23455 réponses à ce sujet

[sdinc009]

Ok on the IT Theory, I suppose I would be ok with this being what happens in the EC DLC since it does allow for the existing ending to happen and permits an opening for a real ending without completely breaking the story because it basically undoes the ending. I'll get on board with this only because it'll fit with what we already have and allow Bioware a backdoor out of this mess in order to fix the ending. However, the problem I have with the IT theory is that we're basically getting "it's a dream ending" and this is widely considered ****** poor writing. Not only that, but it means they sold an incomplete product. Would you buy a book that had the final chapter replaced with a post-it note saying that you could buy the final chapter in a couple months? A story has a beginning, middle, and END. The IT theory basically says the Bioware sold us a story with a beginning, middle, and ______ ... wait a few months for the ending. THAT IS BS!!! Though I can rationalize how the IT Theory does work within the narrative I can't help at the same time to feel screwed over. If IT theory was Bioware's goal all along then that means they intentionally sold us an incomplete product with the deliberate intention of making us pay for an ending that should have been in the game (sounds a lot like the From Ashes DLC doesn't it). The only reason they are giving it away for free now is because we called BS on this. They thought they could get one over on us and got caught, so now they've got to bring in damage control ie. free DLC (even though they planned to charge us all along). It's this kind of business practices that I will not get behind. This is no way an industry should operate and we, as the consumers, need to make sure they do not keep travelling in this direction.

[V-rcingetorix]

Greetings,

I've read through a lot of the opinions, and am both impressed and dismayed. I'll just list what I liked, and what I would like to see in the new ending content.

First: one of the most enjoyable scenes I have ever seen would be the fleet coming to Earth. I got Geth, Quarians, Turians, Asari and all in the biggest, baddest fleet to ever be created. That scene had my heart thumping, I'll tell you.

Second: The various little touches; Thanes' death (downright noble!), Ending Kai Leng (a la Matrix sword snapping), the Rachni throwback, Ashley's sisters, Liara's personal biotic flare in personal situations, Dr. Michels' return, Samara's kids, Jack's anger issues resolution..the list goes on and on. Frankly, the team did a fantastic job bringing in old pieces and blending them in (would've liked to recruit some ME2 characters though, I do have over a dozen playthroughs on ME2 for a reason!).

Third: Weapons, weapons, weapons! I love the variety, the new weapons and old, from the Claymore and Widow Anti-material to the Avenger a la ME1, I loved them.

It's not just the graphics (although that is good too!), it's the story. I played this game from the standpoint of a longtime fan; shoot, ME3 is the first game I have ever preordered! Overall, I'd rate the game an A+++.

But there were some issues that I felt were a bit sloppy. I'll take them from least to greatest.

1. Why am I wielding the Avenger assault rifle, or a Shruiken or Predator pistol in 65%+ of the cutscenes? Is this a bug? I wield better weapons than that, and I feel that the cutscene should reflect the awesomeness.

2. What happened to the heavy weapons? I maxed my ammo capacity in ME2 so I could squeeze off two shots with the Cain Nuke-Boom-Device....on heavy mechs...and failed to take down a larval-stage Reaper with both shots...yet in ME3 I was unable to get a single Cain, Avalanche, Collector particle beam, grenade launcher, missile launcher etc.

3. Biggest complaint I have about the ending: Why is there no synthesis Shep body breath? If you Control, you get zapped and see the Shep body take a breath in rubble; Kill, you go boom (why not shoot the pylon from a safer distance, why walk into the flames?) and Shep lives; why is it that Synthesis causes a lack of Shep body?

If it's the idea that the Ghost kid told Shep he would die..well, the Ghost kid said that about the other two options as well. I frankly liked the Synthesis option...if Shep could live through it. If not, why did I do all that promising to the LI that I'd be back? No crazy/genetically superior/military brat/ adopted quarian/blue children? That's insane (pardon my spleen venting, please).

4. I could probably go on about little things I disliked about ME3, but the fact of the matter is I bought it knowing it could ending up going south. Additionally, it is a GAME. No one pointed a gunat my head and forced me to shell out for the product, I did it to myself. For the most part, I am happy with the product, it was an excellent game and I enjoyed it.


In conclusion, fantastic. Ending left a bit to be desired (why crash far from Earth with LI on board, why hold back on the various races...), but I think Bioware will have a corker of an ending to add to this. Will I buy more Bioware/EA products after this? Probably...but I can say I will be influenced by how they handle the ending content DLC.

Best of luck Bioware, I really do hope you do well on this one. Make it half as good as the first 90% of the game, and you will do well.

[3DandBeyond]

I do think they veered severely off track when they began using paid for reviews as "proof" the endings were great. They made a horribly erroneous leap there.

