279 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

I'm going to take all this with a grain of salt until it gets confirmed by a dev (no offense, but one of the downsides to "lots of sepculation!" is that theres...a lot of speculation)

But if this is true, and if it can be portrayed right in the ending, then Blue and Red become, well not good, that's an impossibility.  But palatable, maybe.

The tradeoffs get a lot better, at lesat:

Control:  Shepard gives up his/her humanity and "dies" but becomes something else (an AI or some kind of Transcendant Being) to control the Reapers.  Galactic civilization is only mildly inconvenienced, comparatively speaking, but threat of Reapers still possible.  Definitely better than the "you know what, ol' Jack Harper was right after all" about face.

Destroy:  Shepard retains his/her humanity and lives or dies as one (depending on EMS or other choices) Can reunite with crew/LI  or get a hero's funeral (would definitely want to see those in an epilogue if so)  Reaper dealt with permanently but galaxy pretty badly dinged up.  Not irrecoverable, but may take a few centuries to be as it was.   heck of a lot better than "Hurhurhur, gotta genocide an ally to kill Reapers)

Synthesis...Still can't fathom a way violating every organic and synthetic being on a molecular level can be construed as a good thing...

[Nimrodell]

Destroy with Shepard being alive will be considered the "golden ending" to many.

So, basically, all players that play only single player become suckers because they are unable to get that ending no matter how good they are in SP. I just hope this won't get to pass. If they remove EMS from SP, then it's a valid thing but otherwise... it would be utterly disrespectful to all those who believed their claims that SP experience won't suffer because of MP implementation. I see that Jarret Lee's sticky is removed (finally) and I do hope BW will correct things when it comes to ending and SP vs MP department. No one should be punished for not wanting to play MP.

[Kanon777]

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

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.

But whatever. If you still want to be personally offended by this, be my guest.

Really working overtime to defend Bioware I see . I guess I am just one of the few fans that just wanted a little more closure .

hoorayforicecream is working overtime to defend reading comprehension and critical thinking as opposed to quote mining and echo chamber parroting. 

Wow quote minding ... Look on there offical FAQ where they state SOME fans need more closure . SOME means less than a majority. And as number of polls have shown there is a majority of people who dislike this ending . 

Some dosent not mean less than majority, some means "a fraction" or "a portion" and that can be both minority or majority...

[Cobra's_back]

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.

Totally agree. Shepard also states that you can't control something you don't really understand. Organics didn't earn the tech, it was given to them. This was the reason for their repeated downfall. I remember nasty experiments and rogue AIs in ME1. All three games show this.

[Kanon777]

Nimrodell wrote...

Destroy with Shepard being alive will be considered the "golden ending" to many.

So, basically, all players that play only single player become suckers because they are unable to get that ending no matter how good they are in SP. I just hope this won't get to pass. If they remove EMS from SP, then it's a valid thing but otherwise... it would be utterly disrespectful to all those who believed their claims that SP experience won't suffer because of MP implementation. I see that Jarret Lee's sticky is removed (finally) and I do hope BW will correct things when it comes to ending and SP vs MP department. No one should be punished for not wanting to play MP.

You can get all ending in SP, your choices are constrained but they didnt lie that single players have acess to all endings...

edit

Modifié par tobito113, 09 avril 2012 - 05:52 .

[DOYOURLABS]

dafangirl wrote...

"They were running out of resources (maybe money, maybe time) so they could not as effectively represent that."

If that was indeed the case, why not end after Shepard has opened the arms of the Citadel and the conversation with Anderson?

Why, please, why explain all the "resources" used on the Catalyst?

Because the catalyst was probably important in the vision. I think the resources came into play with the ending scenes showing the consequences of each choice.

Sauruz wrote...

@Doyourlabs: Do you recall any of those people mentioning why they wouldn't want to add new, additional endings? I get the reason why they don't want to change the ending, but why rule out adding new endings?

Nothing on adding endings, it never came up.

[Wabajakka]

So they still haven't realized leaving the ME trilogy "up for interpretation" just because of time/budget was the wrong thing to do? Sales have reflected it, and whether they fix it or not this is the legacy they leave behind and it's a sad one.

Second, how the hell does EA allow such a big product like ME go under developed towards the end of the game? Seriously, how could they **** up so badly spending their budget and resources that the end of an entire trilogy has to suffer. 

