356 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

UniqueNickname wrote...

+1
I like it. And I hope someone from Bioware reads the topic and is inspired (someone who is actually involved in storywritting of ME3)

Awesome <3 I won't object if you tweet/facebook it around where they can see it

…

…And we're back from turnMEoff.

[Ieldra]

lilitheris, I have to blow into the same horn as TMA LIVE: Destroy Plus feels unbalanced because it has no downside that you feel. It's the same flaw the existing endings have, only the other way round: in the existing endings, the benefits are removed so far into the future that you don't feel them, making the end feel like a failure instead of a victory. Conversely, in your Destroy plus scenario there are no immediate downsides, since the risk incurred is removed far into the future and may not even manifest at all. This makes you feel as if no meaningful sacrifice exists.

Had Bioware presented us with your scenario, I'd have complained about blatant favoritism and suspected the writers promoted Destroy as canonical.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lilitheris, I have to blow into the same horn as TMA LIVE: Destroy Plus feels unbalanced because it has no downside that you feel. It's the same flaw the existing endings have, only the other way round: in the existing endings, the benefits are removed so far into the future that you don't feel them, making the end feel like a failure instead of a victory. Conversely, in your Destroy plus scenario there are no immediate downsides, since the risk incurred is removed far into the future and may not even manifest at all. This makes you feel as if no meaningful sacrifice exists.

I have to disagree, still. To me, favoring the visceral benefits of Destroy just means that that's what you want, and that anxiety thereof is because you're struggling between the intellectual desire to be ‘the better person’ and what you feel. To me, that's the essence of the sacrifice.

BUT.

Let's entertain the idea of trying to balance them out. How is that achieved? Do note I've made some changes to the original descriptions. And I still have to incorporate the notes from fle6isnow.

[Versidious]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lilitheris, I have to blow into the same horn as TMA LIVE: Destroy Plus feels unbalanced because it has no downside that you feel. It's the same flaw the existing endings have, only the other way round: in the existing endings, the benefits are removed so far into the future that you don't feel them, making the end feel like a failure instead of a victory. Conversely, in your Destroy plus scenario there are no immediate downsides, since the risk incurred is removed far into the future and may not even manifest at all. This makes you feel as if no meaningful sacrifice exists.

Had Bioware presented us with your scenario, I'd have complained about blatant favoritism and suspected the writers promoted Destroy as canonical.

A query: Why should Destroy destroy all synthetics, but Control only controls the Reapers? Perhaps introduce this as a factor to Control - how far your control over Synthetics extends. There are also long term benefits to Control - you preserve the Reaper technology, Mass Relays and Citadel included (Damaged, yes, but still existing). In a very real sense, Destroy/Control represents whether you reject the Reapers and all their technology, benefits included, in favour of the Geth approach of finding your own way and earning it, or whether you try to dominate the Reapers in order to preserve their technology and your civilisation's current way of life as much as possible. That is the choice. It is not a question of simply being good/bad. That is why so many Indoctrination Theorists suspected it represented a rejection of the Reapers or falling to their influence.

Synthesis is still a problem, of course. It's inherently a ridiculous concept. The other two are, perhaps, interpretable as powerful science, but Synthesis really is very silly. A 'new DNA'? EDI, for example, exists both on the Normandy and in an external platform. So, is the Normandy now a part-biological being? Reapers are already part organic. Are they made more organic? Less? Unchanged? Do organics still breed? Do machines? Are we cleverer? What are we made out of? Hang on, haven't organics just effectively been wiped out in favour of something else, directly at odds with what the Catalyst was trying to achieve? So many problems. Synthesis is hard to elaborate on because it was a poorly thought out 'third choice'. Though, it admittedly is the sexiest looking of all the choices (Shiny green tattoos! Diving into a big beam of light! Confirmation that EDI is actually alive!), especially as I've always loved girls with green eyes, and now they all have green eyes!

I also want to disagree with the notion that Control/Synthesis need more EMS-based variation. Bear in mind that at the worst EMS levels of Destroy, these are not choices at all. That is why Destroy must have more variety. The worst current variation of Destroy outright destroys the Earth, not just Big Ben. Though perhaps some variation of Synthesis/Control where Shepard actually survives in some strange new form (In Control, as a Reaper/Catalyst - or simply survives the crisping process and walks away as a blue eyed cyborg- in Synthesis, as something else. MAYBE AS GOD, I don't know, I'm listening to an extended version of the Reaper Chase soundtrack, so everything seems like an epic and brilliant idea at the moment. Here it is, by the way, if you like that sort of thing: ), if you get a ridiculously high EMS.

Control and Synthesis are already therefore touted as the canon 'best endings', according to the game's EMS mechanics. But how many of us have already picked Destroy? Destroy is closest to what everyone has been working for all along, that is why they picked it. I didn't even hesitate. I even thought that Control would've given my Shepard the best chance to survive, initially, from what we were told. But no, I picked Destroy because it did not rely on tenuous concepts. It Destroyed the Reapers, and ended their threat, once and for all, which is what we set out to do. Whether you're Paragon or Renegade, Control is tricky at best, as apparently we know that Synthetics are inherently rebellious, especially ridiculously powerful ones (And if Shepard dies, as the Catalyst says, how can he control them?), and Synthesis relies on the benevolence of inherently arrogant, violent, sadistic intelligences whose entire existence has centred around destroying advanced civilisations for millions of years, have us over a barrel, and rely on organics for reproduction, just because they no longer have an immediate purpose? But Destroy? Destroy doesn't send the Reapers into the naughty corner and tell them to stop it, relying on them not deciding to disobey and follow the same reasoning that they followed initially. It doesn't ignore that Reapers would probably wipe out all Synthesis life to make way for the inevitable next generation of naturally-occuring organics once they'd thought things over a bit. It. Wipes. Them. Out. Mission Accomplished, once and for all.

Plus, what about the Geth in Quarians' suits. Are those suits now living Geth? Have the Quarians and suit-Geth now been amalgamated into one being? Seriously, the more you think about Synthesis, the worse it gets.

Modifié par Versidious, 30 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[lillitheris]

^ Lots of good stuff there.

I really want to find a consensus of some kind, but at the same time want to create the options from the character's point of view, not the player's…I dunno, maybe I'm overcompensating in that direction because I feel the character was basically completely abandoned in the original ending?

