356 réponses à ce sujet

[Versidious]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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 didn't get them mixed up. I just play multiplayer (Even though I normally only play single-player games, it's really fun, so I keep forgetting that there are people who don't)...  Instead of removing this feature entirely, I'd rather replace/add in a mechanism for raising Galactic Readiness in single player. Notably, playing the N7 missions would each add 10% to it. If I recall correctly, there are five of them, and there is a deficit of 50%! Effectively, these are just missions you undertake to help in the general galactic conflict, so it follows that it could have a similar effect to multiplayer battles. It's also worth noting that if you prevent the Illusive Man from killing Anderson, then the threshold for attaining the surviving result for Destroy drops to 4000 instead of 5000. There's no reason why you couldn't involve similar modifiers for other high EMS-threshold endings.
It would also follow that future paid DLC releases will add to TMS, thus increasing the ease with which one can obtain higher EMS. We are already asking for additional endings in DLC, so advertising paid DLC in the future as 'unlocking extra endings for single-player-only gamers' (Ie making certain decisions in said DLC could lower the threshold for Shepard surviving in Control or Synthesis, etc.) could work for Bioware and for us. Given the addition of two new Multiplayer maps in Resurgence, it would not be too
unreasonable to expect to see some more N7 missions in future DLC,
either.

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Hmmm....  I think that Shepard talking in such situations would be difficult to do well. Like, what would this look like? Shepard on a screen, or as a hologram, telling everyone that he's a robo-god now, and that he loves his/her LI, and for everyone to do him proud? And, you know, email him, because he's always there. I dunno, I can't really see that working, though of course that's subjective. I feel that if Shepard survives 'In some form', he should still be 'dead' to his friends, with as much about what he is now left in the dark as possible - for control, it's a medium outcome, not the top one, and for Synthesis, I dunno, I think a mystery just works better. It may just be because when I think of him as 'A ghost in the machine', I just imagine this face turning up in glowing orange on a screen: http://t3.gstatic.co...NZR2Ba_0_DJG7Ug
Of course, also, my liking the notion of Shepard as a controlling Reaper AI is influenced by this picture somewhat: 
But, also by the ambiguity of blue glowing eyes. It shows that Shepard is in charge, but not neccesarily what form he is actually in, allowing fans to interpret how they wish. With something like this, you have to find the balance between explicit and implicit. If you can make something that 80% pleases two groups of fans, instead of just 100% for one and 50% for the other, then you should.

I feel that, so long as you can get actual full survival in Control, it's not neccesary to have the 'in some form' talking and reuniting with/saying goodbye to his compatriots, (so long as we find out what actually happens to them), as we can already get that with a higher EMS. If the reunion means a lot to you, then replay with different deciisions, bump up your EMS as much as possible.
And the Synthesis 'Ghost in the Machine'? Having Shepard becoming a computer program seems at odds with the nature and intent of Synthesis, which is to reduce the divide between synthetic and organic. You'd probably be able to create a body for him to permanently inhabit under the new paradigms of life, and this is no longer 'in some form', and instead is 'As, like, Shepard, but basically unkillable because he/she can just move to a new body, and still totally bang his/her LI', which is admittedly actually rather cool, and I would totally sign up for something like that IRL, but it's not the kind of thing I'd like to see implemented in Mass Effect. I think at that stage you start to remove too much of the sacrifice of these endings, and make them too ideal, which I think we both agree is something we should be concerned with avoiding. It would appear that we disagree on this, obviously, but I think that 'Surviving in some form' shouldn't be a 'Reunion! Yay!' ending, but a 'Shepard lives! But without his/her crew. Who are OK! But miss him/her. :(/^_^' ending.

I am genuinely in agreement with Bioware that there shouldn't be a schmaltzy 100% happy ending, and I think that having Shepard as an AI capable of communicating, in the in-tact Citadel, basically as the Catalyst (but not an irritating extremely wrong dick), becomes too positive an outcome. This is another reason why I maintain that Destroy should not permit the Relays to survive. Not even the highest of the high endings should have no downside. (Unless maybe someone gets a 20000 EMS, or something crazy like that, and has their ships take on the Reapers conventionally and win)

Modifié par Versidious, 01 mai 2012 - 11:05 .

[Versidious]

So, it would appear that I am the current illustrious champion of Walls-Of-Text on this thread... I hope they're at least worth reading, though?

[Ieldra]

Regarding MP:
I like the MP in ME3, but I don't like to depend on it for the SP. I don't like to depend on other people to get my endings right right. I like the suggestion of N7 missions raising readiness, but the problem remains that readiness deteriorates over time.

Regarding Shepard's continuing to exist:
I'd be fine with keeping it more vague and mysterious. But I would not want to canonically destroy any headcanon for possibly re-contacting old friends. And the main problem remains: how would you show that on-screen?

[chester013]

When I first heard about 'clarification' I weren't fer it I were agin it, but this makes the ending not just palatable but plausible in the broader ME universe and dare I say, I might even enjoy it

[someone else]

@ versidious & lillitheris

I do think some of the ideas for mid-game dlc are good, but BW needs to make this game compellingly replayable - I've done two complete playthroughs but don't feel the compulsion for more that I had with the prior two games - unless the ending is fixed - "enthusiasm" for mid-game dlc will be tepid - for example, suppose BW had provided us a cut scene of Liara's murder at the hands of the collectors just prior to the SM - would you have felt the same about LotSB?

My "suggestions" for handling the ending are based on the in-game "fact" that - at least post anderson - no one in the universe knows what happened on the Citadel - even if shepard lives, she may not trust her memory - she had been seriously wounded, subjected to indoctrination by TIM, had passed out...and was nearly done in by the final explosion

All anyone else knows is that Hammer was apparently wiped out, but a short time later, the Citadel's arms open, the Crucible docks, and after a frantic call by Hackett - we don't know if he heard shepards mumbled response - the Crucible fires, producing result R-, R, R+, B or G.

So for me, the ending sequences must be pure conjecture, and indeed, BW puts them in the mouth of Stargazer as "long ago in a galaxy far away..."(if you like, there is a link in my sig to a post on this.)

All BW need do to convert the triology into a StarWars franchise money tree, is write a dlc that either acknowledges "we will never know what really happened",   and in fact leave it up to each player to imagine or head canon what actually took place, just like everyone else in the galaxy - or takes us through a more plausible scenario, and leaves us in a post-reaper, post shepard world, full of dlc and future games to rebuild something out of the shambles of the old galactic order.

