808 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

DaosX wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

T-0pel wrote...

Great response Alan. I am just doing my second playthrough after a month of not being able to replay the single player. And I agree, the best parts of this game are Curing the genophage and quarian/geth peace. It is just handled perfectly from every angle imaginable. It takes desecions from this and previous games to account, it is very emotional, music is beyond perfect (especially Future for the Krogan track, that one is insane) and while there is always a sacrifice, in the end it makes me feel it was worth it.

I looooooooove ME's music.  Maybe I'm just a bit of a nihilist, but I actually found some of the "bad" outcomes of those two scenes possibly even more powerful.  Mordin was in my game, and his scene of sacrificing himself to atone was fantastic.  However, the scene where he refutes Shepard and says "Only saw big picture.  Big picture made up of little pictures!" is as powerful as Legion's "Keelah se'lai."  Then when Shepard shoots him (WHO CAN DO THIS?!) he bravely and valiantly pushes towards the control panel.  I only watched it on YouTube, but I was hoping he would still make it just to spite Shepard.  The same goes for listening to Tali's sobbing as the Quarians were destroyed.  Felt awful just watching it :S

Only thing really great about the ending is music, again...

Soooo much agree.  I actually have a playlist at work that has the two slightly different versions just play on repeat... >.>

Hey Allan, there's this music production company I've been so completely obsessed over recently called Two Steps from Hell. They do similar types of music but mostly for trailers and whatnot. You should seriously check them out if you also like that emotional/instrumental tracks.

This is one example "Heart of Courage". LOVE this song. If you get a chance, you should look up "Protectors of the Earth" as well. There is even one that is tied to an ME3 cutscene with the ships attacking the Reapers as well. The music is incredibly epic.


Also, I just wanted to say thanks as well. You've done more to regain my faith in BW in just a few simple posts than all the PR that was done in the entire month. Kudos man and hope you like the music.

Lol, that was the ME2 launch trailer music. Greatest. Trailer. Ever.

[prizm123]

killing the Geth and EDI if true, just to kill the Reapers, made me physically ill. it made me sick to my stomach, especially after all the effort Shepard did to help them grow and survive

[Allan Schumacher]

Stygian1 wrote...


Can I ask you this though? Did you have any problem with the explanation of the Reapers and the Star Child's motives? I mean the Star Child blatantly states that Synthetics and Organics cannot co-exist, yet every example we have of Synthetic/Organic relations has been one that has (or can be) turned positive.

First off, unless I'm mistaken I think the two examples we have are the Geth and EDI right?  I don't think I missed any >.>

I would have preferred if the reaper's motivations were never really made apparent (I also would have preferred to never show Tali's face at all).  I think it's difficult to truly understand exactly what the Catalyst means by his explanation and as it stands, is the crux of what I probably find jarring about the ending.  As for the Catalyst's claims, part of what I found interesting is that he states something that you have an example that may prove his theory wrong.  This is why I really liked Shepard's "Maybe" in response.  The unfortunate thing about the Catalyst's claims is that it's not falsifiable.  When dealing with a timeline that might as well be eternity, any event with a non-zero chance of occurring will eventually occur, so in that sense I don't really find it a contradiction.  All that the Geth-Quarian peace and EDI do is serve as examples that "it's not happening right now."

At this point, even if we think it's an evitability (assuming the Catalyst is infalliable), there's really no timeline on when such an event may occur.  If it takes 47 billion years for an organic to finally create a synthetic that destroys all organic life, then the Catalyst's statement is still correct, but I see this has being a significantly better situation than getting harvested every 50,000 years.  I feel that because my Shepard was able to see that Synthetics and Organics could co-exist, I was willing to give them that chance without Reaper intervention.

Did you find this theme misplaced? Also, did you feel as if the entire "strength through diversity" theme was dragged through the mud? Because I certaintly felt so, especially with the synthesis choice tacked on to an ending that I already felt contradictory to the rest of the storyline's central themes.

I don't think the theme was misplaced.  I found it thought provoking, but maybe there are details that I've assumed that others haven't which make it a bigger issue for them. 

