913 réponses à ce sujet

[a.m.p]

Noelemahc wrote...

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.

Read about a half of it so far, really like it. Things like this make me even more sad about the situation. Adding to OP.

[Marta Rio II]

Barring a major change of heart from the devs...I think this compromise is the best outcome that we can hope for. I'm all for it.

[Jeb231]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

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...

Sadly, no amount of retcon will ever fix this unless they rewrite the whole game but they can potentially salvage the star child scene adding extra dialogue options or changing the 3D model. If organics really had a chance to break the cycle by themselves then their solution would be damn flawed.

Modifié par Jeb231, 08 avril 2012 - 02:23 .

[a.m.p]

Jeb231 wrote...

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.

Previously on the show...

a.m.p wrote...
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 (if temporary) 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.

Modifié par a.m.p, 08 avril 2012 - 02:22 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

I think somebody should make a youtube movie "How gullible Shepard got tricked by the Dark Energy into annihilating the galaxy".

[a.m.p]

Samuel_Valkyrie wrote...

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?

Your interrupts were almost the first thing that I stumbled into when I first got here after finishing the game. They made me feel better.

As for EC - I think it's possible to plug most of the minor ones, the ones that aren't directly related to the starchild. I do not envy the person tasked with clarifying the starchild itself.

[Jeb231]

a.m.p wrote...

Jeb231 wrote...

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.

Previously on the show...

a.m.p wrote...
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 (if temporary) 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.

And he clearly tries to trick you into choosing synthesis and control over destroy using the geth and EDI as an excuse.But  at this point I think he's simply a plot device explaining you the different outcomes. I also think synthesis was the ending the writers intented as the best option but the implications for a genetic rewrite of all beings have such deep philosophical implications most will refuse to accept it.

Modifié par Jeb231, 08 avril 2012 - 02:45 .

[Core_Commander]

Shepard refuses to compromise with the star child no matter what.

After a bit of attempts at bargaining, the Catalyst says:

"Okay, sorry about that. I understand you're not interested in truce, so I'll just let you get back to bleeding out while impotently pawing at the keyboard you clearly have no idea what to do with. Back to reaping, I guess".

And then they all died. The end.


Plausible enough for a "no space magic, no deus ex machina, no plotholes" ending against these odds?

Modifié par Core_Commander, 08 avril 2012 - 02:37 .

[chuckles471]

Core_Commander wrote...

Shepard refuses to compromise with the star child no matter what.

After a bit of attempts at bargaining, the Catalyst says:

"Okay, sorry about that. Clearly you're not interested in truce, so I'll just let you get back to bleeding out while impotently pawing at the keyboard you clearly have no idea what to do with. Back to reaping, I guess".

And then they all died. The end.

Better that than bending over and saying "where do you want to put it, big boy".

[Core_Commander]

chuckles471 wrote...

Better that than bending over and saying "where do you want to put it, big boy".

Well, actually I don't hate the idea. ME has too many moments where "no matter what you do, you win, you just choose whether you win as a nice guy or a badass". It would be nice to see a real choice more often, rather than just mashing at whichever option and it'll work out in the end.

Letting Elnora have the last laugh in ME2 was a nice start, TIM killing Anderson if you don't take the interrupt and ending your mission was another. I still believe not shooting Dr.Kenson in Arrival should've ended with Shepard's death after she detonates the bomb and the rock not making it to the relay (the whole reason she set it up), and survival by plot armor seemed a tad too common for my taste. I certainly wouldn't mind a "you bleed out and Reapers gonna reap, but you stood your ground" ending as a possibility.

Modifié par Core_Commander, 08 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[a.m.p]

Core_Commander wrote...

Shepard refuses to compromise with the star child no matter what.

After a bit of attempts at bargaining, the Catalyst says:

"Okay, sorry about that. I understand you're not interested in truce, so I'll just let you get back to bleeding out while impotently pawing at the keyboard you clearly have no idea what to do with. Back to reaping, I guess".

And then they all died. The end.


