913 réponses à ce sujet

[TheCinC]

a.m.p wrote...
How does adding an option to say no to the starchild compromise anyone’s artistic integrity?

It doesn't. I think the main problem EA/Bioware has with alternative endings as that it would be more difficult to start a sequel if you can have, for instance, an ending where Shepard actually fails and the Reapers win. However, that can be easily avoided. As long as Shepard at least paves the way for others to follow and actually defeat the Reapers, then there is no problem. So, how many outcomes can we think of where Shepard wins, but the outcome is still quite different depending on the choises you made? Most of the endings I can think of involve Shepard winning, but either dying or losing the LI, a squadmate, a few squadmates or more, much more..

[Flidget]

CapnManx wrote...

It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.

Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).

But we already know Liara's gotten her time-capsules all prepared and prepped.

Shepard only got as far as they did because the Protheans jacked-up the Keepers and bought the next Cycle time.  Give us an option to pay that forward, maybe this won't be the Cycle that defeats the Reapers either, just the one that finally got enough to the next Cycle enough ahead of time so that they can do it.

Have a final cut-scene of alien hands unearthing the box.

And if you had the lowest EMS, have a Reaper land a moment later, and announce itself as The Shepard.

[a.m.p]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Personally now I think at least Paragon Shepard should be able to test the starchild "I don't disagree with what you've presented, but could you give us some time to make decision properly? Could we make a temporary truce?". If he really controls the Reapers, it should be no problem for him to make them stop attacking at least for some time. After all, you are not disagreeing of making the decision or on his solution, you just don't want to be rash with it.

If he insists of you making decision "right here, right now", you can ask him why, because it will quickly turn into being suspicious - and you can just say it to him that you must have some reason to trust him.

Renegade should probably have an option of outright refusal/rebuke (?) I am not very good with Renegade intended mindset 

But yes, you never able to do it, which is quite jarring 

Problem is I still have absolutely no idea what that vision they keep referring to is. What is the starchild supposed to be?
Is it supposed to be a benevolent deity, that guides Shepard  to save the world and is generallly on our side?
Or an omnipotent being that decides to release control of the wolrd because Shepard passed the test of getting there?
Or is it a deluded ancient AI whose logic is simply wrong and Shepard is supposed to fix his mistakes?
Is it the real antagonist Shepard is supposed to defeat?

That's not speculation, that's just confusion.

From an in-universe point of view it's even more confusing. Shepard has absolutely no reasons to trust this thing. And every reason to mistrust it, it just admitted to be the architect of the reaper cycle, which Shepard has been fighting since the very beginning. And Shepard knows the reapers have a history of setting elaborate traps for organics.
For all they know taking any of the proposed options could lead to worse consequences than fighting it out conventionally. And we are still forced to take it.

The only way that adding an option for a conventional victory would  really undermine said artistic vision, is if that vision really is "the only way to solve a problem of an overwhelming force invading your home and trying to kill you is cooperating with that force".
And I'm sorry, but I honestly do not believe that is the message that the Mass Effect development team was going for.

[nitefyre410]

TheCinC wrote...

a.m.p wrote...
How does adding an option to say no to the starchild compromise anyone’s artistic integrity?

It doesn't. I think the main problem EA/Bioware has with alternative endings as that it would be more difficult to start a sequel if you can have, for instance, an ending where Shepard actually fails and the Reapers win. However, that can be easily avoided. As long as Shepard at least paves the way for others to follow and actually defeat the Reapers, then there is no problem. So, how many outcomes can we think of where Shepard wins, but the outcome is still quite different depending on the choises you made? Most of the endings I can think of involve Shepard winning, but either dying or losing the LI, a squadmate, a few squadmates or more, much more..

  

You know what but its not hard to start   New series and  concluded  Shepards story properly and still leave room for a more games. They are just being creatively stupid - it they got of  this whole "Art" BS then the  ending with room for the makes itself. Here - watch its simple.  

