913 réponses à ce sujet

[a.m.p]

Xyos wrote...

Agree a 4th option should be there either the IE way or something else where we can spare the Geth, keep our squad together, and kill the reapers.

It should however be balanced against the existing options. It should have some significant downsides. In my example - reapers not being completely destoryed and lurking out there and the galaxy suffering a long war with much higher casualties than in the catalyst options.

[CavScout]

cchudoba002 wrote...

I have to agree with the OP. For a game about "player choice," the lack of the most obvious and arguably logical choice is glaringly obvious. Not to mention a break from the artistic themes, but there are many articles disecting the endings artistic values. I have yet to see one that endorses them from an artistic standpoint.

You've never had "real" choice in the ME series. Sovereign had to die in ME1. The Collectors had to be stopped in ME2 and in ME3 the Rapers have to be stopped. You aren't getting a choice to allow the Reapers to end. It's nonsensical. Just like ME1 giving an option to let Sovereign win or ME2 having an option allowing the Collectors to complete their task.

[CavScout]

Xyos wrote...

Agree a 4th option should be there either the IE way or something else where we can spare the Geth, keep our squad together, and kill the reapers.

You just want a "and they lived happily ever after" ending as a choice?

[goose2989]

It means that Bioware would be admitting they made a mistake, or that something was wrong with the finished product. I doubt it's actually anything more than that.

EA may be many things, but they want to make money. Adding DLC that gives players more choices could be charged, thus increasing revenue. But it still means they'd be admitting a mistake.

[CavScout]

Sad Dragon wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Jeb231 wrote...

the destroy option already is refusing the catalyst logic.

They'll never understand.

The Interesting thing here is that Control is just as much of a refusal of his logic. It does not state that new synthetics wont arise -- only that you will be able to control the current ones. So while it does break the cycle it does so only to the same extent that Destroy does -- even if the destroy option is the final end of the reapers.
In truth there is nothing to say that new synthetics wont be created even with the Synthesis ending and that they rebel and destroy all other life.

The Catalyst reasoning is simply that Organics will create synthetics and that said synthetics will kill all organic life -- for one reason or another. Sure, with control ending you would have an army of reapers to battle a Synthetic uprising but it wouldnt nessecaraly break the cycle -- nor is Synthesis a fail safe solution.

The Stat Childs reasoning is the same and hasn't altered -- it mearly presents three choices for how you will change the cycle as it is now -- with reapers harvesting civilisations ever 50.000 years.

I think that is the logic that people want to call it out on, as the Geth and Quarians -- for some of us -- have already shown this not to be true and through that has invalidated the very idea of the cycle.

-TSD

Control doesn't refute or break the Catalyst's logic. How you equate destroying Reapers with controlling the is just odd. Control is about Shepard taking the chance that he can control the Reapers and prevent a future organic-synthetic conflict.

Furthermore, temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians doesn't break the logic that Synthetics will eventually kill all Organics. No more than peace between France and Germany in 1918 prevented war in 1939.

[OneDrunkMonk]

Of course there is the question of what exactly is this entity which we are calling the Star Child or Catalyst? Part of or residing on the Citadel? All this time? So an AI I assume (???). Unable to open the gateway for the initial Reaper invasion as planned?

Here's a point that seems rather overlooked: The Reapers are ships with interiors suitable to house organic life. Remember both Saren and Benezia were on Sovereign in ME1. Hell Saren even sits in a chair! So, what can we gather from this? That at one time organics perhaps flew these ships, that they created AIs to run these ship and that the AIs gained so much power that they decided to do away with organics (a la the Matrix, Terminator, etc.). They saw themselves as Gods and ran the universe as such. Here's a story never told in the Mass Effect trilogy.

[GreyLord]

OneDrunkMonk wrote...

Of course there is the question of what exactly is this entity which we are calling the Star Child or Catalyst? Part of or residing on the Citadel? All this time? So an AI I assume (???). Unable to open the gateway for the initial Reaper invasion as planned?

