808 réponses à ce sujet

[Zing Freelancer]

I have a huge problem with lack of basic human "hope" in the entire London arc, especially when your squad is saying their good byes. There is at least two hours of game play ahead and they've already decided on the outcome of Shepard's story?

Then there is the Catalyst scene where Catalysts denies me everything that makes me human. He denies me my ability to choose to kick and scream, claw and fight until the ultimate defeat, death. Atop of that he also demands that I compromise everything I was fighting for for the sake of the solution HE THINKS is fair.
Catalyst is asking for an ethical and personal sacrifice, that old senile computer is being too greedy.

[Reofeir]

@allan That's my theory. The catalyst is something that only activates when the crucible is in it. This by itself would explain why he doesn't pay attention to the geth or EDI (That or he looks at a really big picture) and why the citadel doesn't do the reapers bidding without the keepers.

Plus the sacrifice wasn't as memorable for me. I dislike Ashley (sorry ;-...so it was a easy choice. I sound evil for saying that.

[Reofeir]

Zing Freelancer wrote...

I have a huge problem with lack of basic human "hope" in the entire London arc, especially when your squad is saying their good byes. There is at least two hours of game play ahead and they've already decided on the outcome of Shepard's story?

Then there is the Catalyst scene where Catalysts denies me everything that makes me human. He denies me my ability to choose to kick and scream, claw and fight until the ultimate defeat, death. Atop of that he also demands that I compromise everything I was fighting for for the sake of the solution HE THINKS is fair.
Catalyst is asking for an ethical and personal sacrifice, that old senile computer is being too greedy.

Well to be honest even without the kid the crucible will still do all of those things...just without someone telling us what it exactly does. We were fighting for this thing...and even though one can say "WHY CANT WE JUST SAY NO AND FIGHT!"...the biggest we could ever make our army is at one planet...fighting maybe the *most* of the reapers but not all...and isn't exactly winning just surviving.

All you can do at this point is sit there and get a game over screen (without a cutscene of course!) or take your chances with these three choices the crucible gives you, but catalyst tell you about.

[naddaya]

Say what you wish about genocide, but it was an efficient solution. Morally questionable, but efficient, and the ONLY ONE that ensures the Reapers' destruction. That if you beliebe to StarBrat, of course.

[Allan Schumacher]

Zenor wrote...

@allan That's my theory. The catalyst is something that only activates when the crucible is in it. This by itself would explain why he doesn't pay attention to the geth or EDI (That or he looks at a really big picture) and why the citadel doesn't do the reapers bidding without the keepers.

At the very least he's more a passive observer

Plus the sacrifice wasn't as memorable for me. I dislike Ashley (sorry ;-...so it was a easy choice. I sound evil for saying that.

I agree.  It's why I had hoped that the game some how determined your most used NPCs so that, at least on your first playthrough, you'd have to choose between two that were presumably your favourite.

Expensive thing to do unfortunately

[Reznore57]

As much as i like bittersweet thing , i can't help but hate the curent ending.
I don't mind the relay going out of order , they were reaper device, they were a way for them to control the galaxy evolution , so in a way getting rid of them is a good closure.
Shepard dying , and squamates too are ok (well maybe not Garrus or Joker ), even losing the geth seems a fair price to pay (what about those batariens , it was ok because they're mean and ugly?They were people too! )

But the whole catalyst thing really cheapens the whole thing IMHO.
As a player , we have nothing that weight in the singularity problem , damn EDi fall in love , The Geth found their soul.
The end of rannoch for me meant synthetic= organic , they're just metallic people.
And there goes Casper saying "NO" (yeah , sten or Arishok , style).
"That's not how it works in this universe ,i have no proof of it , and i made sure that the galaxy goes down the same path and reap them before they can prove me wrong, so i'm right!"

So this great IA (or something else) doesn't even compute that chaos can bring other possibilities.
Even when Shep shows up ,the only thing the catalyst understand is "I might need a better way to solve this singularity problem"

For all the player who felt the singularity was a forced excuse to have 3 emotional choices ,it just goes downhill.
You have to sacrifice your character and the galaxy for a machine lunacy (kinda ironic).

The first time I played , I didn't even understand what whats going on , everything seems so out of place , that i felt detached to everything.No sense of victory or defeat , just felt hollow.