Edit: To be quite honest, the ending should've been a HUGE focus fort he ENTIRE team (not just Casey Hudson and Mac Walters) they needed to wrap up a trilogy and show players how ALL of the choices play out during and after the final mission and they failed to deliver big time, they have their work cut out for them on the Extended Cut DLC.

A terrible move by EA and BW to just flop at the end and not expect back lash. I'm surprised they haven't responded more, because this games sales have quickly hit the dumps after week 1 sales and can now be bought for $30 online after just a month.

Modifié par Orange Tee, 09 avril 2012 - 06:00 .

[Kanon777]

http://dictionary.re...com/browse/some

"SOME"; adjective:

1. being an undetermined or unspecified one: Some person may object.

2. (used with plural nouns) certain: Some days I stay home.

3. of a certain unspecified number, amount, degree, etc.: to some extent.

4. unspecified but considerable in number, amount, degree, etc.: We talked for some time. He was here some weeks.

5.Informal . of impressive or remarkable quality, consequence, extent, etc.: That was some storm.

Modifié par tobito113, 09 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[Xewaka]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Comradejim wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...
THATS NOT ENOUGH! 
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
SKULL FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
LET THE GALAXY BURN!

.... Dark age of tech.... scattered human colonies falling prey to various Alien races... a devestated Earth....
Its not Indoct. theory... ITS IMPERIUM THEORY:blink:

Now you understand where Mass Effect is going! FOR THE EMPEROR!

So... The catalyst chamber is the Golden Throne, and Shepard is the EMPRAH?
It all makes so much sense now.

[Erixxxx]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Because the catalyst was probably important in the vision. I think the resources came into play with the ending scenes showing the consequences of each choice.

This sounds like the most probable explanation. It's not the first time that there's been "slacked" with the ending. That said, I have no idea if that is what really happened. Knowing Bioware I wouldn't put it past them to try and challenge the minds of the players.

[jcraft]

but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least, as reaper tech is destroyed)

Wait. What "reaper tech is destroyed"? Nothing like that was mentioned in the ending. Only if your EMS is too low Catalyst says something like "most of technology you rely upon is going to be destroyed" (when he describing Destroy option), but if you have high EMS score he just mention geth destruction but nothing about technology in general.

Modifié par jcraft, 09 avril 2012 - 06:11 .

[Senario]

Really? So if you choose destroy you cannot build relays and thus if you have a LI that lives far off like Tali...You won't see her homeworld. Much less build a house on it.

The Destroy ending with Shepard living is the Golden ending for fans because Shepard represents the player. Making it so he HAS to sacrifice himself if you want the galactic civilization to be salvageable...I don't like it.

This will be the only Mass Effect game that I take the Renegade option for the ending in. As much of a Paragon I like to be, I don't agree with Control or Synthesis when you can destroy the reaper threat.

[DistantUtopia]

shadowreflexion wrote...

...

 These endings were not universal. ME1 and ME2 had universal endings that appealed to many people because everyone was given consideration and it was clearly understandable who and what you were fighting. (Even though it was the Terminator on steroids. but I digress.) ...

Now that I think about it, the endings of each ME game were pretty simple.

ME1 - Defeat Saren
ME2 - Defeat Collectors
ME3 - Defeat Reapers Starchild

ME3 just did it in such a confusing way with an apparent disregard for decisions that you made in the previous game which in turn led to so much grief with so many players, myself included.

Reading this thread has given me some hope that this "extended cut" DLC will help the ending.  Guess it's a wait and see game now.

[anlk92]

iakus wrote...

I'm going to take all this with a grain of salt until it gets confirmed by a dev (no offense, but one of the downsides to "lots of sepculation!" is that theres...a lot of speculation)

But if this is true, and if it can be portrayed right in the ending, then Blue and Red become, well not good, that's an impossibility.  But palatable, maybe.

The tradeoffs get a lot better, at lesat:

Control:  Shepard gives up his/her humanity and "dies" but becomes something else (an AI or some kind of Transcendant Being) to control the Reapers.  Galactic civilization is only mildly inconvenienced, comparatively speaking, but threat of Reapers still possible.  Definitely better than the "you know what, ol' Jack Harper was right after all" about face.

Destroy:  Shepard retains his/her humanity and lives or dies as one (depending on EMS or other choices) Can reunite with crew/LI  or get a hero's funeral (would definitely want to see those in an epilogue if so)  Reaper dealt with permanently but galaxy pretty badly dinged up.  Not irrecoverable, but may take a few centuries to be as it was.   heck of a lot better than "Hurhurhur, gotta genocide an ally to kill Reapers)

Synthesis...Still can't fathom a way violating every organic and synthetic being on a molecular level can be construed as a good thing...

