356 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

fle6isnow wrote...

Hmm sorry I haven't posted in this thread before, lilitheris! I do think you're making some great work with this. I feel your frustration when people would rather hate on the endings than analyze and try to make something good out of it, I really do.

No worries, thanks for taking the time to reply in length! I'll have to get back to your points tomorrow.

Almost zZzZz :happy:

[lillitheris]

fle6isnow wrote...

Control
Low EMS: destroys infrastructure on Earth (and possibly elsewhere), overloads but not destroys the relays, but make it clear that rebuilding is possible since the relay network is still intact and just needs to be reactivated. Teammates die.
Medium EMS: saves infrastructure on Earth, overloads relays, but make it clear they can be reactivated. Teammates live.
High EMS: saves infrastructure on Earth, saves relays. Teammates live.

I think in all cases, the Citadel should be saved as the main "Reaper control" area. It should also be made clear in all cases that Shepard is controlling the Reapers somehow. Someone--pistolos, I think?--suggested that they show this by reactivating the Shepard VI in the refugee area, and have Shepard reaching out, or smiling beatifically... something like that. I think it is a good idea, and I would also like to see the Shepard VI slowly turning into the "being of light" type thing that the Catalyst was before it flickers out.

Yeah. There's the obvious Control option that some might be willing to try, to just direct all the Reapers to the nearest sun…but I suspect that they wouldn't be willing to do that. They are, still, sentient and they see themselves as storing the racial memory of those harvested species (even if they're not an actual gestalt). I also think that their control can't really be a passive thing, meaning ShepardAI needs to actually stick around, and that it can't just be some ephemeral “Shepard's principles” program, but an actual consciousness transfer or copy. Of course, I guess that betrays my

The Shepard VI is actually a fun touch. There are various different approaches if there is a virtual Shepard…either (s)he can be very active right off the bat, or maybe it'll take a while for the consciousness to reassemble and remember about friends and so on, or maybe Shepard would indeed be somehow transformed. There's also tons of ways to do the ‘reveal’, including the VI, or maybe the classic of the LI sitting in front of a terminal that blinks, and then displays “I promised I would never leave you” or whatever.

If they really wanted to turn up the bittersweet, it'd be quite awesome – in the literal sense – if instead of ‘wasting’ all the dead, they'd make that human or better yet mixed-species reaper and installed Shepard – Shepherd – into it.

In the low EMS you have the squad getting killed – had you pondered on what the cause would be? Or do you mean just in the actual fighting itself (which makes sense, of course, with the appropriate cutscenes)?

Synthesis
Low and Medium EMS: not a choice
High EMS: Earth saved, teammates saved, but citadel and relays destroyed
4000+EMS: Earth saved, teammates saved, citadel and relays saved but disabled.

I think they can explain the "space magic" by nano-tech, sure. Or another way would be that synthesis option turns the Crucible into a giant version of the Prothean beacon? I dunno, I'll have to think about how exactly they can do this. The "circuitry" can start subtly on the teammates in this case, like maybe Joker just has the circuitry in his hand instead of everywhere at first.

I keep coming back to this (edit: Synthesis, that is), and I just can't fathom how they can explain the whole thing. So I've just given up and go with my Normandy as a hallucination theory

I think it's pretty universally agreed that Synthesis is morally somewhat problematic (even with the assumption that it's truly completely beneficial)…do you have any views on what the ramifications would be across society?

Destroy
I think this is where we will differ greatly. I think the relays should be destroyed in this ending, no matter what. Destroy is basically the rejection of ALL Reaper tech, and though life will suck a lot for the survivors in the short term, they at least have the hope to be truly self-determining without the threat of Reapers in the long term. The teammates, if alive, should be within a couple of months by standard FTL.

I can definitely understand that viewpoint, even if I don't really agree. To me it seems maybe a bit like empty symbolism…it's not really rejection when you don't have a choice, is it?

If the relays were intact and it was decided to destroy them, that would be different – or more realistically if they were broken, and the society refused to repair them.

That said, I don't really have problems with them being destroyed – it just needs maybe more extensive epiloguing, right? We should see a little more about how the future looks, whether there's a replacement, if not, how do the now-stranded societies rebuild and keep in touch (if at all), etc.…

Low EMS: Earth destroyed, citadel destroyed, synthetics destroyed, teammates die.
Medium EMS: Earth saved but devastated, citadel destroyed, synthetics destroyed, teammates saved.
High EMS: Earth saved, citadel disabled but intact, Shepard is dead (can retrieve body for funeral), synthetics disabled (but possibility for reactivation), teammates saved.
4000+EMS: Earth saved, citadel disabled but intact, Shepard lives, teammates live, synthetics live, chance for reunion after several months.

