228 réponses à ce sujet

[incinerator950]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Red to symbolize Wrath, destroying Synthetic life and burning down the Citadel.  Blue for peaceful overide and Control, taking the minds of the Reapers and calling off the Cycle indefinitely.  Green to symbolize an alien peace, fuse all life in the Galaxy with a new fusion.

You said farewell before Hammer made the push to the Conduit.  Not only did you say farewell before talking to Anderson, you gave a speech to encourage your Unit.  

If you're going to nitpick the ending, at least remember all of the points of it.

Sorry, my understanding of the word "symbolism" differs from yours. To me, the red, green, blue choices would be "symbolic" if the choices these colors represent was a common reality in war or love or whatever. Merge, destroy, control. Some sort of deeper metaphor. However these are themes I have only just learned about in ME, and find them hard to translate to life outside the game.

It would be like me designing a game where you pick: round = fly to your death, square = fall to your death and triangle = suffocate to death, and then say that "round", "square" and "triangle" were "symbolic".

Well there's a difference in choosing how to die, and choosing what to die for.  To be honest, the fact you're all looking down speaks volumes.  I pulled the symbolism out of my ass out of a minute of skimming a post.  

[Canned Bullets]

Brent Knowles knows what he's talking about. If only the writing team on Mass Effect 3 knew what the fans would want like Knowles.

[Subject M]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

So it would be different then Garrus? 

Silly person, Garrus is a turian, not a dog.

You organics are all the same to me.

[Rockworm503]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

Valadras21 wrote...

Maybe we should try and make sure Casey, Mac, and anyone else who's relevant on the dev team sees what Brent had to say, instead of suggesting we fire and replace them with somone else?

I agree with what Brent wrote, and I'll readily admit I hate the way ME3 ended, but there's a positive way to handle this, and suggesting that the ME3 writers and devs are some horrible monsters that are out to get money and sow destruction in the name of EA, is not it.

Let's not forget the other 95% of ME3, which is amazing and worthy of praise.

I don't agree that the other 95% was "amazing" - it felt like a loud cliched Hollywood movie interrupted by (now rapidly getting stale) shooty bits. Too much auto dialog. The story was Call of Duty with space invaders instead of Russians. And even the shooty mechanics were a poor cousin to Call of Duty or Gears of War. It felt "amazing" because of the interminable cinematics that gave the cheap illusion of immersion.

I laugh when people call it Call of Duty or Gears of War.
Clearly showing they never played either game.

[Rockworm503]

Atakuma wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

People need to stop deifying this man. He helped make DA:O which was a generic hodgepodge of fantasy cliches that was only saved by it's strong characters. The guy isn't any more talented than anyone currently working at bioware.

Im sorry... havent I seen you around "deifying" Casey and the current version of ME3? And you presume that you have that right but noone else has? 

Really? 

I haven't been deifying anything and I don't know where you get that from. People on these boards see brent knowles as some sort of martyr and use him as to justify their hate of bioware.

Yeah we don't need anyone doing that for us.  Bioware is making it easy to hate them so I don't even need to justify it.

[SpideyKnight]

Rafe34 wrote...

lumen11 wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Pfft. Speak for yourself, there was nothing Disney about having to watch my Alistair get straddled by Morrigan.

That was a choice you made, though. It was neither pre-destined, arbitrary, or required. Unlike the ending of the Mass Effect trilogy, which was marinated in mediocrity.

 
And I stand by my choice, just like I stood by the choice of my Dalish to knock the Alistair who ditched her for the crowd out and sacrifice herself to the Archdemon.

I like my choices, all variations of them in DA:O.

I only got colours in ME3. :<

This is not just to you but some of the others too.

I really don't get why people want to insist it's only about colours. The difference between the choices is huge. The fact that the game doesn't show you these differences doesn't make it any less so. The colors were there as a nice reversal of the conventianal paragon versus renegade paradigm. I do get why people would like something less conceptual, but it really isn't that out of place in the ME universe.

In every ending, Shepard gives up and accepts the leader of the enemy's three options.
In every ending, the Mass Effect relays are destroyed.
In every ending, the fleets that you just united are now all stranded in the Sol system, with only FTL travel, and so they will take years to get back to their home-worlds, if they get back at all- starvation could be a factor with dextro-based organisms.
In every ending, the galaxy is no longer a united hub of species, since it will take decades to traverse the galaxy.
In every ending, Joker deserts you at the end, and flees the battle.
In every ending, the Normandy is taken down by the Crucible, which leads one to wonder, what happened to the other ships?
In every ending, your crew is stranded on a garden world, where no one knows where they are, and thus either Tali and Garrus will starve to death, or your human crew will, since no planet will have both types of food available.