Anyway, if we can get some concrete ways to further balance the options, I'm all for hearing those out. I did concede that the relays could be left destroyed in Destroy (even though I disagree it's necessary), so that's not make or break question.

[lillitheris]

Versidious wrote...

I also want to disagree with the notion that Control/Synthesis need more EMS-based variation. Bear in mind that at the worst EMS levels of Destroy, these are not choices at all. That is why Destroy must have more variety. The worst current variation of Destroy outright destroys the Earth, not just Big Ben. Though perhaps some variation of Synthesis/Control where Shepard actually survives in some strange new form (In Control, as a Reaper/Catalyst - or simply survives the crisping process and walks away as a blue eyed cyborg- in Synthesis, as something else. MAYBE AS GOD, I don't know, I'm listening to an extended version of the Reaper Chase soundtrack, so everything seems like an epic and brilliant idea at the moment. Here it is, by the way, if you like that sort of thing: ), if you get a ridiculously high EMS.

I'm not sure I'd completely discount EMS differentiation for C/S…well, Control anyway. This reply to fle6isnow and Taboo-XX's points covers some of the possibilities there, although I don't think we quite covered all the variations. But either way for those two, EMS could be more significant in determining which squad members live.

Also,

I'm listening to an extended version of the Reaper Chase soundtrack, so
everything seems like an epic and brilliant idea at the moment.

I love you for this sentence.

Modifié par lillitheris, 30 avril 2012 - 07:54 .

[Ieldra]

@Versidious, lilitheris:

EDIT:
Versidious, you might be interested in my interpretation of the Synthesis. I'll dispense with the genetic rewrite and interpret "a new DNA" figuratively.

(1) I might mention that it is possible to be locked into Control/Earth Destroyed with very low EMS, having kept the CB and having sided with the geth against the quarians.

(2) The primary immediate downside of Control and Synthesis is Shepard's death/removal from the scene as a figure. The primary immediate downside of Destroy is the death of synthetics and the destruction of the relays when compared to Control, and the death of synthetics alone when compared to Synthesis. If you have a way to avoid the downsides of one, you must also have a way to avoid the downsides of the others. That's why I think either ALL options need more EMS-based variations, or none. Exactly where those options become available, that would be where the balance of the long-term effect lies and could be difference for every option. Clearly, the worst Destroy variant is much worse than the worst Control variant, and if the best Synthesis variant where Shepard comes back in some form is much harder to get than Shepard living in Destroy (which should be available at much lower EMS anyway, comparable with the current Synthesis threshold), I'm ok with that. But I'm adamant in that the immediate downsides and upsides must be balanced separately from the long-term effects, because the long-term effects are largely a matter of perception - as your post clearly shows. Destroy - is that a risky decision that possibly endangers future organic life, or is it a risk-averse decision because it deals with the Reapers once and for all and prevents them from interfering ever again? It depends on perspective and preference.

So, let's set up a new measuring stick:

3000 EMS: Destroy/Earth is OK as written + Shepard lives
3000 EMS: Synthesis as written
3000 EMS: Control/Earth is OK as written

This takes into account that Synthesis is supposed to be the best long-term decision, because otherwise the combined downsides "relay destruction" and "Shepard's death" should pull the required EMS down. Add 500 to avoid relay destruction for Synthesis and Destroy, another 500 to avoid the death of the synthetics in Destroy, and yet another 500 to make Shepard remain alive in some form and able to communicate in Control and Synthesis. I'd balance it like this:

3500 EMS Destroy: Shepard lives and synthetics live. Relays are still destroyed
4000 EMS Destroy: Shepard lives, synthetics live and relays are damaged but repairable (like standard Control)
3500 EMS Synthesis: Relays are damaged but repairable.
4000 EMS Synthesis: Relays are damaged but repairable and there is a hint that Shepard continues to exist in some (accessible) form.
3500 EMS Control: There is a hint that Shepard continues to exist in some form.
4000 EMS Control: There is a hint that Shepard continues to exist and relays are completely intact.

This would keep every ending's unique characteristics while allowing for more EMS-based variations. Also note that the different added benefits become available in different sequences. This also keeps the characteristics of each ending intact - for instance keeping any kind of Reaper tech intact (the relays) should be much harder in Destroy than in Synthesis, and making Shepard come back should be hardest in Synthesis. "Shepard continues to exist in some form" implies that they can eventually communicate with people, unlike standard Control where it is implied that Shepard continues to exist but can never again have meaningful communication with humans.

Intermediate thresholds can be added for even more variations, but these I'd propose as the main variants.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 08:32 .

[someone else]

honestly only read the OP - glad to see some still have energy to debate this stuff - me, I'm burned out - will take what sh*t BW wants to dish out and just move on down the line...

The damage to the narrative is permanent and irreparable and more critically the pact between audience and author has been unilaterally violated - no amount of creative retconning will ever change that.

[lillitheris]

someone else wrote...

honestly only read the OP - glad to see some still have energy to debate this stuff - me, I'm burned out - will take what sh*t BW wants to dish out and just move on down the line...

The damage to the narrative is permanent and irreparable and more critically the pact between audience and author has been unilaterally violated - no amount of creative retconning will ever change that.

Noo, don't give up yet! :happy:

…

Alright, let's see what we can do with Ieldra2's stuff…

[someone else]

please enlighten me - all your work and thought is impressive - but how does "ems" translate meaningfully into these reality-altering options? By what mechanism does "effective military strength" alter the available options, or force and consequence of the Crucible pulse.

I am afraid you are just adding plot holes on top of plot holes.

[Versidious]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Versidious, lilitheris:

EDIT:
Versidious, you might be interested in my interpretation of the Synthesis. I'll dispense with the genetic rewrite and interpret "a new DNA" figuratively.

(1) I might mention that it is possible to be locked into Control/Earth Destroyed with very low EMS, having kept the CB and having sided with the geth against the quarians.

The worst outcome for destroy is outright vaporisation of everything, people included. The worst outcome for control is that some buildings are destroyed, whilst people are fine. If you check your game's data file, you can see the red/blue/green ending cutscene files! Also, for a lower EMS, try shooting Mordin with Wrex in charge. But seriously, don't do that, because you'll have to kill Wrex as well. YOU MONSTER! 

