23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

D24O wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

This was the point I was making, that you don't have to do much in the SP game as long as you play MP and promote teams to get war assets-if you promote enough, you don't even ever have to play MP again for 100% readiness.  Of course, it can take awhile to do that, but it can be done.  You just need to promote enough to get to 10,000 in war assets (just).  Each promotion is worth 75 points, so you need about 134 promotions if you get there using MP alone.  What that means is in theory, none of your single player choices have to matter at all.  Actually they don't matter at all if MP alone gets you there.  And, I use 10k as the figure, but you could get by with far fewer, such as 8k.  10k gives you 5k EMS if readiness drops to 50%, and 8k=4k at 50%.  It just depends on what ending (ugh) you want to make sure you get and that you don't kill off Liara.  If that matters to you.

But, the main point is just how irrelevant many of the SP game's quests are.  And this for a game where your choices in the story would determine the outcome.  Yeah, right. 

While that's true, I don't see many people promoting a hundred multiplayer characthers, especially before their first singleplayer playthrough when the decesions have the most impact.

I never said a lot of people would-I said they could.    And a lot of people I've played multiplayer with, haven't even finished the game once.

I also said that you didn't have to get there on MP alone-this was just to show that it could be done and Archonsg is proof of it as well.

And it is also to point out that your single player decisions don't have any impact at all really.  What changes between getting the bare minimum in war assets for each choice in SP and getting the most is that for one decision Earth might not be vaporized and if good enough Shepard migh gasp.  Beyond that all those war assets you played reaper tag to find, mean nothing.  And many of your choices mean nothing.

I have about 1,000 war assets on my xbox from MP, and more on the PS3.  That means on the xbox I can disregard war assets that will add 500 points to my EMS.  Right now, I have 5 more teams ready to promote.

The basic point is that the endings are not tied directly to choices made in the SP game-in fact if you don't play MP you can't get all endings, can't get the "gasps" ending.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 10 juin 2012 - 04:14 .

[Redbelle]

Kel_Stormraven wrote...

While granted the last ten minutes or so of the game kind of suck what with not being able to really see any effect from all of those decisions made through all 3 games It is still a great game up to that point. And I think that Bioware did an excellent job bringing this trilogy to a close. Would I like more from the ending like what happens to all my favorite compatriots? Hell Yes. Is the Starchild annoying? Hell Yes. But I think that they are doing good things with the multiplayer and I hope to start seeing some DLC for the single player game. In particular I want to join Aria in the battle to take back Omega. That could make for hours of additional play.

What about a dlc to tie up the dark energy story line that fizzled out.

Or a Rise of the Reaper story that goes back to the first cycle, via Catalyst space magic, so we can see why the Reapers were created in the first place so we might be able to figure out what the Cat is talking about.

Omega is a must, the seeds have been planted for that one to go forth.

Trying to think of other story threads that might be applicable too. I remember a militant pro human group on the Citadel in ME1. They could be expanded upon.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Kel_Stormraven wrote...

While granted the last ten minutes or so of the game kind of suck what with not being able to really see any effect from all of those decisions made through all 3 games It is still a great game up to that point. And I think that Bioware did an excellent job bringing this trilogy to a close. Would I like more from the ending like what happens to all my favorite compatriots? Hell Yes. Is the Starchild annoying? Hell Yes. But I think that they are doing good things with the multiplayer and I hope to start seeing some DLC for the single player game. In particular I want to join Aria in the battle to take back Omega. That could make for hours of additional play.

I do appreciate your  point of view.

But, again people on the Titanic were having a great ride until the end, but I think all they remembered of the journey was the end.  And not too many of the survivors wanted to hop right back on a ship for any long trip afterwards.

I think you misspoke in saying that the game ending kind of sucks, but that Bioware did an excellent job in bringing the trilogy to a close.  In order for that to be true, the ending would have had to be quality.

