" ending. As we've discussed you can just play a lot of MP and promote a lot of teams to get a high enough EMS. So, you don't have to search for war assets or even make all of the decisions in the game-just do the bare necessities.

So, your decisions don't matter because all roads lead to Rome (I mean all roads lead to the exact same crazyville), and your decisions don't matter because you don't even have to make all of them.

[BlueStorm83]

---  Comparing ME3 to Chrono Trigger there just got me thinking of the characters of Chrono and Shepard.  In a way, they were both blank slates.  Chrono due to being a silent JRPG protagonist upon which we could project ourselves, but Shepard was more like a lump of clay for us to mold.

At the begining of Mass Effect 1, they created a universe and characters. 
Garrus Vakarian is Male.  He lives on The Citadel.  He is a failed C-Sec officer.  He wants to protect the innocent, with tendencies to go beyond the law.  He is Heterosexual.  He is unmarried.  That was set in Canon.

Liara T'soni is an Asari.  Asari are female Pansexuals.  She is Blue.  She is an Archaeologist.  Her Mother is Matriarch Benezia.  Liara researches Protheans.  That was set in Canon.

Hannar are kinda Echo-y.  They're Pink and Shimmering.  They are funny, without trying to be.  They worship Enkindlers.   That was set in Canon.

But then Shepard.  What's Canon about Shepard?  Not much.  Shepard is an amorphous blob.  No assigned gender.  No assigned history.  No assigned sexuality.  No assigned specific abilities.  Shepard is Extra-Canonical.

Absolutes about Shepard: Shepard fights battles.  Shepard carries guns.  Shepard does not give in due to fatigue or injury.

As the games progressed, new content was occasionally Created, but anything surrounding the Canon was not created but rather made.  Liara's father was revealed to be another Asari, as supported by current Canon.  That fater was revealed to be a matriach bartender, as supported by current canon.  Garrus' moving to Omega brought out his lore extra-legal tendencies, as supported by current canon.  Blasto the Jellyfish was introduced, based on the Hanar being kinda funny, but not on purpose.  Canon. 
OCCASIONALLY something was created that bordered non-canon, but they tried to explain it away with Canon.  We'd seen Cerberus' experiments on a small scale, we knew they were rich and Amoral in ME1.  In ME2, when Shepard was revived by them, it stretched the Canon, but they said "It took them two years, with Supertechnology, and an insane budget.  This was not easy to do.  It was a Technological, Medical Miracle."  We accepted, some grudgingly, but it entered into Canon: Cerberus can do shocking things like reanimate the dead, over long periods of time, with ludicrous amounts of money.
At the end of Mass Effect 2, the Human Reaper was introduced.  Again, Canon was stretched.  But we knew the Collectors worked for the Reapers, we knew that the Reapers had use of Organics for some cause, and it makes sense that things must reproduce themselves.  Canon was stretched, as I said, but did not snap.  It was explained away: the Reapers don't just kill people, they use them for various evil means.  Either mindless soldiers like the Collectors or Husks, or to become framework for another of their kind.  Their Unknowable purpose became a little more clear, but the Stealthy Abductions could go on indefinitely, making new reapers slowly and stealthily, so there's still no clear reason for total galactic extinction every fifty thousand years.  Canon Snap avoided.

The Crucible was created for Mass Effect 3.  It was not the extrapolation of existing Canon.  But that's FINE: it didn't run against Canon either.  There was no mention of Prothean Super Weapons before at all.  Nothing said "There can not be a Crucible!"  But then at the end, the Catalyst was also a creation.  Not that there WAS a Catalyst: that was said outright within the game.  Rather the NATURE and CHARACTER of the Catalyst.  And it did go against Canon.  The Reapers were unmade from their previous image.  The Cycles were unmade from their earlier image.  The Citadel was unmade from its earlier images (plural.)  The very nature of all conflict was unmade from its very image.  In the three choices, the Alliances I've made can be unmade from their images, the gameplay and choice system are unmade from their images, and all life can be unmage from its various images.  Shepard, in reaction (or lack of!) was even unmade from his image.

Shepard before that was Odo from Star Trek DS9: he could fit ANY shape or situation.  Then suddenly he's stuck in human form, and unlike Odo, he stubs his toe and SHATTERS like glass.

