1648 réponses à ce sujet

[Selene Moonsong]

Grey21 wrote...

Instead the choice for human concillor is ignored and it ends up being the same guy. Imagine if they had given a true consequence to this choice, than the whole Cerberus invasion of the citadel wouldn't have happened or it would have happened differently. The other choice made in ME1 ends upgrading your military strength score a little.

It is a logical assumption that Anderson would give up his position to Udina given the charges brought against Shepard so that Anderson could assist with Sheps defense.

ME2 is basically the same, you make a lot of choices about the genophase and the Geth but they are undone in ME3. You destroyed the cure for the genophse? Here is another solution that plays out exactly the same!

While the end result may be the same, it does give those who would like a chance to succeed in creating a cure after they first decided to to destroy it out of disgust for the methods used to create the groundwork, though they may have to work a little harder for it in ME 3 to do the same.

Than at the very end of ME3 where you expect that all your choices can play a role as they don't have to effect the game afterwards, they give us an ending that COMPLEETLY ignores any choice we've made. I'd rather of The Witcher where choices have consequences even if there is a canon storyline, it is better then nothing.

I believe your choices have had some effect on the game, if not in a big way, but a cumulative way by adding to your EMS here and there. Even your 'fan' can gain you 1 EMS point.

I'm not saying the ending is perfect and flawless, my own sticking point is the apparent inability of accumulating enough assets when playing only single-player to bring your total EMS to a high enough level to achieve a more optimal ending.

I don't consider the three choices a bad thing, really, as long as your overall choices have some kind of effect on the outcome of the three choices consistant with your cumulative character choices in the past. I haven't really expected stark differences.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 06 avril 2012 - 10:04 .

[Tankred]

I see this as a fundamental reason why there is such outcry, because people want it to be his/her Shepard and his/her story. We want the best ending or unique ending because we are projecting ourselves onto Shepard and we want the psychological rewards that come with being a protagonist.

Right.We had the same discussion with the Baldurs Gate book franchise written by Phil Athans. Lot of people didn´t like them for exactly the reason you´ve mentioned.
But truth be told, the books were of mediocre quality compared to the original story( in most playthroughs of course), just like the current me 3 ending sequence is inferior to the original writing of the original Lead Writer.
Basically we´ve 2 fractions here: One fraction demands an alternative "good" ending( and rest assured, you wont get one, for a whole number of reasons), and the other fraction demands just improved quality, in effect a fix to the numerous plotholes and an epilogue. Needless to say, i´m in the latter fraction.
But believe me, practically no one likes the current state of affairs, and that´s why big allmighty Electronic "Arts" offered a dlc/patch for FREE. As one guy wrote earlier , that ´s an achievement in itself. Had someone told me a month ago EA´d be offering something for free, i´d called him a miserable Liar right into his face

[AlanC9]

Grey21 wrote...
Instead the choice for human concillor is ignored and it ends up being the same guy. Imagine if they had given a true consequence to this choice, than the whole Cerberus invasion of the citadel wouldn't have happened or it would have happened differently. The other choice made in ME1 ends upgrading your military strength score a little.

Well, yeah. What do you cut from ME3 to make that alternate version of the invasion? Just making the invasion not happen doesn't cause a resource problem, but then the optimal choice for Shepard ends up being a bad choice for the player, since you end up with less content.

Than at the very end of ME3 where you expect that all your choices can play a role as they don't have to effect the game afterwards, they give us an ending that COMPLEETLY ignores any choice we've made. I'd rather of The Witcher where choices have consequences even if there is a canon storyline, it is better then nothing.

It's a reasonable position. Maybe trilogies are just a bad idea. Nobody's ever tried anything like this before, and maybe nobody ever will again.

[AlanC9]

Selene Moonsong wrote...
I don't consider the three choices a bad thing, really, as long as your overall choices have some kind of effect on the outcome of the three choices consistant with your cumulative character choices in the past. I haven't really expect stark differences.

Expectations seem to be a common factor. I'm amazed at the expectations some folks had. In retrospect, we all should have seen the problem coming.

