281 réponses à ce sujet

[Visserian99]

They also all but confirmed that in Destroy endings if you are alive you can reunite with the crew but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least) and in Control you cannot reunite with your crew but can rebuild the relays quickly. Synthesis remains a mystery. THE RELAYS DO NOT SUPERNOVA

I'll admit, I had this thought the other day. With Control, you can help rebuild the Relays faster and get the galaxy back on its feet, and with Destroy Shep might possibly live (only because of that breathing scene). To be honest, I would have found it to be a outright more difficult choice if the Catalyst just stated this to me outright.

'Shepard, you MIGHT survive the destruction option and destroy the reapers for good however the coming dark age will kill many lives until technology gets back on its feet, or you can take control the reapers instead of destrying them and help galactic civilization get through the dark age that is coming faster saving countless lives, restoring the galaxy to normalcy faster." Would have had a tougher decision at that point for my Shepard. Let the enemy live under my control but help the galaxy get through a galactic dark age faster and I die, or Destroy my enemy for good, possibly survive, but the dark age will be longer and more brutal. 

Synthesis still doesn't make sense though.

 I'm pretty sure they said they believed Indoctrination Theory. 

If the ending is to be taken at face value, how can they believe Indoctrination Theory?

Modifié par Visserian99, 09 avril 2012 - 04:39 .

[pablosplinter]

Grudge_NL wrote...

pablosplinter wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote... Their main point was that the devs won't tell you what exactly happened, because they want the game itself to do that.

Whoever said this is insane

Err no. That's what every game does.  Mass Effect only failed at it.

Exactly, they are saying this after teh game has been released and it is apparent that it is not the case. That is a fine quote before release, but makes little sense after seeing the current ending. They say they don't want to tell people what happens because the game should do that. but it clearly doesn't

[Mash-X-ToDieSlower]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Senior Writer- Their vision was essentially what you saw, but with more focus on the details. They wanted players to use their lore knowledge and look carefully at the subtle differences in the endings to piece together what happened. They were running out of money so they could not as effectively represent that. 

Well, that explains it. They had an intention, they couldn't fully realize that intention because they "ran out of money", and players were supposed to use their "lore knowledge" to piece together the "differences" in the endings.

They created their own problem. Ending's unclear because they couldn't put everything they wanted into the ending, I bet the stuff they are adding to the ending is everything they already meant to put in there but got cut because the funding ran out. Now that they have basically crowdsourced via day one purchases of ME3, they can afford to put out a "director's cut" with everything they meant to add in the first place.

Either way, that explaination of the ending completely deflates my hope for answers. Ugh.

[Mriswith911]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

They said: "In 200 years, there won't be a Casey Hudson to tell you what happened, so ME3 has to do it itself."

Then why didn't they give us that ending then?

[DOYOURLABS]

xxskyshadowxx wrote...
- Allers should have been left out.

Agreed, useless character with IMO bad voice acting and dialogue. 

- Multiplayer should have been added on DLC.

I like the MP, but regardless I think adding an entire multiplayer through DLC would be difficult if not impossible. 

[2484Stryker]

eldingo12 wrote...

"In 200 years, there won't be a Casey Hudson to tell you what happened, so ME3 has to do it itself."
Why couldn't they have thought of this six months ago?

That's a joke, no?  Because I'm pretty sure they DIDN'T think of that when they made that nonsensical ending.

[oblique9]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

They also all but confirmed that in Destroy endings if you are alive you can reunite with the crew but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least) and in Control you cannot reunite with your crew but can rebuild the relays quickly. Synthesis remains a mystery. THE RELAYS DO NOT SUPERNOVA

This would be my personal favorite part, being able to see crew/LI.

I'm interested to see where this goes... Or how they plan on doing it, as there is no way in hell this possibility was ever implied in the current endings, unless I've been comatose through the entire Mass Effect story...

[Taleroth]

Visserian99 wrote...

If the ending is to be taken at face value, how can they believe Indoctrination Theory?

Because they don't understand the ending either.

[Avissel]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

I like the MP, but regardless I think adding an entire multiplayer through DLC would be difficult if not impossible. 

Deus Ex did it.

It was terrible.

Modifié par Avissel, 09 avril 2012 - 04:38 .

[Bantz]

wait.. so the senior writer and community manager explain control as their theory? And if you pick destroy you can reunite with your crew?

ugh i give up trying to understand the stupidity that is going on with that staff. And i say stupidity because no one with a sane mind could honestly look at this epic series and say "you know what this needs? This game that has had things planned out and explained with detailed characters and events. It needs an ending that makes the player just look into the lore and imagine what happens next! They don't need to know what actually happened. Hell we don't know what happens. It's speculation for everyone! And if there's a plot hole or an unanswered question just respond "Well, it's all how YOU look at it.""

I have to believe that the final hours thing is right and this was just 2 idiots in a room because there's no way that with a writing staff as talented as they had, guys that made the rest of ME3 so damn near perfect, that no one stood up and said that was a stupid f'n idea.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

So wait, they believed IT theory...yet they probably won't implement it in the closure DLC? What?

[Nerevar-as]

ebevan91 wrote...

So it seems like they're giving the "A, B, C" choices at the end a pro and a con for choosing whatever you chose.

Destroy = Shep lives, but the galaxy is slightly ****ed for a long time
Control = Shep dies, but the galaxy is slightly ****ed only for a short time
Synthesis = ???

Unless it´s implied we can force them to suicide, Reapers are still around and they can last tens of millions of years. That´s quite the risk. Rebuilding Relay network will still be centuries, the only advante they have is that they probably don´t have to crack the tech, but they still must build both ends, and getting and building the other will take years/decades. Quarians would still take several decades to go back to Rannoch.

