808 réponses à ce sujet

[Adain878]

dakka dakka wrote...

Adain878 wrote...


imgur.com/JZfeL (SFW)

oh hey...Twin Peaks rip off

actually had to look up twin peaks, From the very early 90's explains why i've never seen it haha.

[pavi132]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

pavi132 wrote...

I wish I could have refused to even entertain anything the Starchild threw at me. I would rather have sat my ass on the Citadel ignoring the Starchild while looking out at a galaxy united fighting the Reapers. Maybe everyone would be wiped out and maybe the cycle would continue. But you know what? At least the entire galaxy would die together as one, not compromising who they were, not turning to sacrifice each other as in the destruction ending. I played through the game with two major goals, 1) broker peace and unite the people of the galaxy, and 2) never compromise who I was for anything or anyone. The way the endings are, no matter what I chose, those were ripped from me as destruction would destroy the peace I had worked so hard to accomplish and control or synthesis would go against who my Shepard was. He would not force synthesis on people and would definitely not allow the threat to remain in any capacity by following through with what TIM wanted, which was to control the reapers, for whatever reason. Unfortunately the endings took that away from my Shepard entirely.

I just want to comment that I don't think it's fair to yourself to think that the peace itself was destroyed.  Assuming you don't believe in outright galactic destruction due to the relays exploding, I think that the ramifications of the Geth-Quarian conflict will still be felt by many.  Especially the Quarians.  In fact, I really hope that they have a scene to reflect this in the ending DLC.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think showing Quarians mourning the sudden loss of their new allies on Rannoch would be magnificently poignant!

Aside from that, I understand the rest of your post and it's too bad that that's the way it played out for you.  Hopefully the new DLC will help in that regard.

Unfortunately, when I beat the game, I did think I had destroyed the entire galaxy when the relays were destroyed due to my knowledge from the events in Arrival. All I could think is, if everyone has to die anyway, why can't they die on their own terms instead of through one of these choices I'm being forced to make? Why do I have to force one of these events on them, all including the destruction of the relays they rely so heavily on?

Beyond that, assuming that the relays didn't in fact destroy the galaxy, I understand what you mean. Still, though, at the time, it felt to me like all the work I had done in uniting those two races that have been at war with each other for so long was utterly pointless. 

I'm also not even sure if I will play that DLC. I'll have to see if I have time then and if I feel up to the task of sitting through the end again lol.

Modifié par pavi132, 08 avril 2012 - 05:48 .

[stcalvin13]

Siibi wrote...

Starbrat is lying, the Geth and EDI are fine.

Man I hope so.  If they gave me 1) geth/EDI live 2) Reapers die 3)Shepard lives 4)Shep and Crew reuinite and 5)Relays get rebuilt

I could upgrade this ending from "worst ever" to "really bad," and maybe then I could stomach replaying it.  Of course, it would still only have one ending and two jokes masquerading as ending...

[Allan Schumacher]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

To be honest, the game sets you up to believe you're going to beat the Reapers no matter what, especially with Javik's bit about how the unified galaxy is something never achieved in his time. Throw in that Thanix cannons are standard issue (when they weren't in ME1) and I think an ending involving ignoring the Catalyst would have been feasible enough. The Catalyst/Crucible having the three magic buttons that it does barely makes any sense in the first place, and I'm still really frustrated with the three choices we were presented with.

Hmmm, I don't know if I necessarily got the vibe that we were going to beat the Reapers no matter what.  Although it's true that Hacket estimates that our odds are "even" but I don't know if he's factoring in the potential effects of the Crucible into his estimate.  One bad thing about not requiring the Crucible's use is that it makes the Crucible irrelevant.  It truly becomes a MacGuffin and I think weakens other aspects of the story.

It would have been better, imo, to have "Destroy" be the only ending, but the level of destruction would be determined by War Assets/EMS. Low enough, the Relays, Earth, Shepard, and all Synthetic life are all gone. With more EMS, the beam is able to precision target, saving more of those things at each stage. This would have echoed the style of ME2's ending somewhat, which is honestly what I assumed would be the case up until the Catalyst made his appearance.