Aye, I've read your post. Not sure I want to get into a full debate...  I've argued on the subject of Singularity and transhuman cybernetics many a time! Maybe I'll post something on the thread a little later. I'd assumed that 'a new DNA' meant a replacement of our chemical building blocks with some kind of synthetic one, ala the BSG 2003 Human Cylons/Hera, or the advanced Replicators in the Stargate TV series. I will say now, in regards to that thread, that I agree about their description of the problem and its solution. It's more evidence, to my eyes, that they didn't really know what they were talking about/hadn't thought things through properly! Anyhoo...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(2) The primary immediate downside of Control and Synthesis is Shepard's death/removal from the scene as a figure.

From the point of view of Shepard/a first time player, this is a downside to all three endings! Indeed, there is a similar issue with Control. We now know, from the cut short cutscenes, and developer talk, that the relays and Citadel, whilst damaged, are not actually destroyed in Control, giving Control additional bonus points for preserving this technology. From the point of view of a selfless saviour, preserving the main instruments of galactic civilisation is quite an upside, especially since a likely alternative is starvation and death amongst your allies! But this is not made clear in the conversation with the Catalyst.

Ieldra2 wrote...
The primary immediate downside of Destroy is the death of synthetics and the destruction of the relays when compared to Control, and the death of synthetics alone when compared to Synthesis. If you have a way to avoid the downsides of one, you must also have a way to avoid the downsides of the others. That's why I think either ALL options need more EMS-based variations, or none. Exactly where those options become available, that would be where the balance of the long-term effect lies and could be difference for every option. Clearly, the worst Destroy variant is much worse than the worst Control variant, and if the best Synthesis variant where Shepard comes back in some form is much harder to get than Shepard living in Destroy (which should be available at much lower EMS anyway, comparable with the current Synthesis threshold), I'm ok with that. But I'm adamant in that the immediate downsides and upsides must be balanced separately from the long-term effects, because the long-term effects are largely a matter of perception - as your post clearly shows. Destroy - is that a risky decision that possibly endangers future organic life, or is it a risk-averse decision because it deals with the Reapers once and for all and prevents them from interfering ever again? It depends on perspective and preference.

So, let's set up a new measuring stick:

3000 EMS: Destroy/Earth is OK as written + Shepard lives
3000 EMS: Synthesis as written
3000 EMS: Control/Earth is OK as written

This takes into account that Synthesis is supposed to be the best long-term decision, because otherwise the combined downsides "relay destruction" and "Shepard's death" should pull the required EMS down. Add 500 to avoid relay destruction for Synthesis and Destroy, another 500 to avoid the death of the synthetics in Destroy, and yet another 500 to make Shepard remain alive in some form and able to communicate in Control and Synthesis. I'd balance it like this:

3500 EMS Destroy: Shepard lives and synthetics live. Relays are still destroyed
4000 EMS Destroy: Shepard lives, synthetics live and relays are damaged but repairable (like standard Control)
3500 EMS Synthesis: Relays are damaged but repairable.
4000 EMS Synthesis: Relays are damaged but repairable and there is a hint that Shepard continues to exist in some (accessible) form.
3500 EMS Control: There is a hint that Shepard continues to exist in some form.
4000 EMS Control: There is a hint that Shepard continues to exist and relays are completely intact.

This would keep every ending's unique characteristics while allowing for more EMS-based variations. Also note that the different added benefits become available in different sequences. This also keeps the characteristics of each ending intact - for instance keeping any kind of Reaper tech intact (the relays) should be much harder in Destroy than in Synthesis, and making Shepard come back should be hardest in Synthesis. "Shepard continues to exist in some form" implies that they can eventually communicate with people, unlike standard Control where it is implied that Shepard continues to exist but can never again have meaningful communication with humans.

Intermediate thresholds can be added for even more variations, but these I'd propose as the main variants.

I dunno...   Those are pretty low. My weakest playthrough so far saw a 6500 EMS. My strongest is 7200. It's not hard to obtain those, unless, as I said earlier, you're deliberately a bastard who gets off on betraying your friends.   But, even if I'd betrayed the Krogan and the Geth/Quarians, that'd still only take me down to about 5000, which currently would get me the 'best' outcome of Shepard surviving (And if the Illusive Man shoots himself in his face,  you only need 4000). In short, I think that there should be higher levels of badassery, in all of them. Including Shepard's continued existence in some form or another in all of them (In synthesis, this should be ridiculously hard to achieve, as it's by far the most Shepard-lethal ending, and the most overtly killy in the description). So, for Control/Destroy, as you progress higher, a permanent Shepard AI survives (Perhaps displacing Harbinger's programs, or creating a new N7 Reaper)/EDI and The Geth survive at reduced capacity, say, at 6000. At 7000, Shepard himself actively survives Control, as a blue-eyed slightly-crispy cyborg, the Geth survive unharmed in destroy, and Shepard survives as a Catalyst-like being in Synthesis, but the rest of the galaxy doesn't quite realise/believe it. Actually getting these 'Ideal outcome' endings should be difficult, and require serious completionist playthroughs.

I also don't think that the Relays should be preserved in Destroy in any way. Maybe in Synthesis, but with Destroy, you're rejecting the Reapers entirely. As I said somewhere above, choosing Destroy over Control is symbolic of a complete rejection of the Reapers. You have a chance to dominate and control the most powerful machines in existence for the potential benefit of your civilisation, but instead, you're choosing to reject this and annihilate them. For Destroy to still be Destroy, it has to destroy more than just the Reapers, it has to Destroy pretty much everything that they built, including the Citadel and the Relays.

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

please enlighten me - all your work and thought is impressive - but how does "ems" translate meaningfully into these reality-altering options? By what mechanism does "effective military strength" alter the available options, or force and consequence of the Crucible pulse.

I am afraid you are just adding plot holes on top of plot holes.

EMS is decided by the strength of your military force, and by the Crucible itself (Think about all the science teams and technology fetch quests you get for the Crucible, and remember that the Reapers will be attacking it - one of your fleets is called 'Shield', and Shield's job is to, well, Shield the Crucible from Reaper attack. It's the Fleet you can see Reapers taking apart when in the Catalyst room). So, how much advanced technology and scientists you have makes a more effective Crucible, and a  stronger force allows you to protect it from damage better. A damaged machine will work less well than a completely in-tact one. Does that make sense?

