472 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Silpheed58 wrote...

Darth Spike wrote...

I agree with the OP because the choices (or lake there of) with the catalyst are complete crap. I'd rather let the reapers win or the game to go unfinished then choose one of the crap endings BW gave us.

Little girl: "But Mr. I dont want to die...
Shepard: "Too bad, ya lil brat! If the Geth die whats the point of saving anyone else!"

Geth:  Shepard-Commander, I want to thank you for allowing us to ascent to true sentience, and for brokering a peace between us and the Creators.   I and my fellow geth will stand with you to retake your world and defeat the Old Machines once and for all.

Shepard:  Yeah, about that...

[Aquilas]

Most of my Renegade Shepards--and even a few of my Paragons--would tell the Catalyst to stuff its crap sandwich up its glowy little nose.

My Renegades wouldn't eat the crap sandwich with any of the condiments offered: ketchup, lettuce, or bleu cheese. They'd let the bet ride and roll the cosmic dice. Just because the Reapers had always won before doesn't mean they'd win this time. Probabilities don't cut it. Remember Mordin and the genophage? The Catalyst itself notes Shepard's presence as unique, an event which invalidates a solution that has worked for eons.

As Emiliano Zapata said, "It is better to die upon one's feet than to live upon one's knees!" Shepard tells Saren as much a couple of times. Shepard even says a version of that to the Catalyst.

The fact that Shepard doesn't have the option to do nothing at all tramples the notion of free will, of making choices with cosmic significance--literally, in this case--and being willing to live with the consequences. And I'm not talking about standing around and waiting for the event timer to expire. I'm talking about giving Star-jar the finger. That precept has underpinned Shepard's character throughout the trilogy. Except in the last 10 minutes. Huh?

[Zix13]

hosen17 wrote...

Most of us here on the forum, I'd assume.

This. All three options are stupid. My shep would rather die fighting. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Aquilas wrote...

Most of my Renegade Shepards--and even a few of my Paragons--would tell the Catalyst to stuff its crap sandwich up its glowy little nose.

My Renegades wouldn't eat the crap sandwich with any of the condiments offered: ketchup, lettuce, or bleu cheese. They'd let the bet ride and roll the cosmic dice. Just because the Reapers had always won before doesn't mean they'd win this time. Probabilities don't cut it. Remember Mordin and the genophage? The Catalyst itself notes Shepard's presence as unique, an event which invalidates a solution that has worked for eons.

As Emiliano Zapata said, "It is better to die upon one's feet than to live upon one's knees!" Shepard tells Saren as much a couple of times. Shepard even says a version of that to the Catalyst.

The fact that Shepard doesn't have the option to do nothing at all tramples the notion of free will, of making choices with cosmic significance--literally, in this case--and being willing to live with the consequences. And I'm not talking about standing around and waiting for the event timer to expire. I'm talking about giving Star-jar the finger. That precept has underpinned Shepard's character throughout the trilogy. Except in the last 10 minutes. Huh?

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

[Navasha]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

Hmm... thats an interesting suggestion..    I wonder how I might feel differently, if it was EDI, an entity I trust completely at this point, telling me the consequences of each action?

What would EDI say about her own fate for the destroy option, I wonder.    I just MAY have chosen differently depending on how she explained them.    Still doubt I would choose synthesis though.   The thought of changing every lifeform in the galaxy against their will is quite abhorrent to me. 

[Malchat]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

Excellent question - this goes to the crux of my problem with the ending: Shepard meekly acquiescing to the enemy´s point of view.

When I was playing through it and noticed the incredibly contrived appearance of Anderson and TIM in the Citadel control room, I presumed they were there to explain the alternative uses of the Crucible, arguing different sides of a tough choice.

Little did I know that Shepard was going to civily parley with the personification of the Reaper's evil soon afterwards...

Modifié par Malchat, 28 avril 2012 - 12:36 .