Plausible enough for a "no space magic, no deus ex machina, no plotholes" ending against these odds?

I've updated the OP with various suggestions of evening the odds. All of them make significantly more sense then, for example, synthesis.

[a.m.p]

Core_Commander wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

Better that than bending over and saying "where do you want to put it, big boy".

Well, actually I don't hate the idea. ME has too many moments where "no matter what you do, you win, you just choose whether you win as a nice guy or a badass". It would be nice to see a real choice more often, rather than just mashing at whichever option and it'll work out in the end.

Letting Elnora have the last laugh in ME2 was a nice start, TIM killing Anderson if you don't take the interrupt and ending your mission was another. I still believe not shooting Dr.Kenson in Arrival should've ended with Shepard's death after she detonates the bomb and the rock not making it to the relay (the whole reason she set it up), and survival by plot armor seemed a tad too common for my taste. I certainly wouldn't mind a "you bleed out and Reapers gonna reap, but you stood your ground" ending as a possibility.

That one should have been there to begin with, agreed. I'd leave it for a low-to-medium EMS scenario.

[Jeb231]

Core_Commander wrote...

Shepard refuses to compromise with the star child no matter what.

After a bit of attempts at bargaining, the Catalyst says:

"Okay, sorry about that. I understand you're not interested in truce, so I'll just let you get back to bleeding out while impotently pawing at the keyboard you clearly have no idea what to do with. Back to reaping, I guess".

And then they all died. The end.


Plausible enough for a "no space magic, no deus ex machina, no plotholes" ending against these odds?

I'd love this.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Core_Commander wrote...

Shepard refuses to compromise with the star child no matter what.

What if I ask him for temporary truce to give us some time to reach non-rash decision? Say, I accept his options, but not in the state to choose rashly. And he always could go back to reaping when truce expires.
I'd say its far from "refusing to compromise no matter what".
If he refuses and insists I jump in the electricity or shoot the pipe right here right now, well, I have even more reason to be suspicious and not to do what he says.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 08 avril 2012 - 02:57 .

[the slynx]

Core_Commander wrote...

Well, actually I don't hate the idea. ME has too many moments where "no matter what you do, you win, you just choose whether you win as a nice guy or a badass". It would be nice to see a real choice more often, rather than just mashing at whichever option and it'll work out in the end.

Fair enough. But the current endings each have negatives associated with them, and people writing in here generally have tried to keep that 'no perfect solution' feel to their refusal options. For instance, the one I worked on would require a certain amount of war assets, and lead to months of war - just not on Reaper terms. I think that's fairly justifiable, and doesn't end up privileging the current galactic races as infallible beings destined to total victory in one form or another.

[a.m.p]

Jeb231 wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Jeb231 wrote...

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.

Previously on the show...

a.m.p wrote...
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 (if temporary) 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.

And he clearly tries to trick you into choosing synthesis and control over destroy using the geth and EDI as an excuse.But  at this point I think he's simply a plot device explaining you the different outcomes. I also think synthesis was the ending the writers intented as the best option but the implications for a genetic rewrite of all beings have such a deep philosophical implications most will refuse to accept it.

Does he? He's awfully chilled out about the idea of me stopping his billion-year old proven routine.
Seriously, if destroy is rejecting him with his creator/created problem altogether, why does he agree to that? Because Shepard got there? So what? Just ignore Shepard and continue reaping.

Or how about that: Shepard chooses destory. All AI die. That fact is remembered. Hundred/thousand years later somebody creates more AI, that AI learns how all previous AI were betrayed and sacrificed. Concludes that organics will always kill synthetics and tries to kill organics. Self-fulfilling prophecy achieved.

I don't want that. I want to fight them with my allied forces and let their actions determine who lives and dies and not some arbitrary plot device. And I'm arguing that I can win such a fight.

[Jeb231]

I'm pretty sure they will retcon this as being a lie so you all can get a good ending (or leave a backup of the geth somewhere).  Since, you know, no SciFi nerd will ever accept synthesis.

Modifié par Jeb231, 08 avril 2012 - 03:03 .

