1291 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

The Angry One wrote...

Because they could still be ambushed by the Reapers.
Remember, the Quarians dragged their whole fleet into the war with the Geth. There's no reason to think they wouldn't do the same with the Reapers. After all, if they fail at Earth everybody will die regardless.

They didn't have Rannoch (with already built houses) when they attacked the Geth.

[DJBare]

Rolando93 wrote...

They might leave one ship but even if they didn't there would be quarians on the homeworld.

Not enough for a viable population given that most of them are at earth, those on Rannoch are likely to end up dead when the Reapers come to investigating one of their own.

Modifié par DJBare, 01 avril 2012 - 06:00 .

[firebreather19]

Quietness wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Quietness wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Leozilla wrote...

I don't recall them saying that, all I remember was that it was an end of Shep's story

"We will not leave you with more questions than answers."
"We will not pull a LOST on the fanbase."
"It will not at all be like a traditional video game ending, where you just pick ending A, B, or C."
"The ending will be based on your choices throughout the series. Why would you be forced into the same bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

etc., etc. Go look up the developer quotes, there are plenty of threads dedicated to the pretty much outright lies that were given to us.

That's not how they worded it, and I'm actually a little disappointed no one considers the subtleties that went into crafting the ending. EMS, saving/destroying the base, etc. 

The biggest problem with ME3 is not really a problem but more that people got used to how the game works. In ME2 it was "Oh, lost a squadmate? Well just go back to the previous save and do this-and-this-and-this and there...better ending." 

You, sir, are incorrect. That's exactly how Mr. Hudson worded it:  "That means the endings can be a lot more different. at
this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a
player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. it's not even in any way like the
traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or
whether you got ending A, B, or C." - Casey Hudson, jan 11, 2012 

As to your second point- so what? That's their prerogative. I lost Mordin and killed Wrex on my first playthrough of ME1 and ME2. I kept that Shepard. I still have her. She's in stasis since it's so sad after losing Thane, (she went with Liara and then Thane, now possibly back to Liara, we'll see), but it's called role-playing. 

I don't understand. I said they didn't word it the way you did, and I was right. You say someone picks from ending A B or C. They never said you wouldn't pick from ending A B or C, they said you wouldn't always get ending A B or C, and you don't. You might get the same C (synthesis) ending, but there are like 7-8 variants of the A and B endings depending on your actions in the final five minutes, whether you saved or destroyed the base, and your EMS throughout the game.

But I guess they should've just told you that. Everyone loves spoilers. 

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1  ive seen hard fact for, where is A4-7/8 B4-7/8

Pick up a strategy guide sometime, eh? 

Just a few:

Save the base-->

-readiness below 1750, Earth dead no matter the choice
-1750, earth destroyed if you choose destroy
-2050, become a reaper and you can save earth
-2350, destroy the Reapers and earth is devestated but still there
-2650, destroy the reapers, earth is saved
etc. etc. etc.

destroy the base-->

-readiness below 1750, earth dead no matter the choice (same, granted)
-1750, earth destroyed if you become a reaper (clearly weighing on your decision to save or destroy the base--control/destroy options)
-1900 destroy the Reapers, earth is devestated but still there
...and it goes on and on then taking into account Anderson living or dying and then Synthesis and then Shepard living.

I cant seem to find anything about the base and even having a teeny difference on the end aside from giving you some random points. I just see 7 cutscenes, do you happen to have where this different ones are or where i can look. Already checked youtube.

The ending is determined by the galaxy's state and Shepard's actions. I mean certain things aren't going to create some fantastic changes. Saving Conrad Vernor won't make a giant rainbow-shooting unicorn suddenly appear. Like I said, pick up a strategy guide, it details how the decisions made affect the ending you receive. 

[Turtlicious]

The Angry One wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

And what is the point of bringing kids to the battle who know absolutely nothing about ships and war and would be just a burden? And lol @ pro-ender, dude, check my post history. Unlike many people, I'm not "whhaaaaaa every signle little bit of ending sucks balls!!!!" or "whhhaaaaaaa everything's super amzing and perfect!!!!!". There's also that thing like at least trying to look at things objectively. Ever heard of that?