And , i think the whole crucible debacle could have been somewhat avoided ,if we have been emotionaly invested in something else.
Like a heartbreakin/Heart warming cutscene or epilogue (and not the crash on Eden , or granpa and grandkid, nobody cares about)
I mean , Remember how the Termitor foetus Human Reaper looks stupid in Me2?
Well the pace of the suicide mission was so epic , you forget all about it.

[DESTRAUDO]

I am ok with genocide shep getting to live while the other do not, and i chose synth.

Destroy should (and since shep lives already) does show a solution that puts friends before strangers for want of an analogy. The other two choose sacrifice to save more/everyone.

[methodshaolin]

moral of the story? if you're bad - u'll live !

[hippanda]

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 :

I would say yes.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this has been linked or not, but I figure it's worth a look:


That's a fan's version of a "reapers win" ending. As far as I'm concerend, it conveys a better sense of hope for the future than any of the current endings.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Plus the sacrifice wasn't as memorable for me. I dislike Ashley (sorry ;-...so it was a easy choice. I sound evil for saying that.

I agree.  It's why I had hoped that the game some how determined your most used NPCs so that, at least on your first playthrough, you'd have to choose between two that were presumably your favourite.

Expensive thing to do unfortunately

On paper that sounds ok but in the game it would suck. It would mean I, and I think a lot of other people, would play through the game with companions they hate, which would diminish the overall enjoyment of the game, just so the companions they like don't die.

[Megachaz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I do think so.  As much as I can appreciate "Oh cool, everyone CAN survive" in ME2 from a reactivity standpoint, I actually find the ending not very interesting.  Fighting super powerful foes without any loss of any appreciable kind... I know I'm awesome but am I being TOO awesome?

In my "official" playthrough I lost Thane, which was sad.  I sent him in the tube, in part because he was terminally ill and dammit, if he was going to die it might as well be for something!  IIRC he felt the same way.  So he was in the tube, and then we rendezvous at the door and... BAM!    Thane is dead!  I didn't think that would actually happen!  It created a bit of a cost to complete the mission.  So while Shepard and Co are happy to have destroyed the Collector Base (sorry TIM, I just don't trust you!), there's that twinge of melancholy because you realize that a teammate and friend paid the ultimate price to ensure the mission would succeed.  That's powerful stuff.

I think it also had good balance with the first game, where we're forced to lose a teammate as well.  Given Ash and Kaiden were my favs (don't judge...), that sacrifice was even more memorable for me!

How could you let Thane die!   In my primary (FemShep, Paragon) playthrough, everyone survives the Collector base, but I have a Renegade BroShep who loses a couple of people.  The only reason I don't like losing people in the Collector base is because they die right in the heat of battle, so they don't really get a proper send-off.  I could never let Mordin just die in the Collector base and rob myself of the amazing scene at the end of the Tuchanka arc.  Same with Thane, Legion, Tali, or really anyone who has a "wow" moment in ME3.
 
I also thought that the Ash/Kaiden choice was one of the most memorable parts of the series, topped only by Mordin's tower run (favorite character ever) and Geth/Quarian resolution.  I almost think that the very end of the game could do without losing more characters because we've already lost so many, but the fleets are essentially sacrificing themselves to get the Crucible in place, so the whole thing would seem trite without some serious losses.  I was almost sure Hackett was going to die in the final space battle, although not without one last glorious "Hackett Out" of course 

[SnakesSon]

A lot of people seem to think that Destroy is the only bad option.

I'm pretty sure every option is bad.

Barring the Indoctrination Theory, ignoring the large plot holes and taking the brat at face value, every ending is less than optimal.

Destroy is sacrificing a large, if not staggering amount of people(meaning sentient beings in this case) to succeed in destroying the Reapers, but someone will continue the cycle.

Synthesis is "the only way" for true peace, yet you're essentially homogenizing the entirety of every race in existence without permission and without remorse. Oh, and if you think about it for a second, what's stopping synthetics from rising up and killing organics again anyway? Humans are the same, and we kill each other all the time. Starkid seems to think that Synthetics were killing organics simply because they're different, when in reality the Quarians couldn't handle their creations becoming sentient. But anyway.

Control is believing you can control the Reapers and send them away without a fight. Unless another invasion occurs with Shepard alongside Harbinger.

This stopped being about ignoring plot holes quickly, didn't it?

[Ridwan]

Do you get why so many of us are pissed?

You need to understand we love this game and then at the final moment, when we see that stupid kid, many of us felt betrayed. Yes, betrayed. We've become so emotionally attached the game, the characters and our Shepard, that to have it end with some space ghost kid, introduced out of nowhere and presenting us with choices, each them leaving nothing but a bitter taste in our mouth, that it felt like someone kicking us in the balls, our tearing out our heart.

