663 réponses à ce sujet

[Megakoresh]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Fans would have enjoyed it for sure

You know what fans would enjoy and did expect? Efforts rewarded. Taking Earth back should give a feeling that is directly proportional to the amount of pain we went through figuring our that "Journal", doing all those 100% playthroughs and so on and so forth.

When I heard that ending is not going to be re-written in the Extended Cut it just crushed me really. How could that possibly be?
I mean yeah, it's PR, it would require money that will otherwise be sitting in the pockets on some EA manager that cares not about Mass Effect, but still for a studio such as BioWare it seemed so unprofessional to resort to PR approved content as a way to make fans think they "responded to feedback".

It will in some way retaliate your reputation for sure, but to the fullest? No. The main issue, and that was blatantly obvious, was that the ending was not depending on your choices. If you spend 150 hours in interactions with characters, you want to know that it mattered, that it was actually worth it. If you spend 150 hours putting this galaxy together, making it a better place, you want to know that it mattered.

If you spend 150 hours making Shepard the way you want him or her to be, you don't want 3 out of 4 alternatives to kill him/her. You want to continue his or her story after this, as a freelancer or what not. You don't want to find out that Shepard was a bed time story and all the additional DLC and side-misions you can deal with as "Another story about the Shepard".

So was it worth it?

Well I can say for sure that it did not. Mass Relays are destroyed, so the Galaxy's integrity is completely destroyed, all those efforts with Geth, Quarians, Krogan, Hell, even Collectors, all in vain.

All those Characters didn't help. They did not offer a different alternative to the way this mess ends. And no "additional epilogue cutscenes" are going to fix that.

And Shepard dies in 3 out of 4 alternatives. And the one alternative that allows him/her to live is the one that destroys Geth. So what was all that hassle for again? Oh wait... It doesn't matter cuz Mass Relays goo boom anyway.

No this is not an epic conclusion to a great Sci-Fi Trilogy. This is a mistake, made by either running low of budget/time or trying too hard. Most importantly it is a mistake that those who made it aren't willing to recognize.

[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?

[TODD9999]

No, I do not feel like I took back Earth.

The primary reason is because, well, the goal of the Battle for Earth was never to retake Earth. It may have started out as that, or even been that for most of the game, but when the time comes to actually go, the Catalyst angle changes it. The mission objectives are never "We'll stage landings in major cities to inspire the resistance fighters and get arms to the last of the free humans, use space bombardment on Reaper force concentrations, etc.". The objective is "Get to that beam and open up the Citadel so we can have the Crucible do whatever it's supposed to do".

If the ending had turned out well, I would have felt like I had not only retaken Earth by eliminating the Reapers, but retaken the entire galaxy, all in one fell swoop. That's not how I feel it turned out.

[B3ckett]

I took earth back. Back to the bronze age...

[Icinix]

TODD9999 wrote...

No, I do not feel like I took back Earth.

The primary reason is because, well, the goal of the Battle for Earth was never to retake Earth. It may have started out as that, or even been that for most of the game, but when the time comes to actually go, the Catalyst angle changes it. The mission objectives are never "We'll stage landings in major cities to inspire the resistance fighters and get arms to the last of the free humans, use space bombardment on Reaper force concentrations, etc.". The objective is "Get to that beam and open up the Citadel so we can have the Crucible do whatever it's supposed to do".

If the ending had turned out well, I would have felt like I had not only retaken Earth by eliminating the Reapers, but retaken the entire galaxy, all in one fell swoop. That's not how I feel it turned out.

Yeah I think the whole 'Take Earth Back' angle didn't work well from my view.

A 'Break the Cycle' angle would have felt more in line with the final game.

[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.

[defenestrated]

No, because my most basic complaint about the ending is that it removes - IMO and on several levels - the agency of the player as Shepard. My Shep didn't "take back" anything. Stopped the Reapers, sure, but not in a way that makes the "take back" sentiment seem valid.

[aliengmr1]

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.

[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.

[SCJ90]

@Allan Schumacher



Well.... yeas but you get a "sweet" reward for doing everything and doing it "right" in ME2. In ME3 it felt like what ever I do I will win but still lose, should'nt their be any way to get a diffrent ending, ME series is based on choices, fell kind of strange that everything gets thrown out the window in the last10 minutes. I think that is has been said before just want to voice my opinion as well

Modifié par SCJ90, 17 avril 2012 - 07:31 .

[Valorefane Dragonwinter]

B3ckett wrote...

I took earth back. Back to the bronze age...

I didn't want to laugh at this... but I did. 

[KingKhan03]

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.

I gotta say thanks for taking the time to discuss Allan it's cool to get a different perspective on ME3.

[cebo7590]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

*snip*

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! 

Ok so I will play the devils advocate on this on (or star child as the case may be)

let’s say that in control the geth survive/ new AI are created. Who is to say that they do not get a major case of the ass and decide that self-determination/ working with/ for / whatever is not there cup of tea. What is to stop them from going all overlord on them and trying to protect/. Eliminate organics from themselves.

using this scenario then Shepard, who seems to suddenly agree with the star child that synthetics are the pain of organics chaotic existence, figures that star child had the right idea and comes back to continue the cycle?