[marshkoala]

@Allan Now that would have been an interesting ending......WOW!
But I'd have to ask if the mass relays are destroyed is the system destroyed as well?
Cause in that case none of the options are very good at all. (speaking game wise, not complaing of writing)

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

Still a far cry from pefect, but it would at least be:

A) information coming from a more reliable source

We'd have someone there to bounce ideas off of (assuming Shepard was allowed to speak). Would be good to hear EDI's thoughts on the choices, including the idea of one or both of them "taking one for the team"

[clos]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

That's a great question! After thinking about it two things came to mind. 1) Immediately the quality of the game goes up by not introducing a character in-game out of nowhere that made no sense in the last 10 mins of a trilogy that spanned over 90-120 hours. This would not be a God child and far more acceptable. 2) I would tell EDI she has no understanding of organics yet and to battle it out. My own mother could have told me those three choices and I would have respectfully said no and watched the galaxy battle it out to the end.

The choices are unacceptable, irregardless of whether a last minute God child pops out of nowhere to give you space magic or not. The StarJar just made it far more unpalatable and and object of hatred and scorn.

[clos]

Malchat wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

Excellent question - this goes to the crux of my problem with the ending: Shepard meekly acquiescing to the enemy´s point of view.

When I was playing through it and noticed the incredibly contrived appearance of Anderson and TIM in the Citadel control room, I presumed they were there to explain the alternative uses of the Crucible, arguing different sides of a tough choice.

Little did I know that Shepard was going to civily parley with the personification of the Reaper's evil soon afterwards...

Oh woah! Hahaha, I'm totally putting that as my sig.

[daecath]

Eain wrote...
Does anyone else have the same problem I'm
having? Even beyond the other problems with the ending, I just do not
want to do anything the Catalyst offers me. As a result, I never choose
and just turn the game off.

I agree. First, I hate the premise that they threw in at the end. The whole "synthetics vs. organics" premise comes completely out of nowhere. Now before anyone says "but the geth!" yes, I know, but that was never presented as "the created turning against their creators", that was presented as a race defending themselves against their oppressors who attacked first. There are plenty of other conflicts in the game - rachni vs. everyone, krogan vs. turian/salarian, human vs. turian, human vs. batarian - yet none of those are taken as an example of some generalized innate conflict. So why in the last few minutes do we elevate one conflict out of several to the status of overarching theme, making it even more important than the conflict we've been fighting the last 150 hours?

Allan Schumacher wrote...
How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

It would be better, but it still wouldn't work for me. Sythesis has to go. The only reason it is in there is to resolve the "synthetics vs. organics" issue. Without the catalyst, there is no issue like that. Without that issue, synthesis makes no sense. We would need to replace it with something else that does make sense. Therein lies the problem. What does make sense? Synthesis as an option makes sense only with synthetics vs. organics, but the way it is done doesn't make sense in the ME universe. Destroy makes sense as an option, but the way it's explained doesn't make sense - what makes Shepard's implants, the geth, and EDI any different than a biotic's implants, the quarian's enviro-suits, or a computer?

One of the main problems I have with the ending is that you don't earn it. It's handed to you. Sure, you get more options depending on what you did in the game, but the correllation doesn't make sense. There's no sense of a direct "I did this, so this happened" cause and effect relationship between the ending and the story. That means that functionally speaking, picking an ending after 150 hours of game play is no different than picking the same ending from YouTube.

The ending shouldn't just ask you "which ending would you like to see?", it should take into consideration all your actions, and present a logical ending. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a choice in what to do, but that choice should follow from the rest of the story. Such as the choice at the end of ME1 to kill or save the council. It's a choice that effects the ending, not determines the entire thing.

[Kreidian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

Most of my Renegade Shepards--and even a few of my Paragons--would tell the Catalyst to stuff its crap sandwich up its glowy little nose.

My Renegades wouldn't eat the crap sandwich with any of the condiments offered: ketchup, lettuce, or bleu cheese. They'd let the bet ride and roll the cosmic dice. Just because the Reapers had always won before doesn't mean they'd win this time. Probabilities don't cut it. Remember Mordin and the genophage? The Catalyst itself notes Shepard's presence as unique, an event which invalidates a solution that has worked for eons.

As Emiliano Zapata said, "It is better to die upon one's feet than to live upon one's knees!" Shepard tells Saren as much a couple of times. Shepard even says a version of that to the Catalyst.

The fact that Shepard doesn't have the option to do nothing at all tramples the notion of free will, of making choices with cosmic significance--literally, in this case--and being willing to live with the consequences. And I'm not talking about standing around and waiting for the event timer to expire. I'm talking about giving Star-jar the finger. That precept has underpinned Shepard's character throughout the trilogy. Except in the last 10 minutes. Huh?

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

Interesting question. What I find more interesting is this would have been a much better treatment of the core story then introducing a random character with random concepts in the last ten minutes of the game. Alot of the rage people felt might not be there simply because the presentation is better. But I'd still feel the ending would be severely lacking if that was the only change.

Either way destroy remains the best option simply because like others here I find the other two options deplorable. Even EDI herself states as much, she would rather die (risk non-functionality) rather then sacrifice everything she cares about just to survive. In fact she finds the Reapers despicable because all they care about is survival. And what the catalyst says proves that. They only care about survival, their own and that of basic organic life. They don't care about what they are destroying or about the potential that each new cycle brings with it. They end up destroying everything that makes organic life special just to preserve it in their own sick, twisted form.

Even EDI would pick the red option.

Here's a simple question for you Alan, as well as anyone at BioWare. Like you said, I agree that people would have much prefered a 4th option to tell the star kid to screw off and refuse all of his offers. But you say that this would inevitably lead to the cycle continuing and the Reapers winning. You seem to imply that it would be impossible to have some alternate option where you can tell the kid to screw off and still end up winning everything. So my question is simple. Why the hell not?

Why the hell do writers insist that you can't have a happy ending and still be considered a serious game?
Why the hell are we forced into one horrible ending or another for the sake of artistic integrity?

I'm being serious here. What the hell is wrong with a happy ending?

There's already been a ton of sacrifice in the game. You can't reach the end without losing a great deal. Not just the billions of lives lost to the war itself, but personal friends as well. No matter how good the ending is it's already filled with sacrifice and hardship just to get there. So why the hell do we still have to sacrifice even more just to end things? Enough already. Some of us have been playing the same character since the original Mass Effect, and we've been preparing for that final battle from the begining. Why is it such a bad thing, for the people who have truly dedicated themselves to brining everything they can to the final battle, to still have to make such a horrible choice?

To put it another way. Right now I'm bringing in around 8000 EMS with 100% galactic readiness to the final battle. Already double of what is needed for the "best" ending. And yet nothing I can do can prevent me from being forced to make the same crappy choice in the end. What is so wrong in rewarding your die hard fans who have put in this level of effort with an ending that lets us kill the reapers without such a terrible sacrifice?

Modifié par Kreidian, 28 avril 2012 - 01:29 .

[DS Monkfish]

As far as I'm concerned, having three choices was a major mistake. It was clumsy in DE: HR, and it's clumsy in ME3. Far better, IMHO, to end the game in a similar fashion to the suicide mission in ME2 - the final battle should have played out depending on the forces you brought to the fight, with the player then seeing how things unfold. Low EMS means a pyrrhic victory at best, with more Reaper-kicking and less collateral damage if your EMS is medium or high. We were here to fight the Reapers, in the main, not fuse with them or control them.

If the player has to pick an ending at all, then stripping it back to control (for the TIM-loving renegades) or destroy (for the rest of us) would have been better. No "kill the Geth", no "destroy the iconic Mass Relays" rubbish. And most importantly, no motivation for the Reapers. For me, an unknowable Lovecraftian horror from deep space is far more chilling than cuttlefish eco-warriors saving organics from their creations by turning us into goo and squirting us into a robot shell. We've made tough decisions throughout the game, made sacrifices galore, the ending should be direct, satisfying and to the point. Hell, Shep could still die, but at least the mission would have been accomplished and the trilogy sent out with a bang.

Yup, I hated the choices, hated the last-minute appearance of StarJar, hated his stupid logic, hated that I couldn't refute it, hated the lack of triumph and the lack of a final fight. It's a videogame, and should play to certain videogame standards that gamers expect and want - especially in the final act. Half-baked philosophy about the ultimate form of life should be saved for drunken pub conversations, not foisted upon the player in the last five minutes.