As for the strength in diversity, I don't think it's covered as well (or really at all) in the ending compared to the rest of the game.  Part of my resistance to the synthesis choice in my playthrough is that I don't entirely understand it (which makes me a bit of a hypocrite, as I still ended up choosing the merge with Helios in the original Deus Ex.  Maybe I just though the other endings were less acceptable?  Haha).  I can sort of conceptualize organic life becoming more synthetic, but the opposite made me go "buh?"  I have also seen others feel that it was forced evolution which didn't feel right.  I can agree with that.  I think the strength in diversity could have been better maintained if the ending had more explanation/reactivity to the player choices.

Again thanks, any response would warm my heart full of internet fuzzies. 

My entire motivation for responding! 

It's difficult to answer as it's mostly just me stating my interpretation.  I'm not really well equipped to provide any better explanation than some of the others that have broken it down, unfortunately.  But if you're willing to give me the Ravel treatment and not care if it's the "right answer" but rather just that it's "my answer," there you go

[demersel]

prizm123 wrote...

killing the Geth and EDI if true, just to kill the Reapers, made me physically ill. it made me sick to my stomach, especially after all the effort Shepard did to help them grow and survive

Well, man the f%#k up - it is war. What did you expect? Would you feel better if it was not the Geth, but, say the salarians, for some reason? Or the krogan? Or the turians? Or the humans? 

[DevilBeast]

Chrillze wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Chrillze wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Just wondering how Bioware thinks the player avatar commiting total genocide of an entire race of sentient, friendly beings is supposed to give us, as they said at PAX, satisfaction?

Who do they think their player base is? Genocide isn't cool

They are just robots, chill out mang

Did you do the Geth Server mission and watch the clips of how the Geth were before the war? There wasn't a lot of material to work with, but it seemed they genuinely loved the Quarians and didn't understand what the Quarians wanted to kill them so badly.

Unless you're being.. sarcastic? 

yeah I know, I played through that mission too. Geth was one of my favourite ''races'' and legion was one of my favourite squadmates but they are still just machines. You doesn't commit murder when you throw away a toaster right?

Comparing a sentient synthetic being to a toaster is like comparing a human to a dog.

[mechalynx]

Allan, that was a very nice thing you did, coming to this thread and treating us like people, and not "entitled whiners". An epic amount of cudos to you. If you don't get fired on Tuesday, then there is hope for this company yet. Seriously reconsidering my stance on getting DA3 now.

On topic, it broke my heart when I picked the red ending. Not only because I knew what was coming, but also very much because I was about to destroy a whole race of synthetics that probably were the first to break the "overthrow your masters"- cycle since the Reapers were created. And also EDI.

I console myself with thinking, that they can be rebuilt and probably will be, because the galaxy needs all the help it can get to start repairing the relays and society.

Modifié par mechalynx, 08 avril 2012 - 12:30 .

[DevilBeast]

Shallyah wrote...

The Geth are all but peaceful, as they have proven repeatedly. Easily malleable, manipulable and heavily prepared for genocidal warfare.

That Bioware tries too hard to make them look peaceful to those that want to see them as martyrs is something else. But they definitely aren't carrying white flags and shooting rainbows over the universe.

Neither are the quarians, the krogans, humans, asari, salarians and probably every other sentient species in the galaxy. So, I guess they deserve to die too.

[MrHibachi]

Thanks for the responses, Allan, I enjoyed reading them.

Modifié par MrHibachi, 08 avril 2012 - 12:35 .

[Reiisha]

M0keys wrote...

scrapmetals wrote...

So the Catalyst isn't lying at all? Everything the kid said was true?

As far as I can tell. Otherwise the endings are meaningless no matter which way you slice it.

Honestly, it's meaningless in whatever way you put it ;p

[M0keys]

demersel wrote...

prizm123 wrote...

killing the Geth and EDI if true, just to kill the Reapers, made me physically ill. it made me sick to my stomach, especially after all the effort Shepard did to help them grow and survive

Well, man the f%#k up - it is war. What did you expect?

Choice. No one's saying saving the galaxy should be easy. In fact, it would probably be best if it was really hard or time-consuming or taxing, like getting a perfect run on the suicide mission.

These have always been stories we've been able to choose for ourselves (for the most part -- again, willing suspension of disbelief.)