I was expecting something more along this lines when I made it to the end.  Not an ostensible choice to be made, but rather the reapers defeated with our past decisions and war score playing their part in the resolution afterward.  Much more inline with the ME1 and ME2 endings that really didn't provide any choice, either.

Udalango said....

I would have been yes.  I dont understand why Shepard would give in to the options at all.  
I
would have actually enjoyed the Reapers win ending.  Im not saying I
wouldnt try to fry all those dudes up but I feel like giving in to him
so easily without at least TRYING to find another way was 100% lame.  I
think his entire character was lame though and that sours me on
everything regarding him

Cool.  I think that RPGs could stand to have some "meaningful" epilogues about fail cases, especially towards the end.  My favourite "imagined" ending is one where Shepard realizes that the Crucible has failed and frantically works to preserve what this cycle has learned so the next cycle can be more prepared.  I think it could be a very powerful scene!


Others have posted similar responses and unfortunately I'm not able to reply to all of them individually, but thanks for the feedback on it.  I did read them 

pikey said...


How would you feel about Technological Singularity-esque explanation being introduced to Dragon Age?

Imagine
if one of the later missions involved Hawke discovering an advanced
alien race (or previously extinct human civilization) and learning that
'magic' was really a form of biotic powers? Think back to the temple
scene in Thessia, and how the ancient Asari culture was revealed to be
embedded with subtle uplifting of the Protheans (I do hope they gave you
free copy of the Javik DLC ).

When outside the realms of sci-fi, it's a pretty scary concept to consider from a story-telling point of view. ;P

I'd have to do a bit more reading up on it I think to fairly comment.  My first response is that it might work better if the Dragon Age universe was a bit more steampunkish where tech plays a more prevalent role.  I've enjoyed the DA setting as being kind of a gritty fantasy setting.  Magic is prevalent, but exists in a way that terrifies people and is influenced by the fade and whatnot.

Although your suggestion totally does work for DA/ME crossover DLC!!!!! \\m/    Bwahahahaha.

[Velocithon]

Honestly, I don't even care that I have only those three choices. I'm fine with it given the following happens in the new DLC.

- Proper closure regarding to what happens after all this.

- I see all the Ware Assets (including Allers' boobs in all their glory) fighting the Reapers.

- Explanation for the plotholes.

I just hope that they will further diffrentiate the endings.  Such as if you choose 'Destroy', depending on your EMS you will see certain scenes, and depending on what War Assets your have, more scenes.

Three ending choices is fine as long as there are major, detailed cutscenes that reflect my previous choices. That to me, will qualify as "wildly different endings".

[Velocithon]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

To be honest, the game sets you up to believe you're going to beat the Reapers no matter what

Really? Because I thought when Kai Leng stole the data on Thessia that I just royally ****ed myself. My heart just sank and I even thought I did something wrong in game. I was seriously worried, haha!

[Skyblade012]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

... because after all that 'does this unit have a soul?' talk on Rannoch, it turns out it was them or us all along. Tali's character develoment is moot. Legion's sacrifice was meaningless. I want to ragemurder a kitten.

I actually don't see it this way, and I did pick the Destroy ending.  I saw the Reapers as a threat and one that ultimately needed to be destroyed.  I also loved that I was presented an option to make peace between the Geth and Quarians earlier in the game.  It (and Tuchanka) was probably one of my favourite moments in recent gaming history.  Probably since Planescape: Torment (my favourite game all time).


When I reached the conduit, I fully expected to have to sacrifice myself.  To be fair, I expected to sacrifice myself at the end of the previous two games too, so to me it's always something that I saw coming.  I also had no idea what to expect the Crucible to actually do.  Given the talks with Hackett, I felt it was us putting all our eggs in one basket because we only saw one basket to put our eggs into.

