255 réponses à ce sujet

[OhoniX]

This is a fair question for sure.  When I went through the game I
was definitely more interested in the big guns I was recruiting, rather
than the scientists and engineers.  However, based on the end result,
the EMS definitely affects what impact the pulse has.

My
conclusion is that the EMS score more reflects the ability to engineer
and protect the Crucible rather than our direct ability to face Reapers
in conflict.

Yeah, that was my take on things. Your EMS is your "ability to pull off the use of the Crucible successfully." More ships means that you can get it in place with minimal shipping damage. More scientists means you can overengineer the thing. Even resources that are kept out of system help by drawing away Reapers that might otherwise join in the final battle.

BTW what's the citadel defense force for?

Presumably they would have slowed down the "Reaperfication" of the Citadel, which would have made it more suitable to the Crucible activation than it otherwise would be?

That said, I think an option to refuse the Catalyst's options would
have been great.  Though the nihilist in me would have probably had the
Reapers win in that case haha.

That's the only way it could go. I'd like to see that option too, if only to see whiner's heads explode when they go "you know where to stick it, Star Child!" and it's immediately followed by cutscenes of the Crucible exploding (with Shep on it) and the Reapers mopping up the remaining Sword Fleet. Then maybe cut to two Marauders and they high five.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I completely thought the Starchild was wrong and insane the first time I heard his little spiel, but it was late and I had to work in like three hours so I just said "screw it, it doesn't make any sense but I'll pick the option that seems sanest and get this nonsense over with, see what all the fuss was about."

The more unreliable he is, the more unfair, nonsensical, and nihilistic the ending is.

The more I read this thread, the more I realize the ending is just someone clearly insane offering you some random choices he thinks are amusing at the time, without actually telling you what any of them will do. Still, dance on his strings, little puppets, because arbitrary choices with no basis in reality are the only choices you have.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2012 - 08:49 .

[AllThatJazz]

Just want to say that I really like what's being said about our EMS affecting the accuracy, efficiency and ability to protect the Crucible. I'm embarassed to admit I hadn't thought of it that way. If this is something that could be made more obvious in the Extended Cut it could go a long way to showing people how their in-game actions (in terms of gathering War Assets) mattered.

[DJBare]

forsaken gamer wrote...
Let's say for the sake of argument that your interpretation is the case.  The Reapers still don't win.  If their goal is survival by harvesting and assending organics to propogate, then they still lose, because presumably,  they stop harvesting and propogating and go to never never land, or whatever it is they do with the synthesis option.

I agree, their reasoning is faulty, synthesis will lead to stagnation, but we have people in our own real society that believe in and accept the singularity theory, I reject for the very notion I just stated, evolution takes place mostly through adversity, trial and error.

[ElementL09]

When the Catalyst meant the Geth and other synthetics, I think he meant all synthetics with Reaper tech in them. Like the Geth have Reaper upgrades (depending on your decesions). EDI has the Reaper IFF, but I don't think she would be destoryed. Cerberus Soldiers are pretty much screwed as well.

[Eudaemonium]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I completely thought the Starchild was wrong and insane the first time I heard his little spiel, but it was late and I had to work in like three hours so I just said "screw it, it doesn't make any sense but I'll pick the option that seems sanest and get this nonsense over with, see what all the fuss was about."

The more unreliable he is, the more unfair, nonsensical, and nihilistic the ending is.

The more I read this thread, the more I realize the ending is just someone clearly insane offering you some random choices he thinks are amusing at the time, without actually telling you what any of them will do. Still, dance on his strings, little puppets, because arbitrary choices with no basis in reality are the only choices you have.

I thought you'd disappeared.

[Siran]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think the destroy ending is supposed to fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics.

I don't really know if there is any "fixing" to be done, since I think we can agree that the Geth and EDI are examples that it does not have to end in synthetics wiping out all organics. That's another reason I took the destroy ending - who is to say, that it is always the same way, why not give this cycle the chance, it has proven it can make peace with synthetics (and destroy them, if need be, take that Reapers!). And after all - organics destroy other organics all the time. So, do we wipe out all organics? War, as sad as it is, has always been part of evolution.

Modifié par Siran, 12 avril 2012 - 09:09 .

[Federally]

Don't know if someone else has pointed this out already or not but about EDI....