And as far as end-of-series speculation goes, "wow, what happens next?" is fine, but "what the hell was that?" is not.

[Wabajakka]

I do exactly that actually.

I've stopped playing SP entirely, problem solved.

I'm just waiting to hear One. More. Story. as the old man said.

[EnvyTB075]

I spent a good 3 days before i actually decided on destroy, lurking on BSN to see if there was a better option.

There wasn't, and destroy was the only one that made sense.

[Aquilas]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Aquilas wrote....

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

Why would I imagine that?  That scenario is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  And I'm not dodging the question.  BioWare has already said you're not changing the ending, so we must deal with what's there.

One possibility (and I use that term loosely): perhaps Shepard is in a fugue state after being blasted by Harbinger. Apparently Shepard forgets everything he's done or stands for and is living "in the moment."  Of course Anderson and the Illusive Man are sharing the same moment.  Perhaps in that moment the Catalyst uses a frame of reference Shepard can understand: pipes, cables, tubes, guns, much as Legion gives Shepard a virtual gun to destroy hostile code when Shepard infiltrates the server on Rannoch.  The Catalyst gives Shepard a pistol so Shepard can shoot a pipe.  Shooting stuff has always worked for Shepard before.

Perhaps the handles on the Control pipe resemble the Mako's controls.  Shepard can grab them and wrestle a mighty machine--in this case, the Crucible--into doing Shepard's will.  Shepard can climb to the summit of knowledge and see a clear path all the way to the horizon, and beyond.  Shepard will be standing on the shoulders of giants--giant Reapers, that is.  Or Shepard may be a giant Reaper.  Who knows?  Wait for the EC, I guess.

The beam of light?  Ermmm....it's a beam of light.  Apparently it's the energy flowing between the Crucible and the Citadel.

All of this speculation raises a question: if Shepard doesn't really shoot a pipe, or grab handles on another, or jump into a beam of light, any of which can fundamentally change the very nature of existence throughout the entire galaxy (did I just type that?), then exactly how are any of the three solutions effected?  So my speculation isn't very sound, is it.  And neither would any attempt by BioWare to use this kind of "familiar frame of reference" hocus pocus to make sense of the ending as written.

The fact remains that the Catalyst says Shepard's very presence has opened new possibilities, and that Shepard must choose from three of them.  It is the Catalyst that determines those possibilities, and it is the Catalyst that presents Shepard with the new solutions.  It says it can't choose, and it won't.  Huh?  If it can't, of course it won't.  Good grief.  It also says Shepard has choices, more than Shepard knows.  Well, really, Shepard has three.  Shepard can count to three.

Certainly you're not suggesting that somehow EDI makes it aboard the Crucible, snaps her synthetic fingers, and Shepard awakens to find EDI presenting her analysis and the choices resulting therefrom?  Because that's the only way your scenario applies to the facts in hand.

I appreciate you engaging the fans in these forums, so thanks for your time.

Modifié par Aquilas, 28 avril 2012 - 03:32 .

[mauro2222]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Being alive means you eventually die, machines don't die they are always destroyed/shutdown/broke in one way or another

So lobsters and the Turritopsis Nutricula aren't alive?

[Seracen]

Eain wrote...

hosen17 wrote...

Most of us here on the forum, I'd assume.

Well, yeah. But I often see people still talk about the specifics of each ending as though there's some merit to it. I wonder how many people there are that hate the ending but still begrudgingly pick a colour vs people that hate the ending and therefore shut off the game before it even gets there.

I imagine this is akin to a sense of "survivor's guilt."  I mean, we chose what we did in hopes of seeing something worthwhile.  In absense of that, we spitball to make sense of the madness.

Personally, I end the game just to end it, and to import my maxed stats to the next playthrough.  Then, I head-canon what I wrote in my fanfic of the ending.

And hey, I got so bent out of shape about it, I made a branching path depending on what I did in various playthroughs.