[Dakota Strider]

AlanC9 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...
I don't consider the three choices a bad thing, really, as long as your overall choices have some kind of effect on the outcome of the three choices consistant with your cumulative character choices in the past. I haven't really expect stark differences.

Expectations seem to be a common factor. I'm amazed at the expectations some folks had. In retrospect, we all should have seen the problem coming.

Expectations.... I cannot speak for everyone, but I expected a chance for Shepard and the Alliance to fight and defeat the Reapers.   But the God Child came in at the very end, and asserted control.  The God Child and his Reapers basically dictated the terms in which the game would end, all three very similar, all basically apocolyptic ends of the galaxy as we know them.  No chance for "our" Shepard to refuse the three choices given, and attempt to destroy the Reapers in conventional means,  Does not mean it would be a happy ending, because that does not guarantee survival.  But "my" Shepard would have been repulsed by three choices given at the end, and would have fought to find a different solution.

By the way, a shout out to Selene Moonsong, I remember you as a moderator back in the NwN1 days.

[Tankred]

Well you did defeat the reapers, you just killed half the galaxy along with them.

[Dakota Strider]

Tankred wrote...

Well you did defeat the reapers, you just killed half the galaxy along with them.

Yeah, well I never expected by doing it by simply pushing a button (or the equivelant).  I did not expect the Crucible and Catalyst to be an insta-kill device for all Reapers.  Just something that would weaken them enough, so the Alliance had a chance to fight them on even terms, or with a slight advantage. 

[blue_cosmos]

Well.... I guess that was probably to be expected on hindsight. It's just quite disappointing that we won't get to have the multitude of vastly different outcomes that we were promised :s
Still, I'm interested in seeing the dlc

[TheRealJayDee]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

It is a logical assumption that Anderson would give up his position to Udina given the charges brought against Shepard so that Anderson could assist with Sheps defense.

Sadly this isn't really said or shown in the game. Besides, didn't Anderson step down from his position as councilor in one of the novels?

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 07 avril 2012 - 02:37 .

[AlanC9]

Dakota Strider wrote...
Expectations.... I cannot speak for everyone, but I expected a chance for Shepard and the Alliance to fight and defeat the Reapers.

I wanted that too, but I hardly expected it. Winning an actual fight was off the table after Mars. Or more accurately, after ME2. If we were going to fight and win a more-or-less conventional battle, Bio wouldn't have let Shep blow up the Collector Base, which was a real chance to have some way to fight Reapers that wouldn't be some flavor of deus ex machina. When they let Shepard blow the base up, it was pretty obvious that we were going to end up using some sort of prothean space magic

   But the God Child came in at the very end, and asserted control. 

Didn't see it this way myself. He's got no control over anything. Or he doesn't have the will to exercise control, which is essentially the same thing. Shepard's got control over what the Crucible does. And if Shepard doesn't like what the Crucible does... well, unfortunately, it's the only Prothean Space Magic device he's got.

No chance for "our" Shepard to refuse the three choices given, and attempt to destroy the Reapers in conventional means,  Does not mean it would be a happy ending, because that does not guarantee survival. 

You've got that option right now. Refuse to use the Crucible and let the fleets fight it out. (Unfortunately, they lose)

[Tankred]

Well , 2 weeks ago, and about 300 forum pages earlier, I mentioned Admiral Hacketts Atomic Bomb analogy to the crucible, regarding the point that no one actually knew if it could incite Earth´s atmosphere( and yes , historically that was not the A-bomb, but the H-Bomb 7 years later, i know) .
One just don´t uses such a super weapon without the utmost dire consequences. And besides, think a minute about NOT having such an apocalypse. Your Shepard would end up probably in a galaxy with Rachni, Geth AND Krogan outbreeding AND outproducing everyone else.
At least in my playthrough I let all of them live in order for "a chance for Shepard and the Alliance to fight and defeat the Reapers". And did have second thoughts about this decisions, so when the end came, I hit the "red button" exactly knowing it would end up in a galactic dark age.
Just for those who care, in the original Deus Ex and Fallout New Vegas , i did the "no gods no masters" ending too, just out of principle.