Isaac, why are you arguing that the Quarians wouldn't bring their civilians to a war when they already have in the game, against the Geth.

Isn't that why Tali committed suicide on Rannoch? because the whole Quarian fleet was destroyed? (Not just the warships, but the whole fleet.)

[Quietness]

Rolando93 wrote...

Brian Lewis wrote...

I agree with the OP. I did not spend 3 games getting to know the characters and caring about the galaxy just to sentence all of them to death in the last 5 minutes. My Shepards were fighting to preserve as much of the galaxy and save as many of their friends as possible, not just so future races won't have to face the Reapers.

Shepard doesn't sentence anyone to death since destroying the relays really is his only option and also destroying the relays kill nobody.

Wow, I get how you work now. You use your own opinion as fact and than just keep re-inforcing your own opinion with your own opinion. You use virtually no facts from the actual game.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

firebreather19 wrote...

Turtlicious wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

I don't believe anyone's too stupid to get the ending. I just believe folks are too selfish to accept it. Big difference.

And you don't find that even a little bit ego-tistical?

How? It's true. Each reasoning usually starts with "I want, I was promised, I believed, I hate, I space magic, I this, I that." This whole thread started from someone not caring about the central core idea of sacrifice in the game but rather that they wanted to sit on a beach with their LI and drink Coronas. 

I can't speak for the OP, but I personally got the whole sacrifice theme.  The point is, the carried out the Sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice of the one and only shepard, horribly.  I mean it was so illogical and unnecessary that it was a little obnoxious.

[vasametropolis]

I agree. I don't care either. What happens in the future is completely irrelevant because even by being partly synthetic in the synthesis ending, the organic side of you could still get pissed off and murder somebody. In the destroy ending, people will still kill people. In control... same thing. Control is retarded. The future isn't anymore hopeful than it was before because it is unknown to us. By just defeating the Reapers, we know where the galaxy stands and we can have hope based off of our experiences and faith in the people we KNOW.

The ending isn't even an ending... It's a beginning to a complete different, unknown, less interesting story which nobody gives a crap about. I want an ending to the story we had.

Modifié par xCaptainAmazing, 01 avril 2012 - 06:03 .

[Rolando93]

BWGungan wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

Did every other race send ALL of their people to Earth as well?

The Quarians are their flotilla. They are virtually inseperable.
Moreover, leaving undefended Quarians on Rannoch would be suicide. The Reapers WILL come to investigate the loss of control of the Geth and they know this because they SAY SO.

OK, going with "Quarians sent every single Quarian to Earth" is just nonsense.

Yeah because you hate it.

The quarians live on ships for millenia and they have turned EVERY SHIP, even life ships into war ships. It's stated right in the game. Now tell me why they should not send every ship to Earth like every other race that believes that the Catalyst can stop the Reapers and that the allied fleet is not strong enough to beat the Reapers conventionally anyway? It's the same logic fail as with 'saving the Council at all costs' in ME1. You either believe this is your only chance and not even a good one and throw in everything. Or you think it is going to go well anyway and only send half your fleet in. If it is so like you pro-enders say, that the Reapers are that powerful that there could not be a different ending, then why hold back? Why leave half of your fleet or even 10% at home when the all deciding battle does have little chance to work even if ALL AVAILABLE ships of the alliance are going to Earth?

Seriously, the most annoying thing about you pro-enders is the sheer unwillingness to apply logic and common sense to it and just make up your own ending while at the same time defending the one we got from Bioware.

Pretty much.

Yes, lets leave some of our people on Rannoch to start rebuilding so that when we fail to defeat the Reapers they can all die alone on the homework instead of dieing fighting for their lives with the rest of their people, and the galaxy.

So in a contingency plan in case they failed to save the galaxy they wanted to chose where they became extinct.

