504 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Turtles_AWD wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

I do not want clarification why Genocide, the mass violation/rape of an entire galaxy and forced homogenization, and losing your humanity are the right choices for solving the problem of war between two different types of people. It is like they have never read a history book in their entire lives, or they are the most privileged set of people who exist in today's society.

How can you possibly be so disconnected with war, civil rights, and morality to possibly think these endings are okay to write, and even defend. It is a spit in the face to explain to me how these are the right things to do.

Seriously, this ending is so bad it's indoctrinated all of these people into thinking that only the renegade option can possibly make sense.

Which endings is the renegade option though? I can't even tell because each one of them fits the United Nations' definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. 

Given the state of these forums I am thinking the wiping out of humanity would be the paragon route. lol

[Rafe34]

terdferguson123 wrote...

First of all OP, get that "we" out of there. You do not speak for everybody, and the fact that you put that "we" in there just shows how arrogant you are. Your group of "we" is actually a small group of people who are loud, obnoxious, and always hate on something regardless of what it is, you enjoy hating, so that's what you do.

That said, the current ending would be perfectly fine if Bioware gives us more to extrapolate on, such as more investigative options with the catalyst as well as an epilogue of sorts.

Since you are apparently incompetent, let me state this plain and simple: You do not and will not ever speak for everyone, just because your loud and annoying does not mean your opinion is fact enough that you can throw around statements that speak for everyone.

All that we means is that him and everyone who shares his views.

Obviously he doesn't speak for every single person. He does speak for the majority of ME3 owners, it sure as hell looks like. And no, we don't always hate on something. I loved ME1, and ME2, but not quite as much. DAO was one of the best games ever made. DA2 and ME3? Yeah, DA2 was bad all around, ME3 had a terrible ending and some plotholes in the game itself. That's hardly hating on everything.

Please get out of this thread if you're not going to keep it civil, and refrain from name-calling.

[Turtles_AWD]

Rafe34 wrote...

To borrow from a partly fictitious account:

"Stopping the greatest threat this galaxy has ever known? You can't possibly succeed at doing this, Shepard."

"They told me that about Ilos as well. And about the Omega-4 relay."

Shepard breaks indoctrination because s/he's Shepard. Not to mention, if you really knew what the theory states, Shepard isn't yet indoctrinated- if you choose Blue or Green, then indoc is complete. If you choose red, then you never become fully indoctrinated.

I'll go back to the very first thing I typed in this thread to address this.

"Yes, Commander Shepard! The only being in the galaxy able to consciously
control their limbic system and change their brain chemistry at will!"

Indoctrination isn't like a bar that fills up where if you're at 99% or lower you can resist completely and reset it to 0-but 100% means you're screwed forever.

All stages of indoctrination are permanent and inevitable, and to be taken on some giant out of body journey while in the middle of a warzone means Shepard would be pretty far indoctrinated indeed.

Once again, to shrug off indoctrination completely is like telling your heart to stop beating. Shepard is still a living creature, subject to the same rules of life that implies.

Modifié par Turtles_AWD, 23 mars 2012 - 08:17 .

[Rafe34]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Turtles_AWD wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

I do not want clarification why Genocide, the mass violation/rape of an entire galaxy and forced homogenization, and losing your humanity are the right choices for solving the problem of war between two different types of people. It is like they have never read a history book in their entire lives, or they are the most privileged set of people who exist in today's society.

How can you possibly be so disconnected with war, civil rights, and morality to possibly think these endings are okay to write, and even defend. It is a spit in the face to explain to me how these are the right things to do.

Seriously, this ending is so bad it's indoctrinated all of these people into thinking that only the renegade option can possibly make sense.

Which endings is the renegade option though? I can't even tell because each one of them fits the United Nations' definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. 

Given the state of these forums I am thinking the wiping out of humanity would be the paragon route. lol

Right. How dare we ask for an ending that actually makes sense.

[ChuckieJ]

Turtles_AWD wrote...

Seriously, this ending is so bad it's indoctrinated all of these people into thinking that only the renegade option can possibly make sense.

Exactly. Sort of.