Hell that's not even all of it and it is already more than enough to make every ending a complete joke.  It is remarkably ironic that several variations of of the same "Do you guys understand the ending?" topics keep getting created when it is the comically dense that get to enjoy the endings the most since they don't understand the ramifications of your actions that aren't shown.

Yes, I understand the endings and can see the various paths Bio could take this.  That's the problem.  If I was dense this game would be awesome, (as evidenced by Gabe from PA loving the endings because he is ignorant to the consequences) sadly, I am not.  A previous posters sig is remarkably prescient here: "...and they will not be fooled." - Gabe Newell

[lumen11]

Rafe34 wrote...

lumen11 wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Pfft. Speak for yourself, there was nothing Disney about having to watch my Alistair get straddled by Morrigan.

That was a choice you made, though. It was neither pre-destined, arbitrary, or required. Unlike the ending of the Mass Effect trilogy, which was marinated in mediocrity.

 
And I stand by my choice, just like I stood by the choice of my Dalish to knock the Alistair who ditched her for the crowd out and sacrifice herself to the Archdemon.

I like my choices, all variations of them in DA:O.

I only got colours in ME3. :<

This is not just to you but some of the others too.

I really don't get why people want to insist it's only about colours. The difference between the choices is huge. The fact that the game doesn't show you these differences doesn't make it any less so. The colors were there as a nice reversal of the conventianal paragon versus renegade paradigm. I do get why people would like something less conceptual, but it really isn't that out of place in the ME universe.

In every ending, Shepard gives up and accepts the leader of the enemy's three options.
In every ending, the Mass Effect relays are destroyed.
In every ending, the fleets that you just united are now all stranded in the Sol system, with only FTL travel, and so they will take years to get back to their home-worlds, if they get back at all- starvation could be a factor with dextro-based organisms.
In every ending, the galaxy is no longer a united hub of species, since it will take decades to traverse the galaxy.
In every ending, Joker deserts you at the end, and flees the battle.
In every ending, the Normandy is taken down by the Crucible, which leads one to wonder, what happened to the other ships?
In every ending, your crew is stranded on a garden world, where no one knows where they are, and thus either Tali and Garrus will starve to death, or your human crew will, since no planet will have both types of food available.

You are forgetting the most important one. In every ending the Cycle is broken. And that is precisely the nearly (but not quite) incomprehensible level of scale you're asked to look the universe and make a choice. We don't know how long the Cycle has been going on, as far as I'm aware, but it's safe to say you're fundamentally resetting the galaxy after eons of the same pattern repeating itself and you can steer it in three differnt directions:

1) Synthetic life will be slave to the will of organics/Organics can be the only true measure of things;
2) Synthetic life is destroyed, but is allowed to develop itself again without any restriction/choas is allowed to determine how things will turn out.
3) Synthetic and organic life are fused/organically determined purpose and consciously developed  thought are fused in same way to complement eachother.
(I've tried to phrase it in different ways to show you how I give meaning to this and that there are more ways than one to do so. There are distinct theological implications for example.)

On this kind of conceptual level the fates of individuals or even planets become meaningless. The story (which it is of course) becomes more important than the actual facts. That's what the epilogue underlines. And I get why that bothers people, but ME3 leaves open the option for you to imagine what would happen to those individuals and places you interacted with. They are still there for the most part and places like Rannoch and Tuchanka are definitely different because of your influence.

[instantdeath999]

I can't completely agree with the second point, because he seems so generally apathetic about "depressing" endings in general.  Some of the worlds very best literature is incredibly bleak and utterly without hope; his word usage, that it's "wasting time", really sours his argument in my opinion.

Of course, that goes back to something else he said, that it's a video game, not a film or a novel.  I do agree Mass Effect would have been better off with a positive ending.

[Random citizen]

instantdeath999 wrote...

I can't completely agree with the second point, because he seems so generally apathetic about "depressing" endings in general.  Some of the worlds very best literature is incredibly bleak and utterly without hope; his word usage, that it's "wasting time", really sours his argument in my opinion.

Of course, that goes back to something else he said, that it's a video game, not a film or a novel.  I do agree Mass Effect would have been better off with a positive ending.