Even if EA/Bioware never said "give us a great review or we'll pull our ads", such reviewers know who butters their bread. And their bosses certainly do. It's about money, but it's also about relevance. Paid for reviewers and their sites get attention from promoting and hyping big name titles. They know an audience is prepared to like a game like ME3 and everyone is pre-ordering and buying, so they cash in on that by promoting their review and then by trying to keep the hype going. IGN is one that has really fallen off a cliff. They had a 24 hour marathon online for one game that I had been anticipating and they gave it the highest marks, but never wrote anything about how badly it was broken.

[V-rcingetorix]

Sorry, had to put up one more question, which connects to a lot of other questions:

What happened to the people on the Citadel? It looked to me like there were billions on the Citadel prior to the Cerberus mission, and when the station arms open for the Crucible, it looked like street lights and things were still on. Were the power distribution unit plans I obtained for Purgatory useful? How's Bailey? Did the Council die? What about all the refugees I was helping? Did the Ghost kid hit the "Kill" switch on this shiny "part of himself"?

Dragon Age Origins had about a dozen screens of single paragraph text (bugged, true, but good nonetheless) explaining what happened to primary characters. Maybe we could look at that for ME3?

[BlueStorm83]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

*SNIPPED*

Best of luck Bioware, I really do hope you do well on this one. Make it half as good as the first 90% of the game, and you will do well.

---  Amen with this sentiment.

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Greetings,

I've read through a lot of the opinions, and am both impressed and dismayed. I'll just list what I liked, and what I would like to see in the new ending content.

First: one of the most enjoyable scenes I have ever seen would be the fleet coming to Earth. I got Geth, Quarians, Turians, Asari and all in the biggest, baddest fleet to ever be created. That scene had my heart thumping, I'll tell you.

Second: The various little touches; Thanes' death (downright noble!), Ending Kai Leng (a la Matrix sword snapping), the Rachni throwback, Ashley's sisters, Liara's personal biotic flare in personal situations, Dr. Michels' return, Samara's kids, Jack's anger issues resolution..the list goes on and on. Frankly, the team did a fantastic job bringing in old pieces and blending them in (would've liked to recruit some ME2 characters though, I do have over a dozen playthroughs on ME2 for a reason!).

Third: Weapons, weapons, weapons! I love the variety, the new weapons and old, from the Claymore and Widow Anti-material to the Avenger a la ME1, I loved them.

It's not just the graphics (although that is good too!), it's the story. I played this game from the standpoint of a longtime fan; shoot, ME3 is the first game I have ever preordered! Overall, I'd rate the game an A+++.

But there were some issues that I felt were a bit sloppy. I'll take them from least to greatest.

1. Why am I wielding the Avenger assault rifle, or a Shruiken or Predator pistol in 65%+ of the cutscenes? Is this a bug? I wield better weapons than that, and I feel that the cutscene should reflect the awesomeness.

2. What happened to the heavy weapons? I maxed my ammo capacity in ME2 so I could squeeze off two shots with the Cain Nuke-Boom-Device....on heavy mechs...and failed to take down a larval-stage Reaper with both shots...yet in ME3 I was unable to get a single Cain, Avalanche, Collector particle beam, grenade launcher, missile launcher etc.

3. Biggest complaint I have about the ending: Why is there no synthesis Shep body breath? If you Control, you get zapped and see the Shep body take a breath in rubble; Kill, you go boom (why not shoot the pylon from a safer distance, why walk into the flames?) and Shep lives; why is it that Synthesis causes a lack of Shep body?

If it's the idea that the Ghost kid told Shep he would die..well, the Ghost kid said that about the other two options as well. I frankly liked the Synthesis option...if Shep could live through it. If not, why did I do all that promising to the LI that I'd be back? No crazy/genetically superior/military brat/ adopted quarian/blue children? That's insane (pardon my spleen venting, please).

4. I could probably go on about little things I disliked about ME3, but the fact of the matter is I bought it knowing it could ending up going south. Additionally, it is a GAME. No one pointed a gunat my head and forced me to shell out for the product, I did it to myself. For the most part, I am happy with the product, it was an excellent game and I enjoyed it.


In conclusion, fantastic. Ending left a bit to be desired (why crash far from Earth with LI on board, why hold back on the various races...), but I think Bioware will have a corker of an ending to add to this. Will I buy more Bioware/EA products after this? Probably...but I can say I will be influenced by how they handle the ending content DLC.

Best of luck Bioware, I really do hope you do well on this one. Make it half as good as the first 90% of the game, and you will do well.

It is the Destroy ending in which Shepard takes a gasp, not Control.  And the star kid is purposely ambiguous about what he says Shepard's fate will be for Destroy.  This is one thing that makes no sense at all.