Why should I trust the Starboy thing that destroying the Reapers will also destroy the Geth (and EDI). He-it has done nothing to engender my trust. NOTHING.

I literally thought through the choices at the end of my game (before learning of indoctrination theory).

1) Control. Sure I may be able to control them and pull them away from Earth. But what guarantee is there that I will have permanent control? I couldn't think of any reason to believe it would be permanent.
2) Synthesis. What right do I have to merge all organics with synthetc stuff? ( I didn't even pick up on the fact this basically turns everyone into husks)
3) Destroy. I came here to destroy them. I have no reason to trust this kid. Supposedly I will lose the Geth and that sucks. I almost decided on Control because of it. But I went back to "accomplishing the mission" and chose destroy.

Further, if the theory is true, there is no reason to believe that Red means renegade in the vision the Reapers are giving us. It's likely another trick.

I personally believe that Casey Hudson gave the "Ending A, B or C" quote on purpose. It is too "on the nose"! We are literally presented with an A, B, C choice at the end (as portrayed in that wonderful image seen all over now). Why in the world would he say that knowing full-well that it is exactly how the game ends?

[Rafe34]

Turtles_AWD wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

To borrow from a partly fictitious account:

"Stopping the greatest threat this galaxy has ever known? You can't possibly succeed at doing this, Shepard."

"They told me that about Ilos as well. And about the Omega-4 relay."

Shepard breaks indoctrination because s/he's Shepard. Not to mention, if you really knew what the theory states, Shepard isn't yet indoctrinated- if you choose Blue or Green, then indoc is complete. If you choose red, then you never become fully indoctrinated.

I'll go back to the very first thing I typed in this thread to address this.

"Yes, Commander Shepard! The only being in the galaxy able to consciously
control their limbic system and change their brain chemistry at will!"

Indoctrination isn't like a bar that fills up where if you're at 99% or lower you can resist completely and reset it to 0-but 100% means you're screwed forever.

All stages of indoctrination are permanent and inevitable, and to be taken on some giant out of body journey while in the middle of a warzone means Shepard would be pretty far indoctrinated indeed.

Once again, to shrug off indoctrination completely is like telling your heart to stop beating. Shepard is still a living creature, subject to the same rules of life that implies.

All stages of indoctrination are not permanent. Rana Thanoptis was supposedly indoctrinated back on Virmire, yet she doesn't actually snap until ME3. Shepard doesn't need to hold it off for very long, only long enough to go finish the job. Then either a) he succumbs anyway, and has to be killed, or with the death of the Reapers, the indoctrination is broken.

[Exeider]

Crimes against Sentience.
-AE

[Dragoonlordz]

Rafe34 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Turtles_AWD wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

I do not want clarification why Genocide, the mass violation/rape of an entire galaxy and forced homogenization, and losing your humanity are the right choices for solving the problem of war between two different types of people. It is like they have never read a history book in their entire lives, or they are the most privileged set of people who exist in today's society.

How can you possibly be so disconnected with war, civil rights, and morality to possibly think these endings are okay to write, and even defend. It is a spit in the face to explain to me how these are the right things to do.

Seriously, this ending is so bad it's indoctrinated all of these people into thinking that only the renegade option can possibly make sense.

Which endings is the renegade option though? I can't even tell because each one of them fits the United Nations' definition of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. 

Given the state of these forums I am thinking the wiping out of humanity would be the paragon route. lol

Right. How dare we ask for an ending that actually makes sense.

How you ask not what you ask, when I said state of these forums over the past few weeks on the whole not individual targetted. There was also an element of jest, you need to lighten up and not take everything as a personal attack.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mars 2012 - 08:20 .

[TimTheGreek]

Turtles_AWD wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

To borrow from a partly fictitious account:

"Stopping the greatest threat this galaxy has ever known? You can't possibly succeed at doing this, Shepard."

"They told me that about Ilos as well. And about the Omega-4 relay."

Shepard breaks indoctrination because s/he's Shepard. Not to mention, if you really knew what the theory states, Shepard isn't yet indoctrinated- if you choose Blue or Green, then indoc is complete. If you choose red, then you never become fully indoctrinated.

I'll go back to the very first thing I typed in this thread to address this.

"Yes, Commander Shepard! The only being in the galaxy able to consciously
control their limbic system and change their brain chemistry at will!"

Indoctrination isn't like a bar that fills up where if you're at 99% or lower you can resist completely and reset it to 0-but 100% means you're screwed forever.

All stages of indoctrination are permanent and inevitable, and to be taken on some giant out of body journey while in the middle of a warzone means Shepard would be pretty far indoctrinated indeed.

Once again, to shrug off indoctrination completely is like telling your heart to stop beating. Shepard is still a living creature, subject to the same rules of life that implies.

Destroyin the Reapers should break it <_<

[SimonM72]

SilentWolfie wrote...

Twitter
@masseffect
"We are creating new content to clarify and add closure as per the request of many loyal fans! That's all."







Do we speak Alien? Are we not clear enough as Legion?

We want a new ENDING NOT SOME CLARIFICATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/Rant.








PS: Since so many people wants to know how many are "we want a new ending", I have a small poll selection.

http://social.biowar...36/polls/30267/

No change to current ending, simply extend: 38 votes (14%)
Adds on indoctrination theory                       : 116 votes (43%)
New ending, without godchild, indoctrination: 114 votes (43%)




http://news.cnet.com...fect-3s-ending/

9400 votes as of this writing.

83 %  -    Yes. The ending is unacceptable.
4 %    -    No. It's just fine as is.
8%     -    Only if it's a brighter ending. The current options are too bleak.
3%     -    It's too late. I won't be able to accept a different ending
2%     -    Others.

Exactly.  We absolutely could not have been any clearer. (see my sig for further indignant rantage).
If Bioware still will not listen, after all we have given them in feedback then I'm sorry but as much as I love Mass Effect and its future potential then I'm done with it for good.

Its an absolutely key moment in the franchise (and I don't think they recognise it) where Bioware/EA need to step up and honour their pre-release promises.
If they have no intention of doing so and all those lies we were fed to pre-order their product are going to remain unanswered - then I'm sorry Bioware/EA but you will reap what you sow.

Modifié par SimonM72, 23 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[El_Spiko]

At this point, there are so many different camps on the ending, it would be impossible to craft a "perfect" solution at this point. So long as they do something to address our concerns, I'll be happy. I work in politics, and as important as it is to hold the line on your point of view when dealing folks of a different ideology, once the opposition has acknowledged your views and that they are legitimate, that is time for managing the expectations of the base and focusing on a compromise that is as amenable to both parties as possible (it's the lack of this these days that causes so much gridlock in our government). Bioware has acknowledged us, and has committed to new content to address our concerns as best they're able. At this point, they're still figuring out what exactly they're going to do to address the ending, and that is why they aren't committing to something specific right now. They don't want to get in the same situation again and promise us something before they've even decided on it.

That's my opinion of course, based on what we've heard so far. You're all entitled to feel how you want. I'm managing my expectations, and while I'm not backing down from the line as it were, I'm going to listen the them and see what they come up with to address our concerns; at that point, I'll actually be able to determine the quality of their response. Until then, IMO it's a waste of energy to get worked up one way or another about content they haven't actually even planned out let alone made yet.

But again, that's my take and approach on the situation, everyone else is welcome to have their own opinion and response.

[Darksaber2]

They don't owe me an ending that I want to see at the end of the game. They only owe me exactly what they promised me, an extremely varied list of endings, and one that provides closure. If they add on a number of closure cutscenes they fulfill both requirements at once. A simple who's who among galactic denizens means that A: You get a completely different cutscene based on who you have/don't have at the end of the game, and B: It provides the requisite closure.

If you want a happy ending by all means keep fighting for it, but the simplest fact here is that once we step across the line where we have clear evidence that says we were promised a variable ending list and closure in the ending and didn't get it, to we didn't like what you did, we hate it when it's dark outside then the movement loses any credibility it once had.

[Tony208]

If "clarifying" =

Yes, Joker and the Normandy crew are getting it on with your LI
Shepard did just commit genocide and killed billions and send the galaxy in to a dark age

Then no thanks.