After Shepard defeats the Reapers - he and his crew are praised as heros, now the rebuilding of the galaxy begins.    The War with the Reapers left the Galaxy in the ruins, old powers destory or crippled and new onces raising along with new threats.  Coroperations raceing to get there hands on salavage Reaper Tech,  with the goverments  weakend the Galaxy goes into a  more Wild West  post war state as the struggle to keep order  begins.   Your choices  from the first three affect the outcome of the  Reaper War but this is a   New game,   New characters  new conflicts ...the most you make see a cameo  about some of the old cast.   

And this would have been easier with Dark Engery plot  Shepard chooses to not side with the Reapers.. 100 years later the race to stop the  Dark Energy from destorying galaxy begins, with a new hero and new cast of  characters,  new enemies and new conflicts.  Shepard won galaxy  a future during the Reaper War,   Now its time  Hero X to keep it from being destoryed.  

Tada 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 07 avril 2012 - 10:58 .

[a.m.p]

TheCinC wrote...

a.m.p wrote...
How does adding an option to say no to the starchild compromise anyone’s artistic integrity?

It doesn't. I think the main problem EA/Bioware has with alternative endings as that it would be more difficult to start a sequel if you can have, for instance, an ending where Shepard actually fails and the Reapers win. However, that can be easily avoided. As long as Shepard at least paves the way for others to follow and actually defeat the Reapers, then there is no problem. So, how many outcomes can we think of where Shepard wins, but the outcome is still quite different depending on the choises you made? Most of the endings I can think of involve Shepard winning, but either dying or losing the LI, a squadmate, a few squadmates or more, much more..

Well, in me2  we had a non-canon ending where Shepard dies. That save isn't importable, story ends. Having a reapers win option could be handled similarly. At this point all tha's really missing is a couple of cutscenes that play out if you wait to long.

And as I said in the original post, an ending where the reapers were beaten conventionally, the relays and the citadel preserved would be in the long run functionally identical to the existing control ending, if it allows for relay rebuilding, as the rumors seem to suggest.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

a.m.p wrote...
Problem is I still have absolutely no idea what that vision they keep referring to is. What is the starchild supposed to be?
Is it supposed to be a benevolent deity, that guides Shepard  to save the world and is generallly on our side?
Or an omnipotent being that decides to release control of the wolrd because Shepard passed the test of getting there?
Or is it a deluded ancient AI whose logic is simply wrong and Shepard is supposed to fix his mistakes?
Is it the real antagonist Shepard is supposed to defeat?

That's not speculation, that's just confusion.

From an in-universe point of view it's even more confusing. Shepard has absolutely no reasons to trust this thing.

 
I totally agree. More and more I think on it, more "not choosing" options feels proper to me in the given circumstances from the point of in-game character.
I just suggested how Shepard could've at least try to figure out the malevolence/benevolence of this entity - at least this is very crucial step on making a big decision. But he haven't given this chance somehow (let's say starkid entity refused to communicate anymore), so - ok, can't decide. Trying to contact anybody from allies - can't contact (say, comms fried). Tried to investigate more on his own - can't in time, crucible was destroyed...

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 07 avril 2012 - 11:10 .

[omntt]

Stachild is just a jerk. No offense intended to anyone in the real world. And OP, you forgot that the other message the ending give us is "homogenization is good!", something that made me run away from wow at the speed of sound back in the days. No decent ending is assured while the the thing is in there, except IT and a way to say : "**** you, you *******."

[a.m.p]

omntt wrote...

Stachild is just a jerk. No offense intended to anyone in the real world. And OP, you forgot that the other message the ending give us is "homogenization is good!", something that made me run away from wow at the speed of sound back in the days. No decent ending is assured while the the thing is in there, except IT and a way to say : "**** you, you *******."

Trust me, I didn’t forget. I just don’t want to even bring this up here. I have this huge thread with a motherload of suggestions how the ending could have been better, most of which simply remove synthesis altogether.

But at this point we are looking for an acceptable compromise that could solve at least some of the core problems with the ending. Synthesis is at least not forced on me and I can pretend it's not there. And some people see something different in it, so why should their chosen ending be taken from them?