Barring that, hit up the epilogue generator.  The moral here being, it's fiction, there fore what you want it to be is malleable.  If it's art, then you can interpret it however the heck you feel like, even if the artist doesn't agree with you.  Art is subjective.

And if it isn't art, but rather a product, well guess what?  You're ownership over said item renders you the authority of what it SHOULD be, how it SHOULD end.  Either way, I consider that a win.

For example, I choose to beleive the original ideas for the Clone Wars, as forwarded by the various authors working on the Star Wars books before Lucas got a hold of the story and crapped all over it...

[SerraAdvocate]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

Most of my Renegade Shepards--and even a few of my Paragons--would tell the Catalyst to stuff its crap sandwich up its glowy little nose.

My Renegades wouldn't eat the crap sandwich with any of the condiments offered: ketchup, lettuce, or bleu cheese. They'd let the bet ride and roll the cosmic dice. Just because the Reapers had always won before doesn't mean they'd win this time. Probabilities don't cut it. Remember Mordin and the genophage? The Catalyst itself notes Shepard's presence as unique, an event which invalidates a solution that has worked for eons.

As Emiliano Zapata said, "It is better to die upon one's feet than to live upon one's knees!" Shepard tells Saren as much a couple of times. Shepard even says a version of that to the Catalyst.

The fact that Shepard doesn't have the option to do nothing at all tramples the notion of free will, of making choices with cosmic significance--literally, in this case--and being willing to live with the consequences. And I'm not talking about standing around and waiting for the event timer to expire. I'm talking about giving Star-jar the finger. That precept has underpinned Shepard's character throughout the trilogy. Except in the last 10 minutes. Huh?

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

That's a great question and scenario, in part because it is absolutely not what we received. 

Then they're just options. Oh, there are still the problems of "rape, slavery, or murder?" being the three options given - and for no apparent reason whatsoever - but it's better than being offered those three choices on the basis of a morally abhorrent ideology on the behest of a being which is basically the greatest war criminal in the history of the galaxy.

If the choices were offered by EDI, instead of the Catalyst, I would choose Control every time. The only beings that have their rights infringed upon are the Reapers, then, and that's for the sake of destroying them in self-defense. But Control becomes an option because a being I trust tells me that yes, we can actually control them. It's not just a Reaper ploy or an Illusive Man delusion. Synthesis is rejected as being unknowable, both in nature and in consequence - coming from EDI, I'd have no reason to think it would be enough to deter the Reapers.

Coming from the Catalyst, though, it's Destroy every time. Control is rejected, because assuming the Catalyst is telling the truth is plain idiotic. Synthesis means accepting the Catalyst's claims about Synthetics as true. The only way to allow the galaxy to escape the beliefs of the Reaper King is to kill the Reaper King and all the Reapers. It may kill all Synthetics now, but it gives future Synthetics a chance for a galaxy where their existance will not immediately be assumed to be antithetical to Organic life, a chance for a galaxy that actually celebrates diversity, a chance for a galaxy that remembers and honors the sacrifice of the Geth. In other words - Destroy is the option of Hope.

[Rustedness]

Honestly, if EDI were the one to give me those options... *mind un-asplodes*

[Kayawyn4]

You can count me amongst those who don’t want to choose any of the three endings—at least in their current forms. Even if I were to trust the Catalyst—which is a very big if—I do not trust the Control ending, as I have no idea how my viewpoint would change when being integrated into the Reaper consciousness nor how I would change after eons of being there. That assumes I’m even there at all and not simply “translated” into a set of moral codes that the Reapers follow until they choose otherwise.  Similarly, I do not feel as if I have the right to choose either the Destroy or Synthesis endings, as I would be forcing my will on others without their input.

If EDI were to give me these options, I would at least feel as if my options came from a trustworthy source. It wouldn’t change how I feel about them, but at least it would quell my fears that I’m simply being lied to. However, it would make me worry that her analysis is wrong.

Modifié par Kayawyn4, 28 avril 2012 - 02:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Aquilas wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Aquilas wrote....

How would your renegade Shepards have approached the choices if they were presented by some other means than the Catalyst.

For example, imagine the Crucible has been hooked up, and EDI analyzes it and determines the three choices that Shepard can make with the Crucible?