I just hope that at this point they are aware that they should show these things in the game. If I chose destroy and died I want to see a funeral, if I survived a reunion, I want to see whether the Geth and EDI survived, I don't want to imagine these things after hundreds of hours of gameplay. I know they are promising closure with the dlc but I hope we have the same understanding of closure.

As you said, I also believe that it is too late to turn this ending good but if they do these things and fix some plot holes it can become tolerable.

Modifié par anlk92, 09 avril 2012 - 06:06 .

[Nimrodell]

tobito113 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

Destroy with Shepard being alive will be considered the "golden ending" to many.

So, basically, all players that play only single player become suckers because they are unable to get that ending no matter how good they are in SP. I just hope this won't get to pass. If they remove EMS from SP, then it's a valid thing but otherwise... it would be utterly disrespectful to all those who believed their claims that SP experience won't suffer because of MP implementation. I see that Jarret Lee's sticky is removed (finally) and I do hope BW will correct things when it comes to ending and SP vs MP department. No one should be punished for not wanting to play MP.

You can get all ending in SP, your choices are constrained but they didnt lie that single players have acess to all endings...

edit

Sorry, but you can't reach 4000 EMS in SP in order to have your Shepard survivng the 'Destroy' option - there are just enough assets in game itself no matter how hard you try and I'm one of the completionists - always was, always will be - meaning, only SP players will be excluded if this thing with 'Destroy' ending is true. And to be honest, after 10 years in MMO's and multiplayers, I really don't like the idea of someone forcing me to play something that is other than SP - it's my leisure time and ME so far was SP and I did believe them when they introduced MP and said it won't affect SP experience if you play your cards right - what's the purpose of all side quests through whole 3 games if one can just boost score through MP? Why even bother with side quests? But I digress... If BW removes EMS from those who play SP, then it'll be OK in terms - we're not forcing you to play multiplayer because ME was never about MP.

[DOYOURLABS]

jcraft wrote...

but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least, as reaper tech is destroyed)

Wait. What "reaper tech is destroyed"? Nothing like that was mentioned in the ending. Only if your EMS is too low Catalyst says something like "most of technology you rely upon is going to be destroyed" (when he describing Destroy option), but if you have high EMS score he just mention geth destruction but nothing about technology in general.

You destroy the reapers, so its logical reaper tech would be destroyed.

[Alamar2078]

So there are 3 groups and we can make 2 happy so that means that they made the most people possible happy?

Honestly I doubt that the happy with ending + would be happy with ending but are confused > don't think the endings represent what BW promised.

Plus if the ending is in a DLC who would they be making mad. If folks like the ending they don't buy the DLC. Honestly I don't see the big deal.

[Senario]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

jcraft wrote...

but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least, as reaper tech is destroyed)

Wait. What "reaper tech is destroyed"? Nothing like that was mentioned in the ending. Only if your EMS is too low Catalyst says something like "most of technology you rely upon is going to be destroyed" (when he describing Destroy option), but if you have high EMS score he just mention geth destruction but nothing about technology in general.

You destroy the reapers, so its logical reaper tech would be destroyed.

Not exactly. Sovereign was destroyed in ME1 and some reaper tech was salvagable from it. And duplicated, the Thanix cannons on the normandy are a good example of this. Says in the codex that they are based off of the main gun of Sovereign.

[taliefer]

its not the consequences of the choices that is horrible. its the entire "oh hi, im godchild/starbrat/catalyst(whatever name you wanna use), i have a condundrum. i need you to pick red blue or green to solve it, go!" popping up out of absolutely nowhere thats the issue.

i dont care at this point whether picking blue results in everyone living but shepard and life going on as normal, or if red screws over the entire universe for an untold amount of time, or any variation there of. the whole godkid thing makes absolutely zero sense and craps on the rest of the series altogether

[Dreamdancer]

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 resources (maybe money, maybe time) 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. 

Both statements made me shake my head. No matter hwo much lore I piece together, the starchild was a true deus ex machina. There is no lore that prepared you for that. And no matter how much lore was presented, I would still find Shepard simply bowing to the three choices offensive, with a special mention of the Synthesis ending.That was really offensive to me.
And I am not angry with the endings. I was completely disappointed - there is a slight difference here to being angry, as I am sure the Community Manager would know.

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.

