17 réponses à ce sujet

[ArchedAlbatross]

 So I have been brooding on the ending just as much as anyone else and have been trying to summarize why I feel complete dissappointment in the way the game ended. Then it hit me in the face. The tag line that was thrown around like crazy leading up to the launch of the game "Take Earth Back." I bought the game because I loved the first two and wanted to conclude one of the most epic journey's in video game history by taking back Earth and ridding the ME galaxy of the Reaper threat. So here I am, finished with the game, with no desire to play through ME3 again (which was one of the greatest selling points of the previous two games) and all because I feel like I failed to do the one thing that the game promised I would do. 

No amount of "clarification" will fix this, not unless it includes me waking up from my laser induced coma and kicking multiple baddies in the face (preferrably Suicide mission style). 

Addendum: List your #1 reason why in as few words as possible. 

Modifié par ArchedAlbatross, 17 avril 2012 - 05:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I know there are some that found Priority: Earth to just kind of fall flat anyways. Trying your best, do people feel that they didn't take Earth back because of the bleakness of the ending and the sequence with the Catalyst, or because you were underwhelmed by the mission.

No doubt some feel both combined into the lack of any "Take Back Earth" feeling. I guess I'm also curious if people felt the ending made people reflect on the Priority: Earth mission more negatively (people are less forgiving when in an upset mood)


My thoughts:
Priority Earth had some good parts and I think I let myself get caught up in the crescendo. The waves of guys didn't bother me since it made sense to me to be fighting hordes of guys. I did enjoy the sequence at the missiles and found it quite challenging as I pretty much blew all my medi-gels trying to survive it. Though I don't feel the ending really stood out in any way compared to other levels, which I can see being some of the expectations people would have had. The climaxes of Rannoch and Tuchanka still stand out to me as being the most memorable and moving parts of the game, including their conclusions, and Earth wasn't quite like that.

As for the Catalyst and endgame, the best there is is a high EMS ending that shows the Reapers either leaving or getting destroyed, meaning that we probably did take Earth back, but the openness of the ending doesn't explicitly remove any uncertainty.

I did feel like I took back earth...just I didn't have a "WOO PARTY WE TOOK BACK EARTH!" more like a "I did it...but it cost a lot to do so". Just how I felt.

I think this pretty much sums up the way I felt.

For my Shepard, if he is telling the truth, which I believe he is, then no option in front of me accomplishes my goal to stop "The Cycle". If you couldn't tell, I really hate the ending............

Why wouldn't the Control ending break the cycle? I've seen people write that Synthesis wouldn't necessarily prevent the creation of new synthetics, but if Shepard truly maintains the ability to control the Reapers, then they bend to his will. It would seem like the cycle would only not break if Shepard decided he wanted to go and do some Reaping, which seems unlike Shepard (especially Paragon Shepard).




Cheers.

Allan


EDIT:
I had to add this:

1: A D-Day type invasion into London. Call it the Normandy Invasion if you will

Well played.  Opportunity missed by the writers there for sure! 

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 17 avril 2012 - 06:26 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Fnork wrote...

No.

Reason ? Contrary to Rannoch and Tuchanka Earth only had 1 mission, in 1 city. Half your war assets are a total no show, you sort of hear what the rest of your team will be doing but you don't see anything of it let alone see anything of what your ME2 team is doing. Why not show Jack knocking over a brute ? Or Grunt tearing into ravagers ? Or the Rachni shredding husks and cannibals ?

Stuff like that would have been cool for sure, but would it have really helped contribute to the idea of taking back Earth if you saw that sort of stuff as ancillary content that was built around what is already there (i.e. not additional missions).

Fans would have enjoyed it for sure, but I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

[Allan Schumacher]

DarthSyphilis59 wrote...

I think its a little of both. I said earlier that I felt like I spent more time taking back Tuchanka then I did with Earth. So, yes it was a little underwhelming. There really should have been a couple of theatres of war on earth spanning two or three missions. I'm not sure its the bleakness that bothers me as much as the fact that the ending flies in the face that made the two previous games powerful. A recurring theme in mass effect is triumph through sacrifice, but there is also triumph through unity; overcomming impossible odds. I felt that all of the war assets I collected really didn't have anything to do with the overall outcome. I thought I was collecting war assets so I would have a better chance at kicking reaper ass.

The recurring theme of overcoming impossible odds was actually overshadowed for myself since every game I prepared myself for the death of Shepard (or at least, a significant loss of life in ME2), so I went into ME3 thinking "third time's the charm."

It's definitely a common one that many posters agree with though.

[Allan Schumacher]

stcalvin13 wrote...

Because all control does is make the reapers leave.  I see no reason why they can't come back.  Especially since the guy controlling them died.  People may argue about whether destroy or synthesis is the most evil ending, but control absolutely makes the least sense.