[Emzamination]

GuyIncognito wrote...

[

Emzamination wrote...
No, you had full control of the champion, just with fewer ground shaking decisions than the warden.varric was irrelevant, all he did was chime in after certain major decisions and reitterate that you made that decision which is no different from someone not being there to vocalize the warden's decision, the decision was still made.

Shepard was referred to as "the shepard" because he guided the galaxy the same way a "shepard" guides his flock.

How would you know that you had full control?

If you take Varric and Cassandra's conversation out as a delivery mechanism to introduce plot and sure, I would argue the same position that you have and that you the player are in control of The Champion as much as the same situation The Warden. Your decisions, your story.

But you're not playing from the perspective of The Champion, you are playing from the perspective of influencing choices in the story as it is being told by Varric; this includes all the minor stuff. There would be no point to Varric chiming in at the beginning of each Act and at the end of the game if he wasn't telling the complete story compacting 10 years into one conversation. This is how BW chose to use the narrative.

You could say this about The Vault Dweller in Fallout 1, The Chosen One in Fallout 2, The Nameless One in Planescape: Torment, The Hero of Neverwinter.... your decisions, your story. Why? Its not someone else telling the main character's story because you have control of the main character. DA:O followed the execution of the story in the tradition of these games. Your decisions, your story, your Warden.

With ME3, if you totally ignore the "10,000 years later bit" where the kid asks the old man to tell him another story about "The Shepard" then I would say that you are in control of Shepard because its Your Shepard (playing the perspective of Shepard from ME1 and ME2). However by including that plot point at the end of ME3, that we are in the exact same situation as DA2. You're controlling the Narrator (Old Man) as he is telling the kid stories about Shepard, and not actually controlling Shepard.

Why is this relevant to the Extended Cut? It changes how I look at the ME trilogy. You've seen many times where BW has been quoted with stating that this is "Shepard's Story." It's no longer... I'm Shepard and how would I act? It has become... I'm the narrator of Shepard's story.

I see this as a fundamental reason why there is such outcry, because people want it to be his/her Shepard and his/her story. We want the best ending or unique ending because we are projecting ourselves onto Shepard and we want the psychological rewards that come with being a protagonist.

You speak as if bioware hid that fact.Da2 was advertised as having a "shell" ending with you destined to be the champion from the begining.The whole game is built around you telling bioware how the champion came to claim his/her title and what decisions they made along the way.

Because it is totally illogical that the survivors of the normandy would pass down stories of their leader and friend who saved the entire galaxy from annihilation, yes? Further more its impossible for him to have given that kid the exact version of events since some things only shepard was witness to.It is far more likely he was retelling events that have been saturated through time.

[joriandrake]

Super.Sid wrote...

ok now that the dlc pack is out, compare and see

Interesting

[Valk72]

I'm sorry but clarification will not be enough. You have to be able to convince the Catalyst that Synthetic and Organic can live together by pointing to the Quarian/Geth exemple, that's the minimum for me.

[GuyIncognito]

Emzamination wrote...
You speak as if bioware hid that fact.Da2 was advertised as having a "shell" ending with you destined to be the champion from the begining.The whole game is built around you telling bioware how the champion came to claim his/her title and what decisions they made along the way.

Because it is totally illogical that the survivors of the normandy would pass down stories of their leader and friend who saved the entire galaxy from annihilation, yes? Further more its impossible for him to have given that kid the exact version of events since some things only shepard was witness to.It is far more likely he was retelling events that have been saturated through time.

No doubts about Bioware making this method intentional in DA2.

In regards to your statement about Shell Endings, this is my point exactly. You knew the ending of the story before you knew the beginning because this was explicited stated by both Cassandra and Varric. Cassandra demanded the story from Varric and the first story is in line with a legendary exaggerated style that is told across Taverns from Thedas to Orlais. Cassandra demanded to know the real story and Varric was the one that told her (and this is even assuming that you never took Varric on any of the quests as well).