So I get to the Catalyst and start talking with him.  He presents the ways that the crucible can unleash its power.  I'm going into this thinking "Reapers. Must. Die!"  But then I'm told that choosing to destroy the Reapers will also destroy the Geth!  "Wait... WHAT?!  But I don't want to do that!!"  I found it very, very similar to Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 (one of my favourite parts of that game).  When presented with the Control ending, I was now a bit more considerate of it.  When presented with the synthesis ending, I was a bit more considerate of it.

It is because of the growth of the Geth and Quarians that my "obvious" choice was now not so obvious.  I also refused to believe the Catalyst's statements about the inevitability of synthetics and organics to destroy each other.  In fact, when Shepard says "Maybe" in response to the Catalyst's claims, it was my exact same thought.  I had grown to appreciate the Geth and Quarians because I was able to help resolve the 300 year conflict with them.  They were able to move on, which gave me hope that synthetic-organic conflict was not inevitable.

If Legion's sacrifice was meaningless, and Tali's character development irrelevant, I wouldn't have taken the time to think about whether or not I should destroy the reapers.  I wouldn't have cared at all.  I choked up when Tali told Legion it had a soul, and when Legion said "Keelah Se'lai" to her.  It was an amazing scene.  I thought it was awesome that the Geth were helping the Quarians adapt and retake Rannoch.  Which is what made the destroy option that much more impactful for me.  Rather than being a trivial, obvious choice, I hesitated and had an emotional response to the decision.

In the end, I chose the destroy ending.  I found it bittersweet because it came at the cost of the Geth, but ultimately freeing the galaxy of the Reapers is something my Shepard felt had to be done.  The "maybe" he said rang true for me, and I wanted to give the opportunity for organics to prove the Catalyst wrong in the future.  I actually preferred this ending to simply "destroy all reapers."  Though I can understand that people would have preferred something more ideal.


NOTE:  While my name has BioWare attached to it, I've only ever worked on the DA franchise and actually would close my eyes and go "LALALALALALA" during the ME parts of studio meetings so as to not spoil anything for myself

In other words, I played through the game as a fan of the franchise too


Cheers.

Allan

This is valid, and, from a lore perspective, it even makes sense that the geth would be ended by the Destroy ending, I have to say, as a gamer, it felt cheap.

You're right, it made the endings hard, it gave the choice weight.  And it felt like that was what it was supposed to do.  It didn't feel like it was about being true to the themes or lore, it felt as though the destruction of the geth was tossed in to give people a reason to choose the other endings.  As though the other endings didn't have enough of their own merit, so they tacked on the death of a race that has become one of the most beloved in the series (completely due to the awesomeness that is Legion) in order to balance them out.

If the geth had not been destroyed by the Destruction ending, would anyone have picked Control or Synthesis?

[pikey1969]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd have to do a bit more reading up on it I think to fairly comment.  My first response is that it might work better if the Dragon Age universe was a bit more steampunkish where tech plays a more prevalent role.  I've enjoyed the DA setting as being kind of a gritty fantasy setting.  Magic is prevalent, but exists in a way that terrifies people and is influenced by the fade and whatnot.

Although your suggestion totally does work for DA/ME crossover DLC!!!!! m/    Bwahahahaha.

no no no! I was just kidding! what have you done?

you realize you've signed my death warrant on these boards?

'don't give them any ideas' the angry mob said... then I thought... 'what harm is there in having a little fun?'...

 

[palician]

Hi Allan thanks for taking the time to talk to us.

I just wanted to say that the thing that got me interested in mass effect in the first place was that it was based on real world science(where as say star wars has a mix of real science & space magic as people call it)but it was the synthesis ending that really confused me.As someone who has been interested in evolutionary biology & ecology since I was a child,ive built up a pretty good understanding of how D.N.A. evolves & how it can or could evolve in many ways.The synthesis ending implies that there is a new kind of D.N.A.(one that has organic & synthetic parts evolving together in a symbiosis).But a symbiosis is a two way relationship.Now the organic part can perhaps absorb minerals from the synthetic part(as metals come from rocks that some extremeophiles can live off of).But that would end up destroying the synthetic part & would be more like predation or at least a parasite.
The synthetic part also gets nothing out of this relationship & therefore this symbiosis is impossible.That means the organic parts & the synthetic parts(the synthetic parts would have to be similar to nanides that build upon them selves)would never be seeking the same resourses & would have to push against eachover.So they cannot exist in reality.
So does that mean that the mass effect universe has changed course & is now going to include space magic?.