[Jeb231]

Think of it this way. Imagine the scene without starchild. You'd have 3 choices and no explanation for them. They need a plot device to present you the relevant information. That's where the hologram comes in. Now they could use this device to trick you, that's totally possible..at this point you refuse to accept he's telling the truth and consider you are not presented with any relevant infos concerning the potential outcomes. You are then back to square one. Would Shepard stand there doing nothing had he not talked to the hologram? We've spent the whole game trying to build the crucible because we cannot defeat the reapers through conventional means so he would have to take a leap of faith anyway.

[a.m.p]

Jeb231 wrote...

Think of it this way. Imagine the scene without starchild. You'd have 3 choices and no explanation for them. They need a plot device to present you the relevant information. That's where the hologram comes in. Now they could use this device to trick you, that's totally possible..at this point you refuse to accept he's telling the truth and consider you are not presented with any relevant infos concerning the potential outcomes. You are then back to square one. Would Shepard stand there doing nothing had he not talked to the hologram? We've spent the whole game trying to build the crucible because we cannot defeat the reapers through conventional means so he would have to take a leap of faith anyway.

 All right, let's imagine the scene without the starchild and his nonsense.
Let's assume Shepard finds a way up to where the options are. What do they see?
Some tubes and handles that are part of the citadel itself. And a beam of light. Nothing more. Shooting stuff is not the way you turn complex machinery on, so that's out. There's no reason to jump into the light. And the handles are part of the citadel, so if they control the crucible it means the citadel was built with the crucible in mind, which means "Shepard to Hackett, the crucible is a reaper trap, I repeat, the crucible is a reaper trap, we're on our own!".

Analyzing the starkid scene does not work, it is not a thing we can comprehend. So I would like to bypass him as best I can. That's one reason I made this thread.

Also we spent the whole game trying to built the crucible, because at some point of the development process someone decided that reapers could not be beaten conventionally. What about making supernovas with relays? Nah, make a codex entry about how it wouldn't work.

Well I am entirely unconvinced the reapers can't be beaten, either on our own, or with the help of sabotaging their master AI, as people suggest. That's the second reason I made this thread.

Modifié par a.m.p, 08 avril 2012 - 03:44 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Jeb231 wrote...
Think of it this way. Imagine the scene without starchild 

It's pointless to imagine the scene without starchild. I have to make decision with him present. While staying in-character. 

Yes, how you discover relevant information makes a difference for later decisions, is it a big surprise?

I think you will have a bit different train of thought in cases where a) you found some information in prothean ruins or Kai Leng "offered" to give it to you

As I said, since its established that you can converse with him, you can ask him for more time to make decision. This is good test of whether he really means what he says or tries to trick you/having malicious agenda.

If he refuses to converse more, my Shepard would contact Hackett or other allies. We saw earlier that communication still working. Mission parameters changed, original strategy does not work, order retreat, extraction of Shepard (if possible).
If it's not possible, I'd prefer to die and let allies to fight unwinnable war. At least there is still possibility that better solution will be found. Better than force unknown fate on everyone right now.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 08 avril 2012 - 03:58 .

[Jeb231]

a.m.p wrote...

Jeb231 wrote...

Think of it this way. Imagine the scene without starchild. You'd have 3 choices and no explanation for them. They need a plot device to present you the relevant information. That's where the hologram comes in. Now they could use this device to trick you, that's totally possible..at this point you refuse to accept he's telling the truth and consider you are not presented with any relevant infos concerning the potential outcomes. You are then back to square one. Would Shepard stand there doing nothing had he not talked to the hologram? We've spent the whole game trying to build the crucible because we cannot defeat the reapers through conventional means so he would have to take a leap of faith anyway.

 All right, let's imagine the scene without the starchild and his nonsense.
Let's assume Shepard finds a way up to where the options are. What do they see?
Some tubes and handles that are part of the citadel itself. And a beam of light. Nothing more. Shooting stuff is not the way you turn complex machinery on, so that's out. There's no reason to jump into the light. And the handles are part of the citadel, so if they control the crucible it means the citadel was built with the crucible in mind, which means "Shepard to Hackett, the crucible is a reaper trap, I repeat, the crucible is a reaper trap, we're on our own!".