The idea behind Control, if you assume the Catalyst is not incorrect in the slightest (a condition put forth by the person I was responding to), is that Shepard controls the Reapers.  How he does that after "dying" is not relevant if you've made the assumption that the Catalyst is not misleading Shepard about his ability to control the reapers.

Also, I think synthesis makes the least sense

[Allan Schumacher]

As I posted before, in the most simplistic of terms, I fought harder for other planets than I fought for my own. I mean, helping Tuchanka and Rannoch felt "right" you know. But when it came down to my own planet, it was like one huge zone that didn't have any personal depth. You would expect to see true destruction from bodies in the street, people in make shift shelters, buildings that were visually falling. Remember that scene from the first Terminator when Sarah is dreaming about Kyle's future and all the people who were just trying to survive when the Terminator came in? That's what I feel should have been the essence on earth as well as having different sectors to fight in. That would have been beautiful and it would have really shown just how badly earth needed me there. It felt that I cared for the Krogan, Turians, Quarians, and the Geth more than I did for humanity.

I was expecting Earth to be a bit more war torn as well actually.

Never liked the Earth aspect forced into ME3 - never cared about Earth - never had a reason too.

That's an interesting perspective! Not one I necessarily see too often.

1. It would solidify the sense that Earth was taken back.
2. It would reinforce the sense that "I, Shepard" made the team that took Earth back.

Okay. So it helps with the feeling of empowerment towards Shepard, and that the forces on Earth are there to chew bubble gum while kicking butt, as a result of your Shepard uniting the galaxy?

[Allan Schumacher]

Militarized wrote...

A large part of the problem is that, it is possible for ME2 to end with Shepard and large signifigant loss of life. It is also possible to have everyone survive, seriously everyone.

Well, I've stated in the past that I find it disappointing that the suicide mission can flawlessly be completed (especially since it really only takes a completionist playthrough to set yourself up for it, and it's not really that difficult to achieve).  But it did happen so I think fans expecting the same in ME3 do have some ground to stand on.

In my head, the only logical choice is Destruction.  It's not mass
genocide (Synthesis - rewriting everyone to a master race-style
thinking) and not a temporary fix (Control).

Destroy is my choice too.

[Allan Schumacher]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Seeing as how I dropped the Citadel on it, no. Or was that twitterfied? I also stranded the great armada I brought with me. Trading one war for another I guess. Let me guess, twitterfied?

Would have been neat to see these things in the game instead of having to follow twitter to get an explanation for the ending.

My expectation is that things that are commented on on twitter and in interviews like Patrick's, are the types of things that will be included in the ending DLC.  I think some fans have just been particularly insistent on knowing the situation now rather than waiting for it.

[Allan Schumacher]

stcalvin13 wrote...

Nothing that he says indicates that Shepard will continue to control the reapers after his death.  The impression I had was that Shepard sent them away and then died.  (others apparently thought this way too--I've seen more than a few people say that control simply delayed the cycle.)

I'm not disagreeing with that, but it wasn't the framework of the original questions, which had a precondition stating that we are free to assume that the Catalyst is 100% accurate and that Shepard will maintain control of the Reapers.

Issues with "what exactly does it mean to control something after dying" are valid questions, but it takes the discussion in a different direction than what was originally put forth by a poster in this thread.

[Allan Schumacher]

Johcande XX wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

Seeing as how I dropped the Citadel on it, no. Or was that twitterfied? I also stranded the great armada I brought with me. Trading one war for another I guess. Let me guess, twitterfied?

Would have been neat to see these things in the game instead of having to follow twitter to get an explanation for the ending.

My expectation is that things that are commented on on twitter and in interviews like Patrick's, are the types of things that will be included in the ending DLC.  I think some fans have just been particularly insistent on knowing the situation now rather than waiting for it.

  No offense, but we paid for it now.  

I'm confused by this statement.  People were discussing the tweets and I've seen others on the thread state the silliness of just tweeting what happens without showing.  I suppose they could stop answering those sorts of questions, but it does seem like a lot of people ask them because they really want to know now.

And is that unreasonable?  We waited and waited to get the ending to Mass Effect 3, and it turned out to be crap.

How
many more months do you expect us to sit on our butts and wait for your
team to recover the situation, especially when everything being
released indicates that the new ending is not going to be any better?

Tell us what the endings are going to be, and let us judge them, so we can either love them or more on already.

No, I'm not saying it's unreasonable at all.  A lot of people have brought up the explanation of things on twitter in a decidedly negative light because it should just be shown in game.

I don't think your beef regarding this issue is with me, as I have no problem with the tweets.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 17 avril 2012 - 08:02 .