[Dracotamer]

They dont get it

[Turtles_AWD]

Rafe34 wrote...

All stages of indoctrination are not permanent. Rana Thanoptis was supposedly indoctrinated back on Virmire, yet she doesn't actually snap until ME3. Shepard doesn't need to hold it off for very long, only long enough to go finish the job. Then either a) he succumbs anyway, and has to be killed, or with the death of the Reapers, the indoctrination is broken.

Thanoptis is actually a character I had in mind here. Assuming she was indoctrinated back on Virmire, she doesn't immediately lose free will. Everything she does between there and ME3 is probably done by her. But, she is still a sleeper agent for the reapers. The moment they decide to exert that control, she loses it.

It would be like a person with epilepsy. Most of the time they're fine, but occasionally something beyond their control causes something in their brain that they can't control that makes them have a seizure.

[ChuckieJ]

Turtles_AWD wrote...

I'll go back to the very first thing I typed in this thread to address this.

"Yes, Commander Shepard! The only being in the galaxy able to consciously
control their limbic system and change their brain chemistry at will!"

Indoctrination isn't like a bar that fills up where if you're at 99% or lower you can resist completely and reset it to 0-but 100% means you're screwed forever.

All stages of indoctrination are permanent and inevitable, and to be taken on some giant out of body journey while in the middle of a warzone means Shepard would be pretty far indoctrinated indeed.

Once again, to shrug off indoctrination completely is like telling your heart to stop beating. Shepard is still a living creature, subject to the same rules of life that implies.

I don't think we know any of the above for sure, do we? I admit I am not as steeped in the lore as some, but certainly the Codex description of the process does not say what you describe. The theory says that you are slowly being indoctrinated through most of this game. The slow version (Illusive Man) may allow people to break free at certain points. We simply don't know (as far as I know)! We are not simply a collection of particles, we have minds. Those minds can be broken through a combination of biological and psychological warfare.

Can't you imagine the Illusive Man going through something like this years ago? He chose "Control" and continued to pursue that goal through ME2 and ME3. From getting Reaper stuff implanted to wanting the Collector base intact. He continued to think he was doing what was best and that he could control the Reapers. He was wrong on both counts.

[Nauks]

Woah woah woah.

Yeah it is easy to disagree with Ray's oddly worded message to us.
But removing the current ending (as some claim to want) would break up the whole structure of the ME3 story, what we need is what happens after when Shep wakes up back on earth, no longer under Reaper mind control.

Or, if for what ever reason, an altered series of events of the Reapers trying to break Sheps' mind, and then the continued ending.

I sitll believe that they were always planning to do this as DLC, and are polishing the continued ending as we speak.
But for the sake of argument, nono don't remove, instead add.

[Turtles_AWD]

TimTheGreek wrote...
Destroyin the Reapers should break it <_<

Yeah, but Shepard isn't going to be in a position to do that.

I think it's highly unlikely that if the ending sequence is taking place in a deam that choosing to destroy the reapers will actually destroy the reapers.

Considering what indoctrination does, there doesn't seem to be a reason for the ending at all. They certainly don't need to offer him a way out.

[Rafe34]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

How you ask not what you ask, when I said state of these forums over the past few weeks on the whole not individual targetted. There was also an element of jest, you need to lighten up and not take everything as a personal attack.

Lol@you telling people to lighten up, given your posts on this issue.

[GroverA125]

Valo_Soren wrote...

9400 votes compared to the 2 million plus games sold, not enough opinions. vocal minority.

Rule one of a surveys and polls: numbers are irrelevant, rely on percentages. Everyone who has played the ending and disliked it will not have gone to the internet, as much as the other votes for keeping the endings are nowhere near the 2,000,000+ marker. If the numbers are severely in favour of one side, even taking into account non-voting consumers, you can still assume that the majority of the population will be like that. That's kind of why we do polls and surveys.

It's not just one poll either, I myself (who hasn't been in touch as much as I believe others have about this) have seen over 5 different polls on this (including one from IGN, one from another review site, and two from this site) and all of those have been severely weighed to the "new endings" area, and still shockingly few in the "give us closure for current endings" area (which in all of these, was still more than those in "keep it as it is" sides).