[Versidious]

So, whilst I was preparing a reply to my previous post, I wound up going off on a tangent and writing all this. I have cut and pasted it into a seperate post:


How I envisage representing these [The previously discussed extremely high-EMS outcomes] in cutscenes/conversations post game:

For Shepard surviving 'in some form'...

Control:
At the end of his funeral/memorial, we cut/fade to the Reapers, leaving the Galaxy. Either Harbinger has his bright yellow eyes replaced by blue ones, or there is a new Reaper (possibly based on the rejected designs for a fully fledged human Reaper, but certainly even more badass looking than Harbinger) with glowing blue eyes next to Harbinger.
Synthesis:
A glowing-green eyed Shepard is obviously on Earth, looking at the ruins, already being built by glowing-green humans, and possibly some help from our friendly neighbourhood Geth (Who Shepard gave full awareness and independence to, so they'd certainly want to help his species), looking out over them. He could also be looking over the funeral/memorial, or on the Normandy crash planet, if they keep that (Really, that's by far the worst bit of the endings. Eurgh). He turns and looks slightly down, to see the Catalyst, and turns to leave with it, turning to a green mist/green catalyst as he does so. What has he become, where is he going? It shall remain a mystery, largely because anything more would likely be ridiculously corny/daft.

In neither of these outcomes does Shepard have any lines.

If Shepard survives outright:

For Destroy: 
The procedure would be Shepard being dug out of the rubble, with us seeing it slightly from his point of view - lots of fading in and out of what's going on, of him being rushed into care.

• [list]
•  Assuming that Bioware keeps the Normandy crash, you would wake up in hospital with Admiral
  Hackett, who then offers you a promotion - either to Admiral, or Councillor "Shepard, there's noone else the Alliance would rather have standing for humanity in this time, and frankly, noone else who can keep
  the galaxy together/in line [varies depending on ME1 Human dominance ending or not] better. We need you." And you can accept it, or say "I've had enough politics to last both my lifetimes." and declare that
  he/she's off to find their crew and LI, reasoning that he is spent, but couldn't have done any of this without them, and protect so he owes them that, and Little Blue Babies/House on Rannoch/Adopted War Babies/A
  lay/A beating for betraying them after less than a year apart, etc etc, then you're going to get on with protecting people in the aftermath/kicking asses that need it [depending on Paragon or Renegade].
  Then show Hackett giving a speech which varies, depending on which choice you made, possibly then showing the galaxy in general rebuilding and repairing, and, if you're off to find the Normandy, a banadaged and limping Shepard boarding a frigate with - get this, this is the good stuff - Any remaining ME2 crew, and maybe also Major Kirrahe if he's survived. It is my personal opinion that they should accompany this bit with a redux of the opening theme from Mass Effect 1. I still feel that ought to have really dominated the ending in some way.

•   If Bioware cuts the Normandy bit, it would largely be the same, but with the LI/final squad finding
  you, and accompanying you to the hospital. After the conversation with Hackett, you then have a scene reminiscent of the discussion with the Virmire survivior about them becoming a Spectre, either with your LI, or with Liara. Maybe Joker. I like to imagine Joker would have something to say about it. Maybe always have it be Joker you discuss it with, and have the LI, if you had one, sleeping fully clothed from exhaustion,
  having never left Shepard's side, etc. Have the same choices, but Shepard's reasons for picking the military role rather than Councillor obviously no longer includes considerations about his shipmates.
  

For Control:

Shepard would be found on the Citadel by Commander Bailey and his men, fading in and out of consciousness - the unconscious moments dominated by terrifying hallucinations of the Reapers. No hospital for this
Shepard, though. He heals unnaturally fast. He's not what he was before. Maybe he looks a bit Illusive Man. The Council tries to persuade him to join their ranks, but he's having none of it. He tells them that he can
hear the Reapers now. Always.

•  The player can take the Paragon option of going away into solitude, with his LI if he has one (He can
  also choose to reject him/her, because he's changed, etc etc), to concentrate on keeping them away and bending them to his will. He's rather angsty about it, and talks about being able to feel their hatred, and about how hard it will be to change that in them. He asks Bailey and the Council to pretend that he died.

•  Or the player can take the Renegade option, and threaten the galactic civilisations with a Reaper return if
  they misbehave themselves. The Council tries to be all like 'You can't do that', and Shepard just goes 'Try me', and his eyes literally flash at this point. Maybe, if the original council survived, he can look at the Turian Councillor, and say "Go against me, and I will have my 'Reapers' dispense with you.", replete with air-quotes. Maybe in these outcomes, his voice could also be slightly flanged, or echoed with a hint of Reaper.

I'm not sure how to fit the Normandy crash into this one, but I suppose you don't need the Normandy crew for these scenes, and can stick some stuff with the crew in if they're present, if need be. A discussion with your
LI about how you need their strength could work here as well, if present.

And of course if you've had an ME2 romance, the LI will be there regardless of whether the Normandy crash is kept or not, which, if the Normandy *had* crashed, also would go some of the way to making ME2 romancers feel a little less cheated, as the ME1/3 romancers don't get to see their final reunion. Maybe the Normandy's
crash could become a result of some game-related choice we've made? I think both cases provide interesting cutscenes/outcomes.

Honestly, as I've been writing these, I'm thinking that if they implemented them, or something very similar, I might even actively like the endings (Obviously, because these are naturally tailored somewhat to me and my
imagination  :-P).

So, I honestly did not expect to end up writing ALL of that stuff. But I have. In addition to giving more EMS options, it also varies somewhat with your previous in-game actions. I think that preserving the Collector Base ought to be woven into all that, somehow, though. Any thoughts?

Modifié par Versidious, 30 avril 2012 - 11:16 .

[someone else]

...maybe you survive as an improved version of Mouses' Shepard VI...makes as much sense.