The reason why Shepard takes a breath has absolutely nothing to do with choices Shepard and the player made in the single player game.  In fact most of the single player game can be meaningless in that whole final gasp thing.  Multiplayer is the reason why Shepard takes a breath.  You must get a high enough EMS-which cannot be raised hight enough in single player alone.  So, in order to get it you must get a high enough TMS and Galactic Readiness combination.  You could get a high enough TMS in multiplayer alone or with a combination of multiplayer and singleplayer so that it doesn't even matter if your GR drops to 50%.  You just have to promote enough N7 teams to raise the N7 asset level and then in order for N7 to count you must be online.

So, in short, for Shepard to take a gasp and be "alive", choose Destroy, but only if you have a high EMS-a combination of single player and multi-player and/or a higher GR.  Because we all know that multi-player makes explosions that should kill Shepard slightly less powerful. 

[darkway1]

3DandBeyond wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

No one is in dispute with Bioware's ability to produce quality games but the business mentality behind Bioware's games is some thing I no longer want to support,DA2 (unfinished/under developed environments),TOR (total lack of endgame content) and Mass3 (abandoned story/unfinished ending issues),to invest in DLC or maintain subscriptions simply encourages more of the same mentality that is destroying Bioware games/reputation.

Maybe the silence from Bioware has more to with knowing that the bolt-on ending was wrong and can't be justified in context of the quality of work previously produced.

I think there's a real fear of someone saying something and it not being 100% accurate or it not being enough or, as you point to, bearing out the accuracy of our conjecture.  That is, that on some level they know.

If Bioware feels that they can't talk or explain with out fear of people twisting words or phrases being used out of context etc ,then it's due to the communication environment they themselves have created.
Deep down we all know that there's probably good reason why story elements were dropped and why the ending took off in a very different and unexpected direction but it's insulting that Bioware allows open speculation to drag on.....if "IT" is not real then Bioware should say so,if Shepard is dead,then say so,if the relay's are in perfect working order,then say so........after all,the story is done,over....and Bioware isn't going to change anything,so why the need to be silent???...if the ending was produced effectively then there would be no speculation or debate,we'd have all the answers?????.........I just simply don't understand why Bioware just can't answer people's questions?  

[sonicchaos]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Because we all know that multi-player makes explosions that should kill Shepard slightly less powerful. 

It has been proven as a true fact.

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Sorry, had to put up one more question, which connects to a lot of other questions:

What happened to the people on the Citadel? It looked to me like there were billions on the Citadel prior to the Cerberus mission, and when the station arms open for the Crucible, it looked like street lights and things were still on. Were the power distribution unit plans I obtained for Purgatory useful? How's Bailey? Did the Council die? What about all the refugees I was helping? Did the Ghost kid hit the "Kill" switch on this shiny "part of himself"?

Dragon Age Origins had about a dozen screens of single paragraph text (bugged, true, but good nonetheless) explaining what happened to primary characters. Maybe we could look at that for ME3?

Yeah, I'm not big on text explanations myself.  I tend to want videogames to use their best asset which is the visual nature.  I can't stand movies that have page after page of text at the end either.

As far as the Citadel, I vaguely remember it being said somewhere that a lot of people from their used kinetic barriers and got off of it, but I think this was retconning in an interview with one of the writers/devs.  Something along the lines of the keepers setting up kinetic barrier "pods" of sorts for them to get away.

Just another example of stuff that causes me to gag a bit.

[3DandBeyond]

darkway1 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

No one is in dispute with Bioware's ability to produce quality games but the business mentality behind Bioware's games is some thing I no longer want to support,DA2 (unfinished/under developed environments),TOR (total lack of endgame content) and Mass3 (abandoned story/unfinished ending issues),to invest in DLC or maintain subscriptions simply encourages more of the same mentality that is destroying Bioware games/reputation.

Maybe the silence from Bioware has more to with knowing that the bolt-on ending was wrong and can't be justified in context of the quality of work previously produced.

I think there's a real fear of someone saying something and it not being 100% accurate or it not being enough or, as you point to, bearing out the accuracy of our conjecture.  That is, that on some level they know.

If Bioware feels that they can't talk or explain with out fear of people twisting words or phrases being used out of context etc ,then it's due to the communication environment they themselves have created.
Deep down we all know that there's probably good reason why story elements were dropped and why the ending took off in a very different and unexpected direction but it's insulting that Bioware allows open speculation to drag on.....if "IT" is not real then Bioware should say so,if Shepard is dead,then say so,if the relay's are in perfect working order,then say so........after all,the story is done,over....and Bioware isn't going to change anything,so why the need to be silent???...if the ending was produced effectively then there would be no speculation or debate,we'd have all the answers?????.........I just simply don't understand why Bioware just can't answer people's questions?  

I agree, but I just can't see why they'd continue to remain silent on this unless it's because they think all along they've been totally misunderstood.  There are reams of things they said previously and now it's as if someone shut off a free-flowing spigot.

To top it off of course is the fact they are happily talking about wanting to have real dialogs with fans over DA3 and its proposed content.