Here's a point that seems rather overlooked: The Reapers are ships with interiors suitable to house organic life. Remember both Saren and Benezia were on Sovereign in ME1. Hell Saren even sits in a chair! So, what can we gather from this? That at one time organics perhaps flew these ships, that they created AIs to run these ship and that the AIs gained so much power that they decided to do away with organics (a la the Matrix, Terminator, etc.). They saw themselves as Gods and ran the universe as such. Here's a story never told in the Mass Effect trilogy.

It's the bios in your computer.

Well...NOT YOUR computer...

It's the control mechanism.  It doesn't have the programs to actually act on that control.  It needs something else to introduce that programming (Reaper, Crucible...whatever) and then someone or something to manually input that control (keeper, Saren, Shepard) at the source.

[OneDrunkMonk]

Oh! It all makes sense now!

Uh....

[ubermensch007]

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...

You remember that great tagline for Mass Effect 2-- "They call it a Suicide Mission.Prove them wrong."

Mass Effect 3's Tagline should have been similar: "They say that the Reapers can't be defeated conventionally.Prove them wrong."

The thing that's so bizarre about ME3 is how so much that has been proven to work in the past games in the series is discarded in ME3. Apparently the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." Means very little to BioWare.

I was playing ME3 a couple of hours ago.And I was talking to EDI after she just got control of Dr.Eva's body and she asked Commander Shepard something about "Shoild she modify her core programming." I told her that that is for her to decide.Since she has free will, and EDI responded by saying, "But some decisions should not be made in a vaccum."

And after she said this, I thought back to how Mass Effect Endings have always gone down.

In ME1, during the Battle of the Citadel.Shepard's squadmates were by his side, and offered thier opinion and perspective, on the big decision that Shep was about to make. Whether to 'Save the Destiny Ascension or Concentrate on Soverign.'

In ME2 once again at the climax of the story, Sheps squad is by his side offering thier input on whether Shepard should Keep or Destroy the Collector Base.

But ME3 goes against the grain.Marches to the beat of its own drum and f*cks everything up! <_<

It can be astounding and shocking at times how life can reflect art. When I think of how it was just Casey and Mac who determined the ME3 Ending, absent of peer review.It totally paralells how Shepard and the Starchild are in the game.And the fact that Shepard appears to be in the "vaccum of space" during this scene.Seems to be a pun intended... Like many have been talking about the Red Geth, Green Asari and Blue Battarian in the Multiplayer DLC Photo, echos the Red, Green and Blue colored Lame Ass Endings of ME3

[img]http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/122/1222516/ME3Resurgence_1333743231.jpg&sa=X&ei=LxKBT96UF-rl0QHrxtmQCA&ved=0CAQQ8wc4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGMG3I5P2JOxzXPXITWuMDKY6I8Ag[/img]

Modifié par ubermensch007, 08 avril 2012 - 04:23 .

[ubermensch007]

Whoops, did not mean to Double Post

I accidently pressed the "Quote" button instead of the "Edit" button...

Modifié par ubermensch007, 08 avril 2012 - 04:26 .

[Hudathan]

They should just put the non-standard ending in the game as a full fledged cutscene. Give players the choice of not using the Crucible and just watch as everybody gets killed, and then the Crucible blows up and Shepard dies anyway.

Anyone who doesn't agree with the current storyline of the game can go ahead and take that option and get an appropriate ending.

Modifié par Hudathan, 08 avril 2012 - 04:28 .

[Sad Dragon]

CavScout wrote...

Control doesn't refute or break the Catalyst's logic. How you equate destroying Reapers with controlling the is just odd. Control is about Shepard taking the chance that he can control the Reapers and prevent a future organic-synthetic conflict.

Furthermore, temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians doesn't break the logic that Synthetics will eventually kill all Organics. No more than peace between France and Germany in 1918 prevented war in 1939.

Control has the potential to refuse the Catalyst's logic. Not in as a drastic or direct way as Destroy mind you but the possibility is still there. Let me explain what I mean.

You start out by choosing control -- this leads to controlling the Reapers but leaves the Geth alone, the reason why you chose control is however not stated so that blank is up to you to decide. You could have them help rebuild that which was destroyed, use the reapers as your personal army or have them disappear from the galaxy in a B5 style ending. This is all up to you as no clear explanation has been given on how you are controlling them. Hell you could even have them rebuild the Mass Relay network and then have them all destroy each other.