You make a good point about the confirmation from Hackett, but honestly, one of the things I liked about the original ending is that you don't know whether you can trust the Catalyst or not. Maybe Bioware could add a couple of lines for the Catalyst, something like, "you don't have to take any of the choices the Crucible has made possible. But the more you wait, the less chance you have of defeating us. The cycle will continue." This would add the sense of urgency that you have to choose, while still retaining the uncertainty.

That's a valid viewpoint again, and I don't mind that there's some uncertainty. To me it's just that it's so unknowable that Shepard has absolutely no basis for making the decision. Taking any of the options could be worse than just going down fighting.

Narratively, and from a player agency standpoint, I don't really see a way around both giving the player some assurance and giving them the option to decline all choices (whether this leads to autodefeat or if the player can reach the options wandering by themselves I don't have an opinion on). I don't think players would accept it otherwise.

The "Reapers win" scenario would just be as you described--instead of the Critical Mission Failure if you take too long, it will have a longer version of the Arrival time-out cutscene showing everything getting devastated by the Reapers. My proposal for the Reapers win scenarios are as such:

Low EMS: everything destroyed, even the yahg, raloi, etc. Liara's boxes do not make an appearance.
Medium EMS: everything destroyed, but you see pyjacks (or some other "primitive" race) examining Liara's boxes
High EMS: everything destroyed, but the Reapers suffer a substantial amount of damage because the sword fleet is strong. Cut to 50,000 years later, and see a new cycle completely prepared to face down the Reapers due to Liara's boxes.

I like the additions here, those work for me. I actually tried to ‘fail’ at various points during London and the Citadel, and was really surprised that there was no cinematic epilogue for it.

Modifié par lillitheris, 24 avril 2012 - 09:37 .

[Ieldra]

Oops, almost missed the interesting post by fle6isnow, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I think those ending variants are most fitting with the themes.

Getting late here, but I'll come back to this.

[lillitheris]

Added the EMS-enhanced failure options.

[richard_rider]

This is good.

I think it would pretty much cover all the bases, even if we have to deal with Casper, at least I could see all my hard work come to fruition, and all my friends standing by me...

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would definitely be leagues better.

[lillitheris]

^ Thanks!

…

Sadly, my efforts from yesterday were negated by today's additions…I think I'm ± 5 words from earlier

Still, though, <3 the additions.

[lillitheris]

Added a section break to break it up better visually, and tried to indicate more strongly that relay destruction in Destroy is a valid alternative.

[lillitheris]

Just jotting this down quick, because it might have some implications…

The firing speed of a dreadnought main cannon is 1.38% of c, which is a little over 4 000 km/s.

Vessels can supposedly run the distance from Earth to Pluto in about 5 hours.

However, at 0.0138c, that trip would take over 300 hours.

This means that an average ship is around 60 times faster than the muzzle velocity of a dreadnought main cannon.

That…doesn't seem right.

[Ieldra]

I'm going to file a complaint here.

I think you're treating Control and Synthesis as an afterthought. You added tons of stuff to Destroy but made no effort to differentiate the other two options in any way. As opposed to you, I find it highly annoying that Control and Synthesis don't benefit from EMS considerations in similar ways as Destroy does, and I passionately disagree that Destroy would benefit from EMS considerations more than the others, even if you discount that it already is the most differentiated-by-EMS ending. I propose to include fle6isnow's Control and Synthesis variations since there appears to be agreement that they're good.

Now for something more constructive:

The Synthesis and the Normandy scene. I would propose to remove all indications of the Synthesis from that scene and add new scenes for ALL of the endings showing some long-term effects - relays rebuilt or not, Synthesis effects etc... Basically incorporate the Synthesis in the "closure" part of the endings rather than in the "immediate effects" part. Because as you correctly point out, instant hydridization would be impossible to explain.

I do not think it is possible to plot effects of the Synthesis on society. Sure, there may be adverse reactions by some people, the changes would be fully embraced by others, used in different ways etc.. But assuming that the effects are beneficial, in the long term that won't matter so much as what possible new physical and mental traits will arise. Without defining those, it's not possible to plot effects. I don't think the ME3 ending should attempt to define them, at the very least not beyond one key trait, because that should be left to players' imagination. Even with one, it's hard to say how things will go. Consider the geth-like networking ability added by Siduri's Unofficial Epilogue Slides. Does that end up in a geth-like consensus? Will humanity fragment into different clades based on their attitude to it? Will colonies be founded based on specific ideologies? Will this be used for crime (of course it will, but how much?). Can you mask yourself in the network? What about intrusion by others into your thoughtspace - how will you protect yourself? I don't think any official ending should answer such questions. What needs to be clarified is that the results are beneficial, i.e. is that this is a good ending if you consider the results. Then, the morality of the decision may be judged by players differently, but there should be no doubt that there isn't a foregone conclusion, as there would be if the results are not beneficial. Anything more should be left to players' imagination.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 avril 2012 - 10:57 .