So if I survive I can reunite with my crew? *facepalm So the Normandy crashed on some misterious uinknown planet the maker knows where, the relays are down, and considerung the reach I have with a standard FTL drive I will have some trouble reaching that planet even if I knew where it was. Yeah, right.
And the relays did not supernova? Fair enough, I cannot wait for that explanation, though they definitely shouldn't have added all those pretty explosions on the galaxy map then.

As for the starkid, they said he was basically bluffing with the consequences of Destroy, since its possible Shepard and EDI can live. Starvation may occur, but it isn't going to wipe out large amounts of people. (Near exact words were: "They think everyone is going to starve to death, but no that's not happening")

I cannot wait for that explanation. I never thought that everyone would starve to deatth, hust about the majority of the galactic population. I hope they don't doi more space magic.

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."

Had me shaking my head again. Currently the game does a lousy job explaining what happened, and that is a fair understatement. If they want the game explaiining everything, then why the bloody hell didn't they put it in?

So what I am thinking now is that Bioware rushed the game to keep the march release window, cutting corners on the ending. And they were surpised their fans responses were in the range of disappointed to angry?

Modifié par Dreamdancer, 09 avril 2012 - 06:18 .

[oothal]

Are you saying that Bioware actually believes people will care about this game 200 years from now?

I am old enough to remember the Colossal Cave Adventure, it was not that long ago and I doubt many of you care how it ended. I certainly don't.

[Iakus]

taliefer wrote...

its not the consequences of the choices that is horrible. its the entire "oh hi, im godchild/starbrat/catalyst(whatever name you wanna use), i have a condundrum. i need you to pick red blue or green to solve it, go!" popping up out of absolutely nowhere thats the issue.

i dont care at this point whether picking blue results in everyone living but shepard and life going on as normal, or if red screws over the entire universe for an untold amount of time, or any variation there of. the whole godkid thing makes absolutely zero sense and craps on the rest of the series altogether

Inclined to agree.

But Bioware has shown they're willing to drive off a cliff in Starkid's name, so I guess at this point we have to focus on what can be changed

[shadowreflexion]

DistantUtopia wrote...

shadowreflexion wrote...

...

 These endings were not universal. ME1 and ME2 had universal endings that appealed to many people because everyone was given consideration and it was clearly understandable who and what you were fighting. (Even though it was the Terminator on steroids. but I digress.) ...

Now that I think about it, the endings of each ME game were pretty simple.

ME1 - Defeat Saren
ME2 - Defeat Collectors
ME3 - Defeat Reapers Starchild

ME3 just did it in such a confusing way with an apparent disregard for decisions that you made in the previous game which in turn led to so much grief with so many players, myself included.

Reading this thread has given me some hope that this "extended cut" DLC will help the ending.  Guess it's a wait and see game now.

That is what bothers me.
ME1-Defeat Saren and Sovereign
ME2-Defeat Collectors controlled by Harbinger
ME3-Defeat Starchild revealed to be the one controlling all?

I agree, they were simple goals. If the Starchild had to stay, then let me kill it or let me ask questions instead of listening to answers. It's funny how Shepard was reduced to a follower after spending all this time being a leader.

[DOYOURLABS]

Senario wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

jcraft wrote...

but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least, as reaper tech is destroyed)

Wait. What "reaper tech is destroyed"? Nothing like that was mentioned in the ending. Only if your EMS is too low Catalyst says something like "most of technology you rely upon is going to be destroyed" (when he describing Destroy option), but if you have high EMS score he just mention geth destruction but nothing about technology in general.

You destroy the reapers, so its logical reaper tech would be destroyed.

Not exactly. Sovereign was destroyed in ME1 and some reaper tech was salvagable from it. And duplicated, the Thanix cannons on the normandy are a good example of this. Says in the codex that they are based off of the main gun of Sovereign.

But Sovereign was destroyed "conventionally" and the reapers were destroyed by enery waves. Entirely possible that it survives, I'm just trying to give arguments for what the community manager said

[Erixxxx]

Alamar2078 wrote...

So there are 3 groups and we can make 2 happy so that means that they made the most people possible happy?

Honestly I doubt that the happy with ending + would be happy with ending but are confused > don't think the endings represent what BW promised.

Plus if the ending is in a DLC who would they be making mad. If folks like the ending they don't buy the DLC. Honestly I don't see the big deal.

I have seen a lot of Retake people wanting this over a complete rewrite. We have no reliable numbers on how many people want what though, all any of us can do is guess.