Analyzing the starkid scene does not work, it is not a thing we can comprehend. So I would like to bypass him as best I can. That's one reason I made this thread.

Also we spent the whole game trying to built the crucible, because at some point of the development process someone decided that reapers could not be beaten conventionally. What about making supernovas with relays? Nah, make a codex entry about how it wouldn't work.

Well I am entirely unconvinced the reapers are can't be beaten, either on our own, or with the help of sabotaging their master AI, as people suggest. That's the second reason I made this thread.

Last scene before starkid Hackett tells him to activate the crucible manually.

You have to assume Reapers cannot be beaten else the 'solution' falls flat and they would simply be harvesting organics much earlier in the cycle, find another plan of action or simply avoid leaving technology behind which would allow them to be overcomed 50k years later. This is why the writers have introduced the crucible in ME3,  they had no other way to resolve the situation than creating a mega weapon which had been archived decades ago (nobody ever thought mmm this may be valuable).

You are trying to make sense out of the story. I'm trying to comprehend the intention behind the silly ending.

Modifié par Jeb231, 08 avril 2012 - 03:58 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Jeb231 wrote...

You are trying to make sense out of the story. I'm trying to comprehend the intention behind the silly ending.

The intention I think was to make "a clever epic ending that makes you think and feel like you decide fate of the universe". 
Too bad it fell apart due to horrendous writing quality. No idea how it happened.

[Jeb231]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Jeb231 wrote...
Think of it this way. Imagine the scene without starchild 

It's pointless to imagine the scene without starchild. I have to make decision with him present. While staying in-character. 

Yes, how you discover relevant information makes a difference for later decisions, is it a big surprise?

I think you will have a bit different train of thought in cases where a) you found some information in prothean ruins or Kai Leng "offered" to give it to you

As I said, since its established that you can converse with him, you can ask him for more time to make decision. This is good test of whether he really means what he says or tries to trick you/having malicious agenda.

If he refuses to converse more, my Shepard would contact Hackett or other allies. We saw earlier that communication still working. Mission parameters changed, original strategy does not work, order retreat, extraction of Shepard (if possible).
If it's not possible, I'd prefer to die and let allies to fight unwinnable war. At least there is still possibility that better solution will be found. Better than force unknown fate on everyone right now.

This is totally avoiding the point of my post. The starchild is here to propose you the relevant informations concerning the ending choices. It is a plot device. It could be hackett or liara or javik and it would work much better (except they don't know how the crucible works).

[Jeb231]

The fact we are arguing about this just shows how deeply flawed is the ending.

[a.m.p]

Jeb231 wrote...

Last scene before starkid Hackett tells him to activate the crucible manually.

You have to assume Reapers cannot be beaten else the 'solution' falls flat and they would simply be harvesting organics much earlier in the cycle, find another plan of action or simply avoid leaving technology behind which would allow them to be overcomed 50k years later. This is why the writers have introduced the crucible in ME3,  they had no other way to resolve the situation than creating a mega weapon which had been archived decades ago (nobody ever thought mmm this may be valuable).

They tried to harvest three years earlier. Since then a lot changed. We got new weapons by studying sovereign. We were the first cycle that was warned and managed to keep the citadel and with it the relay network under our control.

Introducing the crucible was in no way necessary. If the game was about bringing together the forces of the whole galaxy and using them (plus maybe some clever, reasonably explained anti-reaper technology dating back at most one cycle) to defeat the reapers, it would make perfect sense.

The ending still allows to turn the story this way. again, see my OP for examples.

You are trying to make sense out of the story.

Yes. I always do, I have that problem.

I'm trying to comprehend the intention behind the silly ending.

On that I've given up.

Jeb231 wrote...

The fact we are arguing about this just shows how deeply flawed is the ending.

Agreed.

Modifié par a.m.p, 08 avril 2012 - 04:56 .