Why would I imagine that?  That scenario is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  And I'm not dodging the question.  BioWare has already said you're not changing the ending, so we must deal with what's there.

Why not?

Seriously though, I pose the question because I think that when people are upset about a certain aspect, they become more critical about other aspects.  Many people find the Catalyst jarring and I'm curious how many people carry over the interaction with the Catalyst onto other aspects of the ending, and even the entire game.

By imagining the exact same choices and exact same outcomes presented to the player through different (and perhaps more agreeable) means, we can start to examine whether the choices themselves are intrinsically bad or if other aspects help sour you on them.

You discuss how the choices trample any notion of free will, and how your renegade shipeards would have flipped the Catalyst the bird, and I'm curious if you feel your convictions would still be as strong if the choices were presented in a different way.  Just digging deeper to see if there's some conflation going on or if it's the choices themselves, as they stand, that our found abhorrent.  (Note: I understand that this is purely hypothetical, and I'm not asking anyone to "excuse" the choices or anything since, as they are presented in game, the Catalyst is what presents them to the player)

Here's a simple question for you Alan, as well as anyone at BioWare.
Like you said, I agree that people would have much prefered a 4th option
to tell the star kid to screw off and refuse all of his offers. But you
say that this would inevitably lead to the cycle continuing and the
Reapers winning. You seem to imply that it would be impossible to have
some alternate option where you can tell the kid to screw off and still
end up winning everything. So my question is simple. Why the hell not?

Why the hell do writers insist that you can't have a happy ending and still be considered a serious game?
Why the hell are we forced into one horrible ending or another for the sake of artistic integrity?

I'm being serious here. What the hell is wrong with a happy ending?

First, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a happy ending (Shawshank Redemption is my favourite movie).  As for your first question, the main reason why I wouldn't allow for a conventional alternative to allow for success is because it ends up becoming the clearly superior choice.  Choice is meaningless if they aren't all, in some way, relatively equivalent.  Picking the other options is akin to sabotaging your game simply to see the other outcome.  This is something I actually didn't care for in ME2 (I think ME2's ending is a good example of demonstrating consequence, but ultimately not a very good example of providing the player with choice).

Furthermore, if the Reapers CAN be defeated conventionally, I personally think it'd involve rewriting a lot of the story.  People already criticize the Crucible as a questionable plot device, but if it isn't even required then it just becomes an epic waste of time and, IMO, shouldn't be included in the game at all.

So unless we're changing aspects of the story, I wouldn't allow for the 4th option to allow for victory because, as an avid RPG gamer, it'd make the game's ending less interesting for me.

But I don't think the writers are saying you can't have a happy ending and be a serious game.


Cheers.

Allan

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 28 avril 2012 - 03:51 .

[Storin]

blauwvis wrote...

I wonder if they considered adding an option for Shepard to say, "Yeah, screw this, I'm not picking anything," and then just kicking back and watching as the allied fleet is destroyed and organic civilization is snuffed out yet again.* But, as with the "Shepard dies" ME2 end, why would anyone pick that aside from the lulz? Surely letting trillions upon trillions of beings die because Shep didn't want to get his/her hands dirty would be the ultimate **** move?

*Apparently if you just stand around on the Crucible for long enough, you'll get a Critical Mission Failure with the text "Reapers destroyed the Crucible"... so I guess you could say that that ending is available.

Well, Synthesis destroys all organic life. Forever. They make it sound like it's evolving into something new, but it effectively is genocide of all organics, everywhere, by transforming them into a radically new lifeform without their consent or even knowledge. So I don't see that as measurably better than letting the Reapers win. Anyway, it would be nice if the game itself was less confused on the matter of how a battle would turn out. The whole way through the game, the war readiness screen gives your odds of success in the final battle, and you can raise it up to at least "even", if not higher. In other words, the game mechanic leads you to believe a conventional victory is possible, despite the pessimism of some of the characters. That's part of what makes the ending feel like it comes so much out of left field.