Modifié par a.m.p, 07 avril 2012 - 11:13 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

I think regardless of what options for ending are, it should not feel like arbitrary choice - that's always will be unsatisfying. And due to deteriorated scenario quality at this point it totally feels like Shepard has to pick almost arbitrary choice with uncertain outcome from very limited set of options.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 07 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[omntt]

Sorry then, I'll try to stay calm. Your suggestions are simple and effective. I like your idea of totally ignoring synthesys.

[Roguekad]

CapnManx wrote...

It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.

Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).

So Sov wasn't killed by disrupting his link with Seraen, which left him volnurable and he wasn't finished off with convential weapons? 

I do agree Shep would find another option that didn't lead to continuing the cycle, forcing conformity on the universe or commiting genocide on a race that just reached peace with its creators.

[TheMerchantMan]

CapnManx wrote...

It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.

Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).

It would be all the more meaningful then.

If presented with the final choices, the last and final hope for the cycle, Shepard had the choice to say no. Not to give up, but to go out on our terms. To not surrender his soul, the souls of the entire universe for victory.

After never giving up, seeing the cost of his actions would be too great, seeing that he cannot make this choice for the universe. He refuses and dies, and so everyone dies.

Yet hope remains for the cycles of the future. The Reapers have been dealt a heavy blow, and the races of the future will be prepared.

Why not? 

[a.m.p]

@omntt, thanks. Judging by the info rom PAX, the contents of the Extended cut are not yet set in stone, so I think we should continue to try and push for a better kind of compromise than simply patching up minor plot holes.

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

I think regardless of what options for ending are, it should not feel like arbitrary choice - that's always will be unsatisfying. And due to deteriorated scenario quality at this point it totally feels like Shepard has to pick almost arbitrary choice with uncertain outcome from very limited set of options.

I really only want the ending options to make sense. I can not see any way that could be achieved without considerably changing the starkid scene. I'm offering a way that would involve next to no change to existing content and adding no more than they already are adding.

[Rykoth]

If you stop looking at Starchild as real, and start looking at him as something going on in Shepard's head. The Catalyst controls the Reapers. It is the Reapers. I do not subscribe to the indoc. theory, because we already saw not five minutes before that, Shepard being mind controlled by IM, and he broke free.

Starchild is the Catalyst reaching out to Shepard. It's providing a familiar (and unsettling) form, yet I guarantee if there were security cameras in that room, it would show Shepard talking to himself. That's my own speculation, and I'm hoping that gets pointed out with the extended DLC.

I get that "haters" are never going to be swayed, whatever.

But for those on the fence, hear me out. Shepard saying "no" would essentially be saying "no" to both himself, and to the people he swore to protect. If Starchild is in his head, then what's happening is the Catalyst if offering the outcomes, is offering the consequences, and ultimately, Shepard knows he has to make a choice. If he says "no," he dooms them all.

If the Crucible does not fire, the fleets lose. Period.

This story has never been about Shepard being willing to lose. It's been about Shepard trying to find a way to provde victory.

Victory does not come in saying "no" to potential ways to end the war.

[Baramon]

How does adding an option to say no to the starchild compromise anyone’s artistic...

It doesn't.  And as paying fans, I think we should be able to have our ending(s) that we want.  But what I think doesn't matter a hill of beans...only what EA/Bioware thinks, matters.  But, as others have pointed out as well, it makes it damn difficult to continue their franchise with future DLC if they give too much variation this early on.  And, their "artistic vision" prevents them from providing us with the ending(s) we want, so we're just doubly screwed.

I think they don't give a damn what we think or want.  Their smugness attests to that.  It's not that difficult at all to provide us with some choices.  But it is difficult for them to go against their "plan" and milk us for all the money they can.  My wallet is closed on this matter until further notice.  Starting with NeverWinter Nights 2, continuing through DAII, now this (ME3 "ending"), Bioware/EA are just dead to me.  Useless.  If they think the load of Golden Poo they heaped on us is "artistic vision", then I think they're just blind.  Simple as that.  They've become money-grubbing turd-polishers just like the other big name companies have become.  It's not about art; it's about money.  And they've got a pile of it and what we want is immaterial.