I think its clear that mr Knowles understands that it is primarily about choice and having muliple options that reflects our preference as a rpg-player. Some people like tragedy, but I guess most of us wants to feel that "we made it" through a great and captivating story or adventure that contained both joy and sorrow.. I imagine it is pretty easy to take delight in "dark, cathartic" stories when your life is pretty light or you for some reason what to affirm your own misery. Not everyone have that... luxury. Some people wants that extra jolt of escapsitic feel-good and hope that makes it easier for them to move forward in real life.

Modifié par Random citizen, 18 mars 2012 - 01:05 .

[The Executioner]

I wish we knew why he's no longer with BioWare when DAO was the last really great game they made.

[DarkHod]

The Executioner wrote...

I wish we knew why he's no longer with BioWare when DAO was the last really great game they made.

Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

Through a series of circumstances it was decided that with my not wanting to participate on Dragon Age 2 it was time to transition in a new lead to finish the Dragon Age console versions and ramp up for Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par DarkHod, 18 mars 2012 - 01:39 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Atakuma wrote...

SaulTighsEyePatch wrote...
He sounds like he actually "gets" it. Unfortunately, thats probably why he was fired.

He left on his own.

Partly because of the way DA2 was taking.
Was he so wrong?

[The Executioner]

DarkHod wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

I wish we knew why he's no longer with BioWare when DAO was the last really great game they made.

Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

Through a series of circumstances it was decided that with my not wanting to participate on Dragon Age 2 it was time to transition in a new lead to finish the Dragon Age console versions and ramp up for Dragon Age 2.

It's widely held by alot of us they have clearly sold out the fan base to appeal to a so called wider audience . Alot has happened since the release of DA2 and ME3 is awesome if you remove the ending. So they get one final chance with my hard earned dollars with DA3.

[giveamanafish...]

Random citizen wrote:
"Some people like tragedy, but I guess most of us wants to feel that "we made it" through a great and captivating story or adventure that contained both joy and sorrow.. I imagine it is pretty easy to take delight in "dark, cathartic" stories when your life is pretty light or you for some reason what to affirm your own misery. Not everyone have that... luxury. Some people wants that extra jolt of escapsitic feel-good and hope that makes it easier for them to move forward in real life."

Never mind the condescending point about affirming our own misery, how can you move forward in life if you don't recognize the reality of your situation or of the world you live in?

The Mass Effect storyline was always very dark, with thousands of people dying as a result of the reaper invasion, billions having died before. However people tended to overlook this larger gameworld reality because the game itself was fun and engaging while most of the deaths occured to background characters, people you never met or people/aliens who were just numbers (as in body counts).

In ME1, at the end you were given the choice of sacrificing the Asari mothership, killing thousands, or of sending masses of your own fleet to defend it, killing thousands. In ME2 in the final battle you rescued your crew but fought that thing (I can''t remember) which contained the genetic material of thousands of human colonists. You rescued a crew of about a hundred and witnessed what had happened to all these other people. In the game world you were the hero so everything was ok, but can you imagine how you would feel if the events of ME1 and ME2 had happened in the real world?

In a lot of entertainment there is this made up division between the people who matter and those who don't -- how many times has a movie or book or game introduced a character played by an unknown actor or VO and you knew right away that that character was going to die? You tend to see this in the real world as well, people are killed by a suicide bomber or a rampaging dictator in a far off land or you see footage of a starving child and it doesn't have the effect of seeing the death of someone close to you. Nor should it, you personally can't be expected to carry the emotional loss of a stranger's tragedy. However, is it really such a burden to recognize that the events involved really are a tragedy, involving suffering and loss of real humans even if you don't know them by name? I think that in ME3, the end of the game trilogy, the writers may have been trying to address this kind of dichotomy (artifical division) both as it occured in the game world and in the way we all tend to think about the world we live in.

This thing, this apparent call for greater awareness, is not a bad thing nor should you think of it has causing a heavy burden in your life. In fact spending some time reading a newspaper or talking to people about some of the serious issues facing the world you have to live in may even improve your own life situation or at least your outlook on your own life. You're young you're supposed to have fun, fall in love all that stuff; look for a better job or a job if you need one, but you know...You are part of something bigger?

[The Executioner]

Opsrbest wrote...