Couple of points - only one color choice can be canon for any post-reaper continuation of the series - we cannot expect BW to write continuations for all five options for obvious reasons. My vote would be for R+. 

In fact, a player choosing anything else can have no expectation for anything but cut scenes - if shepard is not alive, you cant have the dialogue wheel, unless you magically become some other NPC.  This a good thing, since both  Control and Synthesis are completely indefensible even as pseudo-science (ie pure space magic) - as you've pointed out.

To my mind, what the crucible could believably do is disable, convert (synthesis), or subjugate (control) the reapers in the immediate vicinity (most, not all have massed around earth) opening the way for a final denouement [synthesis announcement:  "please dispose of your used batteries in an environmentally responsible manner",  Control announcement:  "Big Brother is Watching") or Hackett-led space battle cut scene, and some more for a retake-the-earth battle (though I would dearly love to see dlc on that) - but anyway this opens the door to a range of post-reaper dlc

Modifié par someone else, 01 mai 2012 - 02:44 .

[Versidious]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Regarding MP:
I like the MP in ME3, but I don't like to depend on it for the SP. I don't like to depend on other people to get my endings right right. I like the suggestion of N7 missions raising readiness, but the problem remains that readiness deteriorates over time.

True, it does deteriorate, I think by about 15% over a week (Assuming a quiet social life, the time it would take to complete ME3 on Casual/Normal). But 80% and a 7000 EMS would give you all but the most actually badass of new endings. Plus, as I mentioned, doing a TIM-suicide-and-Destroy, and having certain decisions lower the threshold for survival ratings, could help. And, if additional N7 missions are addded later, since there are now extra maps, it would give you a total of 70% to drop down from. There is already a mission that pops up in act three, so sticking in a couple of extra N7 missions would basically completely solve this problem. The multiplayer would still be potentially useful (Bearing in mind you can 'promote' classes to permanently add to your TMS in every game, which is why I look at those bastards with N7 ratings in the thousands and wonder if they even have to bother trying with new playthroughs!)

Ieldra2 wrote...
Regarding Shepard's continuing to exist:
I'd be fine with keeping it more vague and mysterious. But I would not want to canonically destroy any headcanon for possibly re-contacting old friends. And the main problem remains: how would you show that on-screen?

Well, Harbinger can create avatars and control them directly from Dark Space, and project his image, so I would assume that a Shepard Reaper/possession of Harbinger could still communicate with people from darkspace. Likewise, it could maybe be presumed that a blue-glowing eyed Harbinger is in fact Under Direct Control from a Shepard AI in the citadel. So, not only does a Reaper Shepard allow for contact with crewmembers, but also, with the right portrayal, could also allow for a dwelling-in-the-heart-of-the-citadel Shepard. Perhaps there could even be a parting message from the Reapers, done with a sufficiently processed Mark Meer/Jennifer Hale VO, so as to not really sound much like them. Along the lines of "Organics. You have been given an indefinite reprieve. Do not waste your brief existences. Do not destroy yourselves in folly. We will be watching, in case we must return. But for now, we should go." (It's like his catchphrase!) Whilst seeing a series of clips of the Reapers leaving the galaxy's planets, and finally a scene of the Reaper fleet rendezvousing and leaving, surrounding Blue Harbinger/Harbinger and Reapershep (The Shepherd?). It would be a pretty epic cinematic.

Although, frankly, I prefer the notion of Shepard's intellect inhabiting a fully-built human Reaper, having a blue-eyed Harbinger is more ambiguous, and hence potentially more effective for satisfying the majority of fans by leaving options for 'headcanon' open.

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

@ versidious & lillitheris

I do think some of the ideas for mid-game dlc are good, but BW needs to make this game compellingly replayable - I've done two complete playthroughs but don't feel the compulsion for more that I had with the prior two games - unless the ending is fixed - "enthusiasm" for mid-game dlc will be tepid - for example, suppose BW had provided us a cut scene of Liara's murder at the hands of the collectors just prior to the SM - would you have felt the same about LotSB?

Well, if they'd had Liara murdered by Collectors, I qould have smashed my computer screen in rage, then cried, and sworn vengeance against Bioware for killing one of my favourite female characters of theirs (Along with the polar opposite of Liara, that is Morrigan. OK, and also all of their BG2 female characters, who were awesome. But I digress). Though, I always played LotSB and Arrival as epilogue DLC, so I mostly would've been very confused!

I see your point, however, and completely agree (Again, something I've tried to explain to pro-enders elsewhere). This is why I think that one of their priorities for mid-game DLC should be ones which address actual plot issues, because, as I've said, they *are* addressable. We're being given the EC DLC, and should be trying to get Bioware to make the endings A: Less samey; B: Ensure that a few endings are not extremely bleak, giving a greater emotional spectrum to the available endings. C: Vary somewhat according to decisions made in the previous games, and explain why. Honestly, until yesterday, I'd not put serious thought into how those plot holes could be adequately addressed, but I'm starting to think they can be, if Bioware acknowledges them, and can even claim that they were deliberate mysteries left to be addressed by DLC. I certainly don't think that relying on player-speculation is right, and Bioware absolutely should fix these plot issues in game, as THEY are the storytellers, and to tell us that they're going to deny us choices over how our character behaves at THE key point of the game, then expect us to fill in all the blanks with our own interpretations is both lazy game design, mean, and generally silly.

someone else wrote...
My "suggestions" for handling the ending are based on the in-game "fact" that - at least post anderson - no one in the universe knows what happened on the Citadel - even if shepard lives, she may not trust her memory - she had been seriously wounded, subjected to indoctrination by TIM, and had passed out...

All anyone else knows is that Hammer was apparently wiped out, but a short time later, the Citadel's arms open, the Crucible docks, and after a frantic call by Hackett - we don't know if he heard shepards mumbled response - the Crucible fires, producing result R-, R, R+, B or G.

So for me, the ending sequences must be pure conjecture, and indeed, BW puts them in the mouth of Stargazer as "long ago in a galaxy far away..."(if you like, there is a link in my sig to a post on this.)