You said she lives more in Eva then the Normandy. Well that's not true, EDI is a "quantum blue box" AI. Which means her program runs in a box that is a quantum computer. The way its described in the lore is that EDI isn't just a program but she physically is the blue box, if you were to copy all data in the box to another you wouldn't copy EDI, you would instead make a new AI with EDI's memories. So EDI is not like a Geth program that seems to be totally independent of hardware, she is inseparable from the blue box.

EDI's blue box is installed in the Normandy's AI core and she controls Eva remotely using the Normandy's tight beam communicator. So based on universe lore EDI should be either dead, disabled or at least unable to control Eva in all endings due to the Normandy crash. The fact you can see her walk off the ship is a pretty big plothole, though often overlooked, and appears to just been pushed through to present this 'Adam and Eve' ending on the jungle planet.

As far as the Geth, who knows. So much lore is broken in the end I say its reasonable to just imagine whatever you want since rules no longer apply.

[UrgentArchengel]

I'll say it once more...Shep, you gotta lay off the LSD man.

[eventhewaves]

Yeah.  Shepard picked a really bad day to stop sniffing glue.

[Avatar231278]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think the destroy ending is supposed to fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics.

Which problem of it? That they still could wipe out all organics, or that all the synthetics we see in ME with the exception of the heretic geth (plus the AI in ME1 and Eve, but the former is only explored a tiny fraction of the game, so there might be more to it, than we actually see and the latter was under control of TIM, so we don't know what might have happened if we were able to break the control), which are only a minor part of the entire race, are in fact benevolent creatures hoping to find their own meaning of life in the universe.

Speculations and unjustified prejudice towards synthetics everywhere. Starchild acts like G.W. Bush jun. and hero Shepard buys it, making him a mere thrall eager to be brainwashed

[StarcloudSWG]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think the destroy ending is supposed to fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics.

It's an unproven argument. The problem is hypothetical; fear of the problem led to lockstep doctrinal thinking by the catalyst/Reaper AI. Its logic is disprovable by the presentation of an alternate argument that is equally logical. Further, the premise that an AI will always outdo organic intelligence is, itself, not proven.

Finally, creating synthetics (the Reapers) to do exactly what the catalyst/Reaper AI claims to want to avoid is a contradiction of its own logic. It IS wiping out all organic life, it's just doing so cyclically instead of all at once.

The only solution is to reject the argument, reject the premise, reject the method and reject the idea, by destroying the Reapers and the Catalyst's blue boxes.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Eudaemonium wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I completely thought the Starchild was wrong and insane the first time I heard his little spiel, but it was late and I had to work in like three hours so I just said "screw it, it doesn't make any sense but I'll pick the option that seems sanest and get this nonsense over with, see what all the fuss was about."

The more unreliable he is, the more unfair, nonsensical, and nihilistic the ending is.

The more I read this thread, the more I realize the ending is just someone clearly insane offering you some random choices he thinks are amusing at the time, without actually telling you what any of them will do. Still, dance on his strings, little puppets, because arbitrary choices with no basis in reality are the only choices you have.

I thought you'd disappeared.

You'll never be alone.

Meet me at the bar, I'm buying.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2012 - 09:37 .

[darthnick427]

I've always assumed the Catalyst was trying to manipulate Shepard into the control or synthesis choices because in both they are achieving the reapers goals and his "solution" can continue. Destroy choice will destroy the reapers and end his solution forever. That's why he describes the other two choices in a positive light and the destroy ending as a negative and tries to deceive Shepard by claiming the Geth would be wiped out when I reality the Crucible only targets reaper's them selves

[CulturalGeekGirl]

darthnick427 wrote...

I've always assumed the Catalyst was trying to manipulate Shepard into the control or synthesis choices because in both they are achieving the reapers goals and his "solution" can continue. Destroy choice will destroy the reapers and end his solution forever. That's why he describes the other two choices in a positive light and the destroy ending as a negative and tries to deceive Shepard by claiming the Geth would be wiped out when I reality the Crucible only targets reaper's them selves

This is interesting, because your default interpretation of the ending is something that, if proven true, would actually make every single person I know in real life who is satisfied with the ending hate it.

This is because such an interpretation actually punishes sincerity and suspension of disbelief.

I'm not saying your assessment is bad or illogical, merely that I think it would be frustrating and imbalanced-feeling for a lot of the players who were able to enjoy the ending by emotionally investing in the choices offered, acting as if they were logical and mattered.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2012 - 09:50 .