And multiplayer is a real foreshadowing of the direction they seemed to be headed.  It is basically there for the microtransactions-to get you to buy those Spectre Packs, and that is also why Single Player is tied to it.  It is fun for awhile, but nowhere near as much fun as a good game with a great story and fantastic finish-MP just ends up being mind-numbing after a bit. 

What good is any battle to take back Omega, since it still leads to the same dismal ending?  I'm just asking.  If the devs had even followed their own story, after Shepard makes a choice the galaxy, including Omega should be in ruin.  Not good for Aria.  I would have loved such DLC before, but unless they do really fix the ending, taking back Omega is an exercise in futility.

I kinda agree.  I would have loved heading back to Omega for a takeback mission... but now Omega is doomed.  Think about it.  There were no Habitable worlds near it.  It has no food production.  Without the Mass Relay, which (FACT) was at the very least shut down, everyone on Omega is going to die.  At least this way the only ones there to die will be "Integrated" Cerberus soldiers and scientists.  If we take it back, anyone who goes to live there is a dead man.

In fact...  When I put it that way, it's better to NOT get the EMS War Assets.  I mean, if none of the fleet even COME to Earth, where will they all be stranded?  On their own homes.  At least that way they have a chance to survive in the environment most friendly to them.

That's a little horrible.  The best ending is ignoring ALL of the optional content and using multiplayer to get your EMS high enough that Earth isn't cooked, and then rushing through the real artwork of the game to get to the "art" at the end.

[BlueStorm83]

Redbelle wrote...

What about a dlc to tie up the dark energy story line that fizzled out.

Or a Rise of the Reaper story that goes back to the first cycle, via Catalyst space magic, so we can see why the Reapers were created in the first place so we might be able to figure out what the Cat is talking about.

Omega is a must, the seeds have been planted for that one to go forth.

Trying to think of other story threads that might be applicable too. I remember a militant pro human group on the Citadel in ME1. They could be expanded upon.

Cat's don't talk, Belle.  They MEOW.

But really, I'd have loved ENDLESS DLC for the Single Player universe... had the Single Player Universe not been carried right up to the end and then dropped on its head.

[akenn312]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

I kinda agree.  I would have loved heading back to Omega for a takeback mission... but now Omega is doomed.  Think about it.  There were no Habitable worlds near it.  It has no food production.  Without the Mass Relay, which (FACT) was at the very least shut down, everyone on Omega is going to die.  At least this way the only ones there to die will be "Integrated" Cerberus soldiers and scientists.  If we take it back, anyone who goes to live there is a dead man.

In fact...  When I put it that way, it's better to NOT get the EMS War Assets.  I mean, if none of the fleet even COME to Earth, where will they all be stranded?  On their own homes.  At least that way they have a chance to survive in the environment most friendly to them.

That's a little horrible.  The best ending is ignoring ALL of the optional content and using multiplayer to get your EMS high enough that Earth isn't cooked, and then rushing through the real artwork of the game to get to the "art" at the end.

Exactly, the Crucible gets finished and you get up the conduit no matter if you have the most war assets or the bare minimum. So why am I gathering all these fleets when i'm just going to strand them into a galactic dark age where they have a worse chance of survival than staying on their homeworlds? Again i'm amazed the creative team never even thought they would have to explain this. Destroying the Relays is the worst idea ever. Whoever wanted to put it in really needs to clarify what they were thinking. If they had just left them intact most of this ending problem would be gone. 

Modifié par akenn312, 10 juin 2012 - 08:31 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- I can understand wanting to destroy the Relays, to end the series. Like, "This is the conclusion, no sequels." Problem is, they could do that WITHOUT destroying the Relays. Watch.

This is the Conclusion. No Sequels.

BAM! Then if they figure "Wait a second, we should make sequels," then they CAN.

Seriously though, there's nothing that can make me even understand HOW the Relays would send an energy pulse, let along why that pulse would destroy the Relays. And of course, why would that pulse be able to destroy the Relays without ****ing everyone, everywhere?

It's nonsense. Total utter nonsense. On that note, dinner.

[Benchpress610]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Kel_Stormraven wrote...