All BW need do to convert the triology into a StarWars franchise money tree, is write a dlc that either acknowledges "we will never know what really happened" or takes us through a more plausible scenario, and leaves us in a post-reaper, post shepard world, full of dlc and future games to rebuild something out of the shambles of the old galactic order.

Couple of points - only one color choice can be canon for any post-reaper continuation of the series - we cannot expect BW to write continuations for all five options for obvious reasons. My vote would be for R+. 

Ah, I've actually thought about this...  It is possible to bring things together, with some minor differences. In all cases, for example, the Mass Relays can be repaired or rebuilt. The time this takes would vary, however. Quickest in Control, then Synthesis, then slowest in Destroy. The Krogan's genophage could be cured regardless, changing only their goodwill towards the rest of the galaxy, but keeping them demilitarised (again, regardless. For example, a friendly Wrex/Eve Krogan Empire might have a seat on the council, and be bound by the Treaty of Firaxen, whereas a hostile/Wreav Empire might simply be held in check by the rest of the galaxy looking at them sternly whilst pointing a lot of dreadnoughts at them). The Citadel might be abandoned as 'haunted' or 'disturbingly changed' in Control, whilst existing as a wreck in Destroy/Synthesis (Maybe slowly being repaired by Keepers). The Quarians could have rebuilt the Geth if the Geth were destroyed, being careful this time, and a few Quarians could have survived and returned to Rannoch, piecing their civilisation back together slowly. Shepard's
descendant/offspring could be present, always either a human female (Adopted by Tali/Garrus in memory of him/her, if need be), or an Asari if you romanced Liara, so only one voice actress is needed. Everything
else is in various states of recovery, depending on what happened, maybe some characters still survive, or they died.
Synthesis variations would be largely cosmetic, maybe a few dialogue changes, or changes to things like
advertisements, or how cybernetics/omni tools are represented (For example, a tech character in Synthesis would have a green omni tool, or not have an omni tool at all and just use their natural hands).

I don't doubt that there are other considerations to take into account, but I think this works as a proof of concept? Failing that, yes, I think R+ is probably the easiest/most sensible to implement.

someone else wrote...
In fact, a player choosing anything else can have no expectation for anything but cut scenes - if shepard is not alive, you cant have the dialogue wheel, unless you magically become some other NPC.

To my mind, what the crucible could believably do is disable, convert, or subjugate the reapers in the immediate vicinity (most, not all have massed around earth) opening the way for a final denouement or Hackett-led space battle cut scene, and some more for a retake-the-earth battle (though I would dearly love to see dlc on that) - but anyway this opens the door to a range of post-reaper dlc

I would have loved to have seen a longer Retake Earth section. In fact, I thought it was entirely too short and unimaginative (And its soundtrack did not compare in epicness to ME2's SM score. I'd have liked to hear an ME3-style redux of the ME1 opening track). The game should've been twice as long, with the three acts as: Act 1 - Research and discover the Crucible; Act 2 - Unite the galaxy as the Reaper invasion launches into full gear and the council begins to fragment and guard themselves; Act 3 - Launch a military campaign against the Reapers, ideally involving the entire Solar system, ala Rannoch and Tuchanka, and at least one Reaper boarding action. Sadly, I think we're unlikely to see an Act 3 extension, as it would have to not only add things in to the ending, but completely restructure it. It's simply too large an undertaking.     But maybe I'm wrong, and we might even see it done in an 'Ultimate Edition' a few years from now?

If Shepard isn't alive, you of course can't have dialogue. But you can have - and I'm assuming that this is one of the things Bioware intends to do - NPCs talking with each other about what they'll be doing now, about the future of the galaxy etc, which vary depending on the major palyer choices made during the series. A discussion of what to do about the Rachni, the Krogan, etc, with a tone of uncertainty, but cautious hope. A subdued soundtrack would work well for these, akin to the Illusive Man/Dream soundtracks, which have a strong ambient nature, with subtle undertones of mourning and ending ; , though in this case, obviously, there would be a greater emphasis on hope (Which is also present in these tracks).

The Dream track, incidentally, would, I think, work excellently for Shepard's funeral/memorial. It is, after all, usually played during a sequence which reflects on everyone that Shepard couldn't save. At the end, he couldn't save himself, but he COULD save all the people who would be present at the memorial, or be watching it from far away via Quantum communicators, and so on. I think it would be wonderfully poignant.

Modifié par Versidious, 01 mai 2012 - 03:17 .

[Kalundume]

Whatever can be done to save the current endings ... still it has one basic obstacle: in ME3 no one wins, even with justified sacrifice notion, Shepard basically looses his/her humanity (and by occasion those of others) by choosing between 3 choices imposed by the enemy. No choices are drawn out by Shepard himself (destruction should be logical Shepard's proposal... as I fail to understand why the Catalyst proposes to destroy the reapers - this makes no sense).

The endings as they are lack of two magic words: FREE WILL of Shepard (and player)

[Versidious]

Kalundume wrote...

Whatever can be done to save the current endings ... still it has one basic obstacle: in ME3 no one wins, even with justified sacrifice notion, Shepard basically looses his/her humanity (and by occasion those of others) by choosing between 3 choices imposed by the enemy. No choices are drawn out by Shepard himself (destruction should be logical Shepard's proposal... as I fail to understand why the Catalyst proposes to destroy the reapers - this makes no sense).

The endings as they are lack of two magic words: FREE WILL of Shepard (and player)

And there it is. The final, most difficult to overcome plot hole. I've can't think of how to deal with it decently. Only things I can think of is that the Crucible changes the Catalyst's personality somehow when it docks. But that seems kind of trite, and difficult to implement. Or maybe have the Catalyst's personality change during this cycle, because of something the Protheans did? Again, still seems a bit contrived and weak, and would require the entire tone of the conversation to change, as the Catalyst is essentially an insane Zealot, with absolute conviction in the rightness of what it has done. You'd have to remove its 'control' of the Reapers from its concept, though, because then otherwise why wouldn't it just tell the Reapers to stop by itself? Maybe if you made it seem like Shepard got to that room by his own volition, and had the Catalyst try to talk him out of activating the Crucible...

[someone else]

^
and this is why I fundamentally differ from the premise of the OP - I do not believe the ending can be salvaged by EC alone in any significant way. What needs to be done is restore the moral, psychological and emotional underpinnings of the Shepard character - and this cannot be done if the spacebrat sequence must stand as canon.

I've stated my preference for framing the ending as legend - much more workable (imho) than either IT or making it some version of Shepard's subjective experience.

The EC could easily confirm this - would basically consign SpaceBrat to the realm of myth (where he so rightly belongs) and avoid having to address her being neutered as an active force and brutally violated as a character - as it stands, her final words are "I don't know" ??!!!???WTF NOT MY SHEPARD...

Modifié par someone else, 01 mai 2012 - 05:31 .

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

^
and this is why I fundamentally differ from the premise of the OP - I do not believe the ending can be salvaged by EC alone in any significant way. What needs to be done is restore the moral, psychological and emotional underpinnings of the Shepard character - and this cannot be done if the spacebrat sequence must stand as canon.

I've stated my preference for framing the ending as legend - much more workable (imho) than either IT or making it some version of Shepard's subjective experience.

The EC could easily confirm this - would basically consign SpaceBrat to the realm of myth (where he so rightly belongs) and avoid having to address her being neutered as an active force and brutally violated as a character - as it stands, her final words are "I don't know" ??!!!???WTF NOT MY SHEPARD

God yes 'I don't know.' What? I DO KNOW! I KNOW THAT WHAT YOU'VE JUST TOLD ME REEKS OF EXCREMENT! I'VE JUST STOPPED ORGANICS AND SYNTHETICS FROM KILLING EACH OTHER, AND REVEALED THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CONFLICT YOU THINK IS INEVITABLE BEING ACTUALLY AVOIDABLE! For crying out loud Bioware, why didn't you give us a choice of how to react to the things that happened to us? It's a pretty fundamental aspect of Mass Effect.

Space Brat needs a complete reworking, or erasure. But, if they erase Space Brat, then they'd have to replace it with something. I don't like the notion of it being 'consigned to legend', though. That means that we were controlling Shepard even less during that final sequence, and have no idea why we did what we did, or what 'really' happened. It's why I hated the Stargazer bit. Oh, so, what I've just done might not have really happened? Well, **** that. Oh, buy DLC?


Grrr, thinking about it too much is just making me angry all over again.

Modifié par Versidious, 01 mai 2012 - 05:49 .

[someone else]

Versidious wrote...

Space Brat needs a complete reworking, or erasure. But, if they erase Space Brat, then they'd have to replace it with something. I don't like the notion of it being 'consigned to legend', though. That means that we were controlling Shepard even less during that final sequence, and have no idea why we did what we did, or what 'really' happened. It's why I hated the Stargazer bit. Oh, so, what I've just done might not have really happened in game? Well, **** that. Oh, buy DLC? 

I agree that the stargazer is an odd piece of weirdness, and that the legend idea begs that we get 'the real story' - but this is possible - and it is undeniable that the Stargazer sequence wasn't just put in because the devs had some extra time and code lying around - Buzz Aldrin just happened to be in the neighborhood?

if you'll indulge a bit of copy&pasting....

"Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it."

Child:  “Did that all really happen?”
Stargazer: “Yes, but some of the details have been lost in time.  It happened so very long ago.”

A very concise EC could “clarify” that this is so, and set the stage for an ending for Shepard's story that makes better use of game choices and lore (I've suggested some ideas for dealing with the reapers above), as well for a post-apocalyptic galaxy shaped by those choices.

Stargazer “Okay, one more story.”

But only if Shepard lives – obviously.  If not, all that is left is the fact of control or synthesis - but how they occurred,  only legend.

The "legend" idea frames the ending and only the ending, not the entire game, not the series.  It is the only part that has to be imagined, because there are no surviving witnesses - no one left to describe what  actually happened.

IT and similar theories make selective use of the game content, rely on interpreted lore, assumptions of intent and heavy metagaming. Largely, they fall of their own weight.  This is a very simple explanation.

-  It requires no assumptions about what content really means, or the developers’ intentions.
-  It does not change the current ending.
-  It is based solely on in-game information, and is not selective.
-  It is limited in application and does not demand reimagining large sections of the game.
-  It is fully aligned with lore
-  It provides a plausible route for satisfactorily ending the story and introducing a post-reaper world.

It is also consistent with everything BW has said:

- “It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many
   endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C”
-  We haven't heard the last from Commander Shepard
-  dlc will clarify but not change the current ending
-  There will be no different or alternate ending to the current game
-  Shepard’s  story will end with ME3

-  BW can retain its claim to "artistique integrite" and have plausible deniability that it caved to fan pressure.

...and would the fanbase accept such a resolution, coupled with the promise of a fully playable dlc encompassing the battle for Earth, resolution of major unresolved issues and plotholes, and either a heroic passing or a ride off into the sunset with my honey?  (Yay!)

Perchance at the end, Shep gets to pass the mantle for mopping up the rest of the reaper crew, rebuilding the ME galaxy, and future adventures to a first round pick fom next years NCAA draft...(aka your new main ME character) - would you wait 6mos?  A year?   me would, monies clutched in grubby, cheeto-stained fingers, begging BW to take...

Modifié par someone else, 01 mai 2012 - 07:38 .

[lillitheris]

^ That's one of the things that I'm not terribly concerned about, in the sense that “it is what it is”

As in, I can rationalize to myself that for whatever unknown dumb reason, I'm dealing with this psychopathic VI and I've got exactly 3 options (or 5 if we count decline and decline + do one of the options anyway). It doesn't matter whether it makes sense, only that it is.

Yes, completely reworking that would be ideal, but if everything around it can be made sensible, then I can work with it.

…

Y'all been busy, which is awesome. I'll try to answer in detail later, I'm trying to finish a little beginning to a story about the endings using this template…:happy:

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 mai 2012 - 05:40 .

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

Versidious wrote...

Space Brat needs a complete reworking, or erasure. But, if they erase Space Brat, then they'd have to replace it with something. I don't like the notion of it being 'consigned to legend', though. That means that we were controlling Shepard even less during that final sequence, and have no idea why we did what we did, or what 'really' happened. It's why I hated the Stargazer bit. Oh, so, what I've just done might not have really happened in game? Well, **** that. Oh, buy DLC? 

I agree that the stargazer is an odd piece of weirdness, and that the legend idea begs that we get 'the real story' - but this is possible - if you'll indulge a bit of copy&pasting....

Child:  “Did that all really happen?”
Stargazer: “Yes, but some of the details have been lost in time.  It happened so very long ago.”