The End is not time to create.  The Begining is time to create.  Again I'm gonna get a little Biblical.  "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."  I'm sure that no matter what you believe, you've at least heard that.  If you're an Athiest, replace "God" with "Coincidence" or "Eventuality," or "The Higgs Boson," or even "I'm not sure, but apparently something."  The point is WHEN.  In the Begining, Things got CREATED.  After that, all that's happened is that things combine and make new things.  "Hey bro, check it out, I've got some Hydrogen!"  "Cool buddy, I've got Oxygen!  OH SNAP, WE PUT THEM TOO CLOSE TOGETHER!!!"  "Whoa, dude, I think we just made the basis for all life!  SWEET!"  All the way up to "Hey bro, if we make pathways for electrons on these silicon chips with varying resistances, we could create a system to preserve data electronically and transmit it to a visual medium of liquid crystal bubbles held between two films and represent it as light and color to simulate shapes and in that manner make a kick-ass third person shooter space RPG!"

You take what you have, and you make with it.  You don't create at the end.  Creating on a small scale in the middle is forgivable, since things aren't really fleshed out.  I mean, I look (again, sorry) to the Bible and I see Moses parting the Dead Sea.  How'd he do that?  That's the Cerberus Lazarus Project moment.  Just kinda gotta accept that with a stick that God gave him, Moses can make an ocean get out of his way, just roll with it, it's not that important to the overarching story and it makes for a sweet set piece.  Now at the end here, that kind of stuff isn't really happening because if it did people would be praying "Hey, this ending sucks, it doesn't make any sense!"

Point again being that the longer a story runs, the more confined by its own Canon it becomes, and the more Grievous breaking that Canon gets.  As the questions get whittled away and the answers stack up, there's always a tangible FEEL that the ending of the game is approaching.  I call that the Forgetting Point; traditionally as I feel the end of a game approaching, I scramble to do the side quests and then put off finishing the game, not wanting it to end.  Sometimes I forget to go back, for years occasionally, and then start from the begining.  A second first time through, if you will.  With Mass Effect 1, I didn't notice the Forgetting Point.  I was caught up in the action.  And when I realized I saved over my games while on Ilos and couldn't go back to free-roaming space sidequest mode, wasn't annoyed that I had to start over.  I had new options.  With Mass Effect 2, I also missed the forgetting point, but here I boned it up and thought that the standard "This is the end of the game" speech that Miranda and Jacob gave me meant to go do all my sidequests now, when they REALLY meant to end the game NOW or my crew would be ground up into Torgo's Executive Powder.  My first playthrough I had to watch Kelly get blendered.  I didn't go back and undo that ****-up; I used it as fuel to be even more brutal to my enemies on my SECOND playthrough.

Mass Effect 3 also doesn't have a Forgetting Point.  The attack on the Cerberus Base feels like it might be that "End of the Game Incoming" moment, but then it rushes you into London and that weird "Dialogue Bowl" base, and then the Conduit, and then... yeah.  And then we get new creations that slice the sides of the Canon and all the understanding runs out all over the floor, and you look for the moron Stock Boy who didn't read the stamps saying "Do Not Cut: Canon Inside" all over the box.  It's this weird moment that you get disconnected not just from what's happening now, but from everything that happened before.  And you're like, "What?"

Aside from the advertising lies, aside from the emotional disappointments, the ending really does a disservice to the rest of the work itself.  I mean, it was an impecable tower, each level built upon what went before.  Occasionally they tried to change the building materials, but at least reinforced those sections against failure.  Then at the top they used Sulfur instead of Bricks and instead of Mortar they used Napalm.  And for good measure put a big Magnifying Glass over it.

[3DandBeyond]

@BlueStorm83,
Great post. I do think all those points about canon are right on point. They specifically stated that nothing was canon, but of course we know some thing had to be canon. You had to defeat so and so and that was within the official line of the story. It was what you wanted to do. Shepard and Shepard's decisions were never supposed to be canon, but were limited in some ways at the end of ME1 and then ME2. But, no official way to end ME3 was or should have to take place, except as within a set variety, but that variety should have come naturally from those non-canon decisions.

If I chose to be a bastard and shoot everyone in my way, in a game where I was trying to become Pope, I should naturally not be able to become Pope. I shouldn't at the end get to pick a door labeled, "Become Pope Here."

Now, you could say what they actually did was because they decided to unmake the meaning of Paragon and Renegade, but I think they didn't know how to resolve Paragon and Renegade, so they ignored that aspect almost totally.

I think in not wanting to create canon (you must be Paragon and make Paragon choices here), they worked against their own and player's ideas. They didn't set some choices as being better made for either R or P in a real way, so the ending choices were pulled out of thin air. They actually should have decided in some disguised way that certain decisions were the better ones, but they hampered themselves by using that EMS scoring thing. That should never have existed.