Is it possible that we've just agreed with the writers on how the game should go except for the ending? Were they simply more willing to allow us to make choices as long as they didn't matter?

Those are probably some very interesting questions, but I guess not necessarily the topic of this thread.

[Bloody_Hypocrite]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
 But if you're willing to give me the Ravel treatment and not care if it's the "right answer" but rather just that it's "my answer," there you go

Heh, love the Planescape: Torment reference.

[halbert986]

the game hammered it into you that sacrificing 10 billion here so 20 billion over there can live was a choice you had to be ready to make. I'm glad they stuck to their guns for once and made sacrifice something you couldn't paragon out of. Assuming the destroy option was the best option that is. At least that's how I interpret it.

[DevilBeast]

Aramina wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Beside the fact that everybody is looking too far into this, what makes all the other species different than the Geth and Edi? Reproduction, natural reproduction-not factory assembly. Synthetic forms can not reproduce, sure they can gain intelliegence, but what does that matter when they can not truly experience what makes ALL the other "species" in the galaxy special? Real emotion, "HUMANITY" they call it. There is no love; there is a program. All other species are products of nature, natural--organic. The Geth and Edi? They were created. Don't get me started on Edi--she was that rogue VI in Luna in ME1, tried to KILL you. Geth--tried to KILL you. 

You do realize all emotions are based off random hormones and neurons firing, yes? How does that make organics are more "real" than synthetics? Because we were made completely by accident, with no way to control how we develop genetically? Oh wait...we're almost at the point where we CAN do gene-mods....so how exactly are we different? Just because synthetics can tailor-make themselves? Just watch the movie Gattaca. We can already see some "genetic elitism" coming into our society. And we practice social darwinism all the time....isolating people with "undesirable" traits in prisons and mental hospitals.

Maybe we're all secretly jealous of them...I mean, who wouldn't want to just hit the "off" button on a broken heart or an addiction.

Yes, cause that is exactly what we use mental hospitals to: to put undesireables away, not helping them.
Well, I just tell that to the doctors an psychologists that helped me when I was younger.

[demersel]

M0keys wrote...

Choice. No one's saying saving the galaxy should be easy. In fact, it would probably be best if it was really hard or time-consuming or taxing, like getting a perfect run on the suicide mission.

These have always been stories we've been able to choose for ourselves (for the most part -- again, willing suspension of disbelief.)

Is it possible that we've just agreed with the writers on how the game should go except for the ending? Were they simply more willing to allow us to make choices as long as they didn't matter?

Those are probably some very interesting questions, but I guess not necessarily the topic of this thread.

I am, sorry, i don't really understand your post. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Aramina wrote...

At the risk of sounding too much like someone who shall not be named here, I always felt that in the previous ME games, it was the journey that really mattered. I'm a hardcore RPG fan (I grew up playing Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale), and I love being able to make a game my own story, but I also recognize that at some point I do have to get back to the "real" story, especially in a game with a sequel. As awesome as it would have been in Baldur's Gate if my char could have just "Screw it, I'm on the first boat to Maztica," I knew that my own ideas about how the story should be still had to mesh with the story the writers wanted to tell.

This is a good point.  Someone else mentioned illusion of choice and all CRPGs are going to have to ultimately come down to illusion of choice to some capacity, because players can only do what has been put in there!

I promise I do have a point to this While I know that the ending of a game all about choices has to be one that ties in a bunch of different playstyles, it is ultimately everything I did up to that point that make the ending truly unique. Keeping the Baldur's Gate example:  the end of ToB lets you become a god if you want to, or turn down the power and live as a mortal. On the surface, it seems like these are just two choices that have nothing to do with anything I did earlier. I could play a supervillain or a paladin and get the same two choices. But wait! <snip for space>

I agree that the journey is important too.  It's actually where I struggle with some of the disappointment people have, because I find it difficult to comprehend the perspective of someone that feels the entire game (or series) is meaningless and they aren't able to play it.  I can understand from a logical perspective, but since it's not a perspective I share on a personal level, it's impossible for me to completely understand that perspective the same as those people.  It's certainly unfortunate and I wish that that wasn't the case.  I did enjoy the epilogues to TOB too.