They just don't get it.  Many of the same fans that bought ME, are DA fans and already they are grumbling over it.  One discussion is about whether DA3 will have MP and how fans don't want it to be tied to the SP, and someone from Bioware said he doubts they would be tied together and that the ME3 tie in must be a bug.  The guy is Alan Schumacher, Technical QA Analyst on the Dragon Age franchise.  About a week ago, he said the devs were aware of this "bug" and in fact long before that it was the subject of a tweet by one of the devs and said to be a bug.  And fans are still pressing as to why it has yet to be fixed then.

[3DandBeyond]

In order to make sense of the ending it is best to:
Not play ME1
Not play ME2
Believe that the star kid is telling the truth when he has obviously been lying.
Believe that the reapers are not killing people, even when we clearly see them killing people.
Believe that people goo/sludge is a good thing.
Believe that people should be doomed in the present based upon possible future situations that may doom them.
Believe that people will be saved by being turned into goo because they might create something that may want to kill them.
Believe that Shepard/player has no brain and can't possibly be expected to remember what happened within ME3 itself.
Believe that the star kid controls the reapers, but doesn't actually control the reapers.
Believe that the star kid and/or reapers had nothing to do with the plans for the crucible even though the star kid knows all about it and what it will do and wants Shepard to use it.
Believe that when the star kid says the reapers are his solution, that he thinks this is a good thing.
Believe that a normal person would think it's necessary and wise to walk forward while shooting a gun just to get close enough for the gun to do damage so the thing being shot at will explode in their face.
Believe that TIM suddenly developed the ability to instantly control someone (Shepard) enough to get them to shoot someone they cared about.
Believe that space magic can be used for whole major plot points.
Believe that characters within a story might be saved if some god plays multi-player.

And more........

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 juin 2012 - 04:45 .

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

Ok on the IT Theory, I suppose I would be ok with this being what happens in the EC DLC since it does allow for the existing ending to happen and permits an opening for a real ending without completely breaking the story because it basically undoes the ending. I'll get on board with this only because it'll fit with what we already have and allow Bioware a backdoor out of this mess in order to fix the ending. However, the problem I have with the IT theory is that we're basically getting "it's a dream ending" and this is widely considered ****** poor writing. Not only that, but it means they sold an incomplete product. Would you buy a book that had the final chapter replaced with a post-it note saying that you could buy the final chapter in a couple months? A story has a beginning, middle, and END. The IT theory basically says the Bioware sold us a story with a beginning, middle, and ______ ... wait a few months for the ending. THAT IS BS!!! Though I can rationalize how the IT Theory does work within the narrative I can't help at the same time to feel screwed over. If IT theory was Bioware's goal all along then that means they intentionally sold us an incomplete product with the deliberate intention of making us pay for an ending that should have been in the game (sounds a lot like the From Ashes DLC doesn't it). The only reason they are giving it away for free now is because we called BS on this. They thought they could get one over on us and got caught, so now they've got to bring in damage control ie. free DLC (even though they planned to charge us all along). It's this kind of business practices that I will not get behind. This is no way an industry should operate and we, as the consumers, need to make sure they do not keep travelling in this direction.

This is a sneaking suspicion of mine.  I actually believe this trend started much earlier on.  I've said it before, but will reiterate it here.  There may be other cases as well.  Liara is considered to be a major character (I don't mean as a love interest), they promote her as one of Shepard's best friends-in ME3, the time capsule, at the beginning of ME2, and in the Redemption graphic novel.  Liara was the one person able to and actively searching for Shepard.  Garrus is of course a great friend too, but they don't have Garrus looking for Shepard.  But consider any character with Liara's standing (again just as a friend) and the LotSB content is problematic.  She was supposed to play a much bigger role in ME2.  But, if you have the xbox version, you had to pay to have Liara in the game. I know it's included with PS3 versions and I don't know about the PC version.  I can't imagine the appearance of Liara in ME3 making much sense if you didn't play LotSB.  Nor would it make much sense story-wise for her to go to all the trouble of getting Shepard's body back and then not seeing Shepard until ME3.  However, they still don't do that whole thing justice because once you complete LotSB, Liara is just this robotic idiot and not a teammate.

I'd also submit that there is a real necessary component to the Arrival DLC as well.

Then, along comes the From Ashes DLC.  One of the main foundations for a lot of things within ME3 comes from what the Protheans knew or did and you get a lot of needed backstory from Javik.  It is another example of needed optional DLC.  What a joke.

So, in seeing a slide in their opinion of how DLC should be used, your point seems all too rational and obvious.  Sadly so. But this is also the direction other video games have been going in.  Release an incomplete game and rely on DLC to complete it and make people pay for it.  We shouldn't ever accept that unless we know about it beforehand.