Then reading so many snarky dismissing remarks, and statements by the devs and writers that they were surprised at why "some" (that some is A LOT, otherwise this wouldn't have blown up to this proportion) didn't like the ending.

Sorry, but not everyone, actually THE MAJORITY of people are not nihilist who enjoy bitter dark endings, and if you're trying to avoid being cliché, well then you've should've made a happy ending. Since apparently making a dark, soulless ending is starting to become the norm.
All this time we fought for the galaxy and its many different people, and for what? Only for Casper the ghost to spit in our faces and tells to pick a curtain.

People are legitimately pissed off, we're not some form of experiment for some writer to try and force his artistic vision on us, especially when that vision seems to have been pulled out of his butt.

Yeah, sorry for not being civil, and all that. But damnit, this game is too good to end on a piece of crap note like that.

There are COUNTLESS threads, and many youtube videos exposing why the ending doesn't make sense and why it's absolutely treat us the "audience" as an experiment.

[Allan Schumacher]

hippanda wrote...

I would say yes.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this has been linked or not, but I figure it's worth a look:


That's a fan's version of a "reapers win" ending. As far as I'm concerend, it conveys a better sense of hope for the future than any of the current endings.

Thanks for sharing that.  I think meaningful "fail" choices should be given more consideration gaming in general.  I think the idea of Shepard passing on this cycle's culture to a new cycle would have been an excellent ending!

[Allan Schumacher]

Megachaz wrote...

How could you let Thane die!   In my primary (FemShep, Paragon) playthrough, everyone survives the Collector base, but I have a Renegade BroShep who loses a couple of people.  The only reason I don't like losing people in the Collector base is because they die right in the heat of battle, so they don't really get a proper send-off.  I could never let Mordin just die in the Collector base and rob myself of the amazing scene at the end of the Tuchanka arc.  Same with Thane, Legion, Tali, or really anyone who has a "wow" moment in ME3.

To be fair, I have heard that Mordin's replacement, Wiks, is also pretty awesome.  And with Thane did, I thought I got a pretty cool scene from Mr. "ice water in his veins" Kirrahe.  I liked Kirrahe and was angry (and impressed) when he sat there and took the shot.  He held the line .
 

On paper that sounds ok but in the game it would suck. It would mean I,
and I think a lot of other people, would play through the game with
companions they hate, which would diminish the overall enjoyment of the
game, just so the companions they like don't die.

Perhaps the solution is to just make sure you like all the companions...

[Foreste]

this is a question to all.
how would you feel if the final conversation had been with harbinger instead of the starkid.
i mean what if it was harbinger who was explaining the cycle

[Foreste]

fibchopkin wrote...

Foreste wrote...

this is a question to all.
how would you feel if the final conversation had been with harbinger instead of the starkid.
i mean what if it was harbinger who was explaining the cycle

Probably still just as confused- but slightly less pissed off.  Harby would at least be quantifiable, but star kid was just too new.  It's always (in my own, very humble, opinion) a mistake to blast your audience w/ a new, super important character in the last 10 pages of the story.

Edit: all that ^ said- my Shep still would've balked at the faulty logic.  "Maybe synthetics would destroy us- eventually- but how long before that would happen?  And don't we still have a right to free will?  Also- who the HELL made you reaper guys?  And how many cycles have synthetics actually nearly destroyed organics?  Obviously they've never succeeded at doing it utterly, or there would be no organics now, so what are you basing your evidence on?"etc

yes you are absolutely right, there needed to be more dialog, but maybe by not introducing a new character some of the head could be taken away from the ending

[Joccaren]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Thanks for sharing that.  I think meaningful "fail" choices should be given more consideration gaming in general.  I think the idea of Shepard passing on this cycle's culture to a new cycle would have been an excellent ending!

Yeah, that was one of the ways I formed distinction in a few endings I wrote as a few different options for conventional win endings. Pass on Liara's message. You fail so bad its not funny, the Normandy is killed and the message never gets out. You fail to win, but you could put up a bit of a fight, the Normandy can escape and Liara puts out her boxes on multiple garden worlds. You fail to win, but put up a good fight and get some serious Reaper casualties, Liara places her box on the garden worlds, and then an additional scene the next cycle with the Dark Space-Citadel Relay Openning, but the next cycle have prepared and are using the Citadel as an ambush for the Reapers.
Personally, I would prefer an ending like that to what we get. Yeah, our cycle dies. But I don't have to sacrifice one group, discriminate against them and force their death. Instead I put my faith in the fleets, and whilst we fail, we give the next cycle a chance - and they destroy the Reaper threat. I guess I should be a bit more upset about that - I mean, the Yahg being the successful cycle... Gah, rubs me the wrong way.