Of course, I'm not dealing with the whole subject and "substance" of the choices, but the reason they exist at all. They set up a decision scoring system along the way with EMS, but then had to make it appear no decision was totally more correct than another. But they should be very different-one should be more correct.  The player just shouldn't know which one is better until the end. This is why the decision to save or destroy the collector base doesn't matter much, when it should. And, why other decisions may yield a bit more in war asset numbers, but it really ends up being so little difference that no matter what decisions you make, you can still get to become Pope, er the 3 choices and 3 outcomes. All that matters is you do make decisions, not the quality of the choices. And in quality I mean at some moments renegade is the more correct choice, at others, paragon is the right thing.

All of this is why that building you create BlueStorm, is one you thought you were building on a known foundation, when you really built it on quicksand. You were building it on bedrock, but the devs moved it at the last minute. And then that magnifying glass blew it up.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 09 juin 2012 - 03:38 .

[3DandBeyond]

That's the thing-reputation matters more than R and P. But, there is a clear reason why R and P should have meant something. Just like at the end of ME2-don't act quickly and Kelly is goo and Gabby is goo, basically if your name ends in "y" you are goo.

Now, that was more of a timing thing, but why wouldn't it make sense that at some point, cutting through the BS and making a quick decision can be a deciding factor. Who cares how many people know your name? Did you think one decision through thoroughly enough and then did you decide another thing quickly enough or do something else with more of a sense of urgency.

I know the game has never forced you to do too many things on a timer (you know, if you didn't defuse a bomb quickly enough you could do it over), but I'm not talking about a timer. I'm talking about certain things being important to getting other things done. You're constantly told that you must do something or get somewhere quickly, but it just does not matter.

There are some things that really require more information, but even if you don't choose the "further information" dialogue choice, it doesn't matter. And then the fact that at some points you really should just be ruthless and whether you are or not doesn't matter, makes r and p pointless.

And then the ending makes it all pointless, so...

[Voodoo-j]

MSandt wrote...


This just goes to show that what the haters are really pissed off at is that they didn't get a generic wimpy ending.

It's a good thing that they don't hire fans to review games. Professional reviewers have been very objective about the ending compared to all the rabid fans who post their emotional rantings on Youtube.

This goes to show how your ignorant.

An example of what you are stating:

If I go to buy a fast sports car because some high end magazine says it's the fastest thing on 4 wheels and turns on a dime, and the car in questions is a Buick Lacerne. (and the reviewer is not a someone who even owns a car, he is a waiter that takes the bus everywhere)

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

--

These are the type of bandwagon reviews that go to this game.  Any review that said the ending delivers has lost all respect to any gamer, I doubt anyone that plays games on any level would knowly read reviews from that company again, knowing what utter trash they had stated.

The game does deliver and the ending trashes it.

And you are completely ignorant that when ME3 came out, it is not just ME3 people bought.

It's a Bioware game with a history of a specific type of game play and endings they bought.
It's ME3 which follows ME 1 and 2.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

The fact that you say people who review games don't review them from a standpoint of a fan really shows how ignorant you are.

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

It's like going to a waiter in a resturant and asking him to look at a car you want to buy.

Your post is complete and utter fail.

Thats without going beyond what you are trying to say (your a hater and your gonna hate).
As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

So your post completely fails in more than one way.

[3DandBeyond]

Voodoo-j wrote...

MSandt wrote...


This just goes to show that what the haters are really pissed off at is that they didn't get a generic wimpy ending.

It's a good thing that they don't hire fans to review games. Professional reviewers have been very objective about the ending compared to all the rabid fans who post their emotional rantings on Youtube.

This goes to show how your ignorant.

An example of what you are stating:

If I go to buy a fast sports car because some high end magazine says it's the fastest thing on 4 wheels and turns on a dime, and the car in questions is a Buick Lacerne. (and the reviewer is not a someone who even owns a car, he is a waiter that takes the bus everywhere)

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

--

These are the type of bandwagon reviews that go to this game.  Any review that said the ending delivers has lost all respect to any gamer, I doubt anyone that plays games on any level would knowly read reviews from that company again, knowing what utter trash they had stated.

The game does deliver and the ending trashes it.

And you are completely ignorant that when ME3 came out, it is not just ME3 people bought.

It's a Bioware game with a history of a specific type of game play and endings they bought.
It's ME3 which follows ME 1 and 2.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

The fact that you say people who review games don't review them from a standpoint of a fan really shows how ignorant you are.

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

It's like going to a waiter in a resturant and asking him to look at a car you want to buy.

Your post is complete and utter fail.

Thats without going beyond what you are trying to say (your a hater and your gonna hate).
As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

So your post completely fails in more than one way.

And actually if the devs had only paid attention to folks on youtube and how they saw these games (before ME3's release), they would have discovered the emotional attachment and impact ot them and not departed from this aura the games had.

The ending in so many ways broke faith with fans.

And beyond what you said the impact of the ending affects not just 3 games but all the other purchases people made in anticipation of it-based upon the previous 2 games and what the devs said.