[Eudaemonium]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I completely thought the Starchild was wrong and insane the first time I heard his little spiel, but it was late and I had to work in like three hours so I just said "screw it, it doesn't make any sense but I'll pick the option that seems sanest and get this nonsense over with, see what all the fuss was about."

The more unreliable he is, the more unfair, nonsensical, and nihilistic the ending is.

The more I read this thread, the more I realize the ending is just someone clearly insane offering you some random choices he thinks are amusing at the time, without actually telling you what any of them will do. Still, dance on his strings, little puppets, because arbitrary choices with no basis in reality are the only choices you have.

I thought you'd disappeared.

You'll never be alone.

Meet me at the bar, I'm buying.

Woohoo!

Purgatory, Dark Star or Afterlife?

[Arcadian Legend]

Been thinking this for a while myself. Patrick Weekes explained away most things like the Mass Relay destruction and the Citadel, but the Geth are still an unknown. We know for definite EDI and Shepad survived and there is surely bound to be some Geth somewhere in remote Geth stations outside the Mass Relay range. Remember we only saw a microscopic fraction of the Perseus Veil.

[CroGamer002]

I asked Patrick about it and only thing he said it may be answered in Extended Cut.

[Ilkec]

i actually chose to belive that only the reapers were destroyed because the star kid says that you could destroy all synthetics if you wanted whitch i assumed was for if shep wanted to kill geth later in his/her life if he/she wanted to

[Eudaemonium]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

darthnick427 wrote...

I've always assumed the Catalyst was trying to manipulate Shepard into the control or synthesis choices because in both they are achieving the reapers goals and his "solution" can continue. Destroy choice will destroy the reapers and end his solution forever. That's why he describes the other two choices in a positive light and the destroy ending as a negative and tries to deceive Shepard by claiming the Geth would be wiped out when I reality the Crucible only targets reaper's them selves

This is interesting, because your default interpretation of the ending is something that, if proven true, would actually make every single person I know in real life who is satisfied with the ending hate it.

This is because such an interpretation actually punishes sincerity and suspension of disbelief.

I'm not saying your assessment is bad or illogical, merely that I think it would be frustrating and imbalanced-feeling for a lot of the players who were able to enjoy the ending by emotionally investing in the choices offered, acting as if they were logical and mattered.

I tend to think that Control was always meant to leave open the possibility (not necessarily the definite reality) of the cycle eventually continuing, but that it was always meant to be a possibility, a risk that Shepard takes when she chooses that option ("How totally can I control the Reapers?", "Given the infinite span of time, is it possible that I will eventually come to agree with their solution?"), that is assuming Shepard's 'essence' lives on in that ending as a governing factor in Reaper consciousness, or as a new Catalyst. It is an inherent risk which can be seen to counterbalance the better state of the galaxy (not having to sacrifice the geth, and the relay destruction sequence doesn't play out as fully as in the other endings, in addition to possibly using the Reapers to rebuild or repair them anyway).

Modifié par Eudaemonium, 12 avril 2012 - 09:57 .

[Arcadian Legend]

Mesina2 wrote...

I asked Patrick about it and only thing he said it may be answered in Extended Cut.

Regarding the Geth yeah. That's the only thing thats a maybe. He did shed more light on more general things in an interview a while ago. Lemme find it.

Okay, here is what I asked Patrick Weekes, and his answers as best as I can remember them. I've paraphrased but I'm doing my best to stick to what he said rather than introduce any interpretation.

THESE ARE NOT DIRECT QUOTES.

-Is there still a setting to explore after the ending? Is everything ruined?

The setting is definitely not ruined. We still have a big, lively galaxy.

-Will long-distance superluminal travel still be possible post-Ending? (will Tali or Wrex or Garrus see their homeworlds again? Will everyone starve?)

Galactic civilization will rebuild. The mass relays were not necessary for interstellar flight. Remember, what does it say in the Codex about the speed of ships? That's right, 12 lightyears per (day? hour? minute?). And that's only the cruising speed, not the maximum speed.

People have never needed to research basic FTL improvements before because they have mass relays. With the relays gone, new technology will increase that speed. Additionally, the element zero cores of the dead/controlled Reapers can be used to improve FTL drives. Starflight will continue using conventional FTL.

-Why did Joker leave Shep behind?