Ideological games create such vast amounts of trite uneducated pandering because the hero didn't win the day *ques Metallica Song Hero of the Day*. The basis of the endings based on the positive outlook of the game is only as imperative to the story as the intent to see the Character live and survive through the final ordeal. In ME3 those story elements are missing. You as the player actively chose to show them based on how you respond to the various dialogue choices made in the game. You can choose more dark and deep conversation choices that would actually lead anyone to believe that a Character has no intentions of surviving or will hero suicide in the final events and moments of the story. When characters question there own existence as a plot driving force it generally means that they aren't going to survive much longer. So to say that the outlook of the ending should always be "optimistic" or "pleasing to the player" is why in DA:O the ending was so limited. The DA:O endings weren't specifically the best endings that game could have had. They were used because they facilitated a concept of the story and character based plot device. So to say that the game should end on a positive note is irrelevent to the context of all the crying on the forums. The ending of the game is that the Reapers are defeated. That is positive. What happens to the "hero" character at the end of that story is irrelevant; as is represented even in DA:O. There is always another who would be Hero IE: Anderson making it onto the Citadel. So that fictitious attempt to use that argument, using the same game; which people should pay very close attention to on the similarities between the two stories, from former Bioware employee Brent Knowles has been proven invalid.

Let us return to the first point. In which the players choices should be representative through the game. And they are. All through the game in fact. There is actually an option to see an effect from ME1 in the main progression of the story; several infact. However the distinct point of "no return" for the ME3 story has everyone all hurt in the butt because the premise of what they want to see as the outcome for the Hero that they have created isn't available. Which is ireelevent to the ending of the game since the premise of the game is to defeat the Reapers and the story in which the player takes part in is the gathering of the forces to do so.

How the fight actually ends is entirely outside of what should be expected in the total story arch of ME3.

 What the hell are you talking about before the final mission Shepard says i plan to live through this, then Joker says i'm glad your in charge.  As for the rest of your arguement it doesn't hold water either the endings are the same regardeless of the decision you make.

Modifié par The Executioner, 18 mars 2012 - 03:24 .

[UnbornLeviathan]

I wonder if he's part of the reason the rest of the staff are on such a short leash for what they can and can't say about ME 3's ending/future.

[giveamanafish...]

Opsrbest, no offence but "Ideologic games create such vast amounts of trite uneducsted pandering because the hero didn't win the day". You probably shouldn't have used the phrase "uneducated pandering" in what is a non-sentence or at least an incoherrent one -- unless you meant to be ironic. Simpler language is always better.

Bye now.

Modifié par ismoketoomuch, 18 mars 2012 - 03:54 .

[Sirartistic]

I think Bioware failed to outline the entire story before they made the games! Why would EA or anyone who knows how to write remove /change the primary antagonist to one that is not malevolent although they appear that way??? Remember all the bull crap Harbinger(sp) said. We are the vanguard of your destruction. Our reasons for killing you are beyound human comprehension blah blah blah...What bull crap. Their reason is very easy to understand and it is STUPID and ILLOGICAL. All Bioware has to do is keep the Reapers evil with no purpose! Simple as that. Get rid of that stuip star kid. Please!

Also, why didnt they factor in shepards "rebuilt body" subpolt into the final events? The Illusive man should have revealed to shepard that he is made of reaper tech. That would have been cool. 

Modifié par Sirartistic, 18 mars 2012 - 03:44 .

[The Executioner]

How that ending got approved is mindboggling. I'm just going to say it that writer ,what's his name should be fired and while there at it they need to revaluate there whole operation. I'm glad this isn't the same team that's designing the next DA.

Modifié par The Executioner, 18 mars 2012 - 03:53 .

[Aulis Vaara]

lumen11 wrote...

You are forgetting the most important one. In every ending the Cycle is broken. And that is precisely the nearly (but not quite) incomprehensible level of scale you're asked to look the universe and make a choice. We don't know how long the Cycle has been going on, as far as I'm aware, but it's safe to say you're fundamentally resetting the galaxy after eons of the same pattern repeating itself and you can steer it in three differnt directions:

1) Synthetic life will be slave to the will of organics/Organics can be the only true measure of things;
2) Synthetic life is destroyed, but is allowed to develop itself again without any restriction/choas is allowed to determine how things will turn out.
3) Synthetic and organic life are fused/organically determined purpose and consciously developed  thought are fused in same way to complement eachother.
(I've tried to phrase it in different ways to show you how I give meaning to this and that there are more ways than one to do so. There are distinct theological implications for example.)

On this kind of conceptual level the fates of individuals or even planets become meaningless. The story (which it is of course) becomes more important than the actual facts. That's what the epilogue underlines. And I get why that bothers people, but ME3 leaves open the option for you to imagine what would happen to those individuals and places you interacted with. They are still there for the most part and places like Rannoch and Tuchanka are definitely different because of your influence.

In all endings, the Reapers leave and none of them solve the problem the ending sets forth (a problem that is directly contradicted in game).