[Redbelle]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

*Snipped*

3. Biggest complaint I have about the ending: Why is there no synthesis Shep body breath? If you Control, you get zapped and see the Shep body take a breath in rubble; Kill, you go boom (why not shoot the pylon from a safer distance, why walk into the flames?) and Shep lives; why is it that Synthesis causes a lack of Shep body?

I thought the reason for no body was that Shep got fried in the Syn ending as well as the control ending.

[Redbelle]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Sorry, had to put up one more question, which connects to a lot of other questions:

What happened to the people on the Citadel? It looked to me like there were billions on the Citadel prior to the Cerberus mission, and when the station arms open for the Crucible, it looked like street lights and things were still on. Were the power distribution unit plans I obtained for Purgatory useful? How's Bailey? Did the Council die? What about all the refugees I was helping? Did the Ghost kid hit the "Kill" switch on this shiny "part of himself"?

Dragon Age Origins had about a dozen screens of single paragraph text (bugged, true, but good nonetheless) explaining what happened to primary characters. Maybe we could look at that for ME3?

From informal interviews I have the impression that many of the civies and police are housed in emergency shelters that also serve as escape pods. We'll have to wait for the ECDLC to see if this pans out.

[Redbelle]

darkway1 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

No one is in dispute with Bioware's ability to produce quality games but the business mentality behind Bioware's games is some thing I no longer want to support,DA2 (unfinished/under developed environments),TOR (total lack of endgame content) and Mass3 (abandoned story/unfinished ending issues),to invest in DLC or maintain subscriptions simply encourages more of the same mentality that is destroying Bioware games/reputation.

Maybe the silence from Bioware has more to with knowing that the bolt-on ending was wrong and can't be justified in context of the quality of work previously produced.

I think there's a real fear of someone saying something and it not being 100% accurate or it not being enough or, as you point to, bearing out the accuracy of our conjecture.  That is, that on some level they know.

If Bioware feels that they can't talk or explain with out fear of people twisting words or phrases being used out of context etc ,then it's due to the communication environment they themselves have created.
Deep down we all know that there's probably good reason why story elements were dropped and why the ending took off in a very different and unexpected direction but it's insulting that Bioware allows open speculation to drag on.....if "IT" is not real then Bioware should say so,if Shepard is dead,then say so,if the relay's are in perfect working order,then say so........after all,the story is done,over....and Bioware isn't going to change anything,so why the need to be silent???...if the ending was produced effectively then there would be no speculation or debate,we'd have all the answers?????.........I just simply don't understand why Bioware just can't answer people's questions?  

Well, if BW were an AI, then I'd submit that they are shackled by EA. Small companies can easily talk as they have no other interests that can be impacted on. BW on the other hand now reflect on EA and EA probably have a foot in BW communication's.

The thing about EA is I like their sport games where they have to rely on a system that repeats over and over again. But I've been trying to think of a story driven game from them and I'm coming up short. ME3 only half counts because it was developed by BW while EA, at most, handed out funding and set the deadlines.

I dunno. How EA and BW co-produced ME3 is a mystery since I've heard nothing about the EA angle.

Modifié par Redbelle, 15 juin 2012 - 05:20 .

[V-rcingetorix]

Redbelle wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Sorry, had to put up one more question, which connects to a lot of other questions:

What happened to the people on the Citadel? It looked to me like there were billions on the Citadel prior to the Cerberus mission, and when the station arms open for the Crucible, it looked like street lights and things were still on. Were the power distribution unit plans I obtained for Purgatory useful? How's Bailey? Did the Council die? What about all the refugees I was helping? Did the Ghost kid hit the "Kill" switch on this shiny "part of himself"?

Dragon Age Origins had about a dozen screens of single paragraph text (bugged, true, but good nonetheless) explaining what happened to primary characters. Maybe we could look at that for ME3?

From informal interviews I have the impression that many of the civies and police are housed in emergency shelters that also serve as escape pods. We'll have to wait for the ECDLC to see if this pans out.

Thanks

[V-rcingetorix]

V_rcingetorix wrote:

Best of luck Bioware, I really do hope you do well on this one. Make it half as good as the first 90% of the game, and you will do well.[/quote]

#Dandbeyond:
It is the Destroy ending in which Shepard takes a gasp, not Control.  And the star kid is purposely ambiguous about what he says Shepard's fate will be for Destroy.  This is one thing that makes no sense at all.

The reason why Shepard takes a breath has absolutely nothing to do with choices Shepard and the player made in the single player game.  In fact most of the single player game can be meaningless in that whole final gasp thing.  Multiplayer is the reason why Shepard takes a breath.  You must get a high enough EMS-which cannot be raised hight enough in single player alone.  So, in order to get it you must get a high enough TMS and Galactic Readiness combination.  You could get a high enough TMS in multiplayer alone or with a combination of multiplayer and singleplayer so that it doesn't even matter if your GR drops to 50%.  You just have to promote enough N7 teams to raise the N7 asset level and then in order for N7 to count you must be online.