[Joccaren]

Foreste wrote...

this is a question to all.
how would you feel if the final conversation had been with harbinger instead of the starkid.
i mean what if it was harbinger who was explaining the cycle

Pissed off at the faulty logic, but Harbinger would make it sound dark, less... trivial. In addition, we know Harbinger, and we would get our final confrontation with him that way.

[Nyctyris]

 Heya Alan,

Been reading through your posts and it's been very interesting. Thanks again for sharing your point of view.

There's a couple things I want to highlight; it's stuff people have been saying throughout the thread but I would like to just streamline it a bit. 

I understand your logic and I don't disagree with the suppositions offered for the ending. The main reason I have an issue with the endings is (as others have been saying) the overwhelming lack of information.

In Planescape (also my favourite game!) I loved the endings, because the whole game was a cohesive narrative and the choices made sense to me. I went in knowing full well what would happen. Additionally, while your actions do affect others in PST, the game is fundamentally about the story of *one* particular character, and I feel that the choice the Nameless One makes is rightly a very personal one. 

In Deus Ex, I would also draw some key differences between those endings and that of ME3. As in PST, the whole of DX was a continuous, cohesive narrative; the endings felt like a natural outcome of the plotlines converging at endgame, and the choices made sense to me. Arguments for the three ending choices are presented to you throughout the game, and you have a chance to assess these things yourself throughout the course of DX.

When you refer to the line whereShepard says ("maybe"), I can't help but feel you're hanging a lot on one word! Not a fault of yours, but it is a good example of what I'm referring to. The objections, discussions, and concerns that Shepard might have get simplified down to that single "maybe". The choices that Shepard is faced with are pulled seemingly out of the blue, feel like they haven't been given adequate discussion throughout the game, with no option for Shep to even explain ingame why they felt theirs was the right decision (not even something in line with JC's "This is what I was born for").

Part of that is a difference in game generation I think. In PST it was okay to write walls of text which can convey a lot more information, which players can read over and take their time on. But regardless it should still be possible to discuss the issues and themes throughout the game without making endgame choices feel abrupt and jarring; if nothing else, ME has 3 games to do that in, rather than 1. 

Another example to contrast is the DX Helios ending  - I don't think it's workable to compare that to Synthesis in ME3. For one thing, merging with Helios only affects JC in a physical way. Yes, JC ends up controlling the world, but he does that in the Illuminati ending too. In fact, things are pretty much out of JC's control. Helios is already taking over; JC can choose to either destroy Helios (two ways to do that, one of which leaves him working/ruling with the Illuminati) or he can mediate Helios by contributing his personality. Shep's situation is very difference. Shep IS in a position of power and you directly, biologically alter every person if you choose synthesis. That isn't just about control or rule, that's about CHANGING the nature of ALL ORGANIC LIFE - I'm not saying this decision is wrong, I'm saying there isn't anywhere near amount of explanation (in my mind) for my shepard to even consider that. Ultimately, I always go for Destory because the other endings just don't make sense to me. Not because sense isn't there to be had, but because no discussion is allowed, and I really have to struggle to understand the logic behind the other two in relation to the rest of the game and my Shep's choices so far.

Also, I'm all for ambiguous endings, but doesn't Stargazer kind of make them not ambiguous? I mean, whatever you do, a bunch of technoincompetents 10k years later are mumbling about you in the final scenes. If I chose synthesis, that doesn't make any sense; they should be ubertranshumans. If I chose Control and rebuilt the Mass Relays, that doesn't make any sense, and if I chose Destory, how did we get from Joker in Jurassic Park to here? I would personally LOVE a choice where you say "NO WAY" and the Reapers win (because frankly, some victories just aren't worth it, and I don't think I could make a decision of that scale on behalf of the sentient universe) but if they aren't changing the ending, that won't remotely be a possibility, because stupid Stargazer would still have to "remember" you or w/e. 