Or what if illusive man Jr decides to make himself some reapers to control the galaxy with?

Or simply if Shepard cracks and decides that star child was onto something and starts harvesting the galaxy?

Or if Shepard decides that humanity is the best thing since sliced bread and uses the reapers to CONTROL the galaxy.

Since the reapers have been made into cathuluesqe insurmountable demon creatures shepherd would have absolute power since he control them. And another theme that has been investigated over and over again is absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Just some of my thoughts on the vagueness of the control ending.

[Siegdrifa]

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?"

I found the "earth mission" too short to feel i took back earth, but i wasn't desapointed since it's "Bioware" and i know you often close your game with "one final mission", so, i wasn't expecting much (no provocation intended, i liked the earth mission).

I mean, looking at most of your game, it's often "play the game, then when you reach the "ready" state, it's time to conclude with one final mission".
It's not like the final mission is influenced by our playthrough, it's often in stand by mode until the player finish his tasks.

Also, the "take back earth" is not the real subject or objective of the game anyway, it's to use the crucible to defeat the reapers, and to do so, we need to access the citadel, via a conduit, so, in London; if it has been anywhere else, this is where we would have go, saving earth is "just" a side effect, and we don't "take it back" because there is no controle change on the battle field, we don't take back citys, we don't take back ressources, we don't take back our land, we just fight our way to the kill switch of the reapers because, in fact, we can't "take back" anything on our own.

[stcalvin13]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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.)

If he is controlling them after his death then it makes even less sense then before.  Bioware's made games where a character controlling something from beyond the grave made sense (KOTOR, Jade Empire) but we've never seen that in ME before and the catalyst is supposed to be a machine not a literal godchild.  If the game's going spiritual on us, then that's a more serious problem than introducing a character in the last few minutes--they've introduced a whole new and incredibly relevant feature to the universe.  It's like getting to the end of Return of the Jedi and only then being introduced to the force.

And of course, people will always build more AIs.  So the peace won't last.

Modifié par stcalvin13, 17 avril 2012 - 07:43 .

[yukon fire]

Mass Effect 3: Bioware couldn't be bothered

[B3ckett]

Valorefane Dragonwinter wrote...

B3ckett wrote...

I took earth back. Back to the bronze age...

I didn't want to laugh at this... but I did. 

Maybe even stone age would be more okay.
Ya know: "I'm warlock Shepard and this is my favourite cave in the neighbourhood".

[Hexley UK]

No I did not, for me Priority Earth was the weakest part of the game besides the actual ending and downright terribly disappointing compared to ME2's suicide mission.

I think it could have done with a few seperate missions like Tuchunka and Rannoch and a proper showdown with Harbinger to cap it off.

Imo the very last mission should have been like ME2's suicide run but with a more epic scope.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 17 avril 2012 - 07:49 .

[Jadebaby]

Provo_101 wrote...

Oh I took Earth back alright...

•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■).

...Back to the Stone Age

YEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

Edited, but yes,  this^

[Johcande XX]

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.  

[stcalvin13]

I think another reason people didn't feel like they took back Earth is that the end it was disconnected from Earth in all but the most tangential way. In the end, Earth was nothing more than a planet sized trampoline that we used to get to the Citadel. Earth was less important to ME3 than Illos was to ME1.

Modifié par stcalvin13, 17 avril 2012 - 07:51 .

[Jadebaby]

stcalvin13 wrote...

I think another reason people didn't feel like they took back Earth is that the end it was disconnected from Earth in all but the most tangential way. In the end, Earth was nothing more than a planet sized trampoline that we used to get to the Citadel. Earth was less important to ME3 than Illos was to ME1.

So true.

[Brockxz]

I felt more like I destroyed galaxy. Yes, I had 7000+ EMS and I chose destroy option but in the end there was nothing left to take back. All i got was lousy ending that set all the galaxy to stone age. And after that I tried 2 more options and guess what, It's all the same just in different colors. Stone age it is and nothing worth taking back.

[Valorefane Dragonwinter]

Here's what I DID do in ME3:
Discovered the last Prothean.
Cured a thousand-plus year old genophage.
Got three different mercenary bands to cooperate.
Got the Krogan to play nice.
Got the Turians and the Salarians to make nice with the Krogan, too.
Saved the Citadel and the Council from Cerberus.
Got the remnants of the Batarians to join up.
Brokered peace between the Quarian and the Geth after 300 years of war.
Waved at Harbinger as he shot me in the face.
Killed Marauder Shields.
Destroyed Cerberus down to the last man, literally.
Tried shooting some ghost brat in the face and never ran out of ammo.
Blew up all the mass relays.
Possibly destroyed the whole gorram galaxy.
Took Earth back.

Taking back Earth is still on my TO DO list.  Provided there's still an Earth to take back, that is.  Mass relays going supernova leaves that up in the air.

[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.