281 réponses à ce sujet

[Kanon777]

killnoob wrote...

lol...unfair to people who liked the ending...

when in fact they could just add an alternative magical explosion that destroy the reaper without killing Geths, EDI, Mass Relay without retconing anything

yes you can shut at least 70@ of anti-enders up

even better, sell the perfect- ending magical explosion as a DLC

how is that unfair to pro-enders?

But they already will make an ending were EDI (and maybe the geth?) survives destroy, and the relays can be rebuilt (even if it takes some time), this wont change the ending but will expand/explains the endings we got... Imo its a great solution

Modifié par tobito113, 09 avril 2012 - 05:14 .

[viperabyss]

tobito113 wrote...

DOYOURLABS your answers sound so vague and similar to what the devs already told us. I think i can trust what you say...

I think part of it is because the dev isn't sure how to approach this as well. From the way they talk, it is quite obvious they're speculating themselves.

[Fnork]

Leaving the details up to the players to find is such a bad idea hyperbole is impossible when trying to express just how bad of an idea it really is. Line up 10 people and they will interpret differently and they will disagree. Important details need to be shown and the consequences of choices you make in a game based on choice definitely need to be shown.

[DOYOURLABS]

tobito113 wrote...

DOYOURLABS your answers sound so vague and similar to what the devs already told us. I think i can trust what you say...

Thanks! The vagueness is a combination between the vagueness of their answers (I tried not to imply that I got direct confirmation on anything) and my paraphrasing. I hope this renews some peoples trust in BioWare!

Iwillbeback 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.

They killed the lore and then spat on its corpse and labeled a big Artistic Integrity sign on it.

I think they wanted us to remember Saren's ideas and TIM's ideas as to what should happen.
Yeah we got that, the ending still stinks of poorly written garbage.

But isn't Shepard having an army of Geth and curing the Genophage also what Saren did? 

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

Very few people liked the ending, and I hate that they imply that most of the people that did not like the ending were to dumb to understand it . That is just yet another slap in the face.

That wasn't the implication. They were saying that too much was left to be inferred (such as the fate of the crew) and when they weren't given exact answers and PR left them to speculate, thats when they became upset. 

[thedancingdruid]

If this is true...*nostrils flaring* "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 simply and utterly failed at its deliverance.

By using the lore of the game of ending is indeed broken...

Destroying Mass Relays destroys the system. If, only going on given "lore" in the game, how is one supposed to realize they don't "supernova"?

Synthesis is not viable considering the entire cat/mouse scenario in ME1, given the "lore" in the game, the Reapers still wanted to DESTROY not become part of the inhabitants of the galaxy.

Control is not viable, hence the whole Illusive Man showdown, given the "lore" in the game, the Illusive Man controls Shepard to the point of Shepard shooting Anderson, how is Shepard expected to believe "lore" wise that the Reapers can be controlled?

Synthetics and Organics can get along, the "lore" of the game not only suggests it but confirms it, Legion became an ally in ME2, and the Geth/Quarian made peace in ME3. EDI chose to ignore the Normandy lockdown command issued by the Illusive Man following the Collector Base issue in ME2. Ergo, given the "lore" within the game the entire Catalyst's presupposition is rendered moot.

"Control means Shepard can't reunite with the crew but can rebuild the relays quickly" Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the exact reason the galaxy is in the current mess, given the "lore" of the game Sovereign says it's because the galaxy relies on the Citadel, the Mass Relays, all Reaper technology. Not to mention handling, being near or coming into contact with Reaper technology at all "lore" wise has never been a good idea.

The "lore" of the game states that the Reapers are sentient beings capable of independent thought, the Catalyst insists he controls them, based on the "lore" of the game how is this possible?

Fans, like myself, have been using the "lore" of the game and this is the exact reason the endings will never make sense within the ME universe, PERIOD, no matter how much extra footage is created.

[Cobra's_back]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

 I made a thread thanking BioWare for being friendly at PAX East, but I also implied I got information from them on the ending. Which I did, but that thread was in the non-spoiler section, so I'm putting the information I got here. In case there is something I wasn't supposed to post, I won't mention their names. 

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. 

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. 

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, as reaper tech is destroyed) and in Control you cannot reunite with your crew but can rebuild the relays quickly. Synthesis remains a mystery. THE RELAYS DO NOT SUPERNOVA.

As for the starkid, they said he was basically bluffing with the consequences of Destroy, since its possible Shepard and EDI can live. 