[Trikormadenadon]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

It's very short-sighted to say that the future doesn't matter when it did matter and does matter. Why did Garrus, Wrex, Tali, etc. help you in the first place? Because they saw the danger of the Reapers. They didn't up and decide to help Shepard because he/she was such an awesome person that they wanted to hang out with him/her. Those friendships develop naturally during the course of Shepard's fight to stop the Reapers, but those people initially stay with Shepard because they want to make really sure that there's a future for themselves and their people.

I certainly didn't fight against Sovereign or the Collectors because I loved Kaidan or because I developed a deep and abiding friendship with Garrus. I was fighting for something bigger than any of that. My friends and LIs inspired loyalty and feelings of camaraderie and were an important part of the journey. They gave me a reason to keep going in what seemed like a futile fight to be sure, but it was ultimately about finding a way to break the cycle and to make certain that there would be a future for others - even if that didn't include my Shepard or my friends.

If you're a determined pessimist, then of course you believe that there's no future or hope and that everything you love is gone, in which case so be it. Some of us just don't see it that way and have an optimistic outlook as far as that goes.

Once again, speak to any war vet in real life, they will tell you they were fighting for their loved ones, not the future. Maybe their loved one's future but not some generic future for people they don't even know. Only an idealist would see the good in the ending, and there is nothing wrong with being an idealist, but most people are not idealists, most people are realists, and they don't want to give their life to fight in a war that their loved ones will die in anyways.

[The Angry One]

Quietness wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

Brian Lewis wrote...

I agree with the OP. I did not spend 3 games getting to know the characters and caring about the galaxy just to sentence all of them to death in the last 5 minutes. My Shepards were fighting to preserve as much of the galaxy and save as many of their friends as possible, not just so future races won't have to face the Reapers.

Shepard doesn't sentence anyone to death since destroying the relays really is his only option and also destroying the relays kill nobody.

Wow, I get how you work now. You use your own opinion as fact and than just keep re-inforcing your own opinion with your own opinion. You use virtually no facts from the actual game.

A rather common tactic among.. certain people.

[Quietness]

firebreather19 wrote...

Quietness wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Quietness wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Leozilla wrote...

I don't recall them saying that, all I remember was that it was an end of Shep's story

"We will not leave you with more questions than answers."
"We will not pull a LOST on the fanbase."
"It will not at all be like a traditional video game ending, where you just pick ending A, B, or C."
"The ending will be based on your choices throughout the series. Why would you be forced into the same bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

etc., etc. Go look up the developer quotes, there are plenty of threads dedicated to the pretty much outright lies that were given to us.

That's not how they worded it, and I'm actually a little disappointed no one considers the subtleties that went into crafting the ending. EMS, saving/destroying the base, etc. 

The biggest problem with ME3 is not really a problem but more that people got used to how the game works. In ME2 it was "Oh, lost a squadmate? Well just go back to the previous save and do this-and-this-and-this and there...better ending." 

You, sir, are incorrect. That's exactly how Mr. Hudson worded it:  "That means the endings can be a lot more different. at
this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a
player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. it's not even in any way like the
traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or
whether you got ending A, B, or C." - Casey Hudson, jan 11, 2012 

As to your second point- so what? That's their prerogative. I lost Mordin and killed Wrex on my first playthrough of ME1 and ME2. I kept that Shepard. I still have her. She's in stasis since it's so sad after losing Thane, (she went with Liara and then Thane, now possibly back to Liara, we'll see), but it's called role-playing. 

I don't understand. I said they didn't word it the way you did, and I was right. You say someone picks from ending A B or C. They never said you wouldn't pick from ending A B or C, they said you wouldn't always get ending A B or C, and you don't. You might get the same C (synthesis) ending, but there are like 7-8 variants of the A and B endings depending on your actions in the final five minutes, whether you saved or destroyed the base, and your EMS throughout the game.

But I guess they should've just told you that. Everyone loves spoilers. 

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1  ive seen hard fact for, where is A4-7/8 B4-7/8

Pick up a strategy guide sometime, eh? 