Thanks in advance.

Modifié par palician, 08 avril 2012 - 07:29 .

[Allan Schumacher]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I just want to comment that I don't think it's fair to yourself to think that the peace itself was destroyed.  Assuming you don't believe in outright galactic destruction due to the relays exploding, I think that the ramifications of the Geth-Quarian conflict will still be felt by many.  Especially the Quarians.  In fact, I really hope that they have a scene to reflect this in the ending DLC.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think showing Quarians mourning the sudden loss of their new allies on Rannoch would be magnificently poignant!

Given what Tali tells you about Geth sending their programs into Quarian suits, I'm not even sure how that would play out. Does that put the Quarians at risk when the Destroy beam goes off because their suits have Reaper tech in them now (since the Geth have Reaper code)? There is way too much left up in the air about this ending. Some room for interpretation is good, but we know so little about the repercussions of the various decisions that I don't even feel like you can make a rational choice when you're standing before the three buttons.

This is my reservation with including the scene with the Normandy.  It clearly gets destroyed, which makes me think that anything "reaper tech" is probably affected.  But at the same time, a high EMS score has Shepard clearly live, and even EDI can (apparently, I never saw this) survive... although that could just as easily be a bug haha.  There ARE definitely questions for how the energy dispersal affected everything.

The only issue is whether Shepard is able to break "indoctrination
theory" and carry through with the Reaper self-destruct before he dies,
or if there's some mechanism preventing the Reapers from self
destructing.

When I saw your first question I actually IM'd a friend and that was what he wondered as well.  What level of "control" do we really get?  Absolute?  Does that make the Reapers slaves to Shepard?  I think one thing I find tricky about the control option is that Shepard explicitly dies.  Which is difficult to fathom because it's hard to comprehend what it will be like after we die!  Is his essence spread throughout the Reapers?  Does Harbinger have to deal with this annoying little N7 conscience saying "Nuh uh uhhh!" everything ht wants to go reaping?

[MrFob]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

Hi Allan,. I just read through your posts and I have to say that while I don't share all your points of view, it was a very interesting read and I can definitely see the validity of your conclusions.

Just on that last quote, I would definitely be one to say "YES!"
 I think the option to refuse even at the cost of loosing this cycle would have made sense.

My main two problems (among many smaller ones) with the endings are two:
1. You say that you are fine with the fact that we do not get a real choice about the general outcome of ME3 because that is what you anticipated after ME1 and 2. I could understand the reasons to rail-road the endings of the first two games due to the fact that there had to be a common story arc behind the decisions and that the variability for the save game import had to be kept in check. However, I think that I am not alone in thinking that since ME3 concludes the trilogy, that is the point where your decisions can finally come to fruition and have real influence in the end (like they do during the game in the excellent Rannoch and Tuchnka story arcs).
2. Shepard (at least mine) acts so completely out of character with the catalyst it completely breaks the immersion for me. My Shepard, being a renegon character has always questioned everything that was thrown at him, has never accepted no win scenarios and most certainly never took an explanation that was thrown at him for the truth. Not from the council, not from Cerberus and not from the Alliance. So why should he start with the catalyst? Especially if the options that are given are all very dire. For my Shepard a "Maybe." is not enough.

For those two reasons, I think refusal would have been a viable option, even with the prospect of ultimately loosing this cycle. Even this could have been done very on a positive note. If you like, watch this incredible video made by a fan. it surpasses the catalyst scene altogether (I think that would have been a mistake as well, watch from 0:48 to skip that part) but the way the actual loss of this cycle and the prospects for the future are displayed are not all negative. In fact, I think one could argue that with Shepard's refusal to play along in the catalysts game, it is more positive then any of the actual endings because you give the organics yet another chance to end the situation on their terms.