So, in short, for Shepard to take a gasp and be "alive", choose Destroy, but only if you have a high EMS-a combination of single player and multi-player and/or a higher GR.  Because we all know that multi-player makes explosions that should kill Shepard slightly less powerful. 

[/quote]
===========================================================================================================
I got the game (preordered) the day after it came out, and finished it after about five days (very fast for me!). In that time, I did not use the mutiplayer at all (honest ending, I thought). I chose the Synthesis ending, then went back and did the "Destroy" ending. Control was just too evil for me

If my memory serves correct, I still had the gasp w/o the multiplayer input, but it is possible I was wrong.

What gets me is the lack of a living Shep in all scenarios, are we being rewarded for killing EDI/Geth? Or is there a Sheperd that "only becomes more powerful when struck down"? Either one is kinda lame...

Best possible ending for me would be:

1. Paragon: Geth/EDI live, Shepherd lives (with LI if applicable), but  loses most of his limbs/gets an injury that puts him out of comission, and Reapers are destroyed.

2. Ambivalent: Geth/EDI die, Reapers die, Sheperd lives, if a little crippled.

3. Renegade: Sheperd dies taking over controlling the Reapers (maybe like a predecessor, a la Borg/Matrix), most live, but unknown for how long.

EDIT: I put in who said what, to avoid confusion, I hope. Not sure why the box quote did not hold :/

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 15 juin 2012 - 09:11 .

[V-rcingetorix]

3DandBeyond wrote...

_snipped_
It is the Destroy ending in which Shepard takes a gasp, not Control.  And the star kid is purposely ambiguous about what he says Shepard's fate will be for Destroy.  This is one thing that makes no sense at all.

So, in short, for Shepard to take a gasp and be "alive", choose Destroy, but only if you have a high EMS-a combination of single player and multi-player and/or a higher GR.  Because we all know that multi-player makes explosions that should kill Shepard slightly less powerful. 
_snipped_

I did write a fanfic ending (http://social.biowar...6036/1#12457483), which could allow bioware an honorable (and cheap) way out. Well, it didn't go much beyond the given ending, but more rearranged the ending we were given.

You make good points. Thank you for your civility.

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 15 juin 2012 - 05:44 .

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...



===========================================================================================================
I got the game (preordered) the day after it came out, and finished it after about five days (very fast for me!). In that time, I did not use the mutiplayer at all (honest ending, I thought). I chose the Synthesis ending, then went back and did the "Destroy" ending. Control was just too evil for me

If my memory serves correct, I still had the gasp w/o the multiplayer input, but it is possible I was wrong.

What gets me is the lack of a living Shep in all scenarios, are we being rewarded for killing EDI/Geth? Or is there a Sheperd that "only becomes more powerful when struck down"? Either one is kinda lame...

Actually, I believe that when you start the game you are given an automatic 100% galactic readiness rating.  So, if you get say 7000 in war assets (TMS) you get approximately that at the end.  EMS=GR x TMS.  But after a few days of not playing MP, the galactic readiness will drop way down-it drops about 4% a day, more or less.  So, unless you play MP you will end up with a total EMS of 3500 eventually (it bottoms out the GR at 50%) with that 7000TMS, which is not enough for the Destroy "gasps" ending.

I was commenting to make it clear that MP is needed to get even that once you've been playing the game for awhile.

I believe they decided to make it part of the Destroy ending (though I could be wrong) because most people will think at first at least that Destroy might make sense.  It's what Shepard always wanted to do, but then once you stop and think about it it denies many things A Shepard could do in the game and becomes genocide.  So, in order to get the Shepard lives ending you have to do something really horrible.  But in my opinion all of the choices are horrible, so....

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 juin 2012 - 06:13 .

[Redbelle]

[quote]V-rcingetorix wrote...


Best of luck Bioware, I really
do hope you do well on this one. Make it half as good as the first 90%
of the game, and you will do well.[/quote]

It is the Destroy
ending in which Shepard takes a gasp, not Control.  And the star kid is
purposely ambiguous about what he says Shepard's fate will be for
Destroy.  This is one thing that makes no sense at all.

The
reason why Shepard takes a breath has absolutely nothing to do with
choices Shepard and the player made in the single player game.  In fact
most of the single player game can be meaningless in that whole final
gasp thing.  Multiplayer is the reason why Shepard takes a breath.  You
must get a high enough EMS-which cannot be raised hight enough in single
player alone.  So, in order to get it you must get a high enough TMS
and Galactic Readiness combination.  You could get a high enough TMS in
multiplayer alone or with a combination of multiplayer and singleplayer
so that it doesn't even matter if your GR drops to 50%.  You just have
to promote enough N7 teams to raise the N7 asset level and then in order
for N7 to count you must be online.