While granted the last ten minutes or so of the game kind of suck what with not being able to really see any effect from all of those decisions made through all 3 games It is still a great game up to that point. And I think that Bioware did an excellent job bringing this trilogy to a close. Would I like more from the ending like what happens to all my favorite compatriots? Hell Yes. Is the Starchild annoying? Hell Yes. But I think that they are doing good things with the multiplayer and I hope to start seeing some DLC for the single player game. In particular I want to join Aria in the battle to take back Omega. That could make for hours of additional play.

I do appreciate your  point of view.

But, again people on the Titanic were having a great ride until the end, but I think all they remembered of the journey was the end.  And not too many of the survivors wanted to hop right back on a ship for any long trip afterwards.

I think you misspoke in saying that the game ending kind of sucks, but that Bioware did an excellent job in bringing the trilogy to a close.  In order for that to be true, the ending would have had to be quality.

And multiplayer is a real foreshadowing of the direction they seemed to be headed.  It is basically there for the microtransactions-to get you to buy those Spectre Packs, and that is also why Single Player is tied to it.  It is fun for awhile, but nowhere near as much fun as a good game with a great story and fantastic finish-MP just ends up being mind-numbing after a bit. 

What good is any battle to take back Omega, since it still leads to the same dismal ending?  I'm just asking.  If the devs had even followed their own story, after Shepard makes a choice the galaxy, including Omega should be in ruin.  Not good for Aria.  I would have loved such DLC before, but unless they do really fix the ending, taking back Omega is an exercise in futility.

Precisely…the Sahrabarik system where the Omega space station is located has not one but two mass relays…can you imagine anything left in there after those two babies blow up?...I wonder who would buy that DLC? When you know whatever you do would be for nothing.

Modifié par Benchpress610, 11 juin 2012 - 11:53 .

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Anyone ever see Battle: Los Angeles? Not exactly a blockbuster, but the way they did it was great. It could have ended after they got the control center, but what they did after was well done.

Agree, bit of an underrated movie. I thought it was well done and still enjoy watching it from time to time.

[akenn312]

I'm sure this has already been posted here but this was from Brent Knowles, below is his Bio.

He worked at the role-playing game studio Bioware
for ten years (Baldur’s Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age), during
most of which he was a Lead Designer/Creative Director.


"I read one recent blog post where the writer basically said "the ending was awesome because it was just like a movie" and I think she was missing the point.

It is a game. Not a movie.

And more specifically, its a role-playing game. The players are *part* of the game. Part of the process of building and experiencing the game, much more so than with most other forms of entertainment.

Entitlement is really a right, for the gamer, because they have participated, actively, in the game itself.

Again, I can't speak to the actual ending myself, because I have not played it but in generally I'd say a Role-Playing Video Game Trilogy Ending should (try to) do the following:

1. Reward the player's choices throughout the series. The big stuff they did should be noted. They should *feel* like they had a unique impact on the world.

2. End on a positive note. This is really important for video games... life in general is full of ****ty stuff happening all the time. When I invest a hundred hours into a game I need to walk away feeling like a hero. 

When you waste a couple hours of a person's life with an artsy/depressing movie or short story or even a novel, it is
more forgivable because the time spent is less. And presumably the consumer knew what they were going into when they started. Certain directors create certain styles of movie. Certain writers write specifictypes of fiction.

On the other hand somebody playing an epic role-playing video-game trilogy is going to *expect* to be the hero and save the universe. That's why they are playing the game. When expectations don't match reality, disappointment is created.

It might be an artistic/creative move to go with a different style of ending but I feel its the wrong choice, especially for a videogame *trilogy*. Make your middle game bleak if you want to, but end the series on a high note."

http://blog.brentkno...mment-467093338


Now that is exaclty where this ending messes up. Mass Effect 2 should have been bleak and dreary even most of Mass Effect 3 should have been a downer, but then they should have ended everything on a high note to make the player feel they won the game and give the players a reward for putting all the time an effort in.