Also, their personal theory is that in control you become a "being of light". I'm pretty sure they said they believed Indoctrination Theory. Their main point was that the devs won't tell you what exactly happened, because they want the game itself to do that. They said: "In 200 years, there won't be a Casey Hudson to tell you what happened, so ME3 has to do it itself."

Multiplayer Developer- He can't confirm anything, but they are considering new enemies in MP. He also said they don't plan on taking the Mass Effect franchise out of the Milky Way galaxy.

For any more information, email me at admin @ lukgaming.com

Thanks for this.

I was confused with the game. The boy said you’ll lose everything in the control option. I thought that meant more than just life. I thought he was going to lose sense of right and wrong, turn into the new catalyze and destroy organics in 50,000 years.
I feel much better about the game now.

[zeypher]

well hope what you say its true mate. If it is i think i can tolerate maybe even come to accept the endings

[AshenSugar]

Grudge_NL wrote...

AshenSugar wrote...

They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending

Bob, Steve and Jenny will be happy then, I think that pretty-much covers everyone who liked the ending.

What about the remaining 97% of players though? 

Although I did not really liked the ending, I'd like to see where you got those statistics. 

  Dont start about 'the number of threads on this forum being negative about the ending', because that still doesnt make it 97 % of the player base.

That's 'cos you quoted me out of context .

The clue is in the next line of my post which said: ..."but to be a little more serious...".

In other words, I was not being serious. Clearly you skim-read my post, and only picked up on the first paragraph. An all-too common occurance on internet message boards.

Modifié par AshenSugar, 09 avril 2012 - 05:18 .

[The Anti-Saint]

Ahh, the vision thing...reminds me of Everquest and the devs vision...then Sony gobbled up Verant...and everything went to hell.

[Grusome11]

dafangirl wrote...

If this is true...*nostrils flaring* "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 simply and utterly failed at its deliverance.

By using the lore of the game of ending is indeed broken...

Destroying Mass Relays destroys the system. If, only going on given "lore" in the game, how is one supposed to realize they don't "supernova"?

Synthesis is not viable considering the entire cat/mouse scenario in ME1, given the "lore" in the game, the Reapers still wanted to DESTROY not become part of the inhabitants of the galaxy.

Control is not viable, hence the whole Illusive Man showdown, given the "lore" in the game, the Illusive Man controls Shepard to the point of Shepard shooting Anderson, how is Shepard expected to believe "lore" wise that the Reapers can be controlled?

Synthetics and Organics can get along, the "lore" of the game not only suggests it but confirms it, Legion became an ally in ME2, and the Geth/Quarian made peace in ME3. EDI chose to ignore the Normandy lockdown command issued by the Illusive Man following the Collector Base issue in ME2. Ergo, given the "lore" within the game the entire Catalyst's presupposition is rendered moot.

"Control means Shepard can't reunite with the crew but can rebuild the relays quickly" Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the exact reason the galaxy is in the current mess, given the "lore" of the game Sovereign says it's because the galaxy relies on the Citadel, the Mass Relays, all Reaper technology. Not to mention handling, being near or coming into contact with Reaper technology at all "lore" wise has never been a good idea.

The "lore" of the game states that the Reapers are sentient beings capable of independent thought, the Catalyst insists he controls them, based on the "lore" of the game how is this possible?

Fans, like myself, have been using the "lore" of the game and this is the exact reason the endings will never make sense within the ME universe, PERIOD, no matter how much extra footage is created.

Great points. Using the lore of the game leads to the conclusion that the ending doesn't make sense and that IT must be correct.

[DOYOURLABS]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Here is a question thats bothering me, may be a silly one. You said its possible to reunite with the crew, but what about your LI? If it's Garrus or Tali. Can you find the normandy in time before they end up dying from starvation or infections of some sort?

From what I have gathered, yes this is entirely possible. The epilogue generator made me remember that the Normandy had dextro rations/meds/etc. on it.

hoorayforicecream wrote...



They imply that they didn't do a good enough job of conveying what the ending *was*, and as such it was misinterpreted. They thought that they had sufficiently hinted at what it was they wanted to do, but they didn't. So they're trying to fill in the gaps. This is what happens when you don't get the whole story - you take select quotes out of context and then people jump to the wrong conclusions.

Better than I could have said it.

[Kanon777]

Also i noticed that the devs wanted each of the ending to have a bad consequence. Destroy (you have to kill the geth), Control (shep has to die) and synthesys (shep has to die AND reapers stay alive and free).