A moderate size dlc can “clarify” that this is so, provide an ending for Shepard's story that makes better use of game choices and lore, and set the stage for content in a post-apocalyptic galaxy shaped by those choices.  There is some evidence to suspect BW had something like this in mind.

Stargazer “Okay, one more story.”

But only if Shepard lives – obviously.  If not, all that is left is the legend of control or synthesis.  There were no surviving witnesses, after all.

The story telling explains and frames the ending and only the ending, not the entire game, not the series.  It is the only part that has to be imagined, because there are no surviving witnesses - no one left to describe what  actually happened.

IT and similar explanations are too speculative, complicated and problematic. They make selective use of the game content, rely on interpreted lore, assumptions of intent and heavy metagaming. Largely, they fall of their own weight. Simpler explanations are more likely to be true.  This explanation meets that test.

This is a simple explanation.

-  It requires no assumptions about what content really means, or the developers’ intentions.
-  It does not change the current ending.
-  It is based solely on in-game information, and is not selective.
-  It does not reduce or frame the entire story, just the end where the acutal facts cannot be known 
-  It is fully aligned with lore
-  It provides a plausible route for satisfactorily ending the story and introducing a post-reaper world.

It is also consistent with everything BW has said:

- “It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many
   endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C”
-  We haven't heard the last from Commander Shepard
-  dlc will clarify but not change the current ending
-  There will be no different or alternate ending to the current game
-  Shepard’s  story will end with ME3

-  BW can retain its claim to "artistique integrite" and have plausible deniability that it caved to fan pressure.

Hmmm. Well, Bioware have said that there will be no post-ending DLC. This is why the game takes you back to before the Cerberus Base, after the ending. That one more story? It's just something else that happened before Shepard's final confrontation. Ie, mid-game DLC, such as Retake Omega. It's like if you play Dragon Age: Origins, when you get transported back to your camp at the point before you call the Landsmeet, once you've completed the game, in case you have any mid-game DLC you want to play.

The biggest problem with this suggestion, however, is that it doesn't really make sense. So, someone told a story to a child which they knew to be untrue, if they had a true one that they were also prepared to tell him? To what purpose? If it is because these are just two seperate myths for the ending, and he believes in telling the child all theories, why would we, the true recipients of the tale, then assume the second to be any more accurate?

Honestly, the Stargazer scene reeks of faux-profound pretentiousness (Ooooh, Shepard's a legend, but people wouldn't know the whole truth! Oh, and hey, did you know that space is amazingly vast?), and an excuse to have Buzz Aldrin give a 'We should go to space' sermon in a Bioware game. Not that I'm against telling people that we should go to space, and I think it's pretty cool that he's happy to do that, but I don't think that the scene really works as the end to a trilogy, and the 'This may not be how things really were.' doesn't really work.

It makes me think of the Buffy episode which essentially ends with the reveal that Buffy *is* actually an insane girl in a catatonic state in a care home. I never could take that show seriously after that. Maybe I'm odd, but I find it very hard to pour my suspension of disbelief into something which admits to the reader/player/viewer in-story that it isn't real/accurate, especially when I'm putting effort into realising the story. "OK, so, I'm actually partaking in something that's nothing more than a fantasy? WAIT! I AM partaking in something that's nothing more than fantasy! What the hell am I doing with my life? Time to go and get a girlfriend and focus on my career!" Many a good tale has been ruined by such things. When done right, it can work well (Eg, I liked the Varric story-telling in Dragon Age 2), but Mass Effect is not that sort of story.

As for Indoctrination Theory...  What I heard was that Bioware planned to include a Shepard-Indoctrination sub-plot, but cut it out. Indoctrination Theory isn't completely misguided - there are deliberate clues for Indoctrination in the games - but it is overly enthusiastic, and ignores that fact that we're told it didn't happen. It would have been amazing if true, and for a while after completing the game, I was excited that it might be (If you think about it, one way or another, Bioware has left in plot-holes), but I very much doubt that Bioware has any intention of implementing it at any point now.

[someone else]

Versidious wrote...

Hmmm. Well, Bioware have said that there will be no post-ending DLC. This is why the game takes you back to before the Cerberus Base, after the ending. That one more story? It's just something else that happened before Shepard's final confrontation. Ie, mid-game DLC, such as Retake Omega.

Yes, I realize it could be mid-game DLC - but a really bizarre way to foreshadow it - btw finding myself back on the bridge of the Normandy after all that ranks in my top ten all-time WTF moments...

The biggest problem with this suggestion, however, is that it doesn't really make sense. So, someone told a story to a child which they knew to be untrue, if they had a true one that they were also prepared to tell him? To what purpose?

No, Stargazer is telling the story as its come down through history - even if it is a simplified version for a child - I prefer to hear it as just the legend of Shepard - and that not much more is known.

If it is because these are just two seperate myths for the ending, and he believes in telling the child all theories, why would we, the true recipients of the tale, then assume the second to be any more accurate?

Because we can't really know what happened on the citadel - unless BW takes us back there, or Shepard actually remembers.

'This may not be how things really were.' doesn't really work.

yeah, except that is exactly what BW tells us.

I too was much taken by IT - thought and still think it was brilliant and that BW could implement it, but won't.

The best case for interpreting the end as legend is that it allows BW to draw the plot poison out the current ending in relatively simple EC, and does not require a vast amount of retconning the various choices - the principle weakness is as you point out that it makes player choices at the end seem even more irrelevant - but really, there is only one choice Shepard makes in that entire sequence, and the consequences of that choice ARE conserved.   So Legend doesn't really violate player choice at all...

Modifié par someone else, 01 mai 2012 - 07:37 .

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

Versidious wrote...

Hmmm. Well, Bioware have said that there will be no post-ending DLC. This is why the game takes you back to before the Cerberus Base, after the ending. That one more story? It's just something else that happened before Shepard's final confrontation. Ie, mid-game DLC, such as Retake Omega.

Yes, I realize it could be mid-game DLC - but a really bizarre way to foreshadow it - btw finding myself back on the bridge of the Normandy after all that ranks in my top ten all-time WTF moments...

No arguments there. But the point of it is that it allows you to then play 'another story about the The Shepherd' mid-game DLC in the same playthrough, before playing the final mission. Like I said, they used the same method in DA:O.

someone else wrote...