But instead Hudson and Walters had to make it a forced bunch of artsy trash so they could get patted on the back by the "wanabe artisitc" gaming community. Now there are leaks all they are going to do is just clarify what happens to the Galaxy. So basically throwing in more space magic to make the previous artistic space magic make sense.

Modifié par akenn312, 11 juin 2012 - 03:17 .

[Archonsg]

Good article Akenn312, though, as we see more of these now, it makes me sad that its after the fact. Unless they (Bioware) pull a rabbit out of their hats and present us not with an ECDLC, but an Alternative Ending DLC, I do not see how they will be able to salvage this.

Bottom line is, we didn't just want a logical, clear ending, we wanted multiple endings that allowed and encouraged us to replay the game, to feel that the time we spent in the game was not for naught.

Bioware fracked up.
We know this, Bioware knows this, published authors, literary professors, anyone with any higher education knows this.
But Bioware stubbornly points to boot licking advertising dependant review sites and say in essence "No we didn't, and these guys agree with us! "

Seeing Bioware like this, is like seeing a friend hooked on meth, who ignores you when you try to help him.
And like meth addicts, they think and believe they are just fine, but the reality is something different altogether.

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 juin 2012 - 03:41 .

[3DandBeyond]

@Akenn312,
Great post and he makes the case as do you. They could have created this real roller coaster ride with the story, where things look very bleak and then a real option to end on a high note.

An interesting sidenote here, unrelated to that, but more related to the content in the ending and some of the stuff the kids say-----

The star kid says the reapers aren't killing advanced organics. Why then, do Sovereign and Saren, under Sovereign's influence continually say the reapers are there to annihilate advanced organics. On Virmire, when Shepard talks to Sovereign, he repeatedly says the reapers will destroy all people in the galaxy. That seems to mean reapers don't ascend people, they put them in sludge canisters. In fact, Sovereign seems to not believe advanced organics are all that advanced. He says they are mutants and mistakes. He says that organics are nothing. And at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. He says it over and over again, that the reapers will kill advanced organics. "I am the vanguard of your destruction." That's pretty clear.

And then there's Harbinger-at the end of the Arrival, he says to Shepard, "your species will fall". That doesn't sound the same as being saved by being ascended. At the end of ME2, he says the reapers are people's salvation through destruction.

I honestly wish the writers would have remembered or gone back and refreshed their memories of what the story was about.

Who's telling the truth? The star kid or Sovereign.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

Good article Akenn312, though, as we see more of these now, it makes me sad that its after the fact. Unless they (Bioware) pull a rabbit out of their hats and present us not with an ECDLC, but an Alternative Ending DLC, I do not see how they will be able to salvage this.

Bottom line is, we didn't just want a logical, clear ending, we wanted multiple endings that allowed and encouraged us to replay the game, to feel that the time we spent in the game was not for naught.

Bioware fracked up.
We know this, Bioware knows this, published authors, literary professors, anyone with any higher education knows this.
But Bioware stubbornly points to boot licking advertising dependant review sites and say in essence "No we didn't, and these guys agree with us! "

Seeing Bioware like this, is like seeing a friend hooked on meth, who ignores you when you try to help him.
And like meth addicts, they think and believe they are just fine, but the reality is something different altogether.

Exactly.

I just so wish there were vastly different endings that would make it worthwhile to play again with different types of Shepards. 

[Massa FX]

Sorry if this repeats other's theories on the ending. There are over 900 posts here. If this post is in the wrong forum, please forgive me.

My Hope: Shepard was knocked out by Harbinger's blast. She never makes it to the beam. While Shep is unconscious on Earth, she dreams that Anderson made it to the beam and choses to destroy the Reapers (if you chose destroy). If Shepard dreams of controling the Reapers, TIM tries to control the Reapers and fails. Synthesis is total death. If during her unconscious state she chooses synth option, she will not recover from her fatal injuries and the Reapers will harvest her.  The Normandy fleeing the scene and Adam/Eve planet is a dream Shepard comes up with during her delirium. She wants her crew to live happily ever after so she dreams of her LI, Joker etc... alive and well and flourishing for generations. But the clue here is that she only sees 3 survivors. She didn't finish that pleasant dream of hers. She'll either wake up or die on Earth.