People that had ME1 and 2 on one platform, bought them for other game systems.  Some bought new PCs.  People bought the books, comics, and apps.  They may have gone back and created their "perfect" Shepard and played through ME1 and 2 at least twice to prepare for ME3.  And they waited 5 years for the culmination of events begun when Shepard first saw that strange ship we came to know as Sovereign. 

The fact that the devs took away any chance to satisfactorily conclude a fight to the death with monsters from some nightmare and imposed some childish ambiguous character on players is insulting in every possible way.  To players, fans, and even to the characters that had achieved some sort of real life to the fans.  Just like Shepard brought EDI to life, fans felt like they'd brought Shepard, and Liara, and Tali, and Garrus, and so on to life and that was all trashed in the end.  What a waste of all that "love" of the games and characters and all that potential.  They had true potential to make ME an epic franchise for all time.  With next gen consoles on the horizon and new forms of game interaction being explored all the time, they squandered a moment in time.  Imagine true virtual reality set in the ME universe, and you get what could have been.  Now, they may be reluctant to make ME type games and fans will certainly be reluctant to buy anything from them.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  I hate that saying, but it's true.

[Redbelle]

Does anyone know where the official thread for requesting new DLC went? I've been looking everywhere but can't find it.

Had the idea of a DLC that ties up that dark energy plot. It's was started so BW should finish it.......... like a Cadbury's creme egg.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

Does anyone know where the official thread for requesting new DLC went? I've been looking everywhere but can't find it.

Had the idea of a DLC that ties up that dark energy plot. It's was started so BW should finish it.......... like a Cadbury's creme egg.

The only ones I can find are unofficial ones.

[3DandBeyond]

This is a very good read on the nature of art in video gaming and ME.

http://whatculture.c...f-criticism.php

One of the best parts of this whole article:

"But I have faith, because – at the risk of sounding far too gooey – my
sole comfort throughout this disappointing period has been the voices of
debate, analysis and critique that I have found in the very fans
(amongst which I number myself) who have often been needlessly maligned
or categorised as whiners, people invested enough to be dissatisfied
with an inconclusive artwork, who still care enough to long for
something more. Ultimately, were it not for this collection of vibrant,
multifaceted voices, and the cathartic sharing and discussion that they
have provided, I know I would not have been able to do anything with my
disappointment besides ulcerate in fury."

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 09 juin 2012 - 07:58 .

[Redbelle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

This is a very good read on the nature of art in video gaming and ME.

http://whatculture.c...f-criticism.php

Finally saw the vid of that moriety guy the article talks about now I'm away from the work blocks.......... Is this guy for real? He is massively underinformed.

He's right that an ending should not ruin the entire project but it took me two and a half months to get back into the single player, and even so I'm playing it maybe once every two weeks......... ME2 had me caining it every day.

I think he's more worried about something other than changing the content of the games he scored. Hang on changing video game content? There's something about chaning the core content of a game and the relationship between the game and it's review which is on the tip of my tounge.

*Edit* My favourite part of his commentary is the how gameplay is percieved.

"In its simplest iteration: you see a turtle coming at you and you jump
on it (then you use its emptied shell as some sick trophy-weapon to
slingshot at its friends to massacre them too; really, how is this
mass-murdering plumber allowed to walk free?)"

Modifié par Redbelle, 09 juin 2012 - 08:09 .

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

This is a very good read on the nature of art in video gaming and ME.

http://whatculture.c...f-criticism.php

Finally saw the vid of that moriety guy the article talks about now I'm away from the work blocks.......... Is this guy for real? He is massively underinformed.

He's right that an ending should not ruin the entire project but it took me two and a half months to get back into the single player, and even so I'm playing it maybe once every two weeks......... ME2 had me caining it every day.

I think he's more worried about something other than changing the content of the games he scored. Hang on changing video game content? There's something about chaning the core content of a game and the relationship between the game and it's review which is on the tip of my tounge.

*Edit* My favourite part of his commentary is the how gameplay is percieved.

"In its simplest iteration: you see a turtle coming at you and you jump
on it (then you use its emptied shell as some sick trophy-weapon to
slingshot at its friends to massacre them too; really, how is this
mass-murdering plumber allowed to walk free?)"

I actually decided to look up some of Colin Moriarty's tweets and I'm now convinced of one thing-it's no wonder IGN and other "review" sites appear so dim.  He, well I can't say what he is.  He thinks because he went to college he is educated. Ugh.  I now see I will have to pay more attention to his reviews and opinion, so I can do the opposite or at least wait to see what fans say. 