Just a few:

Save the base-->

-readiness below 1750, Earth dead no matter the choice
-1750, earth destroyed if you choose destroy
-2050, become a reaper and you can save earth
-2350, destroy the Reapers and earth is devestated but still there
-2650, destroy the reapers, earth is saved
etc. etc. etc.

destroy the base-->

-readiness below 1750, earth dead no matter the choice (same, granted)
-1750, earth destroyed if you become a reaper (clearly weighing on your decision to save or destroy the base--control/destroy options)
-1900 destroy the Reapers, earth is devestated but still there
...and it goes on and on then taking into account Anderson living or dying and then Synthesis and then Shepard living.

I cant seem to find anything about the base and even having a teeny difference on the end aside from giving you some random points. I just see 7 cutscenes, do you happen to have where this different ones are or where i can look. Already checked youtube.

The ending is determined by the galaxy's state and Shepard's actions. I mean certain things aren't going to create some fantastic changes. Saving Conrad Vernor won't make a giant rainbow-shooting unicorn suddenly appear. Like I said, pick up a strategy guide, it details how the decisions made affect the ending you receive. 

Soooo you're telling me that my magic number scale changes, but the eventual outcome is (sorry) the same. Got it, so 7 endings.

Modifié par Quietness, 01 avril 2012 - 06:01 .

[BWGungan]

curufinwe03 wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Turtlicious wrote...

Sidney wrote...

So much wrong here.

Not all explosions are the same. An EMP pulse is a discharge and it is definately different than the shockwave from a conventional bomb. One blows up my ipod the other blows up me. The pulse that stops the REapers is, in most endings, clearly shown to not be destructive unless you get the earth burns ending. In my ending the wave takes out the reapers and you see people cheering as it passes over them.

Yes but when an EMP goes off you can't see it, and if it's too strong you catch cancer.

These explosions were big enough to see on a GALAXY MAP, they were obviously irradiated because where did the color come from? If you didn't kill everyone from the super nova, you just flooded them with radiation until they died.

Let's assume for a moment we see an EMP.  An EMP is no better than a destructive atomic-level blast as seen in Arrival.  An EMP that big that we can see from the galaxy map would be massive enough to strip off the planetary magnetic fields.  Anything left alive will die a horrific death from radiation sickness, and the planet will become unsustainable for future life due to having no magnetic field.

I guess the planetary magnetic fields would be stabel again in the future,but in the meentime people and ecosystems would die. At least some bakteria could survive...
Anyway an (red?) EMP would certainly destroy the fleet in the Sol system and other vessel or station near a relay.

What I want to know is how the hell the destroy beam can differentiate between synthetic life, and technology in general.

[Leozilla]

The Angry One wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

And what is the point of bringing kids to the battle who know absolutely nothing about ships and war and would be just a burden? And lol @ pro-ender, dude, check my post history. Unlike many people, I'm not "whhaaaaaa every signle little bit of ending sucks balls!!!!" or "whhhaaaaaaa everything's super amzing and perfect!!!!!". There's also that thing like at least trying to look at things objectively. Ever heard of that?

Isaac, why are you arguing that the Quarians wouldn't bring their civilians to a war when they already have in the game, against the Geth.

Angry has a point, however I believe that having Rannoch back would have made them think a little more clearly

[The Angry One]

Turtlicious wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

And what is the point of bringing kids to the battle who know absolutely nothing about ships and war and would be just a burden? And lol @ pro-ender, dude, check my post history. Unlike many people, I'm not "whhaaaaaa every signle little bit of ending sucks balls!!!!" or "whhhaaaaaaa everything's super amzing and perfect!!!!!". There's also that thing like at least trying to look at things objectively. Ever heard of that?

Isaac, why are you arguing that the Quarians wouldn't bring their civilians to a war when they already have in the game, against the Geth.

Isn't that why Tali committed suicide on Rannoch? because the whole Quarian fleet was destroyed? (Not just the warships, but the whole fleet.)