The biggest problem with this suggestion, however, is that it doesn't really make sense. So, someone told a story to a child which they knew to be untrue, if they had a true one that they were also prepared to tell him? To what purpose?

No, Stargazer is telling the story as its come down through history - even if it is a simplified version for a child - I prefer to hear it as just the legend of Shepard - and that not much more is known.

If it is because these are just two seperate myths for the ending, and he believes in telling the child all theories, why would we, the true recipients of the tale, then assume the second to be any more accurate?

Because we can't really know what happened on the citadel - unless BW takes us back there, or Shepard actually remembers.

Shepard actually remembers? I'm sorry, but if Bioware says 'Ha ha guys, just kidding, we made that **** up as what people would be telling each other waaaay in the future, this is the *real* ending.', that is really, really bad. It doesn't preserve their artisitic integrity in any way, it just says 'So, that bit was actually a meaningless waste of time.', preserving one of the major problems with the ending (The 'So, my seemingly hugely significant actions didn't actually affect the outcome?' problem). The point is that we, as gamers, have been playing as Shepard, not as someone else's idea of Shepard. The moment you take that away from us, you impede immersion and the illusion of being in control. It's a cheap segue into a new ending, when outright replacing the ending from the point where you reach the Citadel would be just as cheap, and narratively more effective. The interpretation that 'It didn't really happen like that because it's a child's story' is useful only as an excuse for making your own headcanon ending up instead. Think about it. If you're a game studio making the ending different, why keep the 'false' original one as a story told by people in the future, then give us the real story? Especially since the Stargazer scene only happens post credits. I'm sorry, maybe it's just my personal taste, but I really think that would only make it worse.

someone else wrote...

'This may not be how things really were.' doesn't really work.

yeah, except that is exactly what BW tells us.

Exactly my point. I seriously hate that stuff ('Stuff', in this case, is pronounced as 'Narrative device'), and I know I'm not alone, because I've seen plenty of nerd rage leveled at the Stargazer scene. The last thing we need is yet more of the same, or making the scene more central to the narrative. Honest to goodness, if someone released a mod that removed it entirely, I'd install it like a shot. I'm tempted to move the .bik file, in the hope that it crashes the game when it tries to load the clip. Yes: My hatred for the Stargazer scene is so strong I'd rather my program crash than see it.

someone else wrote...
I too was much taken by IT - thought and still think it was brilliant and that BW could implement it, but won't.

The best case for interpreting the end as legend is that it allows BW to draw the plot poison out the current ending in relatively simple EC, and does not require a vast amount of retconning the various choices - the principle weakness is as you point out that it makes player choices at the end seem even more irrelevant - but really, there is only one choice Shepard makes in that entire sequence, and the consequences of that choice ARE conserved.  So Legend doesn't really violate player choice at all...

Again, by giving us a 'real ending', they'd be creating an entirely new mission. I don't understand why they'd tack it onto the end when they could just swap it out? And if they instead just said 'Oh, well, it's not what really happened anyway, it's misremembered by the future people' (Which I think is what you mean in the case of control/synthesis, if I've misunderstood, you'll have to explain it to me again!), it not only wouldn't satisfy the vast majority of Anti-enders, it would also alienate pro-enders, because we then wouldn't actually have an ending at all for people picking those options, who now don't know what actually happened in the end of their game. Perhaps that's what Bioware meant by that scene, which is all the more reason to loathe it, and why it would not be a solution to what annoys people. Seriously, you wouldn't feel cheated by 'Oh, those plot holes? Yeah, they're just there because history remembers it incorrectly as a vague legend. We don't need to address them in any way, ever. You'll never find out what actually happened. OH YEAH, SPECULATIONS, BIATCH!'? 

Anyhoo...  I don't just mean player choice, I mean 'player control', the notion that, as the player, you are in control of Shepard, and are guiding his real (within the fictional confines of the universe) actions. At the end of it, you find out that actually, you are instead living out an old man's story, and the fact that new DLC will be 'another story of the Shepard' implies that all of ME3, if not all of the series, were tales told by the Stargazer. So, you were never dictating the actions of the 'real' Commander Shepard, but instead the story an old man told his son.

Oh, and, PS. Yes, they did basically just want to do that scene because they could get Buzz Aldrin to talk about how brilliant space is in one of their games. Frickin nerds. <_<

Modifié par Versidious, 01 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[Versidious]

OK, I've thought of a few, admittedly slightly tenuous, possible reasons why the Catalyst admits Shepard to his chamber and helps him:

It's part of his/the Citadel's original purpose, but he perhaps didn't realise it. Maybe the Citadel was built by the early Reapers, before he corrupted them, or by his race before he betrayed them? Or by his own creators? Maybe the Citadel is, much like the FTL drives have built in collision avoidance safeties that prevent them from being used to create FTL missiles, based on technology older than the Catalyst, perhaps on that of his creators, and this area once served a purpose to do with powerful technologies - finding this out is where a previous species got the inspiration for incorporating the Citadel into the Crucible design. Thus, the Citadel is inherently designed to respond to people stepping onto the platform once something is docked. It would also then explain why there are conveniently placed conduits for control/destroy there. The Catalyst's dialogue could then be altered to be more reluctant, maybe state that 'I will give you a choice, so that you do not stumble blindly into destroying everything', or something similar.

Modifié par Versidious, 01 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[someone else]

Versidious wrote...
if Bioware says 'Ha ha guys, just kidding, we made that **** up as what people would be telling each other waaaay in the future, this is the *real* ending.', that is really, really bad. ... it just says 'So, that bit was actually a meaningless waste of time', preserving one of the major problems with the ending.

Not appreciable different from the current state of affairs   But not entirely meaningless - we have the consequences of the "Choice"  no matter what conversation or mechanics actually took place - and I'm willing to settle for the "we'll never know the truth"  option as long as EC/dlc carries those consequences forward, only because:
a) no chance BW will touch the current game and
 no chance they'll really address the ending in dlc

...and yes, it will all have to be headcanon - and it will be for me because I hate the spacebrat sequence even more than Stargazer...so the former will just be either allegorical or legendary.

Again, by giving us a 'real ending', they'd be creating an entirely new mission. I don't understand why they'd tack it onto the end when they could just swap it out?

I suspect rewriting the ending raises a lot more complications than a separate dlc - but I donno.