Here's my reasons why.

During the chat with the child thing, Shepard visualizes only two options.  In destroy, she dreams of Anderson shooting at the red option despite the consequences (all synthetics die). During the control dream she sees TIM trying to control the Reapers (the option the Reapers know she's steadfast against).  We (the players) see this with our own eyes in the cutscene. This wasn't in error. Bio did these scenes with purpose. Shep doesn't dream of herself being absorbed for synthesis. She just says "I don't know". Why? Because that's the one option the Reapers want her to do. They want her body pretty badly. She's the one human they fear the most. They (Reapers/child) want Shep to chose to become one with them.They'll become undefeatable with her DNA in their mix.

The mass relay destruction is the Reapers way of making Shepard horrified and unwilling to act. In Arrival it clearly says destroying a relay will destroy the entire system. Shep remembers the Batarians that lost their lives. She thinks of them everyday (as said to terrorist batarian on the Citadel). The Reapers hope Shep will freeze with indecision and they can go about harvesting in peace. Collecting up her body would be easy. She's stuck in her dreams full of indecision.

The Reapers are taking advantage of Sheps vulnerable unconscious state and manipulating her into believing falsehoods. It's their only chance to stop her. This is why Harbinger remained on Earth and didn't follow Shep up to the citadel. Shep never leaves Earth. Harbinger stays where he is. He's waiting for Shep to wake up or die. He's hunting for her body in the debris.

But Shep won't freeze or die immediately, depending on the players choices. Will she Bio? Shep wakes up and in upcoming DLC everything fans want will be realized and playable if she chooses control or destroy. The current ending isn't real. It's a mixture of Shephard's unconscious dreams of what if (Adam/Eve world) and Reapers messing with her head.

And yes, we all are spending too much time thinking about this. There are greater problems in the world than "What happened in ME3's ending?" If we put 1/2 as much energy into volunteer work or good deeds the world would be a much better place.

[akenn312]

Archonsg wrote...

Good article Akenn312, though, as we see more of these now, it makes me sad that its after the fact. Unless they (Bioware) pull a rabbit out of their hats and present us not with an ECDLC, but an Alternative Ending DLC, I do not see how they will be able to salvage this.

Bottom line is, we didn't just want a logical, clear ending, we wanted multiple endings that allowed and encouraged us to replay the game, to feel that the time we spent in the game was not for naught.

Bioware fracked up.
We know this, Bioware knows this, published authors, literary professors, anyone with any higher education knows this.
But Bioware stubbornly points to boot licking advertising dependant review sites and say in essence "No we didn't, and these guys agree with us! "

Seeing Bioware like this, is like seeing a friend hooked on meth, who ignores you when you try to help him.
And like meth addicts, they think and believe they are just fine, but the reality is something different altogether.

Thanks Archonsg, I think if the guy that was the creative director for the games that put the company on the map thinks it's a bad way to make a RPG game ending then I'm going to agree with him.

I agree with you, honestly I find the game reviewers the ones lacking integrity too. I mean IGN allowed one of their employees be a part of the game, of course they are going to give it stellar reviews or defend it. That's where another problem shows up and it is the game reviewers trying to pawn this off as some new artistic direction in gaming rather than reviewing it as a RPG that gives the player what it should expect. Talk about it being art on your own time. I look to game reviews to tell me about glitches and if the game lives up to what is promised and expected.

A rpg game should be able to give all the players a unique experience following what choice you made. It's not only the ending choices that's frustrating it's the lack of closure even with certain LI's and squad-mates that makes it bad. Well if you wanted to finish your romance with Miranda and see how the Normandy crew ended up, sorry we are making art. But if you romance Liara or Ash and believe in creating a new organic & synthetic master race and love dismal open ended stories boy do we have a game for you.