I have a question for you if you don't mind answering it. You said you don't mind ambiguous endings. Is there a "sweet spot" of ambiguity/closure that you like? Wether it's cutscenes, BG/DA stye epilogue slides, a mix of both? Personally I prefer epilogue slides over cutscenes. It lets me have a sense of what's happening, while leaving it open enough to add my own spin on things. Cutscenes are always appreciated, but it's so easy to make them too ambigous (I'm looking right at you, ME3), and instead of some closure with room for interpretation I get confusion.

If you were to make me choose, probably text style epilogues are what I'd like.  I like them from an imaginative perspective, but understanding the business I see them as a way to provide more varied feedback for lesser cost.  But yeah, confusion is bad, and I can understand that people are confused about parts of ME3's ending.  I guess it's probably more of a non-answer, but I am probably ambivalent towards the precise sweet spot for closure (as I'm a journey guy too I think), in that I'd have been okay with ME3 providing more closure.  The one caveat for that is that I do frown upon epilogues that state what my character does after the game.  The more open ended the story, the more I frown upon it.

I think it would have been a very difficult balancing act to ensure that people were satsified with the epilogues for the love interest without removing too much player agency.  I think it's just as bad to go "Oh... My Shepard wouldn't have done that!" when reading up about how Shepard decides to give Tali a Mako for her birthday because he loves her SOOO much 

Anyway, just curious as to your personal opinion on what makes a good ending.

I separated this because I found it interesting and a bit separate.  For me, and this really goes for any plot point I guess, if I had to break it down it'd probably be "one that illicits an emotional response."  The response has to be within the game, of course.  If I'm going "I'm so mad because the ending had a giant bug in it!!! " that's not a good thing.

Though I don't even know if the type of emotion is necessarily important.  I can love the ending to Throne of Bhaal, and it's decidedly happy and quite explicit (I think my Viconia bugged out though IIRC...), while I can love the ending to Planescape: Torment even though I find it quite sad, while I can love the ending of Fallout because the Overseer makes me SO ANGRY!!!  It wasn't for years that I learned it's actually possible for him to get his due with particular traits

But yeah, if a game can illicit an emotional response within the context of the game, I find stuff like that powerful.

[Allan Schumacher]

Orkboy wrote...

I'm still trying to work out what the whole point of the war assets was?

I take the long way and do everything there is to do - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

I do the barest minimum - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

How the hell is what comes before, in anyway important?

To be fair, what you see happen on Earth is quite different, in my opinion, depending on your EMS score.

It doesn't seem to me that everyone dies with the destroy ending regardless of the EMS, but I suppose that depends on whether or not one feels are the consequences of the relays being destroyed.

[Nightdragon8]

I didn't hear anything about Shep living ina the extanded DLC as far as i know, its the same endings expect maybe more in explained, besdies its free and it will come out in the summer.

[M0keys]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

I'm still trying to work out what the whole point of the war assets was?

I take the long way and do everything there is to do - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

I do the barest minimum - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

How the hell is what comes before, in anyway important?

To be fair, what you see happen on Earth is quite different, in my opinion, depending on your EMS score.

It doesn't seem to me that everyone dies with the destroy ending regardless of the EMS, but I suppose that depends on whether or not one feels are the consequences of the relays being destroyed.

Actually, the destroy endings annihilates Earth in one of the outcomes.

[Warrior Craess]

Dandynermite wrote...

Because it's Bioware its fine.
Your committing genecide if you kill all the reapers too, don't forget that.

Kill all reapers vs kill all organics, really that different in the end?

sure it's different.   killing the Geth or any other race who isn't actively seeking to exterminate (I keep hearing that in Daleks speak btw) every advanced race in the galaxy - and even some of the not to advanced races would be unconsionable.

killing a threat to all organic (and lets face it, the reapers don't really treat the geth all that well either.) ever concieved of, or even yet to develop, is doing the galaxy a favor. 

[Tocquevillain]

It's not ok, but it had to be done.

When I saw your post title, I thought of my conversation with Javik. One of the best ME3 moments.

Shepard & Javik - War is an Atrocity Committed in the Name of Survival - Mass Effect 3

[Reorte]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it would have been a very difficult balancing act to ensure that people were satsified with the epilogues for the love interest without removing too much player agency.  I think it's just as bad to go "Oh... My Shepard wouldn't have done that!" when reading up about how Shepard decides to give Tali a Mako for her birthday because he loves her SOOO much 

I'm just picking up on this point because it revolves around one of the central appeals to the Mass Effect series for me - the character relationships (not just LI), so I found the lack of a satisfactory resultion rather painful.

I understand where you're coming from - it could be too easy to go too far (the idea of a giftwrapped Mako is hilarious though) but in my opinion it can work if it sticks more or less to things already mentioned in the game. There's the house conversation with Tali after all (and the blue babies one with Liara in ME2 although Shepard didn't sound terribly serious there). That way it's not going against anything that the player has already established in their relationship with the character.

[Necrotron]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
 For me, and this really goes for any plot point I guess, if I had to break it down it'd probably be "one that illicits an emotional response."  The response has to be within the game, of course.  If I'm going "I'm so mad because the ending had a giant bug in it!!! " that's not a good thing.

That was kind of how I felt when the ending of the Mass Effect game finally happened.  I've never complained about an ending to a video game before (or about anything, for that matter), but I was so befuddled by this seeming inconsistent plot device that made no sense in the actual story that I had to go onto the forums and find out what it was all about.

When I saw there might be hope that we, collectively, could change the ending, I began to do what I could, in a positive manner, to do so.  And here I remain until hope is lost.

But I agree, endings can be satisfying in many ways, but confusion and feeling like your character just was completely taken over by some external force and forced to do something you feel they shouldn't have isn't one of them.

[Allan Schumacher]

BlueDemonX wrote...

How nice of you to share your thoughts with us!!

I actually agree with pretty much everything you said, especially with the effect of choices when they have to be made.
At the same time though, I think the option of destroying all synthetics is a bit...exaggerated? (dunno how to put it...) I mean, why destory all Synthetics if you could only deactivate/destroy they Reapers? That´s what the Crucible was meant for, the Reapers are more than "just" Synthetics, they´re closer to Synthesis between Synthetics and Organics....

I've actually had this discussion with a few friends so hopefully my answer is a bit more sensical that some of my other ones hehe.

The reason why I have no problem with this is because the Crucible is an unknown entity.  Say what you will about it as a plot device, but it's what ME3 goes with, and Hackett even has a conversation with Shepard stating that we're uncertain what it will do, and how to harness it.

Given that the Crucible is essentially our cycle's "last hope," as everyone agrees the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, I have no issues if there are consequences to firing the Crucible that we weren't anticipating.  If you look at the results that occur if low EMS, it seems evident that there's issues with harnessing it's power as it ends up disintigrating everyone on Earth.

So while I can agree with you that the writers could have easily written it so that not all synthetics were killed, with what we are provided in the game I feel the current outcome of the destroy ending can also be justified.  The best justification I can think of for not killing the Geth is that it makes this ending less of a downer, but ultimately not any more or less plausible given the things that we have been told.

[QuarkZ26]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I can sort of conceptualize organic life becoming more synthetic, but the opposite made me go "buh?"

nanotubes?

I think organic will be more and more integrated in electronics in the near future since we are reaching the atomic level and are struggling to find a way to miniaturise more.

Edit: Not that organic will help us miniaturise more of course, but i think it'll help for things like heat, etc...

Modifié par QuarkZ26, 08 avril 2012 - 01:06 .

[Reorte]

M0keys wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

I'm still trying to work out what the whole point of the war assets was?

I take the long way and do everything there is to do - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

I do the barest minimum - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

How the hell is what comes before, in anyway important?

To be fair, what you see happen on Earth is quite different, in my opinion, depending on your EMS score.

It doesn't seem to me that everyone dies with the destroy ending regardless of the EMS, but I suppose that depends on whether or not one feels are the consequences of the relays being destroyed.

Actually, the destroy endings annihilates Earth in one of the outcomes.

The impact needed to go beyond Earth to be pay off what the main goal of the game seemed to be about, and to show more clearly both galactic and personal impact. For a really low EMS a scene of a dead LI and many other planets wasted, for example.