[SilentK]

Hmmm... I think it makes sense that the Geth will have to go if you take the destroy-option. They did have reaper-tech in them.

Besides, choices like this has come throughout the game.

ME:
Rachni Queen, did you choose to kill of that species or not. Why did that have to be a choice
Virmire: Why did you have to kill Kaidan or Ash. Why did that have to be a choice

ME2:
Maelon's data: Why was it a choice to stop them from getting a cure.

ME3:
Why was it a choice to not cure the Krogans
Why was it a choice to support either the Geth or Quarians on Rannoch if you cannot get peace between them.

Difficult choices are there for us to role play our Shepard's. Perhaps your Shepard only sees the Geth as a threat to be dealt with, no loss. Perhaps your Shepard steels himself/herself, sacrificing dear friends to rid the galaxy of an immediate threat. Only you can tell.

[Allan Schumacher]

pavi132 wrote...

Unfortunately, when I beat the game, I did think I had destroyed the entire galaxy when the relays were destroyed due to my knowledge from the events in Arrival. All I could think is, if everyone has to die anyway, why can't they die on their own terms instead of through one of these choices I'm being forced to make? Why do I have to force one of these events on them, all including the destruction of the relays they rely so heavily on?

Yeah, like I had mentioned earlier I never played Arrival so that conclusion didn't occur to me.  Although funny story:  When I first spoke with the Catalyst I thought that the destruction of the relays was a part of the synthetic choice, so I was ridiculously confused at first when they blew up in the destroy ending!  Upon replaying it I realized that I actually misheard him, but yeah my first impression was epic confusion too.  

Given Arrival, I think it's fair that people took the ending worse than BioWare expected.  Which I think fans can fairly be upset with us for, since there's no reason otherwise. 

I'm also not even sure if I will play that DLC. I'll have to see if I have time then and if I feel up to the task of sitting through the end again lol.

Haha.  Well, worst case check them out on youtube when they come out.  I played on PC and I have an autosave just after Harbinger's shot, with Shepard coming to before the conduit.  You should have that too so it wouldn't take too long.

[Bill Casey]

Adain878 wrote...

dakka dakka wrote...

Adain878 wrote...


imgur.com/JZfeL (SFW)

oh hey...Twin Peaks rip off

actually had to look up twin peaks, From the very early 90's explains why i've never seen it haha.

It's the ending to the 1980s Medical Drama "Saint Elsewhere"...
Not Twin Peaks...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 avril 2012 - 06:22 .

[Thetri]

Mandalore313 wrote...

It's not genocide because they're robots.


/hides

[Sweawm]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Haha.  Well, worst case check them out on youtube when they come out.  I played on PC and I have an autosave just after Harbinger's shot, with Shepard coming to before the conduit.  You should have that too so it wouldn't take too long.

I would actually like to ask a question myself, if you will:
Why does Anderson's survival affect the ending? Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to all I've read: if you save Anderson from The Illusive Man, you avoid the bad ending with over 4000+ War Assets. Though, if you let the Illusive Man shoot and kill Anderson right there, it takes 5000+ War Assets.
How does Anderson's living for just a little longer affect our ending? Is *Gasp!*, Anderson the true Catalyst?

[sfam]

Hi Allen,

I just wanted to thank you for giving actual feedback and participating in the discussion. We really appreciate it!

Regarding the now uselessness of solving the Quarian-Geth thing (and I really do believe it to be useless now if I choose to kill the reapers), I would just say that the Rannoch writing was one of the best two parts of ME3. Its a real shame that its shoved to the curb in favor of what absolutely appears to be false emotional attachment by changing the underlying basis of the series in the last 5 minutes. Throughout three games, stopping the Reapers has been core. Now, to do this, we also have to kill a random race that we just made peace with and felt terrific about. I know you don't have an answer to this, but, while not as horrid as the Star Child, which apparently is here to stay, this really gives another bit of hollowness to the ending.