So, in short, for Shepard to
take a gasp and be "alive", choose Destroy, but only if you have a high
EMS-a combination of single player and multi-player and/or a higher
GR.  Because we all know that multi-player makes explosions that should
kill Shepard slightly less powerful. 

[/quote]
===========================================================================================================
[quote]
I got the game (preordered) the day after it came out, and finished it
after about five days (very fast for me!). In that time, I did not use
the mutiplayer at all (honest ending, I thought). I chose the Synthesis
ending, then went back and did the "Destroy" ending. Control was just
too evil for me

If my memory serves correct, I still had the gasp w/o the multiplayer input, but it is possible I was wrong.

What
gets me is the lack of a living Shep in all scenarios, are we being
rewarded for killing EDI/Geth? Or is there a Sheperd that "only becomes
more powerful when struck down"? Either one is kinda lame...

Best possible ending for me would be:

1.
Paragon: Geth/EDI live, Shepherd lives (with LI if applicable), but 
loses most of his limbs/gets an injury that puts him out of comission,
and Reapers are destroyed.

2. Ambivalent: Geth/EDI die, Reapers die, Sheperd lives, if a little crippled.

3.
Renegade: Sheperd dies taking over controlling the Reapers (maybe like a
predecessor, a la Borg/Matrix), most live, but unknown for how long.
[/quote]


Oooh, Oooh, I know this will sound stupid but the above post got me thinking......

If a player picks destroy then they can play an MP map to go and grab Shepards smashed and insensate body and bring it back to base. A bit like a package retrieval gauntlet run but with............ VAMPIRES!!!! <cough> ok, maybe not vampires, but the rest sounded like a good idea at the time.

Modifié par Redbelle, 15 juin 2012 - 05:56 .

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

_snipped_
It is the Destroy ending in which Shepard takes a gasp, not Control.  And the star kid is purposely ambiguous about what he says Shepard's fate will be for Destroy.  This is one thing that makes no sense at all.

So, in short, for Shepard to take a gasp and be "alive", choose Destroy, but only if you have a high EMS-a combination of single player and multi-player and/or a higher GR.  Because we all know that multi-player makes explosions that should kill Shepard slightly less powerful. 
_snipped_

I did write a fanfic ending (http://social.biowar...6036/1#12457483), which could allow bioware an honorable (and cheap) way out. Well, it didn't go much beyond the given ending, but more rearranged the ending we were given.

You make good points. Thank you for your civility.

But of course....:innocent:

I appreciate your fiction.  Actually, I hoped kind of for something similar if they decided to keep this god awful mess.  I saw a rejection of what the kid says as creating an equation such as 1+1=3 which the kid couldn't comprehend and would destroy him and the reapers.  Kind of the kid expecting that a choice would be made and a rejection not fitting any known formula-he could not comprehend such a thing.

The only problem was with your initial statement.  I absolutely do not want any ending to hinge on multi-player.  I think the inclusion of a tie in between MP and SP is for one reason only and I'm not generous in thinking this-Bioware and EA saw profit in all those Spectre packs and were "forcing" people to play it.

Remember Galactic Readiness is determined by continued multi-player play (it's a percentage factored in).  Total Military Assets are all those things you accrue in the game, mainly single player, but N7 assets are MP teams promoted (you must be online and connected to the EA servers for these to be added in).  EMS is GR x TMS.  So, it's conceivable at some point in time for the EA ME3 servers to go dark and those N7 assets from multi-player will be gone.  As will that galactic readiness rating.  So, if someone only can get about 7300 in assets from single player (I think the max is somewhere just shy of 8000) then cut it in half and you can't get the "best" ending.  If they then use this in the EC as some basis for a clarified "best" ending then I see it as a real problem.

Some people do not have a great broadband connection, so they don't play MP.  Some just aren't good at it or don't like it, or did not buy the game for the MP.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

Oooh, Oooh, I know this will sound stupid but the above post got me thinking......

If a player picks destroy then they can play an MP map to go and grab Shepards smashed and insensate body and bring it back to base. A bit like a package retrieval gauntlet run but with............ VAMPIRES!!!! <cough> ok, maybe not vampires, but the rest sounded like a good idea at the time.

Oh yes this would work, not the vampires unless they are brooding and introspective and fighting werewolves.  Ugh.

Grab Shepard's partial torso and run it back to base in order for an MP bonus of 2000, which gets you the super extended "gasps" twice ending.  Satisfying.  If along with the retrieval you pick up extra bonus points by shooting foes along the way or making it in a certain time frame, you will not only see the amazing Shepard body gasp twice, but you will see a charred finger move.  Further bonuses will allow for twitches, a head, possible skin, and hair.  All other options can only be purchased within MP packs.  If one retrieves a fully intact Shepard based upon upgrades from those packs, instead of just a torso, then you get the super dooper deluxe upgraded "Shepard lives" special, where Shepard speaks and says, "what happened?"  And full breathing ensues.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 juin 2012 - 06:23 .