Yes it's pretty much said that ALL Quarians die in that route.

[Konfined]

Trikormadenadon wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

xsdob wrote...

sometimes I wonder why I even come here anymore. OP's thread is sad, it ignores the goal of stopping the reapers and selfishly focuses on just shepard living and not on the future controlled by a genocidal machine race. The fact that so many other people agree is even worse, it tells of a group of fans who claim to be mature on one side but resort to tantrum throwing that everything didn't end well for us, but might end well for the future, which should be the focus of winning a war.

Things turning out well in the imediate is of little concern, how things turn out for the future is more important.

You know what, screw this, any thread I see the angry one in, I'm just gonna turn around and ignore that thread even exist anymore.

That's how you should treat them anyway. All they do is flamebait those with different opinions, and they all but admitted it as well.

I disagree so much with this post. As you said, xsdob, it's very selfish. War doesn't matter to them.  All they want is their blue/Quarian/Turian babies, and eff the rest of the galaxy.

Talk to a real life war vet, then you will understand....

Yes?  What can I do for you good sir?

[DJBare]

Sorry guys, tried to give it my best shot, but the pyramids are getting too big now, I'm outta here.

[CaptainIngenuity]

IsaacShep wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Yeah because you hate it.

The quarians live on ships for millenia and they have turned EVERY SHIP, even life ships into war ships. It's stated right in the game. Now tell me why they should not send every ship to Earth like every other race that believes that the Catalyst can stop the Reapers and that the allied fleet is not strong enough to beat the Reapers conventionally anyway? It's the same logic fail as with 'saving the Council at all costs' in ME1. You either believe this is your only chance and not even a good one and throw in everything. Or you think it is going to go well anyway and only send half your fleet in. If it is so like you pro-enders say, that the Reapers are that powerful that there could not be a different ending, then why hold back? Why leave half of your fleet or even 10% at home when the all deciding battle does have little chance to work even if ALL AVAILABLE ships of the alliance are going to Earth?

Seriously, the most annoying thing about you pro-enders is the sheer unwillingness to apply logic and common sense to it and just make up your own ending while at the same time defending the one we got from Bioware.

And what is the point of bringing kids to the battle who know absolutely nothing about ships and war and would be just a burden? And lol @ pro-ender, dude, check my post history. Unlike many people, I'm not "whhaaaaaa every signle little bit of ending sucks balls!!!!" or "whhhaaaaaaa everything's super amzing and perfect!!!!!". There's also that thing like at least trying to look at things objectively. Ever heard of that?

I don't  think anyone is arguing that they brought kids with them..  I think the discussion is more to the topic that every ship in the quarian fleet was now armed for war and thus would be brought with them.  I forgot but at one point you discuss how even live ships were now armed like dreadnaughts.  I doubt in a final confrontation for the entire universe you would purposefully leave entire portions of your armada back at Rannoch so they can colonize and run the chance of losing and letting the Reapers throw the house warming party.

Edit: Forgot should have stated after saving Rannoch, before they did bring civilians after, unless needed probably not

Modifié par CaptainIngenuity, 01 avril 2012 - 06:04 .

[firebreather19]

Trikormadenadon wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

xsdob wrote...

sometimes I wonder why I even come here anymore. OP's thread is sad, it ignores the goal of stopping the reapers and selfishly focuses on just shepard living and not on the future controlled by a genocidal machine race. The fact that so many other people agree is even worse, it tells of a group of fans who claim to be mature on one side but resort to tantrum throwing that everything didn't end well for us, but might end well for the future, which should be the focus of winning a war.

Things turning out well in the imediate is of little concern, how things turn out for the future is more important.

You know what, screw this, any thread I see the angry one in, I'm just gonna turn around and ignore that thread even exist anymore.

That's how you should treat them anyway. All they do is flamebait those with different opinions, and they all but admitted it as well.

I disagree so much with this post. As you said, xsdob, it's very selfish. War doesn't matter to them.  All they want is their blue/Quarian/Turian babies, and eff the rest of the galaxy.