[Rafe34]

Turtles_AWD wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

All stages of indoctrination are not permanent. Rana Thanoptis was supposedly indoctrinated back on Virmire, yet she doesn't actually snap until ME3. Shepard doesn't need to hold it off for very long, only long enough to go finish the job. Then either a) he succumbs anyway, and has to be killed, or with the death of the Reapers, the indoctrination is broken.

Thanoptis is actually a character I had in mind here. Assuming she was indoctrinated back on Virmire, she doesn't immediately lose free will. Everything she does between there and ME3 is probably done by her. But, she is still a sleeper agent for the reapers. The moment they decide to exert that control, she loses it.

It would be like a person with epilepsy. Most of the time they're fine, but occasionally something beyond their control causes something in their brain that they can't control that makes them have a seizure.

How do you know she's not just fighting it the whole way and then finally loses it? The Reapers could have had her place a bomb in the facility where you get Grunt and kill Shepard and his entire team.

[terdferguson123]

The problem with what Bioware is doing is that they are just going to divide fans even more. Everybody has a different idea of how the game should have ended. Most people who want the ending changed can't even give a good example without resorting to sarcastic responses about the current one. Sorry Bioware, but you are making a bad choice.

[Drak41n]

YOU want a new ending. Some people just want closure and for things to make more sense.

[EllOneillE]

Wow. Thats... I think that makes the ending even more disappointing, and that's incredible.
If the ending is a sucker punch then more scenes would be rings and manicure for the hand that hits you.
I don't need more scenes. I need alternatives to what is already happening.

I had no problems understanding the ending, Bioware. I'll risk reigniting the semantics war here by saying that most people that disliked it didn't have any problems understanding it either.

It is simply of bad quality when compared to the rest of the game. The current ending for Mass Effect 3 ends with a non-interactive conversation with a sudden evil deus ex machina the player can't question, even if there is evidence that he is wrong floating to the left of Shepard.
The options and results are not really changed by any of the choices the player made before that point. The interactive storyline ends in a singular path.

You could have skipped all cutscenes and selected random options from all conversations and you would still get the same ending as somebody who fully interacted with the games.

We can't question that last character on his mad logic. You have to accept one of the options allowed to you by Space Hitlerstalinmao. Your options comply with his vision of the universe and actively invalidates stuff like the Paragon resolution to the Geth/Quarian conflict.

And the options themselves are disappointing. Green is space magic. No, worse.
Green is midichlorians, Bioware. Green is YOUR midichlorians, Bioware.

The ending doesn't fit the game. It is nonsensical, non-participatory, immutable, scientifically stupid even by light sci-fi standards, out of character, contradicts the canon of the story, has events that invalidate many of your choices and is full of plot holes. It is such a shock because the ending is by far the lowest quality part of the whole game in so many aspects. It doesn't feel like the same developers made it.

And out of all those problems, you think the plot holes and lack of epilogues are the worst part?
If all you do is add more scenes to the current ending you will have shown that you really did not understand why so many of your players were so disappointed.

Are you doing that to deflate the Retake movement and the bad publicity it created? Well, the shocking disappointment of seeing a bad fix to an ending of such poor quality by Bioware standards may accomplish that but you will not undo the bad impression you have left on many. Your user ratings for the game in places like Metacritic won't nudge much towards a more positive score.
You will have many of us telling other players that they shouldn't bother playing the trilogy. You will have many players that will continue to feel cheated or at least so disappointed that they won't purchase your games again. I won't support you with either with words of praise or money.

Without the ability to influence the story and its conclusion, does the game really have the gameplay that made Bioware games popular? I don't believe so.

You will lose consumers. You will lose loyal consumers.
I want to love Mass Effect 3. I believe many of your fans want to do the same. Which is why we request alternatives that live up to Bioware's fame for letting the player alter the storyline and have their choices matter for the end of the game.
Not more of the same.

[QwertyMusicMan]

Yeah, We need a different ending. Not necisarily replacing the current ones, I just want one or two that are happier. For the rest, build off of them. Make them make sense.