BW is not going to do anything like this - cutscenes, no gameplay, and "new cinematics" - how does any of this fit within such a limited EC? This is no different than the thousands of reimaginings on these boards - it does not defend the OP's contention that "clarification" is a viable means of

a) resolving major plot threads (consequences of building/foregoing alliances, geth and/or quarian future, krogan/salarian/turian nexus, and fate of comrades, LI)

Validating player choices made throughout the series in determining outcomes - not just in the ending but throughout ME3 - there should be no Rachni if I killed the queen, no genophage cure if Mordin dies and Malleons data is destroyed - Mordin says it would take years to reconstruct, etc, ad nauseum

c) Address the vast number of fatal plot holes riddling the ending (documented endlessly elsewhere)

Please tell me how this differs from rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

[Versidious]

Also, this is the best fan-made 'Reapers win' ending I've seen:

[lillitheris]

someone else wrote...

please enlighten me - all your work and thought is impressive - but how does "ems" translate meaningfully into these reality-altering options? By what mechanism does "effective military strength" alter the available options, or force and consequence of the Crucible pulse.

I am afraid you are just adding plot holes on top of plot holes.

EMS (or TMS, really) represents, in addition to actual military strength, your ability to construct the Crucible. Logistics, materials, availability of scientists and builders, avoiding indoctrinated or other saboteurs… With a lower EMS, some of these have been suboptimal and affect the Crucible's capabilities.

Then, in the actual battle, your EMS additionally affects your ability to keep the Crucible shielded from the Reapers. Even if it isn't completely destroyed, enough damage to it could unsettle the inner workings.

It is what it is, of course.

…

Also, they've already confirmed new dialogue…and hinted at some limited gameplay additions (probably mostly meaning new dialogue options).

Modifié par lillitheris, 30 avril 2012 - 11:50 .

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

...maybe you survive as an improved version of Mouses' Shepard VI...makes as much sense.

BW is not going to do anything like this - cutscenes, no gameplay, and "new cinematics" - how does any of this fit within such a limited EC?

Where's the 'new gameplay' in the OP? It's all cutscenes, maybe a little extra dialogue for clarification, which is no harder than cutscenes, and entirely within the remit of 'clarification'.

someone else wrote...

This is no different than the thousands of reimaginings on these boards - it does not defend the OP's contention that "clarification" is a viable means of

a) resolving major plot threads (consequences of building/foregoing alliances, geth and/or quarian future, krogan/salarian/turian nexus, and fate of comrades, LI)

Pretty sure the OP hasn't actually contended this. The stated purpose of the thread is 'What the Extended cut needs to do', not 'What would be a better alternative to the ending'. Bioware are giving us an Extended Cut, not an Alternative Ending. Frankly, I hate the ending as it is, and have argued many times before that it needs to be completely changed. But that's just not going to happen, sadly. If you want to see outcomes from these decisions, make the suggestions. If not here, then somewhere else. There are plenty of similar threads. Bioware even has an official 'suggestions' one.

someone else wrote...
Validating player choices made throughout the series in determining outcomes - not just in the ending but throughout ME3 - there should be no Rachni if I killed the queen, no genophage cure if Mordin dies and Malleons data is destroyed - Mordin says it would take years to reconstruct, etc, ad nauseum

Again, I agree with you. I have a long list of things in ME3 that I would have done completely differently from Bioware. But Bioware are a few orders less likely to change the entire game than they are the endings, which is already highly unlikely, and I don't see what that has to do with this endings-based thread anyway.

someone else wrote...
c) Address the vast number of fatal plot holes riddling the ending (documented endlessly elsewhere)

It won't. But then, there are plot holes and inconsistencies riddling the entire game, and parts of ME2. Again, I've posted elsewhere about how much all these things annoy me, so you won't see any disagreement from me on that front. Hell, speaking as a physicist, Mass Effect's 'science' would be annoying if I thought too much about it. But, as for how useful this thread is? We have been given some goddamned lemons. Now maybe, just maybe, we can make some delicious lemonade, if we come up with a good recipe for it. Because this is real life, we are not Cave Johnson, and we cannot order our lab boys to make some exploding lemons to throw back in life's face. We either make that lemonade, or we make sour faces and suck it. To extend the metaphor, I'll keep saying 'Chocolate would be better' and arguing to that effect, but I simply don't expect to get any. So, I'll work with the lemons for now.

Edit: Shortened the extended metaphor. It got away from me a bit.

Modifié par Versidious, 01 mai 2012 - 12:01 .

[Versidious]

Also, the reasons for those plot holes are because they've been undecided what to do for an ending until maybe a year ago. So, they've had foreshadowings for abandoned plot lines (Eg, ME2's Haestrom mission for Karpyshyn's proposed Dark Energy ending; they were intending to do an Indoctrination sub-plot, but abandoned it, and so forth), which now are misleading anomalies.

Modifié par Versidious, 01 mai 2012 - 12:05 .

[lillitheris]

I'll have to get to Versidious' points in more detail later, just a couple quick notes:

- I still don't see the need to completely destroy the relays. Like I said, I think the “rejection” is a completely artificial construct (unlike if you had the option to either Destroy, or Destroy + kill the relays). I won't belabor the point, it's not that essential…however, we'll need to figure out how the aftermath plays out. I'm more opposed to something where the relays are destroyed, but then they're replaced by some new tech. Either relay travel remains (after fixing), or it's gone for good.

- For Control, I don't really see a need to make Shepard a cyborg. It's sufficient to make it an actual consciousness transfer. Otherwise there's no sacrifice involved.

- Being that Synthesis really just needs DNA material (for whatever reason), I guess Shepard could just use an arm or whatever, but here again the benefit would seem to outweigh…well, there's not much of a downside to begin with.

To summarize, I think the extra good endings for both C and S should affect others, not Shepard. Fewer people dead in the battle and so on. If we try to balance it by leaving Shepard around essentially unaffected, to me that makes the options less balanced.

Also, I think I've a reasonably simple solution to EDI/geth avoiding destruction…but it might be better to leave that out since we're trying to balance other things out.

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 mai 2012 - 12:15 .

[someone else]

sorry it took me a while to respond - had a bit of work to attend to - I dislike posters who hit and run...and try to avoid that sin myself...

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

[quote]someone else wrote...
how does "ems" translate meaningfully into these reality-altering options? By what mechanism does "effective military strength" alter the available options, or force and consequence of the Crucible pulse.[/quote]

EMS (or TMS, really) represents, in addition to actual military strength, your ability to construct the Crucible. Logistics, materials, availability of scientists and builders, avoiding indoctrinated or other saboteurs… With a lower EMS, some of these have been suboptimal and affect the Crucible's capabilities.