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

Ok on the IT Theory, I suppose I would be ok with this being what happens in the EC DLC since it does allow for the existing ending to happen and permits an opening for a real ending without completely breaking the story because it basically undoes the ending. I'll get on board with this only because it'll fit with what we already have and allow Bioware a backdoor out of this mess in order to fix the ending. However, the problem I have with the IT theory is that we're basically getting "it's a dream ending" and this is widely considered ****** poor writing. Not only that, but it means they sold an incomplete product. Would you buy a book that had the final chapter replaced with a post-it note saying that you could buy the final chapter in a couple months? A story has a beginning, middle, and END. The IT theory basically says the Bioware sold us a story with a beginning, middle, and ______ ... wait a few months for the ending. THAT IS BS!!! Though I can rationalize how the IT Theory does work within the narrative I can't help at the same time to feel screwed over. If IT theory was Bioware's goal all along then that means they intentionally sold us an incomplete product with the deliberate intention of making us pay for an ending that should have been in the game (sounds a lot like the From Ashes DLC doesn't it). The only reason they are giving it away for free now is because we called BS on this. They thought they could get one over on us and got caught, so now they've got to bring in damage control ie. free DLC (even though they planned to charge us all along). It's this kind of business practices that I will not get behind. This is no way an industry should operate and we, as the consumers, need to make sure they do not keep travelling in this direction.

This is a sneaking suspicion of mine.  I actually believe this trend started much earlier on.  I've said it before, but will reiterate it here.  There may be other cases as well.  Liara is considered to be a major character (I don't mean as a love interest), they promote her as one of Shepard's best friends-in ME3, the time capsule, at the beginning of ME2, and in the Redemption graphic novel.  Liara was the one person able to and actively searching for Shepard.  Garrus is of course a great friend too, but they don't have Garrus looking for Shepard.  But consider any character with Liara's standing (again just as a friend) and the LotSB content is problematic.  She was supposed to play a much bigger role in ME2.  But, if you have the xbox version, you had to pay to have Liara in the game. I know it's included with PS3 versions and I don't know about the PC version.  I can't imagine the appearance of Liara in ME3 making much sense if you didn't play LotSB.  Nor would it make much sense story-wise for her to go to all the trouble of getting Shepard's body back and then not seeing Shepard until ME3.  However, they still don't do that whole thing justice because once you complete LotSB, Liara is just this robotic idiot and not a teammate.

I'd also submit that there is a real necessary component to the Arrival DLC as well.

Then, along comes the From Ashes DLC.  One of the main foundations for a lot of things within ME3 comes from what the Protheans knew or did and you get a lot of needed backstory from Javik.  It is another example of needed optional DLC.  What a joke.

So, in seeing a slide in their opinion of how DLC should be used, your point seems all too rational and obvious.  Sadly so. But this is also the direction other video games have been going in.  Release an incomplete game and rely on DLC to complete it and make people pay for it.  We shouldn't ever accept that unless we know about it beforehand.

Correct, DLC should not be vital material, but rather EXTRA content. The From Ashes DLC is incredibly tied in the central narrative so much so that playing without it can make parts of the story not make sense (well more so than it already does). ME 2 does this as well somewhat, except I can kind of forgive LofTSB and Arrival since they were advertised as not really being ME 2 story DLC, but more as tie-in material that bridges ME 2 and ME 3. Now, to establish a counterpoint, ME 1 had great DLC. The Pinnacle Station and Bring Down the Sky have a strong effect on the narrative it is simply extra content new location and more side mission do. The story doesn't change if you down load them or not, but having just serves to beef up an already great game. That's good DLC, it's extra not essential. If a game was sold that was the begining of the game, but guess what? The Middle DLC will coming out soon, oh and maybe the End DLC will be coming out after that. How does that model sound to everyone? Is that the industry you all want? Because that sure sounds like a steaming pile of BS to me.

[Voodoo-j]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Sorry, had to put up one more question, which connects to a lot of other questions:

What happened to the people on the Citadel? It looked to me like there were billions on the Citadel prior to the Cerberus mission, and when the station arms open for the Crucible, it looked like street lights and things were still on. Were the power distribution unit plans I obtained for Purgatory useful? How's Bailey? Did the Council die? What about all the refugees I was helping? Did the Ghost kid hit the "Kill" switch on this shiny "part of himself"?

Dragon Age Origins had about a dozen screens of single paragraph text (bugged, true, but good nonetheless) explaining what happened to primary characters. Maybe we could look at that for ME3?

This is what I was expecting.. perhaps they can't hit their previous marks?  


(somewhere it was said the arms of the citadel survived, there are safety areas protected by kinetic barriers ect)
(was same source that explained the relays shorted out vs overloaded, thus not destroying the system that they were in)

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 15 juin 2012 - 06:51 .