[a.m.p]

Rykoth wrote...

If you stop looking at Starchild as real, and start looking at him as something going on in Shepard's head. The Catalyst controls the Reapers. It is the Reapers. I do not subscribe to the indoc. theory, because we already saw not five minutes before that, Shepard being mind controlled by IM, and he broke free.

Starchild is the Catalyst reaching out to Shepard. It's providing a familiar (and unsettling) form, yet I guarantee if there were security cameras in that room, it would show Shepard talking to himself. That's my own speculation, and I'm hoping that gets pointed out with the extended DLC.

I get that "haters" are never going to be swayed, whatever.

But for those on the fence, hear me out. Shepard saying "no" would essentially be saying "no" to both himself, and to the people he swore to protect. If Starchild is in his head, then what's happening is the Catalyst if offering the outcomes, is offering the consequences, and ultimately, Shepard knows he has to make a choice. If he says "no," he dooms them all.

If the Crucible does not fire, the fleets lose. Period.

This story has never been about Shepard being willing to lose. It's been about Shepard trying to find a way to provde victory.

Victory does not come in saying "no" to potential ways to end the war.

As for crucible being destroyed = fleets lose, I provided my perspective on the previous pages. Short version, at this point we don’t have enough solid evidence and it could be argued either way, it’s up to the writers.

As for the Catalyst being in Shepard’s head, how does that change the problem that an entity Shepard has no reason to trust offers choices that Shepard has no way of knowing will result in what this entity says?

[a.m.p]

Baramon wrote...

How does adding an option to say no to the starchild compromise anyone’s artistic...

It doesn't.  And as paying fans, I think we should be able to have our ending(s) that we want.  But what I think doesn't matter a hill of beans...only what EA/Bioware thinks, matters.  But, as others have pointed out as well, it makes it damn difficult to continue their franchise with future DLC if they give too much variation this early on.  And, their "artistic vision" prevents them from providing us with the ending(s) we want, so we're just doubly screwed.

The difference for the purposes of a sequel between the ending I propose and the existing control ending is less than the difference between the existing control and synthesis endings.

I am proposing that the relays are never destroyed instead of being at some point rebuilt and the war drags on for a while instead of ending right here at earth.
Whereas synthesis turns everyone and everything half-synthetic. How they are going to make any kind of sequel that takes into account that little detail I have no idea.

Modifié par a.m.p, 07 avril 2012 - 11:55 .

[Jeb231]

I thought Javik was supposed to be the catalyst in the original draft but the character was cut due to shedule constraints. If so I don't think trying to fix this scene would impede on their artistic vision (AKA plans for ME4).

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

I would totally dig the "Shepard is the Catalyst". Hell, I would totally accept dying for this sake.
In fact, I largely fully expected it, when game dropped me quote like "we need *something* to properly direct Crucible energy, to channel it in the right direction, to avoid it from harming us" - what could be better than plugging this hero into this machine? Not first time scenario like this happens in scifi. Shepard hate/strong desire to destroy Reapers takes material form and becomes their doom.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 07 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[a.m.p]

Jeb231 wrote...

I thought Javik was supposed to be the catalyst in the original draft but the character was cut due to shedule constraints. If so I don't think trying to fix this scene would impede on their artistic vision (AKA plans for ME4).

Ingvarr Stormbird worte...
I would totally dig the "Shepard is the Catalyst". Hell, I would totally accept dying for this sake.
In fact, I largely fully expected it, when game dropped me quote like "we need *something* to properly direct Crucible energy, to channel it in the right direction, to avoid it from harming us" - what could be better than plugging this hero into this machine? Not first time scenario like this happens in scifi. Shepard hate/strong desire to destroy Reapers takes material form and becomes their doom.