Then, in the actual battle, your EMS additionally affects your ability to keep the Crucible shielded from the Reapers. Even if it isn't completely destroyed, enough damage to it could unsettle the inner workings.[/quote]

Reasonable explanation - I am not at all adverse to conceding well-thought out rebuttal - my only reservation it that the explanation is yours, not BW's - I doubt they had this clearly in mind - it would have made for some interesting dilemmas for Shepard - whether to go early and potentially save a squaddie or two or continue to build EMS, and perhaps lose an NPC along the way...

[quote] Versidious wrote
[quote]someone else wrote...

...maybe you survive as an improved version of Mouses' Shepard VI...makes as much sense.

BW
is not going to do anything like this - cutscenes, no gameplay, and
"new cinematics" - how does any of this fit within such a limited EC?
[/quote]
Where's
the 'new gameplay' in the OP? It's all cutscenes, maybe a little extra dialogue for clarification, which is no harder than cutscenes, and entirely within the remit of 'clarification'.[/quote]

Unless its all cut scenes, I'll be curious to see how BW implements dialog if shepard is dead - Which NPC did I just become?   My point is not that the OP and the other contributors haven't made some thoughtful and interesting suggestions, it is that it all still fails to justify the various sacrifices within the context of the game and the ME universe, and so "clarification" however remains an unlovable (by me) attempt by BW to put lipstick on the proverbial porker.
[quote]someone else wrote...
This is no different than the thousands of reimaginings on these boards - it does not defend the OP's contention that "clarification" is a viable means of
a) resolving major plot threads (consequences of building/foregoing alliances, geth and/or quarian future, Krogan/salarian/turian nexus, and fate of comrades, LI)[/quote]

Pretty sure the OP hasn't actually contended this. The stated purpose of the thread is 'What the Extended cut needs to do', not 'What would be a better alternative to the ending'. Bioware are giving us an Extended
Cut, not an Alternative Ending.[/quote]

Addressing the bolded phrase, again, no matter how ingenious the EC is, the narrative magic of the ME story will have been irretrievably lost.   Like an old (non-PC) joke I once heard, "Confucius say. "He who laugh last, needed joke explained."   Not much of a punch line if it needs EC to get it across.

[quote] someone else wrote...
Validating player choices made throughout the series in determining outcomes - not just in the ending but throughout ME3 - there should be no Rachni if I killed the queen, no genophage cure if Mordin dies and
Malleons data is destroyed - Mordin says it would take years to reconstruct, etc, ad nauseum [/quote]
Again, I agree with you. I have a long list of things in ME3 that I would have done completely differently from Bioware. But Bioware are a few orders less likely to change the entire game than they are the endings, which is
already highly unlikely, and I don't see what that has to do with this endings-based thread anyway.[/quote]

My point was a bit of a digression - just restricting the discussion to the impact of player choice on the outcome, (and adopting lillitheris suggestion above) BW has converted all our decisions into at TMS "grey goo" that merely determines which of three options and two variations we may select.

[quote]someone else wrote...
c) Address the vast number of fatal plot holes riddling the ending (documented endlessly elsewhere) [/quote]
It won't. .... We have been given some goddamned lemons. Now maybe, just maybe, we can make some delicious lemonade, if we come up with a good recipe for it. Because this is real life, we are not Cave Johnson, and we cannot order our lab boys to make some exploding lemons to throw back in life's face...[/quote]

it will take an extraordinary recipe to do what you suggest, besides, unlike the Cake, the ending is a lie.

Modifié par someone else, 01 mai 2012 - 03:55 .

[lillitheris]

someone else wrote...

sorry it took me a while to respond - had a bit of work to attend to - I dislike posters who hit and run...and try to avoid that sin myself...

lillitheris wrote...

someone else wrote...
how does "ems" translate meaningfully into these reality-altering options? By what mechanism does "effective military strength" alter the available options, or force and consequence of the Crucible pulse.

EMS (or TMS, really) represents, in addition to actual military strength, your ability to construct the Crucible. Logistics, materials, availability of scientists and builders, avoiding indoctrinated or other saboteurs… With a lower EMS, some of these have been suboptimal and affect the Crucible's capabilities.

Then, in the actual battle, your EMS additionally affects your ability to keep the Crucible shielded from the Reapers. Even if it isn't completely destroyed, enough damage to it could unsettle the inner workings.

Reasonable explanation - I am not at all adverse to conceding well-thought out rebuttal - my only reservation it that the explanation is yours, not BW's - I doubt they had this clearly in mind - it would have made for some interesting dilemmas for Shepard - whether to go early and potentially save a squaddie or two or continue to build EMS, and perhaps lose an NPC along the way...

Oh, I'm under no illusion that this was their master plan all along.

We are not trying to explain the ending We're trying to make it work by adding the necessary stuff while keeping basically all the BioWare-introduced elements intact.

[someone else]

obviously I have been hard at work re-editing my post - which is now much extended. - my ocd cutting in...

My frustration with all this is that it has somewhat smaller chances of successfully resuscitating the ending than the Lazarus Project.

In order for the ending to "work" it needs to do so within the story arc of the game, but most critically it must be of a piece with the entire mass effect experience. Most of the ideas put forward here and elsewhere are conceptual and logic based, whereas the heart of the ME story is narrative and emotionally based.

No matter how elegant an intellectual construct you or BW may devise, unless "clarification" provides an emotionally rich, conclusive and cathartic experience, it will fail. Otherwise, it will be no more than a clever contrivance, and leave you and most other thoughtful, involved players with a hollow, empty feeling.   The head will never satisfy the needs of the heart.

...finally...if Shepard survives, if MY Shepard survives, you can bet she won't be lying about in a bunch of rubble, occupying a hospital bed or slinking off into the ruins.  I'll bet yours wouldn't either.

If there is anything canon, it is Shepard's will to overcome - and unless "clarification has her hopping the next ride off-world to reconnect with the Normandy and her crew, BW will have betrayed this series, its fans and itself at the most fundamental level.

Modifié par someone else, 01 mai 2012 - 04:35 .

[lillitheris]

someone else wrote...

In order for the ending to "work" it needs to do so within the story arc of the game, but most critically it must be of a piece with the entire mass effect experience. Most of the ideas put forward here and elsewhere are conceptual and logic based, whereas the heart of the ME story is narrative and emotionally based.

And how is that done?