The writer of the article was inspired. Colin Moriarty is the exact opposite.  He keeps talking about there being better ways to express discontent, but the only solution he offers is not to buy a game or content in the first place.  No wonder the end of the game makes sense to him.

[3DandBeyond]

Oh and stupid me, I just noticed the author of the piece is none other than Drayfish, one of the literary professors that has spoken up here. He's the author of the piece about the endings being thematically wrong.

[Bwaksson]

I haven't really gotten into the bashing of the ME3 ending, partly because I can't say it got to me that bad after I had calmed down (journey more important than the destination in this case IMO) and partly because I don't really think it'll lead anywhere. But I recently made another playthrough and found myself not bothering with playing beyond the start of catalyst's dialogue and just turning the game off. First time I didn't watch an ending, even counting those I know word for word.
While discussing this with a coworker in an unnamed publishing house on the ensuing Monday, I said, first as a joke:
"I think our editors would say 'great, but the ending needs to be done from scratch.'"
and afterwards realized it was true. They wouldn't accept the ending.
So I ask, vainly I suspect, the people at Bioware how many persons the endings needed to pass before being okayed? I suspect far too few.
The mass effect trilogy is an outstanding achievement by Bioware, well worth the time and money I've spent on it, but as far as I'm concerned it hasn't ended yet and I'm dejectedly certain it never will.

[3DandBeyond]

Bwaksson wrote...

I haven't really gotten into the bashing of the ME3 ending, partly because I can't say it got to me that bad after I had calmed down (journey more important than the destination in this case IMO) and partly because I don't really think it'll lead anywhere. But I recently made another playthrough and found myself not bothering with playing beyond the start of catalyst's dialogue and just turning the game off. First time I didn't watch an ending, even counting those I know word for word.
While discussing this with a coworker in an unnamed publishing house on the ensuing Monday, I said, first as a joke:
"I think our editors would say 'great, but the ending needs to be done from scratch.'"
and afterwards realized it was true. They wouldn't accept the ending.
So I ask, vainly I suspect, the people at Bioware how many persons the endings needed to pass before being okayed? I suspect far too few.
The mass effect trilogy is an outstanding achievement by Bioware, well worth the time and money I've spent on it, but as far as I'm concerned it hasn't ended yet and I'm dejectedly certain it never will.

Very interesting point of view to be sure.

My cousin is an editor of a prominent journal as well as other things/publications and has comments on this that match yours as well.  In fact, literary reviewers have decried it and even those that say they like it, really don't seem to like it all that much and they certainly don't "love" it.

You see, the view of many is that it robs the replayability.  If you played it and got a really bad ending (reapers win, say), you have incentive to play again.  Even if you played it and got some great victorious (non-ambiguous) ending, you might play it again to see if you can make it all unfold differently.

But above all that you need a clear reason for doing anything.  I for one feel stuck at having a wimpy Shepard forced into making decisions she never would, based upon things she couldn't believe.  She'd want (forgive me) clarity.  She'd demand to know why.  She'd reject the ignorance of it all.  Not finishing the game is the only rational choice.  But what does that say?

For me, and I know for you, endings do matter.  We've talked about it before and one person had a great pic that summed it all up.  The Titanic offered people a great journey, but oh what an ending.

I've played the game (all 3) through again, and I found that I was forcing myself to do it.  Unfortunately, the ending forces a feeling of hopelessness over the rest of what really were great things.  I feel horrible for making Mordin die because it means nothing.  I find the Mako missions tedious and unnecessary, because it all ends the same.  And so on.  I had originally created a lot of different Shepards (male and female and even scary looking) and figured they'd all have different experiences, personalities, and fates.  Funny, how that all evaporated.

[Archonsg]

@3dandbeyoind
@bluestorm83

First off great piece on what is "canon" in the ME universe. As pointed out, while there isn't a true "canon" as to what Shepard is, there are "strong guidelines" as to what s/he can be.

I think the reputation system came about because Bioware realised that for some, people are equating "Paragon" as the "good" guy, while "Renegade" as the "evil" guy.

Not entirely right.
Thus we have reputation. While they could have made it more transparent and made it go on a scale that includes negative value, its something I see Bioware came up because they want a morality system that is aside from Personality.

Clarification : Both the Paragon / Renegade values from my perspective is meant to denote Shepard's behaviour. Paragon for someone who asks the Question "Do I need to shoot this idiot, or is there a better way?" While Renegade would be "Effing Idiot, wants to play tag with a bullet, fine by me."

Also, the while Paragon can be inspiring, and the Renegade can be a total badass, the flip side would be that the Paragon without a firm grasp of "reality" would be naive and the Renegade without morality would be a sociopathic jerk.