1) Control. The Reapers leave, but might return one day. It does not solve the problem between creator and created.
2) Destroy. The Reapers and Geth are destroyed. This does not solve the creator and created problem, as new synthetics can still be made. And they likely will be, in order to be able to recreate the Mass Relays as quickly as possible.
3) Synthesis. This does not solve the problem between creator and created, as the races of the galaxy can still create new synthetics, even if they are changed. Furthermore, what happened to all those Geth that exist in Quarians' suits and on servers? How can they EVER be made equal without changing their entire nature?

In all endings the Reapers are gone for at least a while and none of them solve the problem set forth in the last five minutes of the game. The ending IS just about picking your favourite colour. There are no far reaching consequences except that in the control and synthesis endings the Reapers might return one day. And that's it, that's the only real difference between the endings.

And on top of only having one ending, it's not even a satisfying one. I'll agree with many others that Dragon Age: Origins type ending is much, much preferable, especially for the end of a trilogy.

Modifié par Aulis Vaara, 18 mars 2012 - 12:28 .

[Random citizen]

ismoketoomuch wrote...

Random citizen wrote:
"Some people like tragedy, but I guess most of us wants to feel that "we made it" through a great and captivating story or adventure that contained both joy and sorrow.. I imagine it is pretty easy to take delight in "dark, cathartic" stories when your life is pretty light or you for some reason what to affirm your own misery. Not everyone have that... luxury. Some people wants that extra jolt of escapsitic feel-good and hope that makes it easier for them to move forward in real life."


------------

Never mind the condescending point about affirming our own misery, how can you move forward in life if you don't recognize the reality of your situation or of the world you live in?

The Mass Effect storyline was always very dark, with thousands of people dying as a result of the reaper invasion, billions having died before. However people tended to overlook this larger gameworld reality because the game itself was fun and engaging while most of the deaths occured to background characters, people you never met or people/aliens who were just numbers (as in body counts).

In ME1, at the end you were given the choice of sacrificing the Asari mothership, killing thousands, or of sending masses of your own fleet to defend it, killing thousands. In ME2 in the final battle you rescued your crew but fought that thing (I can''t remember) which contained the genetic material of thousands of human colonists. You rescued a crew of about a hundred and witnessed what had happened to all these other people. In the game world you were the hero so everything was ok, but can you imagine how you would feel if the events of ME1 and ME2 had happened in the real world?

In a lot of entertainment there is this made up division between the people who matter and those who don't -- how many times has a movie or book or game introduced a character played by an unknown actor or VO and you knew right away that that character was going to die? You tend to see this in the real world as well, people are killed by a suicide bomber or a rampaging dictator in a far off land or you see footage of a starving child and it doesn't have the effect of seeing the death of someone close to you. Nor should it, you personally can't be expected to carry the emotional loss of a stranger's tragedy. However, is it really such a burden to recognize that the events involved really are a tragedy, involving suffering and loss of real humans even if you don't know them by name? I think that in ME3, the end of the game trilogy, the writers may have been trying to address this kind of dichotomy (artifical division) both as it occured in the game world and in the way we all tend to think about the world we live in.

This thing, this apparent call for greater awareness, is not a bad thing nor should you think of it has causing a heavy burden in your life. In fact spending some time reading a newspaper or talking to people about some of the serious issues facing the world you have to live in may even improve your own life situation or at least your outlook on your own life. You're young you're supposed to have fun, fall in love all that stuff; look for a better job or a job if you need one, but you know...You are part of something bigger?

You know, I agree with what you are saying. But I guess for many of us, we are very well aware of the state of misery this world is in, and that life is hard.

A story as mass effect then best serves as a story we can immerse in and have a chance to make it through, despite all the hardship and tragedy we face within it. It becomes a breather, a source of energy from where we can get new energy to take on the real world. I dont think anyone wants to take away all the tragic moments in M3, the immense scale of the destruction, the death of friends and comrades. For these are part of what makes this experience so strong, it makes us fight even harder for an end where everything will turn out as well as possible. But the ending failed to deliver on that being a possibility.

[Eternal Phoenix]

No wonder why Bioware is going downhill without this guy. This is the same guy who worked on HotU (Neverwinter's best expansion IMO) and Origins (Bioware's best RPG IMO for years) as the lead designer.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 18 mars 2012 - 02:53 .

[J-Reyno]

I like this human! He gets it!

And he was the lead designer for DA:O? Bless him, that was a masterpiece. I wish he would come back and fix everything.

[abaris]

He seems to be one of the guys who don't automatically asume the audience is stupid with short attention spans. No wonder he doesn't fit in with todays streamlined industry.