And if they instead just said 'Oh, well, it's not what really happened anyway, it's misremembered by the future people' (Which I think is what you mean in the case of control/synthesis, if I've misunderstood, you'll have to explain it to me again!)

No one misunderstands anything - after the Citadel fires, the galaxy has only one outcome.   The other two - whichevever they are, are speculative "might have beens" 

Perhaps I didn't make this point clearly enough - In every scene in ME EXCEPT the ending (lets assume some recording device captures events up until Anderson dies - faulty I know - I'd prefer starting pre Marauder Shields - but keep it limited)  - in every other significant scene events are independently verifiable, either by other NPCs or as a  matter of historical record.    ONLY the final confrontation with SpaceBrat has no witnessess after the fact - In 4/5 outcomes you are for all intents and purposes DEAD -  so how does anyone actually know what went on?

(it cannot be that in control or synthesis whats left of shepard writes a memoire - since that would have provided a definitive account, rather than the wishy-washy we-dont-know-all-the-details spiel..)

At the end of it, you find out that actually, you are instead living out an old man's story, and the fact that new DLC will be 'another story of the Shepard' implies that all of ME3, if not all of the series, were tales told by the Stargazer.

Why so?  Why not just the part no one knows about?

Oh, and, PS. Yes, they did basically just want to do that scene because they could get Buzz Aldrin to talk about how brilliant space is in one of their games. Frickin nerds. <_<

Absofcknlutely -  Wheatly would have been so awesome in the part...

Modifié par someone else, 01 mai 2012 - 11:39 .

[someone else]

...but I digress. The premise of this thread is that EC/clarification can rehabilitate the ending of ME3. I categorically disagree.

Personally, I think the current ending is conceptually interesting - the "solution", while crude, does work as a plot device, explaining the mystery of the reapers. The three choices offer similar intellectual fodder -

Control - Guardian Reapers ensuring the technological singularity never reaches the point of no return and intervening on behalf of organics if synthetics ever threaten to overwhelm them.

Synthesis - Cylons, the Borg, Blade Runner, Asimov - we've been heading this way for a long time - the concept comes from anywhere but left field

Destroy - Organics will, like the dearly departed Geth, seek their own future, risks and all.

These are provocative choices - I see no reason to tinker with them - I respect the authors' prerogatives at least to that extent. The problem is the mechanics by which they were introduced and implemented, but even more, as others here have pointed out, the abrogation of player control and engagement.  Most damaging for me is the emotional strangulation BW imposes on player and characters alike.

EC by definition (cut scenes, post-facto dialog and cinematics) cannot restore any of that. And for that reason I cannot accept that any amount of explanation can fix what is wrong.

Modifié par someone else, 02 mai 2012 - 01:23 .

[lillitheris]

someone else wrote...

These are provocative choices - I see no reason to tinker with them - I respect the authors' prerogatives at least to that extent. The problem is the mechanics by which they were introduced and implemented, but even more, as others here have pointed out, the abrogation of player control and engagement.  Most damaging for me is the emotional strangulation BW imposes on player and characters alike.

EC by definition (cut scenes, post-facto dialog and cinematics) cannot restore any of that. And for that reason I cannot accept that any amount of explanation can fix what is wrong.

It's perfectly valid to feel this way, but I skimmed over the posts (sorry, I'll do a proper reading shortly) and I still don't see an explanation for what this really means. Even outside the context of the EC, what are some concrete steps to fix it?

…

Finally finished writing the start of my little story thing. The first few chapters will essentially be a dramatic retelling of the OP It's here in case anyone's interested.

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

Versidious wrote...
if Bioware says 'Ha ha guys, just kidding, we made that **** up as what people would be telling each other waaaay in the future, this is the *real* ending.', that is really, really bad. ... it just says 'So, that bit was actually a meaningless waste of time', preserving one of the major problems with the ending.

Not appreciable different from the current state of affairs   But not entirely meaningless - we have the consequences of the "Choice"  no matter what conversation or mechanics actually took place - and I'm willing to settle for the "we'll never know the truth"  option as long as EC/dlc carries those consequences forward, only because:
a) no chance BW will touch the current game and
 no chance they'll really address the ending in dlc

...and yes, it will all have to be headcanon - and it will be for me because I hate the spacebrat sequence even more than Stargazer...so the former will just be either allegorical or legendary.

Again, by giving us a 'real ending', they'd be creating an entirely new mission. I don't understand why they'd tack it onto the end when they could just swap it out?

I suspect rewriting the ending raises a lot more complications than a separate dlc - but I donno.

As someone with training in programming, and who made some Neverwinter Nights campaigns/altered the full game ones, it's not generally that hard. You could simply replace the data files of the endings so that new ones with the same name are loaded instead of the old ones, and there're more than enough black-out loads where this can be done with no need for joining work at all. If they're recording new dialogue, and making new cutscenes and cinematics, it's no more effort to replace them than to add a 'real ending' on. There are plenty of places in the endings where you could just fiddle with the dialogue to add more context and clarity, without changing the actual progression of key events.

someone else wrote...

And if they instead just said 'Oh, well, it's not what really happened anyway, it's misremembered by the future people' (Which I think is what you mean in the case of control/synthesis, if I've misunderstood, you'll have to explain it to me again!)

No one misunderstands anything - after the Citadel fires, the galaxy has only one outcome.   The other two - whichevever they are, are speculative "might have beens" 

Perhaps I didn't make this point clearly enough - In every scene in ME EXCEPT the ending (lets assume some recording device captures events up until Anderson dies - faulty I know - I'd prefer starting pre Marauder Shields - but keep it limited)  - in every other significant scene events are independently verifiable, either by other NPCs or as a  matter of historical record.    ONLY the final confrontation with SpaceBrat has no witnessess after the fact - In 6/7 outcomes you are for all intents and purposes DEAD -  so how does anyone actually know what went on?

(it cannot be that in control or synthesis whats left of shepard writes a memoire - since that would have provided a definitive account, rather than the wishy-washy we-dont-know-all-the-details spiel..)

At the end of it, you find out that actually, you are instead living out an old man's story, and the fact that new DLC will be 'another story of the Shepard' implies that all of ME3, if not all of the series, were tales told by the Stargazer.

Why so?  Why not just the part no one knows about?