Justice was supposedly slain in all DA:A epilogues, only to re-appear as a plot driver in DA2 by being merged with Anders and instigating the whole Mage / Templar War and sets the stage for DA3. The Anderson / Udina Councilor reference has already been made which sort of invalidates the choice for the Player's Story vs. what Bioware wants the story to be. Both examples of disconnects between what you chose and how the story turned out.

No, it's not illogical to assume that if Indoctrination Theory is disproven by the Extended Cut we are still left with the gaping plotholes which cannot be explained. Historical recording of what exactly happened to persist after 10,000 years there is going to being transformations in the story even if the survivors passed down stories of their leader and friend who held the line against the galaxy's annihilation. I agree its most likely that if the Narrator is telling the kid the story, he's telling events which have been transformed over time. Sounds more like a legend to me which is in line with how The Champion's story was initially told by Varric. This is where the disconnect is, because the way the narrative is executed in ME1, ME2, and ME3 up the post credits you've always assumed that you are Shepard.

Example: Romance of the Three Kingdoms is an old story which was compiled and translated from oral Chinese story tellers, no one really knows what exactly happened, we just get the stories of what's passed down through time. Some of the characters are depicted as larger then life heroes and some as larger then life villains. But what is interpreted as quasi established history vs. legend hasn't stopped Koei from releasing 7+ versions of Dynasty Warriors and re-telling the story over and over slightly differently.

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

As I said in my OP, this is just my point of view and sure... it's probably easily proven irrelevant. What I'm asking is... can it be said with 100% certainty that with how the ending turned out & the post credits narrative implications that you are The Shepard as much as you are The Warden? It's a casualty of the style of storytelling that BW has decided to use. Is it bad? No, it's just not what the players were expecting. The player wants it to be the Player's story and not "The Shepard's" Story.

Hell... Mel Brooks made fun of Moses going up to the mountain in History of the World Part 1, returning with 15 Commandments, accidentally dropping 1 of the tablets which left us with 10 Commandments. Who is to say we aren't violating 5 of the Commandments without knowing it? lol.

Modifié par GuyIncognito, 07 avril 2012 - 12:04 .

[Alikain]

Is this for real!!! hmm only time will tell!!!

[meteng]

The problem I have with the 'artistic integrity' line is that the ending was obviously rushed. If they had artistic integrity they would have delayed the release and done a proper job.

[Selene Moonsong]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

It is a logical assumption that Anderson would give up his position to Udina given the charges brought against Shepard so that Anderson could assist with Sheps defense.

Sadly this isn't really said or shown in the game. Besides, didn't Anderson step down from his position as councilor in one of the novels?

I have totally ignored the 'novels'. Despite what some may think, they are not cannon for the game itself.

The fact that Anderson is present on Earth should be enough information without spelling out every little detail. His conversation with Shep in the opening scenes should be enough of a clue, considering that Anderson has been supportive of Shep throughout the series.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 07 avril 2012 - 02:41 .

[Nauks]

This has got to be some of the most accurate critisism of this Extended DLC announcement I've seen yet.

[imnar]

lol...

i absolutely love bioware...

they should run for congress...because they would fit right in...

[kingtigernz]

So basically Bioware is polishing a turd???correct me if I am wrong but it's still a turd.

[Dakota Strider]

If I were a cynical person, I might think that Bioware/EA has changed the definition of a few words:

Artistic = Monetary
Integrity = Opportunities

Because keeping a wide open ending, with no closure, certainly gives them lots of opp...err Integrity to makes lots of mone....err Art.

[catelee2u]

It's great you have listened to fans and are doing this for free.....very great respect for you.

[kbct]

Dakota Strider wrote...

If I were a cynical person, I might think that Bioware/EA has changed the definition of a few words:

Artistic = Monetary
Integrity = Opportunities

Because keeping a wide open ending, with no closure, certainly gives them lots of opp...err Integrity to makes lots of mone....err Art.

I've come to realize you're the real deal.

I always like to point to evidence. If anyone want to voice their opinion about the DLC, here is your chance:

http://social.biowar...11/polls/31441/

[Ighrat]

4th option:
Punch the kid. DRILL TO THE HEAVENS! WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!?!?