[Sisterofshane]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

dreaming_raithe wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I just want to comment that I don't think it's fair to yourself to think that the peace itself was destroyed.  Assuming you don't believe in outright galactic destruction due to the relays exploding, I think that the ramifications of the Geth-Quarian conflict will still be felt by many.  Especially the Quarians.  In fact, I really hope that they have a scene to reflect this in the ending DLC.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think showing Quarians mourning the sudden loss of their new allies on Rannoch would be magnificently poignant!

Given what Tali tells you about Geth sending their programs into Quarian suits, I'm not even sure how that would play out. Does that put the Quarians at risk when the Destroy beam goes off because their suits have Reaper tech in them now (since the Geth have Reaper code)? There is way too much left up in the air about this ending. Some room for interpretation is good, but we know so little about the repercussions of the various decisions that I don't even feel like you can make a rational choice when you're standing before the three buttons.

This is my reservation with including the scene with the Normandy.  It clearly gets destroyed, which makes me think that anything "reaper tech" is probably affected.  But at the same time, a high EMS score has Shepard clearly live, and even EDI can (apparently, I never saw this) survive... although that could just as easily be a bug haha.  There ARE definitely questions for how the energy dispersal affected everything.

The only issue is whether Shepard is able to break "indoctrination
theory" and carry through with the Reaper self-destruct before he dies,
or if there's some mechanism preventing the Reapers from self
destructing.

When I saw your first question I actually IM'd a friend and that was what he wondered as well.  What level of "control" do we really get?  Absolute?  Does that make the Reapers slaves to Shepard?  I think one thing I find tricky about the control option is that Shepard explicitly dies.  Which is difficult to fathom because it's hard to comprehend what it will be like after we die!  Is his essence spread throughout the Reapers?  Does Harbinger have to deal with this annoying little N7 conscience saying "Nuh uh uhhh!" everything ht wants to go reaping?

Ok, I lol'd at this for a good minute!  Thank you for coming here and dispersing a little humor about the endings - it's refereshing to hear this instead of denial or anger.

For me, the control ending felt a little wierd, especially because I had just spent the previous game sequence paragoning TIM.  How can I tell that guy that humans aren't ready for the kind of power that conrtolling the Reapers would grant, but then say "Yeah, I can totally handle it".  It seemed hypocritical to me.

With synthesis I felt we were comitting a greater atrocity than "genocide".  How could I subvert my will on an entire galaxy?  Isn't this idea what made the reapers so abhorrant?   I didn't even fully understand what kind of change would take place (I wan't thinking that everyone would end up a husk, like some were saying, but exactly how much would be changed?  It's never ennumerated by the Catalyst).  In the end I decided that if it was truly the pinnacle of "evolution", that it shoulc happen naturally, not be forced.

So, after coming to these conclusions, I thought destroy would be the best decision ( for my Shep, that is).

[Khajiit Jzargo]

I have three questions Alan
1. Are you worried that if this problem about fans being mad at the ending never gets resolve, any new upcoming Bioware game won't sell as much.
2. In a nutshell how would you have ended this game.
3.How would you personally fix this ending, would you use the Indoc theory?

Thanks!

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 08 avril 2012 - 06:36 .

[pavi132]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Yeah, like I had mentioned earlier I never played Arrival so that conclusion didn't occur to me.  Although funny story:  When I first spoke with the Catalyst I thought that the destruction of the relays was a part of the synthetic choice, so I was ridiculously confused at first when they blew up in the destroy ending!  Upon replaying it I realized that I actually misheard him, but yeah my first impression was epic confusion too.  

Given Arrival, I think it's fair that people took the ending worse than BioWare expected.  Which I think fans can fairly be upset with us for, since there's no reason otherwise. 


Haha.  Well, worst case check them out on youtube when they come out.  I played on PC and I have an autosave just after Harbinger's shot, with Shepard coming to before the conduit.  You should have that too so it wouldn't take too long.