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
Just jotting this down quick, because it might have some implications…

The firing speed of a dreadnought main cannon is 1.38% of c, which is a little over 4 000 km/s.

Vessels can supposedly run the distance from Earth to Pluto in about 5 hours.

However, at 0.0138c, that trip would take over 300 hours.

This means that an average ship is around 60 times faster than the muzzle velocity of a dreadnought main cannon.

That…doesn't seem right.

Earth to Pluto in five hours would mean you travel at lightspeed (or slightly above or below, depending on where exactly Pluto is at the time). Where did you get that figure? I suppose most spaceships would use FTL to travel to Pluto.

Also, remember that the dreadnought gun accelerates its projectiles to 0,013c in two seconds, meaning it's an acceleration of about 2000 km/s² . A starship accelerating at 0.1% of that (2 km/s²) for an hour would arrive at almost double that speed. I very much doubt anyone does this without using the ME core though - it would take too much propellant.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Earth to Pluto in five hours would mean you travel at lightspeed (or slightly above or below, depending on where exactly Pluto is at the time). Where did you get that figure? I suppose most spaceships would use FTL to travel to Pluto.

They wouldn't, though, it's explicitly mentioned… I think they can probably get reasonably close to c (or ‘relativistic speeds’) with their conventional drives, though, given the time quotes.

Also, remember that the dreadnought gun accelerates its projectiles to 0,013c in two seconds, meaning it's an acceleration of about 2000 km/s² . A starship accelerating at 0.1% of that (2 km/s²) for an hour would arrive at almost double that speed. I very much doubt anyone does this without using the ME core though - it would take too much propellant.

Actually I think it's just that it fires every 2 seconds. The main cannons are only 2 km long, after all

At any rate, you're of course correct about the importance of delta-v and so on…I should have also mentioned that in a combat situation inside a system the speeds are naturally lower (although the delta-v's might be relatively higher). Still, though, something doesn't add up, and I think it's mostly the cannon muzzle velocity. A 60x speed advantage would – even in cramped quarters, speed restrictions, and with the whole laws of motion thing – probably result in these cannons being basically completely ineffectual even in comparison to, say, old naval battles where you at least could line up broadsides by matching speeds and so on since the dreadnoughts are restricted to firing straight ahead.

It was late and I thought it might have implications on the flight speeds, but really at best it just tells us that Earth-Pluto takes at least the 5 hours…

I'll get back to your earlier post in a moment.

Modifié par lillitheris, 25 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[lillitheris]

Added a bit of text regarding ‘bittersweetness’.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm going to file a complaint here.

I think you're treating Control and Synthesis as an afterthought. You added tons of stuff to Destroy but made no effort to differentiate the other two options in any way.

I won't argue with this. Or, well, not so much as an afterthought as…needing less detail. Also, probably much less popular.

As opposed to you, I find it highly annoying that Control and Synthesis don't benefit from EMS considerations in similar ways as Destroy does, and I passionately disagree that Destroy would benefit from EMS considerations more than the others, even if you discount that it already is the most differentiated-by-EMS ending. I propose to include fle6isnow's Control and Synthesis variations since there appears to be agreement that they're good.

I've no objections to those, really. I sort of considered them as the natural application of EMS in those scenarios, whereas Destroy needed elaboration, and just omitted them altogether for fear of expanding the text even further.

You're right, though, I can definitely add them in.

Responding to the remainder in a bit…

[Taboo]

I should be smacking myself in the face for not visiting this thread sooner. This is the kind of thing I should be participating in instead of dancing back and forth between trolls. Well done OP. Well done.

Give me a moment to look further and I'll share some thoughts. This is far better than what I've been doing. Really like what I see.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I should be smacking myself in the face for not visiting this thread sooner. This is the kind of thing I should be participating in instead of dancing back and forth between trolls. Well done OP. Well done.

Give me a moment to look further and I'll share some thoughts. This is far better than what I've been doing. Really like what I see.