All they need to do to make destroy the super happy ending (some?) people are asking is let the geth live but make the reconstruction of the relays take a few years, while the reconstruction in Control and Synthesys only takes a few months. I guess 10 years of "galatic dark age" is bittersweets enough for you guys right? (its not for me but w/e)

[Mundl]

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. 

why would it be "unfair" to add an additional ending?

[2484Stryker]

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. 

So here's an idea: why didn't they drop MP to free up the MONEY?  Look I love MP and it's hella fun, but if sacrificing MP meant that ME3 could have had a more sensible ending, then why not?

I know BioWare kept insisting that a separate team made MP, but are they also insisting that the funds given to that team couldn't have been given to the SP team?

[Taleroth]

Imperium Alpha wrote...
Booohooohooo... I want to win with no consequence at all! 

Consequences are already there. Homeworlds devestated, countless dead. Earth should by all rights be uninhabitable after such a battle.

If you can't wrestle victory at that cost, if victory requires sacrificing all the smaller victories you had along the way, then it ceases being a victory worth celebrating.

[AshenSugar]

Actually if I believed that there was some possibility of saving the Geth by using the Destroy ending, it might actually make it semi-palatable for me.

Would still be a poorly-writted Deus-Ex-Machina affair.. but perhaps not as jet-black-nihilistic as I initially envisioned.

[Kanon777]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

killnoob wrote...
(...)

But they already will make an ending were EDI (and maybe the geth?) survives destroy, and the relays can be rebuilt (even if it takes some time), this wont change the ending but will expand/explains the endings we got... Imo its a great solution

EDI can come up of the ship in destroy. Would look bad to say she is dead after... So why would the Geth be destroy too.

I was always under the impression that destroy with 5k EMS only kills the reapers, the fact that Sheps synthetic parts dont die in that ending means that EDI and the Geth could be alive...

[DOYOURLABS]

dafangirl wrote...

Destroying Mass Relays destroys the system. If, only going on given "lore" in the game, how is one supposed to realize they don't "supernova"?

Different means of  destruction and different explosions were meant to convey that I would think. There's a difference in damage between controlled demoliton of a building and ramming a meteor into it. 

Synthesis is not viable considering the entire cat/mouse scenario in ME1, given the "lore" in the game, the Reapers still wanted to DESTROY not become part of the inhabitants of the galaxy.

The Reapers destroyed organic life before they could create synthetics that would prevent ANY organic life from existing. Again my controlled demolition argument. 

Control is not viable, hence the whole Illusive Man showdown, given the "lore" in the game, the Illusive Man controls Shepard to the point of Shepard shooting Anderson, how is Shepard expected to believe "lore" wise that the Reapers can be controlled?

This I agree on, it makes no sense to choose this. 

Synthetics and Organics can get along, the "lore" of the game not only suggests it but confirms it, Legion became an ally in ME2, and the Geth/Quarian made peace in ME3. EDI chose to ignore the Normandy lockdown command issued by the Illusive Man following the Collector Base issue in ME2. Ergo, given the "lore" within the game the entire Catalyst's presupposition is rendered moot.

Also agree with this, but if you notice in my main post I say they said that its likely the starkid was lying.

[hoorayforicecream]

2484Stryker wrote...

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. 

So here's an idea: why didn't they drop MP to free up the MONEY?  Look I love MP and it's hella fun, but if sacrificing MP meant that ME3 could have had a more sensible ending, then why not?

I know BioWare kept insisting that a separate team made MP, but are they also insisting that the funds given to that team couldn't have been given to the SP team?

MP was developed in parallel, by a sister studio. By the time they realized that they weren't going to have enough time to finish the ending properly, the money had already been spent on developing the MP. One can't just take finished content and take it back for a refund in game development, no matter how much one wishes one could.

[PhotonMaze]

It sounds like they don't get the endings themselves....

[DOYOURLABS]

tobito113 wrote...



All they need to do to make destroy the super happy ending (some?) people are asking is let the geth live but make the reconstruction of the relays take a few years)

And another thing I remember! I added it to the main post, Destroy with Shepard being alive is considered a golden ending to many. 

[legion999]

ME3 failed at telling us so in 200 years we'll have nothing.

"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."
Eh aren't they the same groups?

[DOYOURLABS]

2484Stryker wrote...



So here's an idea: why didn't they drop MP to free up the MONEY? Look I love MP and it's hella fun, but if sacrificing MP meant that ME3 could have had a more sensible ending, then why not?

I know BioWare kept insisting that a separate team made MP, but are they also insisting that the funds given to that team couldn't have been given to the SP team?

Sorry meant to write "resources" instead of money. Changes have been made in the original post.