No matter how elegant an intellectual construct you or BW may devise, unless "clarification" provides an emotionally rich, conclusive and cathartic experience, it will fail. Otherwise, it will be no more than a clever contrivance, and leave you and most other thoughtful, involved players with a hollow, empty feeling.   The head will never satisfy the needs of the heart.

Sure. But how?

You have to be able to articulate some concrete suggestions for this.

...finally...if Shepard survives, if MY Shepard survives, you can bet she won't be lying about in a bunch of rubble, occupying a hospital bed or slinking off into the ruins.  I'll bet yours wouldn't either.

Well, if my Shepard gets flung unconscious onto a pile of rubble, that's probably where she's going to be until they take her to the hospital. Which is where she'll be until she gets better.

[Ieldra]

Versidious wrote...
I dunno...   Those are pretty low. My weakest playthrough so far saw a 6500 EMS. My strongest is 7200. It's not hard to obtain those, unless, as I said earlier, you're deliberately a bastard who gets off on betraying your friends.

My numbers are EMS, not TMS (why the hell do people STILL get these mixed up). I have already compromised my stance that any ending should be available without MP. The highest TMS you can in any one playthrough is 7530, which translates into 3765 EMS if you don't play MP. My numbers are not low.

I also don't think that the Relays should be preserved in Destroy in any way. Maybe in Synthesis, but with Destroy, you're rejecting the Reapers entirely. As I said somewhere above, choosing Destroy over Control is symbolic of a complete rejection of the Reapers. You have a chance to dominate and control the most powerful machines in existence for the potential benefit of your civilisation, but instead, you're choosing to reject this and annihilate them. For Destroy to still be Destroy, it has to destroy more than just the Reapers, it has to Destroy pretty much everything that they built, including the Citadel and the Relays.

Actually, I agree. Destroy represents the rejection of Reaper technology in all its forms, thus the relays should be destroyed. My version was a compromise aimed at lilitheris - note that you'd need MP to achieve it, which is something I have reserved for those variants which go somewhat against the themes. 

As for "Shepard survives in some form" for Control and Synthesis, here are my preferred versions:

Control:
Shepard becomes an AI god with the Citadel as the hardware, similar to what the Catalyst was, but the better construction of the Crucible makes it so that he isn't cut off from all human contact. He will send assurances to his friends that everything is all right. That's it. Any more should be left to players' imagination. People might want to imagine that he leaves his humanity behind completely, while others might want to imagine that he gets a new body at some time in the future. None of these imagined futures should be cut off.

Synthesis:
Shepard's mind re-coalesces after being dispersed by the Synthesis. He can now inhabit technology of a minimum complexity and control it, like a ghost in a machine. We see a holoscreen somewhere with Shepard's face materializing in it and hear a few words being spoken. If Shepard has had an LI, (s)he's present and Shepard will speak some words that have meaning for the LI (for instance, to Miranda: "I promised"). That's it. As with Control, any more would cut off players imagination.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 mai 2012 - 08:45 .

[Versidious]

[quote]someone else wrote...
[quote] Versidious wrote
[quote]someone else wrote...

...maybe you survive as an improved version of Mouses' Shepard VI...makes as much sense.

BW
is not going to do anything like this - cutscenes, no gameplay, and
"new cinematics" - how does any of this fit within such a limited EC?
[/quote]
Where's
the 'new gameplay' in the OP? It's all cutscenes, maybe a little extra dialogue for clarification, which is no harder than cutscenes, and entirely within the remit of 'clarification'.[/quote]

Unless its all cut scenes, I'll be curious to see how BW implements dialog if shepard is dead - Which NPC did I just become?   My point is not that the OP and the other contributors haven't made some thoughtful and interesting suggestions, it is that it all still fails to justify the various sacrifices within the context of the game and the ME universe, and so "clarification" however remains an unlovable (by me) attempt by BW to put lipstick on the proverbial porker.
[quote]someone else wrote...
This is no different than the thousands of reimaginings on these boards - it does not defend the OP's contention that "clarification" is a viable means of
a) resolving major plot threads (consequences of building/foregoing alliances, geth and/or quarian future, Krogan/salarian/turian nexus, and fate of comrades, LI)[/quote]

Pretty sure the OP hasn't actually contended this. The stated purpose of the thread is 'What the Extended cut needs to do', not 'What would be a better alternative to the ending'. Bioware are giving us an Extended
Cut, not an Alternative Ending.[/quote]

Addressing the bolded phrase, again, no matter how ingenious the EC is, the narrative magic of the ME story will have been irretrievably lost.   Like an old (non-PC) joke I once heard, "Confucius say. "He who laugh last, needed joke explained."   Not much of a punch line if it needs EC to get it across.
[/quote]
Again, no argument from me, there. But it's not just the endings, it's all of ME3. Bioware said they would not deny people significant content if they'd made certain decisions in previous games, which I personally think was a mistake. I would've had the game start with a trial/inquest, giving players a chance to state the major decisions they would have made in previous games if they aren't importing one. Then an ME3 owner doesn't need to play earlier games to gain access to all their content, they can just start a new game and explain different things at their trial. If making the Crucible, I would have had a large exploration-based first act, rather than simply giving the player the blueprints straight off the bat. Make you work for it. I would probably also have made it a Reaper trap, then given you a means to subvert that trap. I'd have given you a chance to stop Kai Leng getting the data from Thessia, and completely altered the game's ending sequence (Replacing the Retake Earth mission with a Defend the Citadel mission). I'd have left the Reapers' purpose a mystery, and even thrown in a mission and some Hackett talk showing that they had a purpose, but we couldn't understand what the motives behind it are (And deliberately throw in clues for two seperate motives, just to get people speculating). But I would've at least made the Collectors seem highly significant, and not had the Catalyst inhabiting the Citadel and being the boss of the Reapers. Maybe something enslaved by them, to perform a specific function. I then would've had a complicated section of the game which does not involve an ABC choice of endings, but instead, perhaps, a decision which final level to launch into - Boarding Harbinger, more Citadel, or Earth.