[Storin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
First, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a happy ending (Shawshank Redemption is my favourite movie).  As for your first question, the main reason why I wouldn't allow for a conventional alternative to allow for success is because it ends up becoming the clearly superior choice.  Choice is meaningless if they aren't all, in some way, relatively equivalent.  Picking the other options is akin to sabotaging your game simply to see the other outcome.  This is something I actually didn't care for in ME2 (I think ME2's ending is a good example of demonstrating consequence, but ultimately not a very good example of providing the player with choice).

Furthermore, if the Reapers CAN be defeated conventionally, I personally think it'd involve rewriting a lot of the story.  People already criticize the Crucible as a questionable plot device, but if it isn't even required then it just becomes an epic waste of time and, IMO, shouldn't be included in the game at all.

So unless we're changing aspects of the story, I wouldn't allow for the 4th option to allow for victory because, as an avid RPG gamer, it'd make the game's ending less interesting for me.

But I don't think the writers are saying you can't have a happy ending and be a serious game.


Cheers.

Allan

See, this is where I disagree. The fact that you can save everyone in ME2, if you do everything right, it a big (possibly the biggest) selling point of the game for me. It feels like I'm really having an impact on the world around me. If it's not possible for me to pull things off in the end (which is how it feels in ME3), then I end up feeling like the amount of effort I put into it is pointless. How much does driving up you war readiness and assets really change? Nothing, beyond minor changes in the cutscenes at the end. That's not satisfying at all to me. It would be better if the illusion of choice and impact hadn't been there in the first place.

As for defeating the Reapers conventionally, frankly, I would be happy with them rewriting much of the story, because I don't think the story in ME3 makes a tremendous amount of sense. The first two games show you beating the Reapers and their plans with your own skill, determination, and preparation. Then the third one seems to come along and toss that out the window. It doesn't fit with the first two games in the series. It's utterly hopeless and bleak where the first two are desperate yet hopeful.

On the issue of a better presentation, well honestly, having EDI or someone do the analysis and come up with the choices would make vastly more sense, and would be very different. It wouldn't be the solution of the Reapers' ruler/creator/whatever (never explained for some reason), it would be your own call. That's a HUGE difference, and fits much better with the anti-determinist, humanist theme Shepard embodies through the series. Even so, though, the choices would be terrible and would still smack of transparent plot-device-ness. And the synthesis ending would still be bizarre and contrary to the point being driven home not just by the narrative of the series as a whole, but of this specific game.

Aquilas wrote...

Most of my Renegade Shepards--and even a few of my Paragons--would tell the Catalyst to stuff its crap sandwich up its glowy little nose.

My Renegades wouldn't eat the crap sandwich with any of the condiments offered: ketchup, lettuce, or bleu cheese. They'd let the bet ride and roll the cosmic dice. Just because the Reapers had always won before doesn't mean they'd win this time. Probabilities don't cut it. Remember Mordin and the genophage? The Catalyst itself notes Shepard's presence as unique, an event which invalidates a solution that has worked for eons.

As Emiliano Zapata said, "It is better to die upon one's feet than to live upon one's knees!" Shepard tells Saren as much a couple of times. Shepard even says a version of that to the Catalyst.

The fact that Shepard doesn't have the option to do nothing at all tramples the notion of free will, of making choices with cosmic significance--literally, in this case--and being willing to live with the consequences. And I'm not talking about standing around and waiting for the event timer to expire. I'm talking about giving Star-jar the finger. That precept has underpinned Shepard's character throughout the trilogy. Except in the last 10 minutes. Huh?

THIS, SO MUCH. It would be fantastic if the fourth option was to tell the Starchild to ****** off and gamble on the fleet winning. Then the result of THAT would be dependant on your war assets/galactic readiness. Too low and you lose, whoops! Somewhere in the middle and the Reapers are driven off but not permanently defeated, but high enough and Harbinger, his buddies, and the stupid Starchild are destroyed.

Modifié par Storin, 28 avril 2012 - 03:45 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Eain wrote...

Catroi wrote...

I took fourth option:
Turn Xbox down and throw the tv out of the window...

I like my TV a bit too much for that

So do I, that's why I "play it the way it's meant to be played" PC.