Thanks, looking forward to it! <3

Yes, sadly with the volume of posts on this forum in particular, and the various threads arguing about the same old things, it's kind of hard to maintain visibility

[Taboo]

 I've always been pro-information more than anything. Anti-Ending and Pro-Ending positions just serve to isolate me. I just want to know what I did.

The issue isn't with the Crucible or the Catalyst. The problem lies in the lack of information. This has lead to the comments saying that there is no difference between the endings. And I can certainly see that argument being raised simply because of the similar nature of the ending cutscenes.

What I would like to see is essentially what you propose with the EMS counter. That needs to matter in some capacity. It doesn't feel like it adds much at the moment simply because the lack of information prevents a proper implenmentation.

What I think Bioware should really implement is something like the DA:O endings with the EMS attached.

Shepard needs to survive and reunite with the crew and LI in one scenario. This would be something to the effect of picking Destroy and having a high enough EMS. I believe this is the most marketable epilouge to implement and would please quite a lot of people.

He needs to fail in one scenario also. This would be for the chuckleheads who just want to see that. I don't think I need to explain any rationale behind this.

In Destroy:

A high EMS will result in the "golden" ending so to speak. This will result in the Geth and EDI not being killed and Shepard surviving and reuniting with whomever he chooses.

With a low EMS the results will be disastrous. Earth will be vaporized, the geth and EDI will die and the Universe will be left in a state of decay


In Synthesis:

With high enough EMS, Synthesis is more effective, quelling a great deal of problems between oranics and synthetics
 
With a low EMS, Synthesis is less effective causing some failings in the merging of whatever Synthesis does. We essentially have abominations on our hands.

In Control:

With a high EMS the Control is absolute when Shepard becomes the new Catalyst. There is no concern over him losing control.

With a low EMS Shepard will have trouble controlling the Reapers and they will be able to lash out from time to time.

A half-ass job but the simple lack of info causes me the most pain. I'll be more detailed later.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 26 avril 2012 - 12:13 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Synthesis and the Normandy scene. I would propose to remove all indications of the Synthesis from that scene and add new scenes for ALL of the endings showing some long-term effects - relays rebuilt or not, Synthesis effects etc... Basically incorporate the Synthesis in the "closure" part of the endings rather than in the "immediate effects" part. Because as you correctly point out, instant hydridization would be impossible to explain.

As you know, I'm just altogether opposed to the Normandy scene…since we probably can't cut out the cinematic, I think subverting its meaning as I've detailed is the best option. Plus it resolves both the problem with the Normandy itself and the insta-Synthesis.

If we can completely remove or change cinematics, it definitely opens up a whole lot of options, so I see where you're coming from. In this case, though, the Normandy itself would still need to be explained (assuming that part doesn't get altered, too).

I do not think it is possible to plot effects of the Synthesis on society. Sure, there may be adverse reactions by some people, the changes would be fully embraced by others, used in different ways etc.. But assuming that the effects are beneficial, in the long term that won't matter so much as what possible new physical and mental traits will arise. Without defining those, it's not possible to plot effects.

This is quite true. I'm mostly concerned about the immediate future (minutes/hours and maybe days/weeks parts of the epilogue, depending on the speed of the transformation), and I think many effects would be visible. Essentially, I think it's necessary to show either that it does cause trouble to some portion of society (which would be the logical assumption if people still retain their personalities), or that everything is immediately utopic…which, to me, would suggest that there was some kind of a personality alteration involved (although that part can be left for SPECULATIONS). The whole thing is easier, of course, the slower the change is. Over weeks, people have time to adjust, information can be disseminated, and so on. An instatransformation would probably cause half of the galaxy to commit suicide to avoid turning into husks and turning against their own (they think).

On the weeks/months epilogue section we ought to see how it's affecting the rebuilding efforts.

The long term itself isn't important, and can certainly be left out. I just think that having some idea – especially about the mechanisms – can serve as a guide for the immediate future.

I don't think the ME3 ending should attempt to define them, at the very least not beyond one key trait, because that should be left to players' imagination. Even with one, it's hard to say how things will go. Consider the geth-like networking ability added by Siduri's Unofficial Epilogue Slides. Does that end up in a geth-like consensus? Will humanity fragment into different clades based on their attitude to it? Will colonies be founded based on specific ideologies? Will this be used for crime (of course it will, but how much?). Can you mask yourself in the network? What about intrusion by others into your thoughtspace - how will you protect yourself? I don't think any official ending should answer such questions. What needs to be clarified is that the results are beneficial, i.e. is that this is a good ending if you consider the results. Then, the morality of the decision may be judged by players differently, but there should be no doubt that there isn't a foregone conclusion, as there would be if the results are not beneficial. Anything more should be left to players' imagination.