Control will let you break the cycle just as much as destroy, you just wont do it in as a direct way. Nothing in there says anything about the Geth, I can simply choose to keep them alive.

As for your second paragraph we also learn from that, that Organics are destined to destroy themselves -- if we apply the same absolute logic as the catalyst does. Does that mean that we should add Organics to the list of things that need to be stopped? I'll leave that for you all to think on.

-TSD

[a.m.p]

CavScout wrote...

Control doesn't refute or break the Catalyst's logic. How you equate destroying Reapers with controlling the is just odd. Control is about Shepard taking the chance that he can control the Reapers and prevent a future organic-synthetic conflict.

Furthermore, temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians doesn't break the logic that Synthetics will eventually kill all Organics. No more than peace between France and Germany in 1918 prevented war in 1939.

The problem with the catalyst’s logic the way it is right now presented is this:

He brings up the relationship between organics and synthetics. He claims that eventually organics will be wiped out by synthetics, that this is a problem and that it requires a solution.

He can’t prove it. Every 50000 years he wipes out advanced organics before they can really face this problem and figure out their own solution.

Now here’s my take on this.

The moment the quarians acknowledge the geth as a people and stop treating them as their property that ran loose, the war stops. The moment EDI is treated as a person and unshackled, she saves the ship and helps it's crew.

Every rebellious AI that we have ever met was acting in defense. Even that money-stealing one, that we found in ME1. And overlord was a tortured near-insane kid, before anyone brings that up.

In short: the created rebel against the creators if the creators are morons who don't understand what they have created. As in – sentient life. Same as any enslaved organic would want to rebel against his master.

I can’t prove I’m right either. These are two distinctly different and equally valid approaches to the problem. The current ending allows only for one of them. In a series that at its best moments allows to express very different opinions on a variety of complex themes (Mordin’s loyalty mission, anyone?), that’s just plain bad.

And no, destroy, the way it’s currently done does not equal rejecting this logic. It is an option provided by the catalyst as an acceptable solution to his problem. If we had a choice between control and synthesis, and then shepard found a tube to shoot and shot it, while the starchild was trying to stop them from doing so – that would be rejecting the catalyst’s logic.

And from an in-universe point of view, as I have mentioned about half a dozen times in this thread, my Shepard does not know what will happen when she chooses either option. 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. She also knows reapers like to set traps. And the only confirmation that these options will stop the cycle is the word of the being that claims to have started the cycle.

CavScout wrote...

Xyos wrote...

Agree a 4th option should be there either the IE way or something else where we can spare the Geth, keep our squad together, and kill the reapers.

You just want a "and they lived happily ever after" ending as a choice?

No. Again, as I have mentioned on this very page. Any additional endings need to be balanced in terms of drawbacks with the existing ones.

Hudathan wrote...

They should just put the non-standard ending in the game as a full fledged cutscene. Give players the choice of not using the Crucible and just watch as everybody gets killed, and then the Crucible blows up and Shepard dies anyway.

Anyone who doesn't agree with the current storyline of the game can go ahead and take that option and get an appropriate ending.

We are arguing that not using the Crucible should not mean immediately losing the war. And that the current storyline allows for such an outcome.

Modifié par a.m.p, 08 avril 2012 - 09:40 .

[a.m.p]

ubermensch007 wrote...

 "But some decisions should not be made in a vaccum."

And after she said this, I thought back to how Mass Effect Endings have always gone down.

You are bringing up a good point.
Let’s look at previous major decisions:

ME1:
Rachni queen; kill or let go – choice is provided by Shepard themselves. Implications of letting her go unclear. But you can at least ask her what her plans are. If you’re not sure you can always just kill her. This is almost a purely moral choice.
Council; save or let die – again, provided by Shepard themselves. Implications of both choices mostly clear.

ME2:
Maelon’s data; save or destroy – provided by Mordin, a trusted friend.
Geth heretics; rewrite or destroy – provided by Legion, a friendly geth. Sure we might at this point not trust him yet entirely, but then we can just rig it to explode and immediately see the explosion.
Collector base – now here it gets weird but turns out that choice wasn’t a major one after all, so I’m not going into details.