Joker would never abandon Shep without a good reason. Hopefully this will be clear in the Expanded Cut.

-Why can EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed, but (unclear, don't remember - wish I'd been able to ask a followup as his response doesn't make much sense)

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive.  You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived. 

-Is it better for Kelly Chambers if we talk her into suicide?

No, see above.

-Who wrote the death of Joker's sister?

I did! We intentionally did not connect the dots. We were very interested to see how fast gamers figured it out.

-Whose idea was it to make the Rayya fall out of the sky if you destroy the Quarian fleet?

Someone in the audio department, it was brilliant.

-Did the mass relays pull an Arrival and go supernova?

No, they didn't. (i'm paraphrasing here, please don't interpret this too hard) They overloaded, they didn't rupture. We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect. 

(Mr. Weekes dropped a lot of hints that he really didn't like the ending. He also said something that was almost 100% verbatim from the Penny Arcade Forum post often attributed to him)

-Why did Legion pull a 180 from his Mass Effect 2 philosophy?

He and the Geth were backed into a corner. They'd been made a lot dumber by the attack on the Dyson swarm. There was no other choice for Geth survival.

-What was up with the Rachni story? Why did we get railroaded?

Welcome to game development. In some games (Alpha Protocol) they make a bold choice where some decisions can knock entire missions out of the story. At BioWare, we never want people to be locked out of content due to a decision several games ago. We just didn't have the resources to do an alternate for the Rachni mission, so we decided that the Rachni mission could occur whether or not players saved the Queen.

-Why didn't (X squadmate from ME2) return?

There was a very ugly month of development where we fought out who would return. We knew we had to have a smaller cast so we could fit in more squad banter. Eventually we decided to bring Garrus and Tali back, so they could be squadmates in all three games. We also knew we'd have Vega in order for new players to have someone dumber than they were.

I was very resentful of Vega at first because I thought he was taking a slot that could've gone to a ME2 character, but he grew on me.

-Why did EDI have cameltoe?

We don't get a lot of feedback from the art department but (unclear, wish I remembered this better  )

Lots of discussion about how he was uncomfortable doing Pinocchio stories for both Legion and EDI because 'EDI was fine, she was an AI, she was cool - do we really need her to turn into Commander Data? We had seven seasons of Data, that was enough.'

-Why did you write Pinocchio stories for all the synthetic characters?

See above

-What was up with the Human Reaper in ME2? Why did it look so dumb?

We wanted to use the Suicide Mission to show several steps of the Reaper development process, from human reaper embryo all the way to cuttlefish. But the mission grew too complicated so it was cut for time.

Do the Reapers really only generate one capital ship per cycle? How do they ever break even?

Well, we never totally pinned that down. But this cycle was really anomalous. They don't normally take any capital-size Reaper losses at all.

-What was up with Kai Leng? How do you feel about him?

We really wanted to have a recurring antagonist for Shep, a 'Darth Maul' (his words). But I feel like there was some definite conflict between cutscene and gameplay there, and I think it's something we have to work on.

'He was a great antagonist in the books' 

-Why did we only get top and bottom dialogue choices, no middle?

Part of it was resources. Part of it is that Mass Effect 3 is a war story and it's really hard for Shep to feel middling about the Reapers.

-How did YOU feel about the ending?

(I didn't ask this, but he seems to have gone to GREAT lengths to think ways around a lot of stuff the ending implied.)

Why no female (alien X?)

Resource limitations. They have a very strict budget for how many different characters they can use in a given area. Some are basically free - if you have human males you have Batarians because they're humans with funny heads, if you have human females you have asari, etc.

Where was Harbinger? Can we ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of him?

I definitely want more closure on Harbinger. That'd be hilarious. Stop punching yourself, Harbinger.

How did the Reapers storm the Citadel? Why didn't they shut down the relays as per their original plan once they had control?

Originally we planned to have a cutscene of Reapers taking over, Reaper monsters punching buttons, et cetera. But we cut it, partially for resource reasons and partly because it disrupted the pacing.

The Reapers didn't shut down the mass relays because the Keepers interfered with that. (I wish I could've asked a follow-up here, it doesn't make much sense.)

Why don't Ken and Gabby have more dialogue?

They actually have a bunch more on disk, but we somehow introduced a bug where their dialogue is tied to your approval level with Ash. If Ash has low approval, or isn't present, most of Ken and Gabby's dialogue won't play.