Agreed.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX, I'll have to get back to you tomorrow!

…

Another task for tomorrow, I think, is linking the sections of the OP to some of the comments here, so that it's easier to find the more in-depth discussions.

[lillitheris]

There's this thought that's been bouncing around in my head regarding synthesis: the only way to end conflict between synthetic and organic life is to stop making a difference between the two. To agree that both are equally life. Green beams don't really have anything to do with it, but…maybe I/we can formulate something on this basis.

[lillitheris]

lillitheris wrote...

There's this thought that's been bouncing around in my head regarding synthesis: the only way to end conflict between synthetic and organic life is to stop making a difference between the two. To agree that both are equally life. Green beams don't really have anything to do with it, but…maybe I/we can formulate something on this basis.

Unfortunately Gamble's latest tweets kinda reflect that BioWare sure as hell has no idea what Synthesis is supposed to do…and they apparently didn't think the players would want to know, either.

[lillitheris]

Duplicate.

Modifié par lillitheris, 26 avril 2012 - 09:37 .

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shepard needs to survive and reunite with the crew and LI in one scenario. This would be something to the effect of picking Destroy and having a high enough EMS. I believe this is the most marketable epilouge to implement and would please quite a lot of people.

Yep. This is probably the single biggest thing they can do to make it a success.

The Synthesis and Control endings are/can be happy, too, but they're less viscerally so.

He needs to fail in one scenario also. This would be for the chuckleheads who just want to see that. I don't think I need to explain any rationale behind this.

CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE is quite unsatisfying

In Destroy:

A high EMS will result in the "golden" ending so to speak. This will result in the Geth and EDI not being killed and Shepard surviving and reuniting with whomever he chooses.

I could see some squad member losses with even the highest EMS. This could be fairly granular, and maybe be weighted by ME2 loyalty, romance, whether you helped them during ME3, whether you talk to them in the FOB and so on.

In Synthesis:

With high enough EMS, Synthesis is more effective, quelling a great deal of problems between oranics and synthetics

But it should solve them completely, no? Or, rather, completely erase the difference.

With a low EMS, Synthesis is less effective causing some failings in the merging of whatever Synthesis does. We essentially have abominations on our hands.

Interesting. You don't mean in the sense of completely failing, or civil unrest, but essentially something like a population of zombie husks or something of that nature?

In Control:

With a high EMS the Control is absolute when Shepard becomes the new Catalyst. There is no concern over him losing control.

With a low EMS Shepard will have trouble controlling the Reapers and they will be able to lash out from time to time.

I kind of like this idea. I'm not sure if a ‘lashing out’ makes sense, maybe, but perhaps it could be formulated slightly differently. There's two scenarios that I see:

- First scenario is that in low EMS the ShepardAI is more of a VI. Strict operating parameters, basically no interaction. (Also, I'd love to see the Shepherd reaper.) Mid-EMS is a personality copy into an AI, and high EMS is actually a wavefront transfer where Shepard lives as an incorporeal virtual being.

- In the second, in all cases we're dealing with the ‘real’ incorporeal Shepard. Whereas with high EMS ShepardAI is basically free to do whatever he/she/it pleases, including playing virtual chess with Sam, in the low EMS constant control over the reapers must be maintained, and thus Shepard can't really interact with people at all.

Modifié par lillitheris, 26 avril 2012 - 09:40 .

[lillitheris]

Experimenting with adding links from the OP to relevant posts in the thread. Do you think the [ 1, 2, … ] syntax is clear enough?

Modifié par lillitheris, 26 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[lillitheris]

Hm, have to work in some of the choices from the game…I could really use some alternative perspectives here, since I have only gone through the paragonish path.

For example, if the genophage cure was sabotaged, the krogan will find out – very soon, too. In no case will it take over a year for them to figure out it's not working, probably much less.

What about other things? Please tell me if you can think of any similar concerns…

[Taboo]

Synthesis is such a muddled choice right now I can't make much speculation other than it's effectiveness.

What I essentially wanted with a low EMS in the Synthesis ending is something like a plague. A great number or organisms are negatively effected while others are able to adapt and survive. Not perfect but it's the only thing I can make out of the mess.

As for control all I can make of it with the information I have is that Shepard becomes the new catalyst. Perhaps a low EMS results in failure? A facade maybe? Something to the effect the Reapers are only pretending to be under his control? By lashing out I meant to infer something like a psychotic episode. From time to time they separate from "Control" and are free to roam as they please.

I honestly can only speculate at this point.