There is also canon as to what Shepard believes in:
Paragon = Galactic Unity
Renegade = Pro-humans / Humans First / xenophobic

And again we see all this in ME1. Liara / Ashley romance and personalities originally allowed for this bi-polar play. Ashley was originally pro-humans but only came around if you romanced her and played as a Paragon, while if you went Renegade her prejudice against aliens in general becomes more pronounced.

Liara on the other hand would just be turned off I you make bigoted remarks.

This trend of Shepard's character was even more pronounced (though muddied a little, since he was essentially discarded by the Alliance) in ME2 where we see that Shepard is asked to side with Cerberus, a known organization with a bad history with Shepard himself.

So, going into ME3, they COULD HAVE MADE at least 4 very distinctive endings, just by going along with Paragon / Renegade / Reputation.

Paragon : naiveté gets Shepard and select crew killed. Reapers win.
Paragon : Found ways to do the right thing, Possibly saves everyone. Galactic force wins
Renegade : Sociopathic Jerk gets crew killed, dies alone. Reapers win.
Renegade : Ruthless and efficient, made best use of crew, Select Crew MIGHT die, Galactic force wins.

End result:
Paragon : Galactic Unity never seen prior or since
Renegade : Human Primacy, other races dominated or made into subservient colonies.

That's the general arc that we were shown and based off ME1 and ME2.
It is too bad that in ME3, they threw EVERYTHING out the window just to make sure they made Shepard commit suicide.

[Archonsg]

BTW, it is interesting that others can see that we are asking for Alternate Endings (while they are wrongly reporting the EC DLC as an "Alternate ending DLC" ) while Bioware thinks all we want is "clarity".

Here's some rumored info on the upcoming EC DLC and " Earth" MP DLC :
Kotaku Article on "Earth" MP DLC / EC DLC"

Source Reddit Leak / Rumor post


Ps:
While on Kotaku FRACKING AMAZING Garrus cosply

Modifié par Archonsg, 09 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg,
That's it exactly. Paragon and Renegade have certain proclivities and preferences. But even here the game goes a bit off track. The game considers an Earthborn Shepard to be more of a renegade, apparently seeing Shepard as more a human's first type of person. This is why my almost full Paragon Shepard that I set up for the game to make automatic choices, always picked renegade options. I even had renegade interrupts open up that were only paragon interrupts before. But, I digress.

I've never seen one as straight up good or the other as straight up bad, but both have extremes of their character that lead to that. A paragon is more likely to be "good" because one thinks things and their consequences through more thoroughly. And conversely, a renegade is more likely to be "bad" because a good thought isn't a substitute for a shot to the head. But both have their places and a wrong move at the wrong time should have resulted in some consequence.

I push you out a window before hearing your critical information because you are an Elcor and I just lost a whole fleet. Or, I ask too many questions because I can't decide what to do, and a whole planet was lost while waiting for my help. Extremes, but just to be obvious.

I do think this is why they inserted EMS and then made it matter so little ultimately. They could not figure out how to get different choices to matter. And then, since your decisions didn't matter they needed choice buttons, ABC, red/green/blue.

I think the way you delineated them was great.

[Archonsg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Archonsg,
That's it exactly. Paragon and Renegade have certain proclivities and preferences. But even here the game goes a bit off track. The game considers an Earthborn Shepard to be more of a renegade, apparently seeing Shepard as more a human's first type of person. This is why my almost full Paragon Shepard that I set up for the game to make automatic choices, always picked renegade options. I even had renegade interrupts open up that were only paragon interrupts before. But, I digress.

I've never seen one as straight up good or the other as straight up bad, but both have extremes of their character that lead to that. A paragon is more likely to be "good" because one thinks things and their consequences through more thoroughly. And conversely, a renegade is more likely to be "bad" because a good thought isn't a substitute for a shot to the head. But both have their places and a wrong move at the wrong time should have resulted in some consequence.

I push you out a window before hearing your critical information because you are an Elcor and I just lost a whole fleet. Or, I ask too many questions because I can't decide what to do, and a whole planet was lost while waiting for my help. Extremes, but just to be obvious.

I do think this is why they inserted EMS and then made it matter so little ultimately. They could not figure out how to get different choices to matter. And then, since your decisions didn't matter they needed choice buttons, ABC, red/green/blue.

I think the way you delineated them was great.

I do not think that they could not figure it out.
Seriously.
Here's how for example if going into ME3 without Drew's original Dark Energy plot but keeping perhaps Dark Energy around or even discarding it totally (not what I would do since it was so heavily played on in ME2) is to simply work on your ENDINGS FIRST based on what you have already made known and playing on major plot points in the past two games. THEN play write it backwards to meet at some point where ME2 and the Arival DLC / Invasion Comic left off.