[Allan Schumacher]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Stuff like that would have been cool for sure, but would it have really helped contribute to the idea of taking back Earth if you saw that sort of stuff as ancillary content that was built around what is already there (i.e. not additional missions).

Fans would have enjoyed it for sure, but I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

I'm sort of confused by this statement, as in I'm not sure if you're proposing it as an either or (i.e seeing grunt riding on a dinosaur wouldn't have really contributed to feeling more like you took back earth). But assuming you are I'd disagree, because part of the how the game was set up was completing these missions in order to help facilitate the taking back of earth, so seeing direct consequences of my mission competiton (or not seeing them) would directly relate to how much I felt like I/my shepard contributed to taking back earth. Otherwise it raises the question of what does any of the ally gathering and former squad mate helping have to do with taking back earth. Would earth have been any less taken back had I just skipped all those side missions and played multiplayer for a few days? 

Especially if the assets had been specifically deployed, like instead of having to fight out one area with your crew, grunt rides in on a dinosaur and takes them all out. Or you see content of these assets possibly deployed in other areas of earth. (Drell forces infiltrating reaper strong holds in some desert, Krogan and the dinosaurs in the mountain areas of middle east/asia fighting off reapers.. Salarians STG forces in some jungle area. etc). That would have definitely contributed to taking back EARTH.

I'm not proposing it as an either/or.  I'm just trying to make sense out of this idea of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

For example, you say that seeing the scenes of Drell, Krogan, etc. doing awesome things would help you feel like you are taking back Earth.  My question for you is: Would the feeling of taking back Earth felt significantly different if the kickass scenes you would have liked to have seen with the various races still existed but just with humans.

i.e. Is the lack of feeling of taking back Earth more due to a general lack of content (show the fight), or more due to the lack of seeing the combined forces.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 17 avril 2012 - 05:38 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Exeider wrote...

@ Allan Schumacher,

i hope you would read this and reply, I will answer your question in as little smarmy an answer as possible.

When Priority: Earth came up, and I was starting the end I felt or was rather expecting that certain game mechanics were going to come up, because they had been I felt foreshadowed earlier in the game.

1) (Single-weapon mode); There were two times in the game where for the sake of gameplay your weapons were removed and replaced with a single weapon, the geth "logic" blaster int he consensus, and the Target Painter.

I felt that in the first instances, I was getting "practice" with a new mechanic that was going to show up again at the end of the game.

specifically, right when we hear over the radio that "harbinger" was coming down from orbit to handle shepard personally.

I thought this was going to be the final battle, or A final battle, using the target painter and the orbiting fleet, which the strength of that 'weapon' would depend on your EMS.

Interesting.  I never thought of those sequences as "practice" types (I didn't really connect the two, possibly because they were a bit different in their purpose in game), but I don't think it's an invalid expectation.  I think the idea of utilizing the target painter and letting your EMS determine the damage to Harbinger would have been an interesting one too.

2) Minibosses and Final Boss;

without starting a round of maruader shields jokes, I have to ask? Where the heck was my final big bad boss Allan?

I'm probably the worst person to ask for this as my need for a specific boss encounter is not as high as most other people, and in fact dislike the boss fights from the first two games as they felt forced.

When I played the mission, and going through the seemingly endless left 4 dead style "Horde" mode play of waves of waves of enemies, I really thought that was filler for BETWEEN MINIBOSSES.

When no minibosses showed up I was like, WTF? I felt that we were going to fight Boss versions of the enemies, a "hero" version of a brute, or a banshee, then move on, fighting hordes between each, Miniboss Area, culminating in the Final Boss of Harbinger. Or at least a seemingly final Boss of harbinger, using the afore mentioned Target painter.

I did enjoy the confrontation against the Reaper destroyer though.  I found it intense and quite challenging, and loved setting up sequences for the Reaper's laser to scorch a banshee or two with a single blast while popping medigels.  Finally triggering those missiles watching the Reaper just fail to protect himself against it was pretty awesome for myself.

[Allan Schumacher]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fans would have enjoyed it for sure, but I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

Yes, it would have. It shows everything we put together, all the people we gathered and the team we've come to know over the last 5 years. It shows that what we did actually mattered.

Seeing our War Assets in action, seeing our team fighting together, kicking ass, is the kind of emotional impact that people really want.

Just imagining the Rachni fighting, or the Turians and Krogans fighting together, protecting each other, all the races working together. It gives me goosebumps and makes me feel damn proud.

Okay.  Just so I'm clear, would Priority: Earth felt like you were "taking back Earth" if you happened to see the Rachni, Turians, and Krogans all fighting along side you in the levels provided (i.e. no new levels, no new cutscene).

I think it's a hard question personally haha (and one that we can't really answer definitively unfortunately since it's not the case of what's in the game)

[Allan Schumacher]

indyracing wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Johcande XX wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

Seeing as how I dropped the Citadel on it, no. Or was that twitterfied? I also stranded the great armada I brought with me. Trading one war for another I guess. Let me guess, twitterfied?

Would have been neat to see these things in the game instead of having to follow twitter to get an explanation for the ending.

My expectation is that things that are commented on on twitter and in interviews like Patrick's, are the types of things that will be included in the ending DLC.  I think some fans have just been particularly insistent on knowing the situation now rather than waiting for it.

  No offense, but we paid for it now.  

I'm confused by this statement. 

I don't really see how you are confused by this statement.

Many things were promised by Bioware employees pre-launch.  I could list them, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.  Basically, many things were promised TO happen, and didn't (closure, decisions mattering, differing endings, etc.), and some things were explicitly said to NOT happen, yet did (no A, B or C choice).

So when those things weren't (or were!) included in the game, we feel cheated.  We paid for the game, were given expectations by both explicit quotes from those in charge of making the game and implicit promises we would naturally derive from both past Bioware games in general and pass Mass Effect games specifically, and those were not lived up to.

Some of them *may* be given to us free in a few months, but we "paid for it now".

I understand.  Where i'm confused is I'm not sure why that's a response to me saying that I think comments such as Patrick's in the PAX interview are an indicator of what types of things we can expect to see in the ending, in response to someone saying they'd like to see it in game instead of on twitter.

I didn't think my statement made any sort of qualitative statement as to the opinions people had were either good or bad.  I guess it's a case of some meaning being lost in text.

/shrug

[Allan Schumacher]

Naugi wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I don't think he's not getting anything, I think he's asking for explicit clarification rather than assuming. which is probably a really good thing. Assuming people will "get" things is how we end up with...starchild.

I dont think he's asking for clarification, he genuinely seems to think scenes showing our forces taking back earth wouldnt have helped us feel like we took back earth. Hell, writing it that way makes it sound crazy.

I think you're being kind, and that's nice n all, but theres something very wrong with saying: I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

The reason why I'm asking these questions in a directed way is because this topic is related to the expectations that some fans felt were established based on the Take Earth Back prerelease trailer.  By the way a lot of people were talking, if we had scenes like that but actually in game, it would have helped contribute to the perception of taking back earth.  Which is interesting because you don't actually see any alien species fighting along side humans in that trailer.  Not even one of Shepard's companions (only Ashley).

So there was a bit of a disconnect between what different groups of people are saying, and I'm not saying if any perspective is more correct or not.  A lot of other people talked about how they would have liked more missions and stuff like that, to help put it on par with Rannoch and Tuchanka.

My leaning is that "more content" would have contributed to the feeling more, but there are certainly a large number of people that make me think that "we don't need more content, just greater reflection of our allies" might be a larger contributor.

[Allan Schumacher]

Nearly to a person, those involved in gaming as developers or professional (paid by gaming websites or earning their income through reviewing games) don't ever even touch on the actual plot elements (or lack thereof) of the end. It's like their opinion of the game totally omits the scene with the Illusive Man and the God Child entirely

Well, it'd be silly if every post (or at least thread) I comment on I always included my precise thoughts on the ending.

My first post (a wall of text) I did discuss the Catalyst. I didn't really touch on TIM though because for me things didn't start to get strange until after reaching the Crucible.

[Allan Schumacher]

Eterna5 wrote...

Allan, while I don't think that having cutscenes of the rachni or Turians would have made it feel like we were taking back earth; it would have added more to that final battle. Supposedly we have the whole galaxy with us, but for the most part we only see humans.

I think that this a fair comment and I don't begrudge anyone for feeling this way.  It's just about seeing if there are actually separate issues at play, or if there are some "spill over" and that some of the disappointment with not feeling like they took back earth is actually motivated by a stronger, underlying cause.

[Allan Schumacher]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay.  Just so I'm clear, would Priority: Earth felt like you were "taking back Earth" if you happened to see the Rachni, Turians, and Krogans all fighting along side you in the levels provided (i.e. no new levels, no new cutscene).

I think it's a hard question personally haha (and one that we can't really answer definitively unfortunately since it's not the case of what's in the game)

So wait..

Do you mean, like..actually seeing other races fighting as you play?

This seems hard to get into words. I think I know what you mean, but I've never thought about it like that. That would be cool, though, having your war assets actually fight with you.

It could also bring about a better sense of urgency, make things seem more lively.

Yeah.  I'm just examining if lack of seeing our allied forces is really two separate (but related/complementary) issues, or if it is really the same issue.

What I meant by my example was more along the lines of: "If you didn't receive an additional second of extra content, whether it be playable or in a cutscene, but you saw your allies fighting at various points during the level, is that something that makes you feel more like you're taking Earth back, or is it just something that's awesome to see?"