Actually, I played through the end twice already with the same character. The thing is the first time I was confused and, while I wanted to choose the destroy option, I didn't notice the side paths and went straight into the beam thinking the destroy option would show up before I got there or something. Then my Shepard started running into the light in the cutscene and I got even more and more confused. I eventually realized what happened and went through the end again using the same autosave location you talked about, but playing through it all again was kind of annoying simply because of how slow you walk. I think many of us were confused by the ending at first and many still are!

It's funny that in the end I was like a moth drawn to light my first time through. The fate of an entire galaxy and all the living beings in it rests in my hands in this final decision and all I can think is "Ohhh shiny beam of light! Must...get...closer!"

Modifié par pavi132, 08 avril 2012 - 06:48 .

[Broganisity]

Allan's thoughts are near identical to my own. At first I figured the geth were just something for us to shoot at in ME, then when I saw Legion onboard the derelict reaper I was thinking: "Wait- they talk?" That alone was the reason I brought him on board and from there...well, Mass Effect was always about the idea of "two sides to every story", right? The Geth grew on me as a mistreated and misjudged people. I pitied them and was able to broker peace between them and the Quarians...even if I found myself losing the pity I once had for their race. To me the Geth felt like the children of the Galaxy: still trying to find their purpose, and wondering if they can fit in. I adored them, considered them equals to organic life...

...and I willingly chose the destroy option. It's one that I have reflected on since I beat the game, and one that I still reflect, and with how I am about guilt: maybe I always will. The Starbrat claimed that my Shepard would die, the Geth would die, and the cycle would eventually start up again but the Geth (and EDI)...gave me faith in otherwise. If the civilizations created new AIs, what's to say they wouldn't side with us if we treated them as equals from the start instead of try to blow them up out of fear and mistrust? That's what happened after all: The Geth retaliated because their existence was threatened: not because they wanted to destroy The Quarians, or all organic life for that matter.

You cannot create the personality of an AI, nor can you recreate the personality of a destroyed one so you'll never know but: Believing in the goodness of Organic or otherwise (...although you know...no synthetic life yet. ) is what's driven me throughout my life, as I'm sure it has for others. Maybe it's naive of me but it's better to believe in that than to give in to the claims that 'synthetics will try and kill you' when I've seen for my own eyes that it isn't the case.

...and then Shepard lived anyways. Wasn't he/I supposed to die as well? That two second revelation made me wonder if I'd been lied to: maybe the Geth lived as well, then. Maybe not. Maybe Indoc. Theory was right and none of it had happened yet: who knows? I do know that I'd choose the destroy option again, even IF the Geth really would die, because either way whoever created The Reapers/The Starbrat was wrong: Synthetics and Organics could live side-by-side. In that regard the Destroy option, while making me feel depressed and guilty even now after the game came out, is a great ending to the story of my Shepard (even if the ending's logic fell flat onto it's face...I mean the ending to Arrival sort of- yeah.)

...and with the Reapers destroyed, who knows? Maybe we could use the Tech from their hulls to fix/remake the Relays and expedite the recovery of the galaxy...or maybe that's just my wishful thinking of coming up with my own conclusion, I don't know.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sweawm wrote...

I would actually like to ask a question myself, if you will:
Why does Anderson's survival affect the ending? Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to all I've read: if you save Anderson from The Illusive Man, you avoid the bad ending with over 4000+ War Assets. Though, if you let the Illusive Man shoot and kill Anderson right there, it takes 5000+ War Assets.
How does Anderson's living for just a little longer affect our ending? Is *Gasp!*, Anderson the true Catalyst?

That.... I have no idea haha.  I'm surprised that it does too (I didn't realize that it did actually).  Best rationalization I can think of is the death of Anderson is an emotional blow to Shepard because it was Shepard failing Anderson?  Whereas he has his moment to make peace with Anderson after?  It's probably more the conversation he has with Anderson than when Anderson dies specifically.  (Although you're referring to an ending that leads to Shepard breathing, right?)

Ok, I lol'd at this for a good minute!  Thank you for coming here and
dispersing a little humor about the endings - it's refereshing to hear
this instead of denial or anger.