So, yeah...  Lots of things I would've done differently. But reworking all of that isn't going to happen any time soon, no matter how much we campaign. Maybe, one day, they'll remake the series, and Mass Effect 3 will be completely different.
[quote]someone else wrote...
[quote] someone else wrote...
Validating player choices made throughout the series in determining outcomes - not just in the ending but throughout ME3 - there should be no Rachni if I killed the queen, no genophage cure if Mordin dies and
Maelons data is destroyed - Mordin says it would take years to reconstruct, etc, ad nauseum [/quote]
Again, I agree with you. I have a long list of things in ME3 that I would have done completely differently from Bioware. But Bioware are a few orders less likely to change the entire game than they are the endings, which is
already highly unlikely, and I don't see what that has to do with this endings-based thread anyway.[/quote]

My point was a bit of a digression - just restricting the discussion to the impact of player choice on the outcome, (and adopting lillitheris suggestion above) BW has converted all our decisions into at TMS "grey goo" that merely determines which of three options and two variations we may select.
[/quote]
I agree. The whole 'EMS decides the ending' is annoying as hell. I was hoping for the final mission to be more of a scaled-up Suicide Mission, with you allocating military resources to respond to Reaper actions, or even simply hearing 'We have a problem! Oh, wait, because you [got this thing]/[made this decision], that problem is being addressed!'. It seems like they might actually do something like the latter with the extended cut, as it's a fairly common complaint/request on here, and would be cutscenes/cinematics, or simply audio files played at certain points.
[quote]someone else wrote...
c) Address the vast number of fatal plot holes riddling the ending (documented endlessly elsewhere) [/quote]
It won't. .... We have been given some goddamned lemons. Now maybe, just maybe, we can make some delicious lemonade, if we come up with a good recipe for it. Because this is real life, we are not Cave Johnson, and we cannot order our lab boys to make some exploding lemons to throw back in life's face...[/quote]

it will take an extraordinary recipe to do what you suggest, besides, unlike the Cake, the ending is a lie.
[/quote]
The cake *was* a lie. Although that cake existed, it was never going to be given to us... Anyway, the ending is only a lie if IDT is true, and they've basically said that they won't do that. No, it's merely bad fiction and hackneyed pseudo-philosophy 'Oooo, the machines will kill us because they're better than us and we made them! It's what they do! Think about it!'.

It *will* take an extraordinary recipe, and, in my opinion, Bioware should be looking at mid-game DLC to give new 'context' as well. For example:

• A trip to Klencory (The Crypts of the beings of light who fought machine devils), maybe have them talking to you, indicate that the Catalyst is rogue/insane, its calculations went wrong, and it betrayed its fellows and built/corrupted the Reapers. It should be as circumspect as possible, preferably not refer to the Reapers outright, maybe seem like they're discussing one of theirs being indoctrinated, and 'corrupting the Arks/Guardians', when actually, it went mad and made the Reapers to stop the singularity.  This addresses the Catalyst's flawed logic by making it insane, and gives significantly more foreshadowing, so that it's not a random creature out of the blue.
• Something to do with Haestrom/Dark Matter. At the very least, it could be revealed as the fruition of an ancient anti-Reaper superweapon, which failed but could be used for the Crucible. Perhaps it is something to do with the first race to attempt to construct the Crucible, and give us some information as to its origins and original intended purpose. Possibly see it being made by the race that led to The Keepers.
• Something Harbinger-based, that gives us information on its plans to use the Collectors, and its particular interest in Shepard/humanity. Maybe it's dying, and looking for a replacement, and felt that an indoctrinated Shepard mentality governing a human Reaper was the way forwards, or simply that, since he killed a Reaper earlier, his mind in a Reaper body would've been extremely useful during their invasion.
• At some point, in some DLC, obvious NPC issues should be fixed. I'd definitely like to see Tali's face in game, and maybe have the LIs be a little less business between actual romance cutscenes. And also have friends want to talk to Shepards that romanced Thane about the fact their boyfriend's just died. I mean, really, Bioware? If you're going to do romances, do them right. If you want to stop bothering with them, then stop doing them! Plus, romance or not, we really ought to be able to ask Kaidan/Ashley what they've been doing in the last three years since we had an actual, proper conversation with them (Especially why Ashley's wearing a weird 'uniform' that noone else in the Alliance wears). With Wrex, Tali, Liara, and Garrus, you get to do that, but not with the Virmire Survivor. It seems odd. Also, Ashley should be de-Miranda-able. She was a dedicated, serious soldier, and now she's let her hair down in front of her face, instead of in a practical bun? Balls to that.
• Maybe see some female Turians. I mean, seriously. Would it be so hard to shrink the Turian character model and do a little face surgery?There's no reason to include, say, breasts, they're aliens. They could feed their young the way birds do, and have a forward-oriented vagina so that Bioware doesn't need to give them different hips. We know their females are in their military. They could at least have given some male Turians high voices and just said 'Oh, you think that they all look alike? You humans are all racist!'. They could even have made a good joke out of it. "This is one of your females, Garrus?" "Yes, Shepard. Come on, you've seen them before, half the Turians in C-Sec are female." "Really? I suppose that makes sense, I've just never noticed them. They don't look that much different." *Garrus facepalms*"Well, most species don't have those silly lumps on their chest. Just you, the Quarians, and the Asari. And yet you humans *keep* expecting to see lip-paint and ****** on other species' females. You probably think that all the Elcor you've seen are males, too, don't you?", or have a nearby/attending Turian soldier exclaim "I knew it, even the famous Spectre, Commander Shepard! You humans are all racist!", preferably using the exact same VA as in ME2.
• And of course the mere fact that the Citadel is the boss of the Reapers makes the whole of ME1 seem odd, and makes you wonder why the Keepers were the ones responsible for activating its function, why it needed a signal from outer space, and why The Catalyst was unable to do something about it, when the Citadel itself is responsible for making the Keepers in big gene vats. But that seems unfixable to me. I suppose that extending the Citadel sequence to reveal some more mysteries about it, or including earlier game DLC exploration of the bowels of the Citadel could work. Perhaps where you see ancient recordings of the Prothean scientists actually manipulating the systems of the Citadel, and see the Citadel fighting back, but they disconnect the parts of it that are attacking them, so that it can no longer affect them, thus isolating the Catalyst from controlling the Citadel. Perhaps even from controlling the Reapers itself - which would also work towards explaining why it couldn't/wouldn't just stop the Reapers itself if Shepard's proved that the organic/synthetic conflict can be resolved peacefully. Or not. Maybe just leave it as misguided and insane.