That would take completely rewriting the whole ending sequence.  There are many ways the ending could be done differently and much better, but that is not going to happen. I'm trying to work with what we have. You know, 'life gives you lemons - make lemonade' approach.

Modifié par a.m.p, 07 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[Rykoth]

You ask the question of why would Shepard listen to this entity....

Why wouldn't he at this point?

He's been to hell and back, as far as Shepard can tell, most of his friends are dead, Earth is in ruins, he was the only survivor of the push other then Anderson, and now Anderson is gone. He's bleeding profusely, will probably pass out at any minute, and he's been through the ringer psychologically. If he's a War Hero, he might have saved Elysium, but look at what he had to do. If he was a Ruthless soldier, he's already sent many to die, and if he's a Sole Survivor... well. You know how that goes.

Then came the Vimire Situation. He loses a possible love interest and/or a friend.

Then he gets spaced. Watches the Normandy get destroyed. Gets rebuilt, and is forced to work for Cerberus, in which case, he again deals with potential mind-numbing situations. Potentially watching old friends die, and potentially making new ones, also with the potential to lose them too. The Virmire Survivor is completely rejecting of him, Liara is practically a different person, and no matter the outcome, Shepard goes through and completes a Suicide Mission, infiltates the Shadow Broker Lair, possibly deals with a rogue VI and witnesses Archer's experiments, and then, when all is said and done, is forced to destroy an entire system to stop the Reapers. And regardless of whether or not Shepard hated Batarians, DAMN.

Then ME3 hits. The Reapers invade. He watches a child die. Again, the VS doubts him. He is forced to leave Earth behind. The VS then gets nearly killed, he witnesses the Turians get their asses kicked. He decides the fate of the Krogan, he saves the Citadel again, decides the fate of the quarians and geth, witnesses Thessia burning, loses more friends then he ever expected, and then...

... and then he's faced with one last choice. He's bleeding half to death, he's already blown half way to hell. And even if the EMS is high, the squaddies survived, he doesn't know that. As far as he's concerned, the VS, Liara, Tali, Garrus... all of them may very well be dead.

And now this Catalyst comes to him and offers him three potential ways out.

Destroy? Why would he hesitate at this point. EDI might already be destroyed. The Geth and Quarians are probably getting pounded hard. Better to finish the job.

Control? Shepard could very well be a Renegade that will do anything, including controlling the Reapers to end the war. Illusive Man was weak, but Shepard has endured so much. Why couldn't he use his last bit of energy to do this?

Synthesis? That's the only ending I think needs more explanation, personally, but far from a game breaker to me.

But the point is, why does Shepard go along with Starchild?

Well... what would you do if you've been through the emotional and mental hell only to find out that again, you have to make a dire choice? Would you say "no" and risk the end of your species? Shepard's has never once backed down from making a hard choice, why would he back down now?

[the slynx]

Agreed, a.m.p. I just finished responding to another of your threads with a similar suggestion when I noticed this one. Copying from that:

I still think they could theoretically salvage the end in some fashion by having a 'refuse Sky Kid' logic, and allow you to destroy him and reject his explanation  - perhaps in the process weakening the Reapers and briefly lowering their shields. (I suppose, again, in theory that would resposition the Reapers as unknowable for those who prefer them that way; you could dismiss the Kid on the grounds that he, too, is part of the Reaper forces, and therefore possibly lying to you.) That would at least mean those assets that were such an inordinately large part of the game play into the finale in a tangible way. The ending would likely be bleak, since it would still mean protracted war against a very tough enemy. But that would preserve the integrity of the imagined endings BioWare has included, and meet the demands of critics.

Another way you could handle it would be to have some sabotage option which renders the Sky Kid incapable of communication with the Reapers, while also, say, weakening their shields. (Perhaps he could have the Citadel execute a FTL jump to some distant location to ensure isolation, since it's apparently capable of movement, based on it having been brought to Sol.) Then Shepard would still sacrifice himself in a fashion - being stranded forever to watch the battle from afar. I think that would have a sort of poetic justice to it, and be bittersweet: after two games spent recruiting people for the fight, Shepard ultimately has to hand all authority for the fight over to the forces he's managed to round up - stuck in the company of the entity that had the equivalent job for the Reapers. He helps save the civilizations he cares about, but is never able to be part of them himself. (Or herself, Femsheps.)