The game totally cuts off one group players from being able to enjoy the game. It has divided the fan base. You have pro-enders over here, anti-enders over there, IT theory people over there, Ash fans vs. Miranda fans ect. It does not have to be like this if they stayed true to what they promised. The whole point of playing this was to finally get closure on everything I did even if it wasn't the popular route. Not be forced to play the route Hudson and Walters thought would be cool.

No ABC ending should mean exactly that, especially in a rpg video game.

Modifié par akenn312, 11 juin 2012 - 04:18 .

[akenn312]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Akenn312,
Great post and he makes the case as do you. They could have created this real roller coaster ride with the story, where things look very bleak and then a real option to end on a high note.

An interesting sidenote here, unrelated to that, but more related to the content in the ending and some of the stuff the kids say-----

The star kid says the reapers aren't killing advanced organics. Why then, do Sovereign and Saren, under Sovereign's influence continually say the reapers are there to annihilate advanced organics. On Virmire, when Shepard talks to Sovereign, he repeatedly says the reapers will destroy all people in the galaxy. That seems to mean reapers don't ascend people, they put them in sludge canisters. In fact, Sovereign seems to not believe advanced organics are all that advanced. He says they are mutants and mistakes. He says that organics are nothing. And at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. He says it over and over again, that the reapers will kill advanced organics. "I am the vanguard of your destruction." That's pretty clear.

And then there's Harbinger-at the end of the Arrival, he says to Shepard, "your species will fall". That doesn't sound the same as being saved by being ascended. At the end of ME2, he says the reapers are people's salvation through destruction.

I honestly wish the writers would have remembered or gone back and refreshed their memories of what the story was about.

Who's telling the truth? The star kid or Sovereign.

@3DandBeyond I think you've found another retcon
That's huge, The Reapers main goal was to destroy organics they stated it over and over. No one ever talked aobut salvation or acending until this last game.

[Redbelle]

akenn312 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Akenn312,
Great post and he makes the case as do you. They could have created this real roller coaster ride with the story, where things look very bleak and then a real option to end on a high note.

An interesting sidenote here, unrelated to that, but more related to the content in the ending and some of the stuff the kids say-----

The star kid says the reapers aren't killing advanced organics. Why then, do Sovereign and Saren, under Sovereign's influence continually say the reapers are there to annihilate advanced organics. On Virmire, when Shepard talks to Sovereign, he repeatedly says the reapers will destroy all people in the galaxy. That seems to mean reapers don't ascend people, they put them in sludge canisters. In fact, Sovereign seems to not believe advanced organics are all that advanced. He says they are mutants and mistakes. He says that organics are nothing. And at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. He says it over and over again, that the reapers will kill advanced organics. "I am the vanguard of your destruction." That's pretty clear.

And then there's Harbinger-at the end of the Arrival, he says to Shepard, "your species will fall". That doesn't sound the same as being saved by being ascended. At the end of ME2, he says the reapers are people's salvation through destruction.

I honestly wish the writers would have remembered or gone back and refreshed their memories of what the story was about.

Who's telling the truth? The star kid or Sovereign.

@3DandBeyond I think you've found another retcon
That's huge, The Reapers main goal was to destroy organics they stated it over and over. No one ever talked aobut salvation or acending until this last game.

It could be a matter of perspective. Yes, we're going to destroy, by making you into something else and that something else is us. Bwahahah!!!

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

It could be a matter of perspective. Yes, we're going to destroy, by making you into something else and that something else is us. Bwahahah!!!

Ha, I prefer my perspective not make u turns and that destroy means destroy and save (warped as it is) means saved.

I can accept a character saying, "we save you by changing you" even if that means they are just making people into some different form.  I mean I can accept they believe that.

I can't accept them saying, "we will kill you, destroy you, we will annihilate you, we will tear you into little pieces and vaporize you" and then later saying, "we aren't going to kill you, what we meant is we will save you."

The star kid says "we" aren't killing you. Sovereign says "we" are.

I know what you are saying is what they want us to believe they meant.  But it's like saying a turkey sandwich is a hot dog, because some hot dogs are made of turkey.