In this case, for example if we have the Renegade ending, they have to ask what would a xenophobic, human first Shepard do?
Human primacy would be the name of the game. He'd replace the Council, since they have done nothing but screwed humanity from day one.

He'd agree on the Illusive man's choice of making the best of Reaper Tech, even taking control of them if possible BUT not dying to achieve that goal. Let some other sap die in his place.
Cerberus would be under his direct control, ramping up on Phantom death squads to deal with "problematic" alien leaders who disagree with Humanity's right to rule.

Dark Energy plot line could have been a Reaper weapon in development, they did create the Mass Relays so it's not too much of a stretch to play this up as the ultimate "system killer" the Reapers are developing to "cleanse" problematic systems. Remember, to them, a few Centuries does NOT MATTER since time is relative to entities that are essentially immortal.

Then work back towards ME2 making sure you keep in refernce to major plot points prior.
Makes sense?

Though I am sure BIoware could have done a better job. Probably have done a better job if they weren't so fixated on killing off Shepard via suicide or as rumor has it that two persons pre-empted the entire creative team and took them off the input loop.

Modifié par Archonsg, 09 juin 2012 - 10:09 .

[BearlyHere]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Wow, 1995. That's actually pretty impressive, but then also depressing, sort of. I've played a lot of games in my time and I know there were others that had some different endings based on what you did and they were pretty linear games (ME3 ends up being just as linear as any other).

As for the points Archonsg makes, one thought which I know he's brought to light is they said the endings would be due to our choices in the game. We know they really aren't, in fact. You don't have to really care about the choices in order to even get the "gasp" ending. As we've discussed you can just play a lot of MP and promote a lot of teams to get a high enough EMS. So, you don't have to search for war assets or even make all of the decisions in the game-just do the bare necessities.

So, your decisions don't matter because all roads lead to Rome (I mean all roads lead to the exact same crazyville), and your decisions don't matter because you don't even have to make all of them.

What's worse, if you kick butt in MP because you're a credit card player and buy several of the speshul Spectre packs, you can get your EMS high enough without even having to bother with the tedious parts of the campaign like searching for assets.

I like the analogy about the "artistic" bedsheet, but I think it's worse. Say your crazy uncle not only poops the bed, rolls in it, and insists it's art, and he intended to do that all along, thank you very much. And then he gives it to you at your birthday party in front of all your friends and neighbors as your gift and hangs it on your wall.

[akenn312]

MSandt wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

The whole thing about shepard having to die in a series about choice and actions mattering does not make any sense


and people should be able to choose wether they want a happy or sad ending depending on what they want and the choices they make

The collector base depending on what you did made everybody live or everybody die

They could've kept the forumla or player choice towards the end of the game wether people want a sad sacrifical ending with the hero dieing or a happy uplifting ending where the hero lives and gets the guy or the girl and can help rebuild the galaxy

This ending is only catering to the sad bittersweet people and the polls and organizations have shown alot that people don't just want sad or bittersweet or to be derailed in the final moments

This just goes to show that what the haters are really pissed off at is that they didn't get a generic wimpy ending.

It's a good thing that they don't hire fans to review games. Professional reviewers have been very objective about the ending compared to all the rabid fans who post their emotional rantings on Youtube.

First of all anyone that has to resort to calling someone a "hater" usually has no real idea why people don't like what they like and throw out this bland generic term as a way to insult or define them.


To be a hater MSandt you have to constantly want something to fail, you never want to see it succeed and if it does succeed you are pissed off by that success. If you would take off your emotional blinders for a second and stop disliking people because they don't feel the same way as you do you might be able to understand why people feel betrayed by this ending. It's because Hudson has taken it upon himself to break everything people liked about Mass Effect so he could force some artsy message in at the last minute (that isn't all that good) and when people felt betrayed, he put blame on the fans for some trivial desire for just wanting a happy ending.

I know the reason you like this ending is because you think it is artsy and deep and relates to the inevitability of death and pre-destiny, and in some ways I can see how a person can look at it that way. But I don't see it in that way and I have seen other stories do it way better. I don't think it's deep, I think it's contrived, forced and actually a lazy way to not put in the effort to make variously different endings , its a cop out of not being able to give what was promised and expected. 

It's not the fact Shepard dies, if you want Shepard to live and destroy the Reapers there is an option already there, pick Destroy get your EMS up over 5000 and "poof" Shepard is now alive. Now I can use my fan fiction imagination to pretend he gets back with Miranda and they live happily ever after drinking Sobe life water and saving the Galaxy some more. 