Last thing about what you were saying in regards to the endings of all three games; not sure if anyone has commented on this as well, but I actually thought you were being a bit harsh to the endings of ME1 and ME2! Those games have to have relatively set endings because they have to carry over into sequels. The alternative is canon endings, which kind of defeats the purpose of multiple endings IMO, except in terms of replayability I guess. But anyway, the whole point of ME3 was that devs were saying they could end ME3 in a big way, becuase there was nothing to carry on afterwards.They were free to make really drastic, radical changes, in a way that they weren't free to do for the previous two games.  Also, they were free to put in endings which reflected Shep's 1000 variables of different choices (who you killed, who you didn't) without contradicting themselves in later franchises.  I mean fair enough, the ME3 endings were fairly drastic and radical, but I felt they made less sense than the previous two game finales (not to mention they didn't really take the opportunity to reflect your personal choices). 

Anyway, apologies for rehashing most of what you've heard before.

Modifié par Nyctyris, 08 avril 2012 - 10:48 .

[78stonewobble]

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

Well good and bad is kinda subjective anyway.

Murder is bad... Unless it's in selfdefence then it's just tragic.

Here I'd argue that it's also self defence.

[Chief Commander]

I am KROGAN wrote...

That was the reason I couldn't pick the destroy ending.  I couldn't undo the peace I had just brokered between synthetics and organics, I couldn't.  Instead I chose to forcibly turn everyone into a cyborg hybrid thing.

Tough choices were tough.

Then you were succesfully indoctrinated by Harbinger:whistle:

[Allan Schumacher]

fibchopkin wrote...

Allan- brada, it's like, midnight here in Hawaii- so it has GOT to be so late where you are! Really cool of you to stay up so late talking to us geeks on your Sat night/ Easter Sun morning.

It's after 5 now.... I'm going to bed now LOL.

how would you feel if the final conversation had been with harbinger instead of the starkid.
i mean what if it was harbinger who was explaining the cycle

I think people are adversarial towards Harbinger more than the Catalyst.  It probably would have magnified their concerns, especially about things such as refuting the explanations.  If people have a hard time believing the Catalyst, they must have a hell of a time believing Harbinger!

In Planescape (also my favourite game!) I loved the endings, because the
whole game was a cohesive narrative and the choices made sense to me. I
went in knowing full well what would happen. Additionally, while your
actions do affect others in PST, the game is fundamentally about the
story of *one* particular character, and I feel that the choice the
Nameless One makes is rightly a very personal one.

Planescape is amazing and if I find out any of you have never played it, I will leave this discussion forever!!  Although maybe it's my struggles with the setting, but I didn't anticipate being sucked into the Blood War.  Was sad, but cool at the same time.  PST also taught me that really, I don't care for boss fights.  I like boss conversations!   But I will not dispute that it (and Deus Ex) have better endings that fit in with their stories better.

When you refer to the line whereShepard says ("maybe"), I can't help but
feel you're hanging a lot on one word! Not a fault of yours, but it is a
good example of what I'm referring to. The objections, discussions, and
concerns that Shepard might have get simplified down to that single
"maybe".

That's fair.  I think this is where it gets subjective.  The way he says it is what makes me realize that it's not a certainty.  Could there have been more exposition?  Probably.

Another example to contrast is the DX Helios ending  - I don't think it's workable to compare that to Synthesis in ME3.

Yeah, someone else pointed out earlier that it's easier to conceptualize because JC is already partially synthetic and is essentially hooking himself in to Helios.  Though I more brought up the comparison to illustrate that I'll always find transcendant solutions to be ones that leave me confused somewhat, by their very nature.

Also, I'm all for ambiguous endings, but doesn't Stargazer kind of make
them not ambiguous? I mean, whatever you do, a bunch of
technoincompetents 10k years later are mumbling about you in the final
scenes. If I chose synthesis, that doesn't make any sense; they should
be ubertranshumans. If I chose Control and rebuilt the Mass Relays, that
doesn't make any sense, and if I chose Destory, how did we get from
Joker in Jurassic Park to here? I would personally LOVE a choice where
you say "NO WAY" and the Reapers win (because frankly, some victories
just aren't worth it, and I don't think I could make a decision of that
scale on behalf of the sentient universe) but if they aren't changing the ending, that won't remotely be a possibility, because stupid Stargazer would still have to "remember" you or w/e.

Actually, Stargazer is just a weird scene in general.  I guess showing that regardless of what Shepard chooses, it ends up working out.  THe only thing I really like about it is that it demonstrates that galactic collapse didn't occur.  Due to it coming after the credits I think it was more just an easter egg type thing.



Anyways.. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz