664 réponses à ce sujet

[joshko]

No, I was hoping for:
1: A D-Day type invasion into London. Call it the Normandy Invasion if you will
2: The battle of Londongrad
3: After some time fighting in Londongrad the Alliance of organic species make a final push leading to:
Shepard doing something very heroic, and after winning an Iwo Jima type scene on top of Big Ben(don't ask how)

[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 .

[DarthSyphilis59]

I spent more time taking back Tuchanka then I did retaking Earth.

[darkshadow136]

No it felt like Shepard, the fleet, the story from the past 2 games , and the whole galaxy got screwed over.

[BABEik52092]

111987 wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

111987 wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

111987 wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

And my point is being just because you don't want to believe the Catalyst doesn't make him a liar. What if he is telling the truth? If he is, all 3 endings are temporary solutions that DO NOT solve the problem at hand. The synthetics will rebel, and humanity will most likely be wiped out. I wanted to take Earth back with certainity. We only got it back temporary.

The Catalyst could very well be right. It's up to your Shepard to decide whether it is right or not. And since it's left open, you can't say that I'm wrong and you're right, and vice versa.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that while maybe your Shepard though it was wrong and thought that the Starchild was lying and could rest easy knowing all would be solved.

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............

Well if you do believe the Catalyst, than you also have to believe it when it says synthesis will bring a lasting peace. If you agree with the Catalyst, than you should choose synthesis.

If you disagree, you could create justification for choosing any of the endings.

I believe the Catalyst is telling the truth about the problem that Synthetics will rebel and kill all organics.

I do not believe in any of his choices.......I think there is no solution to this core conflict problem.

So, just out of curiosity, would you allow the Reaper cycle to continue if given the choice?

I don't think it matters. Because Bioware decided to go this route, the problem isn't the Reapers anymore: Its Synthetic live never being able to co-exist with Organic live peacefully. The Reapers weren't the cycle, the were servants of the cycle. The Cycle is "Synthetics will kill all organics" after the synthetics become self-aware enough.

The only option to ensure this problem is forever solved is to ensure all synthetics are destroyed and are never created again, and that will not happen.

[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?"

[Jassu1979]

Opsrbest wrote...

shnellegaming wrote...

Nope I didn't take Earth Back. And if Arrival is to be believed I actually blew Earth up. As far as I'm concerned we didn't beat the Reapers. I did not see a smoking Harbringer corpse at the end.

Actually theres a good thread somewhere on the forums that goes into the detail of how the energy released by the relays isn't the same manner as the way it is released in Arrival. Science and stuff is used in it.

Rationalizations and retconning, the lot of them.
Nothing that happens in-game suggests that these are NOT akin to the catastrophic explosion we saw at the end of "The Arrival". And that one firmly established that destroying a mass relay equals a supernova-level explosion.

In short: the writer(s) of this scene shot themselves in the foot by violating their own canon. Oh, sure, they can claim afterwards that they intended this to be different, and even rewrite canon to somehow make this fit - yet that's akin to saying: "Oh no, Jean Grey did not commit suicide on the moon after destroying a whole civilization! She was asleep at the bottom of the ocean the whole time, and the Dark Phoenix was just an evil cosmic being that had assumed her shape!"

Let's pretend for a moment that due to space magic, the established canon is now no longer valid, and exploding mass relays no longer spell doom for the entire system they are in.

It's still a catastrophic event, akin to an a-bomb triggering an EMP in the upper layers of our atmosphere, taking out pretty much all of our electronics. At first glance, you could say: "Oh, that's not so bad: the bomb didn't destroy the whole city, it merely caused a massive blackout."
But once you start thinking about the consequences of that event, and things do not look so upbeat any longer.
In fact, they look cataclysmic, resulting in uncounted deaths.

The same applies here. With the relays gone, and all of the major worlds in ruins, galactic civilization WILL collapse, and billions will die in the process. There's just no sugarcoating it.

[DarthSyphilis59]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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! 

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.

[devSin]

It didn't feel victorious or triumphant.

The Reapers left Earth (sort of). But I did not "take it back". Shepard may have been present but sure didn't do anything.

[thesnake777]

I thought about. The answer is no. Even up to the catalyst I didn't feel like we were taking back earth. There were some high-points. Overall there was no feeling like we were winning or doing anything worthwhile. The catalyst well I dident really feel like I beat the Reapers and I picked Red.
The suicide mission was different, every successful step felt like a accomplishment.

[NubXL]

I felt like I strolled down horde-mode alley on Earth. No sense of accomplishment or taking anything back.

You spent 30 hours gathering the galaxy's best and brightest and for what? You don't see them do anything. Pointless.

[stcalvin13]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

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.

[shadowreflexion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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! 

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.

[ardias89]

Nope i trapped alot of frustrated soldiers on it.

[Lord of Mu]

I honestly don't feel that I've taken back earth. The lack of closure has caused me quite a bit of uncertainty in terms of what I did and didn't achieve.

Modifié par Lord of Mu, 17 avril 2012 - 06:39 .

[Ketten]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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)

It felt, I don't know the right word to describe it... I suppose, incomplete. You're tossed back to Earth so quickly and so suddenly it just felt like you missed a whole chunk of information between the Cerberus Base mission and Priority: Earth. Sort of like, "Hey Shep, I know you just risked your life trying to get that catalyst for us but for some reason we're incapable of doing anything other than clawing for your leadership down in London, come over here ASAP."

And then it was just that, it was only London. What about Vancouver? What about other major cities? Supposedly, I read somewhere that the leak had us going to Tokyo and San Francisco. Why didn't they add those in? It would have felt as if we actually accomplished something, because, hell, we didn't even finish the battle on Earth, we were in the Citadel!  I didn't mind the waves of enemies, it felt like DA:O in that respect. You're fighting a horde, of course they'll be relentless. But they could have at least implemented side missions a la Tuchanka/Rannoch style, going off to help other squads where they needed it.

Needs more immersion, dammit.

[SCJ90]

I had high hopes for the last mission to earth, the suiced mission in ME2 was great in my opinion, you had more "controll" and you felt like what you did made a difference, im not talking about saving some kid or making a moral decition, but you had the chanse to make things "right", if you send Zaeed as a squad leader he dies. It felt much more immersive.

On earth, it just felt like a shooter, not much difference from CoD or Bf3, you ran and shot at husks, I was hoping for a more immersive end for a GREAT trillogy, guess that was just my hopes

[Fnork]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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)

For me that'd be a no to the first question and a yes to the second one. I didn't really feel like I was retaking earth because I was only showed London. A bit dissapointing compared to multiple locations on Rannoch and Tuchanka. A lot of war assets are a no show and you also don't see your ME2 or your ME3 team in action. I would have liked to see Jack knock over a brute, Grunt tearing into ravagers, Rachni shredding cannibals, etc. I could have lived with it though. Then the  ending  happened and it definitely made me reflect more negatively on the mission. I was a bit disspointed already. The ending made it worse.

Sidenote; the  ending"also made me reflect negatively on Thessia. I was looking forward to seeing it and we got one mission there as well. Again Tuchanka and Rannoch set the bar for me there, I  was hoping to see more of Thessia.

Edit; it also doesn't help to be finally shown these locations and to then see them utterly destroyed and have an ending that gives not one hint of a galaxy rebuilding to be a better place than it was.

Modifié par Fnork, 17 avril 2012 - 06:41 .

[BABEik52092]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Because synthetics will still be produced and will most likely kill a lot of people. Now granted, Shepard could tell the Reapers "OK go stop the Synthetics from wiping out all Organics now" but people will still be killed by the synthetics.

No ending choice completely stops the "Synthetics will rebel and kill organics" conflict.

[magikbbg]

Am I the only one that liked the anti climatic mission on thessia?! I thought it was the best cause it showed Shepard might be super awesome but he is only human and Is fallible. But he never gives up and dusts his shoulders off and goes on to fight another day?! Made me feel like it was a warning that Reapers really do take over worlds and are merciless. It made me worry about earth and the consequences of failure. But... So much was being built up emotionally leading up to Earth mission that i think for writers it would've been nearly impossible to satisfactorily give you that release of emotions on earth. I was worried about that while going to earth. That it would take a stroke of genius to tie it all together neatly. In the end they couldn't pull it off but later on it made me think of thessia, we're only human we can't always get everything right all the time. But it was a good try on the earth mission (excluding ending). especially that huge build up of emotions before going off to battle.

Take earth back, is all I wanted to do sadly it's the only thing I feel like mass effect 3 didn't deliver on.

[Baldrick67]

We didn't take back earth let alone London.

The starchild aka catalyst let us make a choice from its options.

[StElmo]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?"

At no point did I feel I took back earth for these two simple reasons:

 - The scenes post-space elevator are narratively broken, they also make everything in the series a pointless effort because space god magic kid does everything and your crew are cowards
 - The final scenes focus on your crew being at their worst - cowardly. And didn't focus on earth at all.

Anyway, thanks for talkin to us

Peace<3

Modifié par StElmo, 17 avril 2012 - 06:42 .

[Jassu1979]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?"

Here's another thing: neither Rannoch nor Tuchanka were under an all-out reaper attack. We could play several missions there because the Reaper presence was marginal, and the odds of success didn't depend upon defeating hundreds of gargantuan space-monsters descending upon the surface at the same time.

Every mission that took us THAT close to the main offensive was a one-shot, and *not* crowned by military success:

Vancouver? You barely got out alive.
Palaven's moon? You managed to save the new primarch, but that did nothing to stop Palaven from burning.
Thessia? The defenses collapsed in front of your very eyes, hearing the death-screams of the defenders.

Sure, I would have appreciated more missions on Earth, coordinating the resistance and winning small victories.
But - without sounding too much like an ME3 apologist - the key to re-taking earth has always been defeating the reapers altogether.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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 think it is a mixture of both.

The poor quality of the missions in London made it not feel like what I did was important. For what was supposed to be one of the largest battles of the galaxy, the endgame sure had a complete lack of scope and scale. We never see our war assest or other squadmates do anything, so we never feel like there is actually a larger battle going on. Resulting in us never feeling like we took Earth back.

The bleakness and ambiguity of the endings does not help either. The relays were destroyed so I guess Earth will not be able to recieve assistance in rebuilding? Does this mean Earth is doomed? If so, did I really retake Earth?

[Icinix]

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

In ME3 - still didn't beyond everyone saying "Oh, lets go get Earth" - when we got to Earth I was like Meh.

I think they tried to hard to make Earth the focal point of why you were fighting, when we already knew why we were fighting, as such, me and my shep stopped caring before the end game was reached.