But after all this time and money and dedication to the Mass Effect series from the fans, your are telling me Hudson cannot put in a deep sad ending, a deep happy ending, or a totally deep screwed up ending and others without breaking characters and lore and forcing this Garden of Eden crap on us? I wanted to have various ending play-througs, one where Shep makes it through alive, one where he dies, one where he looses his LI,  and so on and so on. I don't want to have he same contrived ending that is just a different color. That's not what Bioware said they were preparing for us. 16 different endings means what it should mean. I didn't ask for 16 different endings Bioware said they put this in the game. I just made the mistake of expecting they would follow through. 


No, I like Mass Effect but you and Bioware can't hater guilt me into liking this ending or ignore how bad it is. I have a right to say it. Bioware keeps putting out there they want feedback well that's what i'm doing. If your going to call people haters or entitled get the definition correct, or at least use an insult that fits.

And honestly what is the huge gripe against fans asking for the original promise of 16 endings? You are telling me you don't think it would be great to have the "three" endings that gave us but with 13 more? or to think up an end concept that won't break the lore of the series? How is that bad?

Modifié par akenn312, 09 juin 2012 - 11:41 .

[BlueStorm83]

BearlyHere wrote...

What's worse, if you kick butt in MP because you're a credit card player and buy several of the speshul Spectre packs, you can get your EMS high enough without even having to bother with the tedious parts of the campaign like searching for assets.

FUN FACT!  If you put an OBSCENE amount of money into the packs and keep getting the XP boosts for characters, you can just level through that and promote through that, and even get enough EMS to get the "Good" ending WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY PLAYING ANY OF THE GAME AT ALL.

---  About the Renegade/Paragon system, I always liked that you could raise them both, it wasn't on a swing scale.  But I have to say... I dislike Moral Choice Systems altogether.  Moral Choices are GREAT, but the SYSTEMS always distill it down to "This is good, this is bad.  BE ONE OR THE OTHER."

I'm playing through The Witcher at the moment.  There are some choices, and they can be pretty ambiguous.  Picking what I thought was the more "Paragon" or "Hero" option actually got a quest NPC killed later on, and I needed to find a different way to finish things.  Also, he was an innocent man.  That's a big whoops!  Without the little red and blue bars to fill up, people could have been more free to shape their Shepard in a way that they thought was the right way to act.  Without points TELLING me what's good or evil, I have to assess the situation on my own.

In the first inFamous game, I was playing full on hero.  Then I'm faced with a choice: rush east and save 20 doctors from being dropped off a skyscraper... or rush WEST and save my girlfriend Trish from being dropped off a skyscraper.  Uh oh.  Can't do both, only time to get to one, no allies at my disposal!  Screw the Doctors, I went to save Trish.  That was the EVIL CHOICE!  DUN DUN DUN!  I didn't give a ****... Until they revealed that it wasn't Trish, she was with the Doctors.  It was a test.  RELOAD!  THIS time I rush EAST!  I save the Doctors, and get HERO POINTS!  Wait a second... RETROACTIVE FACTS!  This time Trish WAS on the west roof.  Apparently, no matter what you do, you have to let her die here.  Kind of a bull**** moment, but okay, it was for extrapolation and all that.  

What's my point?  It got a little away from me there, yeah.  Oh, right, I wanted to say that neither of those choices is really EVIL, one's just more selfish than the other.  Or in my case, both were Selfish, since I only went to save the doctors because I was led to believe by a previous playthrough that Trish was there.  Since I couldn't win, I kept the Save the Doctors option, despite it being an artificial choice, just because it gave Hero Points.

If there's no Moral Choice System in place, but you still have choices to make, and making the wrong choice can lead to actual FAILURE or the death of your teammates, people will be put to the test and ultimately offer a more true experience.  In Mass Effects, doing Paragon Things was pretty much a guarantee that everyone would live.  The only time this wasn't the case was Mordin.  Who's more important to ME, (that's me, not Mass Effect) Mordin or the Krogan Species?  MORDIN, DAMMIT!  But since I was all Paragon and Self Sacrificing, it rubbed off on Mordin, and he went ahead and died for the Krogan.  I wanted to stop him there, but didn't have the option.  I'd have found another way, I ALWAYS find another way.  I'd have punched him in the gut and carried him out.  I'd be like, "**** yeah, Wrex, we cured the **** out of that Genophage!"  Then after we win the war, I'd be like, "Bro, sorry, but I didn't cure the Genophage.  Mordin would have died.  Good news: now that the fight's over, we're gonna cure it for REALS this time.  And it'll be easier, since no **** robots will be shooting at us this time.  Bonus: since Eve was the only cured female, you're guaranteed to have the first new kids!"

But again, that's just me.  At work today, I read a GREAT article about customer service, and taking care of the people who make your business succeed.  I was going to bring the article home, but the boss needed it.  It's in the June issue of Landscape and Garden Retailer.  I'm sure you all read that.