ME3:
Genophage; cure or sabotage. Provided by characters we’ve known a long time and understand their goals and agenda. Lots of context that was built up over three games.

Rannoch; same here, familiar characters with understandable goals. Lots of context. The reaper code for the geth is a bit of a weird development, but judging by the way it’s treated in game it’s no big deal.

And then we get to the ending. Shoot tube/grab handles/ jump into light. The choice is provided by an entity that admits to have created the cycle and thus is our enemy. There is no reason to trust it. There is no context for any of the choices. Most of them make no sense. There is no way to ask for crucial details. And the only reason we can’t refuse is lack of a “no” option on the dialogue wheel.

[a.m.p]

Did some more searching and updated the original post with examples, so bump.
Anyone knows more good detailed suggestions, please let me know.

[the slynx]

OrangeLazarus86 wrote...

Just Say NO To Star Child?

I like the way to rolls off my tongue. Anyone wanna makes pics of this? Shirts? Share profits with one another.

Just appropriate a Ghostbusters logo.

[a.m.p]

torudoom wrote...

OrangeLazarus86 wrote...

Just Say NO To Star Child?

I like the way to rolls off my tongue. Anyone wanna makes pics of this? Shirts? Share profits with one another.

Just appropriate a Ghostbusters logo.

I'm not good at pics, if anyone comes up with something appropriately defiant I can add it to the OP to set the tone.

[Noelemahc]

a.m.p wrote...

Did some more searching and updated the original post with examples, so bump.
Anyone knows more good detailed suggestions, please let me know.

Don't know if it's much good, but I wrote one myself. Link is in sig. I've also written some post-Citadel scenes, but the barebones idea only requires a small amount of cutscene scripting and a few lines from Shepard, Harbinger and, sadly, the Starchild.

[the slynx]

a.m.p wrote...


I'm not good at pics, if anyone comes up with something appropriately defiant I can add it to the OP to set the tone.

I'd do it myself, but I haven't installed any photo software on my desktop. I'll take a look at something later if I have the time. *


* - or remember.

[Jeb231]

Saying no is actually a good way to set up an alternate ending where Reapers win. I don't like the idea of being able to win through conventional means when we were told explicitly multiple times that it wasn't possible and is in complete contradiction with the point behind the reapers and the cycles. Michael Bay ending right here.

Modifié par Jeb231, 08 avril 2012 - 01:58 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

a.m.p wrote...

Xyos wrote...

Agree a 4th option should be there either the IE way or something else where we can spare the Geth, keep our squad together, and kill the reapers.

It should however be balanced against the existing options. It should have some significant downsides. In my example - reapers not being completely destoryed and lurking out there and the galaxy suffering a long war with much higher casualties than in the catalyst options.

---
Shepard was unable to make a decision (refused to make irrational choice). Crucible was destroyed but Shepard was evacuated and remaining forces made a retreat.

Best minds now trying to make up a new picture from information obtained about nature of "catalyst", relationship with Crucible and Reapers possible goals.

Majority of production output goes solely to war effort. It's a grim life, but the galaxy still far from being conquered. Earth now largely subjugated, but resistance there still goes on. 

And there is still hope.

---
ME4 could start 

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Jeb231 wrote...

Saying no is actually a good way to set up an alternate ending where Reapers win. I don't like the idea of being able to win through conventional means when we were told explicitly multiple times that it wasn't possible and is in complete contradiction with the point behind the reapers and the cycles. Hollywood ending right here. 

I thought conveniently finding a "Reapers off button" on your backyard is already pretty much hollywood ending...

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 08 avril 2012 - 02:01 .

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

Thumbs up for using my [Interrupts] as examples!

Having said that, I think it's clear where I stand with this.

I'm also very curious whether the Extended Cut project writers will take a serious look at our critiques. After all, if they really have any artistic integrity whatsoever, they would jump on the chance to use this extra time to give the story a proper ending. And, if they do so, they would realize that it is impossible to reconcile all the different plotholes. So, then what?

[Jeb231]

Destroy ending involves shooting the thing. Why? because you are refusing to use the machine or continue the cycle. Star child isn't here to propose his solutions. He gives you the potential outcomes for the choice you make. You are refusing the idea the cycles are needed to prevent technological singularity by selecting the destroy option.