Why do you guys do Star Wars style space battles instead of the battles described in the codex?

We want to provide a familiar, compelling visual experience for people who grew up on Star Wars and stuff like that. These are some of our favorite parts of the game.

***

Things I wish I'd asked:

Why the drat Starchild?

What was up with the Stargazer? (He touched on the Stargazer once and pretty much said 'oh, yeah, the Stargazer.'

Again: NOT DIRECT QUOTES. These are NOT OFFICIAL BIOWARE STATEMENTS. Please don't gently caress Patrick Weekes over by posting these as 'official BioWare PR' or whatever. Please feel free to ask me follow-up questions, as I definitely didn't cover the whole conversation with him.

My takeaway was: the epilogue DLC is probably going to do a lot of good and be pretty well written, and Patrick Weekes should've been lead writer on ME3.  

Modifié par Arcadian Legend, 12 avril 2012 - 10:01 .

[darthnick427]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

darthnick427 wrote...

I've always assumed the Catalyst was trying to manipulate Shepard into the control or synthesis choices because in both they are achieving the reapers goals and his "solution" can continue. Destroy choice will destroy the reapers and end his solution forever. That's why he describes the other two choices in a positive light and the destroy ending as a negative and tries to deceive Shepard by claiming the Geth would be wiped out when I reality the Crucible only targets reaper's them selves

This is interesting, because your default interpretation of the ending is something that, if proven true, would actually make every single person I know in real life who is satisfied with the ending hate it.

This is because such an interpretation actually punishes sincerity and suspension of disbelief.

I'm not saying your assessment is bad or illogical, merely that I think it would be frustrating and imbalanced-feeling for a lot of the players who were able to enjoy the ending by emotionally investing in the choices offered, acting as if they were logical and mattered.

There are people actually satisfied with the endings as they are? If so we question their judgement. I honestly can't fathom how anyone can be emotionally invested in the "choices" we were given in the end let a lone "enjoying" them. It is simply not a thing I can comprehend. I'm fine with people that like the endings since you're intitled to your opinion, but I just can't wrap my head around liking the endings at all until the extention DLC is out

Modifié par darthnick427, 12 avril 2012 - 10:07 .

[Obvakhi]

edit; end page

Modifié par Obvakhi, 12 avril 2012 - 10:08 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Eudaemonium wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

darthnick427 wrote...

I've always assumed the Catalyst was trying to manipulate Shepard into the control or synthesis choices because in both they are achieving the reapers goals and his "solution" can continue. Destroy choice will destroy the reapers and end his solution forever. That's why he describes the other two choices in a positive light and the destroy ending as a negative and tries to deceive Shepard by claiming the Geth would be wiped out when I reality the Crucible only targets reaper's them selves

This is interesting, because your default interpretation of the ending is something that, if proven true, would actually make every single person I know in real life who is satisfied with the ending hate it.

This is because such an interpretation actually punishes sincerity and suspension of disbelief.

I'm not saying your assessment is bad or illogical, merely that I think it would be frustrating and imbalanced-feeling for a lot of the players who were able to enjoy the ending by emotionally investing in the choices offered, acting as if they were logical and mattered.

I tend to think that Control was always meant to leave open the possibility (not necessarily the definite reality) of the cycle eventually continuing, but that it was always meant to be a possibility, a risk that Shepard takes when she chooses that option ("How totally can I control the Reapers?", "Given the infinite span of time, is it possible that I will eventually come to agree with their solution?"), that is assuming Shepard's 'essence' lives on in that ending as a governing factor in Reaper consciousness, or as a new Catalyst. It is an inherent risk which can be seen to counterbalance the better state of the galaxy (not having to sacrifice the geth, and the relay destruction sequence doesn't play out as fully as in the other endings, in addition to possibly using the Reapers to rebuild or repair them anyway).

Sure. I've also seen some "control" people say they'll control the Reapers alright... they'll control them right into the center of a supernova, thus saving everyone AND destroying the Reapers AND leaving the Citadel and Mass Relays salvageable.

There are some cool and interesting ways of looking at all three possible choices, but I'm bothered by the game expecting you to look at a button labeled "Genocide" and push it thinking "meh, it probably doesn't actually genocide anyone." What do you say if you push it and it does? "Oops?" 

I need to sleep soon. Words are looking all swimmy now.