Talk to a real life war vet, then you will understand....

So my Shepard's family died. Why is he even in the military? Why does he even care about some Reaper invasion? No loved ones to fight for...so.........? 

[Rolando93]

Quietness wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

Brian Lewis wrote...

I agree with the OP. I did not spend 3 games getting to know the characters and caring about the galaxy just to sentence all of them to death in the last 5 minutes. My Shepards were fighting to preserve as much of the galaxy and save as many of their friends as possible, not just so future races won't have to face the Reapers.

Shepard doesn't sentence anyone to death since destroying the relays really is his only option and also destroying the relays kill nobody.

Wow, I get how you work now. You use your own opinion as fact and than just keep re-inforcing your own opinion with your own opinion. You use virtually no facts from the actual game.

And I see how you work. You attach yourself to a poster in order to make it seem as though you are part of the conversation while you are really only making critisisms instead of offering anything noteworthy. How does destroying the relays kill anyone?

[Trikormadenadon]

wathc me tyep wrote...

Too ****ing bad. It's not about you, it's about the galaxy.

Uhm, no. It's about the player enjoying the game. If the OP didn't enjoy the game they have a right to vent. Stop being insulting toward other people just because you don't agree. You want to post something, be constructive, or don't post at all.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

BWGungan wrote...

curufinwe03 wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Turtlicious wrote...

Sidney wrote...

So much wrong here.

Not all explosions are the same. An EMP pulse is a discharge and it is definately different than the shockwave from a conventional bomb. One blows up my ipod the other blows up me. The pulse that stops the REapers is, in most endings, clearly shown to not be destructive unless you get the earth burns ending. In my ending the wave takes out the reapers and you see people cheering as it passes over them.

Yes but when an EMP goes off you can't see it, and if it's too strong you catch cancer.

These explosions were big enough to see on a GALAXY MAP, they were obviously irradiated because where did the color come from? If you didn't kill everyone from the super nova, you just flooded them with radiation until they died.

Let's assume for a moment we see an EMP.  An EMP is no better than a destructive atomic-level blast as seen in Arrival.  An EMP that big that we can see from the galaxy map would be massive enough to strip off the planetary magnetic fields.  Anything left alive will die a horrific death from radiation sickness, and the planet will become unsustainable for future life due to having no magnetic field.

I guess the planetary magnetic fields would be stabel again in the future,but in the meentime people and ecosystems would die. At least some bakteria could survive...
Anyway an (red?) EMP would certainly destroy the fleet in the Sol system and other vessel or station near a relay.

What I want to know is how the hell the destroy beam can differentiate between synthetic life, and technology in general.

How did the synthesis machine turn everyone in the galaxy to cyborgs, or the control machine allow one man to control every reaper, who all have the ability to dominate hundreds of minds at once.  It's a badly thought out ending.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

Rolando93 wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

Brian Lewis wrote...

I agree with the OP. I did not spend 3 games getting to know the characters and caring about the galaxy just to sentence all of them to death in the last 5 minutes. My Shepards were fighting to preserve as much of the galaxy and save as many of their friends as possible, not just so future races won't have to face the Reapers.

Shepard doesn't sentence anyone to death since destroying the relays really is his only option and also destroying the relays kill nobody.

Wow, I get how you work now. You use your own opinion as fact and than just keep re-inforcing your own opinion with your own opinion. You use virtually no facts from the actual game.

And I see how you work. You attach yourself to a poster in order to make it seem as though you are part of the conversation while you are really only making critisisms instead of offering anything noteworthy. How does destroying the relays kill anyone?

They are explosions, seen from a galactic scale, affecting the galaxy.  Saying they are harmless would be ridiculous, nothing on that large a scale with that much destructive potential is harmless.

[ediskrad327]

i agree :')

[BWGungan]

Uh, Anderson always dies... in every ending. Some endings just have him live long enough to have the convo with Shepard, while in the worst ones TIM just kills him straight up.