Also, this would mean there's no magic 'Reaper Off' button: just a way to weaken and disorient them, then rely on conventional forces - and whether or not you've managed to unite the civlizations enough or not.

Modifié par torudoom, 07 avril 2012 - 02:25 .

[a.m.p]

Rykoth wrote...

You ask the question of why would Shepard listen to this entity....

Why wouldn't he at this point?

*snip*

Well... what would you do if you've been through the emotional and mental hell only to find out that again, you have to make a dire choice? Would you say "no" and risk the end of your species? Shepard's has never once backed down from making a hard choice, why would he back down now?

I don’t know what I’d do, I haven’t been through emotional and mental hell, but I sure hope I’d have the ability to recognize whether I am talking to a friend or an enemy.

So let me summon my Shepard, who has, as you point out, been through that hell, and provide her perspective.

So she got there, expecting to find some kind of switch that would turn on the crucible and hopefully end this nightmare. She still doesn’t know what the crucible does, but she trusts Hackett’s judgment enough to go with this plan. She is pretty convinced her best friend and her lover are dead, so her personal safety is hardly a concern.

Instead of an off switch however she finds a glowing hologram/ghost/whatever that tells her literary this: “The reapers are my solution. I control them” and offers three options at least two of which make no goddamn sense.

I, the player, having played through once and having watched all other endings on Youtube know what happens when she chooses either. She at this point doesn’t. She only knows that the entity responsible for every advanced civilization that ever existed being wiped out wants her to shoot a tube/grab some handles/jump into a beam of light. Not to mention that the starchild promises that every choice will destroy the mass relays. Even if she was to believe that wouldn’t cause supernovas all across the galaxy, that effectively destroys what she had been fighting for – galactic civilization. She also knows that the reapers' favorite strategy involves setting elaborate traps for organic civilizations.

Let me reiterate that. The only confirmation that these options will stop the cycle is the word of the being that claims to have started the cycle. So the answer is no, she would not go along with the plan of her enemy. She would rather put her faith into the fleet she gathered, and if that fails – into Liara’s time capsule and the next cycle.

That’s from an in-universe point of view.

From a player point of view we have the following:
We are being introduced to a character that came out of nowhere, manages to produce more plot holes in 5 minutes than the whole collector plot of me2 did over 30 hours, contradicts itself within 30 seconds of appearing on screen and forces us (if we want to finish the game) to accept one of three nonsensical options that contradict previously established lore and themes of the series. And I’m not even going into the philosophical implications that go with all this, because I still am not sure whether those were intentional or someone simply didn’t think this through.

[a.m.p]

torudoom wrote...

after two games spent recruiting people for the fight, Shepard ultimately has to hand all authority for the fight over to the forces he's managed to round up

Thank you. Would have so much loved this. Instead of unsettling messianic overtones - an actual theme of unity.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Rykoth wrote...

You ask the question of why would Shepard listen to this entity....

Why wouldn't he at this point?

He's been to hell and back, as far as Shepard can tell, most of his friends are dead, Earth is in ruins, he was the only
And now this Catalyst comes to him and offers him three potential ways out.

My problem is - how do you know this hologram is indeed the Catalyst?
How do you know he's talking the truth?
How do you know he's not damaged?
Etc.etc.

You have no trustworthy information on what to choose

What if he's lying and blowing this red barrel will infact damage the Crucible and make all sentient life husks - doing Reaper work for them? What if two other options just will kill you?
And he does not talk to you anymore, forcing you to choose rashly into unknown, which is even more suspicious.

And you know from much of pretext how dangerous Crucible machinery is - would you just start blowing/shorting out things?

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 07 avril 2012 - 02:55 .