From a sequel POV, they also need a very good reason why Catalyst Shepard doesn´t send the Reapers against the next galactic threat.

If only Destroy didn´t kill the geth and EDI...

[wantedman dan]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending. In the closure DLC, they are aiming to make the people who were confused happy. They know they can't make everyone happy, so they want to please as many people as possible. 

Don't read too much into what Jessica Merizan says. The fact that she led on, intentionally or not, numerous fans that the Indoctrination Theory had some merit, only to have the rug swept out from under them, is cruel and borderline spiteful.

Besides, if Bioware truly wanted to please the majority, they would cater to it and rewrite the f*cking endings; they need only to look to their own forums to see this.

[Skypain]

 After finishing my 4th playthrough my mind still cant grasp or understand the ending 

Must be my lack of artistic integrity 

[EricHVela]

Because there were cues missing, we didn't get the fact that our EMS score affected the state of the Crucible (such as more damage during the fight or less complete from resources versus complete), the fact that the Crucible's final state is what decided whether or not the Catalyst could do something, and when Shepard told Joker to get everyone he could and get outta there.

We were hinted by Hackett that the Crucible needed something to focus the Dark Energy in a specific way and that the Catalyst was probably just what they needed. The Catalyst says it cannot change the Solution as if its logic is locked so someone else has to do it.

We have no explanation what the Star Child is other than that it seems to be the Catalyst speaking.

Some nice cues would have been showing damage to the Crucible during the docking scene and showing its completion state in the War Room, the final Reaper Destroyer and Harbinger having different scenes to reflect our EMS (even going as far as Harbinger killing Shepard with an EMS score below a minimum acceptable level) and the option to tell Joker to get everyone and retreat or stay and fight when recovering from Harbinger's beam.

As for the Star Child, they'll need a lot more to explain that.

[Nerevar-as]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

So wait, they believed IT theory...yet they probably won't implement it in the closure DLC? What?

It might mean not that the ending is an illusion, but that a Shepard who chooses Control/Synthesis is indoctrinated?

[MaximizedAction]

lillitheris wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...
There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending.

I really f*$&(ng hope they didn't say that.

What the problem with saying that? It's true. There 3 groups like it or not.

I'd like to invite you to think on it for a while.

People overreacting when put into groups is one of the reasons why some stuff is not said out loud to the public. People don't like that
But from a statistical and functional standpoint is is useful and neccessary way of removing the entropy of your information you want to gather. In this case, fan feedback.

I think, it's ok .

[2484Stryker]

So is everyone at BioWare equally as confused as we are about that nonsensical ending? They believe Indoc Theory, but also thinks the ending should be taken at face value...wtf...?

So the ending is basically "use your own imagination because we were too lazy to create a definitive one!"

Thanks, BioWare! Next time I'll just daydream!

[hoorayforicecream]

lillitheris wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...
There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending.

I really f*$&(ng hope they didn't say that.

What the problem with saying that? It's true. There 3 groups like it or not.

I'd like to invite you to think on it for a while.

Sounds like this poster wouldn't be happy with less than a total rewrite, and is angry that one is not coming. This poster also probably believes something about angry majorities and whatnot. I suspect such a poster is likely very frustrated at the amount of his or her personal investment in the game not paying off in a way he or she hoped it would, and thus is redirecting all of this frustration at Bioware. However, the fact that this is really the path that Bioware has chosen is starting to sink in, so the resulting frustration is combining with the previous anger and disappointment and turning into a storm of internet rage with no real outlet aside from internet forums.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Well we did speculate the consequences from the ending. And they were confusing and contradictory. I hope that was the profound vision, to question the logic of every person playing the game.

[DOYOURLABS]

Bantz wrote...

wait.. so the senior writer and community manager explain control as their theory? And if you pick destroy you can reunite with your crew?.

Neither say control is their theory. The writer explained what the writing staff had in mind, and the community manager explained the consequences of each choice. 

[ThePanzer99]

Imagine a team at Super Bowl. Game is tied, 30 seconds to go. 3rd down on the 1 yard line. They then fumble the snap on the 1 yard line and opposing team runs it across the field and wins the game.

That's the level of bioware's failure. Them pretending otherwise and doubling-down on the current ending is just salt in the wound. They better hope thier estimation that those unhappy with the whole ending really are the minority. Otherwise the DLC, unless it's just perfect, is going to solve nothing and ****** people off even further.

[anlk92]

oblique9 wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

They also all but confirmed that in Destroy endings if you are alive you can reunite with the crew but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least) and in Control you cannot reunite with your crew but can rebuild the relays quickly. Synthesis remains a mystery. THE RELAYS DO NOT SUPERNOVA

This would be my personal favorite part, being able to see crew/LI.

I'm interested to see where this goes... Or how they plan on doing it, as there is no way in hell this possibility was ever implied in the current endings, unless I've been comatose through the entire Mass Effect story...

I think their initial idea was for the ending to imply these things rather than showing them regardless of resources/time. But then they couldn't fully realize what they envisioned so they ended up sending some wrong messages to the player.

I just hope they now see that implications won't cut it at the end of a trilogy like this. If they're going to be bothered to make an extended cut they should put these events into the game, not just imply them.

[shepskisaac]

DOYOURLABS, what's that about "believing in Indoctrination Theory". Elaborate, what did they say exactly

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

You see, this sort of contradicts what Weekes said. Didn't he say that with all the reaper tech lying around survivors could just potentially improve their ships speed so much that eventually they wouldn't need to use the relays?