HAHA.  I've had some fun chatting with friends about some of the sillier interpretations we have.  I laughed my ass off at some of ACAVYOS' Mass Deffect Videos XDXDXD

After reading up on Indoctrination Theory we started hypothesizing that all of ME2 and ME3 was an oxygen deprived hallucination by Shepard as he comes to terms with his death as he falls back down to Earth.  "NOOO I'M Gonna die.... but maybe I'll come back.  Yeah.. Cerberus will revive me, and we'll work together... but then I'll betray them and it'll all be awesome"

[Gibb_Shepard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...



This is my reservation with including the scene with the Normandy.  It clearly gets destroyed, which makes me think that anything "reaper tech" is probably affected.  But at the same time, a high EMS score has Shepard clearly live, and even EDI can (apparently, I never saw this) survive... although that could just as easily be a bug haha.  There ARE definitely questions for how the energy dispersal affected everything.

No matter what beam, the Normandy gets destroyed. So even the control beam that wasn't supposed damage anything, destroys the Normandy. Even the Synthesis beam that was only supposed to give the Nromandy a couple extra organs, desttroys it.

Very confusing stuff.

[Sisterofshane]

Broganisity wrote...

Allan's thoughts are near identical to my own. At first I figured the geth were just something for us to shoot at in ME, then when I saw Legion onboard the derelict reaper I was thinking: "Wait- they talk?" That alone was the reason I brought him on board and from there...well, Mass Effect was always about the idea of "two sides to every story", right? The Geth grew on me as a mistreated and misjudged people. I pitied them and was able to broker peace between them and the Quarians...even if I found myself losing the pity I once had for their race. To me the Geth felt like the children of the Galaxy: still trying to find their purpose, and wondering if they can fit in. I adored them, considered them equals to organic life...

...and I willingly chose the destroy option. It's one that I have reflected on since I beat the game, and one that I still reflect, and with how I am about guilt: maybe I always will. The Starbrat claimed that my Shepard would die, the Geth would die, and the cycle would eventually start up again but the Geth (and EDI)...gave me faith in otherwise. If the civilizations created new AIs, what's to say they wouldn't side with us if we treated them as equals from the start instead of try to blow them up out of fear and mistrust? That's what happened after all: The Geth retaliated because their existence was threatened: not because they wanted to destroy The Quarians, or all organic life for that matter.

You cannot create the personality of an AI, nor can you recreate the personality of a destroyed one so you'll never know but: Believing in the goodness of Organic or otherwise (...although you know...no synthetic life yet. ) is what's driven me throughout my life, as I'm sure it has for others. Maybe it's naive of me but it's better to believe in that than to give in to the claims that 'synthetics will try and kill you' when I've seen for my own eyes that it isn't the case.

...and then Shepard lived anyways. Wasn't he/I supposed to die as well? That two second revelation made me wonder if I'd been lied to: maybe the Geth lived as well, then. Maybe not. Maybe Indoc. Theory was right and none of it had happened yet: who knows? I do know that I'd choose the destroy option again, even IF the Geth really would die, because either way whoever created The Reapers/The Starbrat was wrong: Synthetics and Organics could live side-by-side. In that regard the Destroy option, while making me feel depressed and guilty even now after the game came out, is a great ending to the story of my Shepard (even if the ending's logic fell flat onto it's face...I mean the ending to Arrival sort of- yeah.)

...and with the Reapers destroyed, who knows? Maybe we could use the Tech from their hulls to fix/remake the Relays and expedite the recovery of the galaxy...or maybe that's just my wishful thinking of coming up with my own conclusion, I don't know.

What I like about the bolded sentence is that I personally feel that if you KNOW what the future is going to be, then you can change it.

We now KNOW (thanks star child!) that conflicts with synthetics might lead to this singularity - why can't we now change our attitudes and treat AI as true equals?  Isn't it this very attitude from shepard that makes EDI feel "alive" and helps to gain the alliance of the Geth (with or without the Quarians)?

[tookrunk1991]

the starchild is a lier... didnt he say you would die if you picked destroy... since you are like 95% synthetic yourself....