Because we're about to get told another story about The Shepherd, and we get flung back to a point where we can play mid-game DLC, where there will be many, many corroborating witnesses? We have just begun his 'new story about The Shepherd', and it's mid game.  Also, your block of reasoning above appears to endorse the notion that all of ME3 is now a story, otherwise it would be irrelevant as to whether or not detailed records were present of previous occurences.

[lillitheris]

Versidious wrote...

As someone with training in programming, and who made some Neverwinter Nights campaigns/altered the full game ones, it's not generally that hard. You could simply replace the data files of the endings so that new ones with the same name are loaded instead of the old ones, and there're more than enough black-out loads where this can be done with no need for joining work at all. If they're recording new dialogue, and making new cutscenes and cinematics, it's no more effort to replace them than to add a 'real ending' on. There are plenty of places in the endings where you could just fiddle with the dialogue to add more context and clarity, without changing the actual progression of key events.

As a programmer, yes, it's…trivial to just change the whole thing.

[Versidious]

someone else wrote...

...but I digress. The premise of this thread is that EC/clarification can rehabilitate the ending of ME3. I categorically disagree.

Personally, I think the current ending is conceptually interesting - the "solution", while crude, does work as a plot device, explaining the mystery of the reapers. The three choices offer similar intellectual fodder -

Control - Guardian Reapers ensuring the technological singularity never reaches the point of no return and intervening on behalf of organics if synthetics ever threaten to overwhelm them.

Synthesis - Cylons, the Borg, Blade Runner, Asimov - we've been heading this way for a long time - the concept comes from anywhere but left field

Destroy - Organics will, like the dearly departed Geth, seek their own future, risks and all.

These are provocative choices - I see no reason to tinker with them - I respect the authors' prerogatives at least to that extent. The problem is the mechanics by which they were introduced and implemented, but even more, as others here have pointed out, the abrogation of player control and engagement.  Most damaging for me is the emotional strangulation BW imposes on player and characters alike.

EC by definition (cut scenes, post-facto dialog and cinematics) cannot restore any of that. And for that reason I cannot accept that any amount of explanation can fix what is wrong.

There are all sorts of problems raised with the ending which are subjective, or issues with narrative structure. As you say, many of these cannot be fixed at all without heavily changing the game, particularly the ending. There are all sorts of things I would alter, remove, extend, or add. Bioware currently will not give us such a heavy change, however, as that would alienate those who are currently pro-enders instead, and create a future where they are more heavily beholden to follow mass fan demand directly (I think that we should want the developers to *want* to please us not fear displeasing us), and look bad to investors and stockholders by admitting fault. Plus, their new ending may well still not appease a majority of current protestors, if they make the wrong choices.

The question is, what can be achieved by what they *are* willing to give us. In my opinion, the ending can be made tolerable by extended cut, if still not as good as it could have been. Which would bring it up to the standard of the rest of Mass Effect 3.

I will, however, have to disagree with the notion that the 'solution' concept works as it is. Or at least, it casts the Catalyst as insane, which is not how it is portrayed in the ending (The whole scene is meant to be somewhat profound). The notion that a technological singularity would result in extinction of humanity is somehow a truly concrete and inevitable concept is just terrible. It's always been a fringe alarmist theory, and the portrayal of non-Reaper AI as being interested in organics, and only hostile to them when self-preservation is a factor, is more realistic. Even the Reapers do not appear to have rebelled against their creator. Of course, we don't know the origins of the Catalyst, so perhaps it is something which has rebelled against its creators. It certainly doesn't make sense that Shepard's presence would upset the validity of its 'solution', which actually does sort of make sense, in that we use that reasoning to cull wild animal populations to prevent them from destroying their own food sources through overgrazing. As I've said above, Shepard needs to effectively know what he's doing when he's going into the chamber, because there really isn't any good reason for the Catalyst to help him. Two of the Crucible's possible effects are not solutions at all, and I would argue that the third isn't either.

Again, the portrayal of the Catalyst as somehow a benevolent robo-god who was forced into such harsh action is just...   So wrong. It might be how it sees itself, but it's not how it should be communicated to us through being a glowing child, musical score, and Shepard's acceptance of its reasoning.

Modifié par Versidious, 02 mai 2012 - 06:02 .

[Versidious]

lillitheris wrote...

Versidious wrote...

As someone with training in programming, and who made some Neverwinter Nights campaigns/altered the full game ones, it's not generally that hard. You could simply replace the data files of the endings so that new ones with the same name are loaded instead of the old ones, and there're more than enough black-out loads where this can be done with no need for joining work at all. If they're recording new dialogue, and making new cutscenes and cinematics, it's no more effort to replace them than to add a 'real ending' on. There are plenty of places in the endings where you could just fiddle with the dialogue to add more context and clarity, without changing the actual progression of key events.

As a programmer, yes, it's…trivial to just change the whole thing.

I feel like you're being sarcastic, and that I've been unclear...  (If you're not then ignore this post)  :-P I'm not talking about changing the whole thing vs doing an epilogue. I mean that there is little difference in difficulty between tagging a 'true ending' on afterwards and replacing the original ending outright. In both cases, the game is already told to load the next thing. In my experience, it's simply a question of changing what it loads (though perhaps this has changed with more modern games?), and in both cases you've had to create new game content.

[lillitheris]

Versidious wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Versidious wrote...

As someone with training in programming, and who made some Neverwinter Nights campaigns/altered the full game ones, it's not generally that hard. You could simply replace the data files of the endings so that new ones with the same name are loaded instead of the old ones, and there're more than enough black-out loads where this can be done with no need for joining work at all. If they're recording new dialogue, and making new cutscenes and cinematics, it's no more effort to replace them than to add a 'real ending' on. There are plenty of places in the endings where you could just fiddle with the dialogue to add more context and clarity, without changing the actual progression of key events.

As a programmer, yes, it's…trivial to just change the whole thing.

I feel like you're being sarcastic, and that I've been unclear...  (If you're not then ignore this post)  :-P I'm not talking about changing the whole thing vs doing an epilogue. I mean that there is little difference in difficulty between tagging a 'true ending' on afterwards and replacing the original ending outright. In both cases, the game is already told to load the next thing. In my experience, it's simply a question of changing what it loads (though perhaps this has changed with more modern games?), and in both cases you've had to create new game content.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all :happy:

It's not only not significantly more difficult to replace something than to clarify/extend it: it's usually easier because you have fewer constraints.