[Archonsg]

@3dandbeyond
An interesting thing there that you mentioned, about writers going back to read what went before to make sure that there is not only continuity, but to also make sure they tie up loose ends and not contradict themselves.

Case in point, Brandon Sanderson who is writing the last book in The Wheel of Time series, announced that the last book will be months (almost a year) delayed because he had to go back and re-read all 13 of the previous books, before writing this last crucial book, we fans not only understood but were more then encouraging.

Why? Because we know just how important it is for him to "get it right. "

Bioware should have taken a page from this example.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

@3dandbeyond
An interesting thing there that you mentioned, about writers going back to read what went before to make sure that there is not only continuity, but to also make sure they tie up loose ends and not contradict themselves.

Case in point, Brandon Sanderson who is writing the last book in The Wheel of Time series, announced that the last book will be months (almost a year) delayed because he had to go back and re-read all 13 of the previous books, before writing this last crucial book, we fans not only understood but were more then encouraging.

Why? Because we know just how important it is for him to "get it right. "

Bioware should have taken a page from this example.

And while I know it's not easy to do with anything, I think it's a lot harder to do that with 13 books than with a game that has so much to reference that's out there.  Can't remember what Sovereign has said to lay a foundation for all the reapers to come?  Google it.  Or just refer to your own text files.

First of all, you write down the characters, their personalities, their view of things.

Sovereign-vanguard reaper-sent ahead, says they have no beginning and no end, says they are autonomous nations, sees organics as bugs to be squashed, says reapers will kill them, reapers left tech laying around in order that organics would advance along a path the reapers had ordained and on a timeline of their making (to fit the 50k cycle).

In fact, several of these things that Sovereign says are broken by the ending.  They destroy, they are nations, sees no redeeming value in advanced organics, created the path for the advancement of organics-thus creating a no win situation for organics.  Organics are destined to follow a certain path, because the dumb kid and reapers created the path. 

Maybe you forget one point, but all the major ones, that one of the oldest and most powerful reapers says?  In the first conversation with a reaper seen in ME?  How do you write a story and then an ending without fact checking?  This is what QA is for.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[akenn312]

Redbelle wrote...

It could be a matter of perspective. Yes, we're going to destroy, by making you into something else and that something else is us. Bwahahah!!!

I still see it as a 180. When you talked to Sovereign he basically said you are not meant to know jack. Just take your destruction and like it. Now the Star brat defends his ascending as if he is trying to convince us through dialogue that the Reapers have a purpose other than mindless destruction.

This is a writing ploy, and a bad one. Previous theme was destruction, no beginning & no end, cannot comprehend their purpose. Don't deserve to know.

Now with a single line of dialog it's preservation and ascending. There is a beginning and end, easily comprehended purpose. Deserve to know why now.

One line should not be able to bust the entire first stories most pivotal conversation.

This makes the Sovereign conversation completely meaningless. Basically all he does is just lie to you. Yes they Reapers are using orqanics as slaves and resources making them into Reapers, yes the Reapers have a beginning and can end. ect....

The Reapers were already artsy Lovecraftian horrors, they should have seen that already. They already had their art within the story they had been telling. The Mass Effect series was kinda artsy, until they started screwing with it.

Modifié par akenn312, 11 juin 2012 - 05:20 .

[3DandBeyond]

akenn312 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

It could be a matter of perspective. Yes, we're going to destroy, by making you into something else and that something else is us. Bwahahah!!!

I still see it as a 180. When you talked to Sovereign he basically said you are not meant to know jack. Just take your destruction and like it. Now the Star brat defends his ascending as if he is trying to convince us through dialogue that the Reapers have a purpose other than mindless destruction.

This is a writing ploy, and a bad one. Previous theme was destruction, no beginning & no end, cannot comprehend their purpose. Don't deserve to know.

Now with a single line of dialog it's preservation and ascending. There is a beginning and end, easily comprehended purpose. Deserve to know why now.

One line should not be able to bust the entire first stories most pivotal conversation.

This makes the Sovereign conversation completely meaningless. Basically all he does is just lie to you. Yes they Reapers are using orqanics as slaves and resources making them into Reapers, yes the Reapers have a beginning and can end. ect....

The Reapers were already artsy Lovecraftian horrors, they should have seen that already. They already had their art within the story they had been telling. The Mass Effect series was kinda artsy, until they started screwing with it.

Yes, and on a scale of believability, think about who would have no reason to lie.

Sovereign tells you you will die.  He makes no excuses, no apologies, he and the reapers are going to kill everyone.
The kid says, oh no you won't die.  We will ascend you to save you.  We are being nice.  It only looks like people are dying.

How dumb do they think people are.  Sovereign lays it right out there-he doesn't care what you think, he will kill.
But the Catalyst, in a more acceptable form, a kid, tries to act "nicey, nicey" in his own mind, at least.

And it wouldn't be so bad if we had the ability to cry bull puckies.  But, no, the ending bears out what the kid says.  So, Sovereign who had no reason to lie since he stated the worst, was lying.  And the kid, who had every reason to lie-in order to get Shepard's help, and sure looked like he lying was since he was living in the Citadel amongst decaying dead bodies, wasn't.  My head hurts.


Just imagine how awesome an ending that explained, "even mad gods can dream" (paraphrase) could have been.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 juin 2012 - 05:21 .

[Benchpress610]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Yes, and on a scale of believability, think about who would have no reason to lie.

Sovereign tells you you will die.  He makes no excuses, no apologies, he and the reapers are going to kill everyone.
The kid says, oh no you won't die.  We will ascend you to save you.  We are being nice.  It only looks like people are dying.
*snip*

Haha…that reminded me of the movie “Mars Attacks” when the Martians are running around with the universal translator saying “don’t run, we are your friends” (or something to that effect) meanwhile frying everyone with their death ray.

 

[JediMike2372]

The ending wasn't art. Not even close. It was something tacked on so that the EA could put out a product and get their 30 pieces of silver. And honestly, until they admit it, I will not be buying another EA/Bioware game. Which I guess sucks to be me considering Madden 13 looks great.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Thanatos144]

JediMike2372 wrote...

The ending wasn't art. Not even close. It was something tacked on so that the EA could put out a product and get their 30 pieces of silver. And honestly, until they admit it, I will not be buying another EA/Bioware game. Which I guess sucks to be me considering Madden 13 looks great.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

You have proof of this?

[MSandt]

akenn312 wrote...

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.

It is in fact the "emotional blinders" that make these particular haters haters. You felt "betrayed"? Only proves my point.

And, as I've said before, I didn't find the ending that "artsy", except for the lame epilogue.

Hudson is of course right. If the ending had been a generic happy ending, something totally unremarkable, hardly anyone would have complained.

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.

If anything, the whole thing goes against any kind of "pre-destiny" because it was so unexpected. It's also not about the inevitability of death but rather the fact that great wars are not won cheaply and rarely without a personal sacrifice. You had come too far to just win the war by activating the Crucible and then have the Normandy rescue you at the last second or something equally silly.

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 don't like the idea. Mass Effect 2 was different because its story was relatively meaningless - in fact, it might as well not have existed (I loved the game though so don't get me wrong). But to have vastly different endings to a game that's supposed to wrap up a story Bioware has been trying to tell for years now? That's just not right. That's like Cameron filming an alternative ending for Titanic where Leo survives, not because that's what Cameron wanted but because that'd make the audience all warm and fuzzy inside.

I don't want to have he same contrived ending that is just a different color.

I disagree. The endings are very different by their implications even if the visual differences are miniscule.

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?

See above.

I don't want them to do anything about the ending: that'd devalue the game. This isn't about fixing a technical issue or a problem with gameplay balance but altering the story itself.  You just don't go and update a game's story simply because someone didn't like it. Imagine an author updating his book six months later with a new ending. Or da Vinci going back to do some more work on Mona Lisa. You're asking them to change the ending. So of course I'm going to protest. I don't want you to succeed. I want the game preserved.