472 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

The only other option is regretably, turning off the game just as Harby shoots us.

[Storin]

Anyway, to get back to the original question, on my first playthrough, I picked destroy, as it was the only option that didn't leave me feeling nauseated in real life. Since Shepard can apparently survive that, despite Starchild implying he won't (which I didn't get to see, since I hadn't played multiplayer yet), I just assume he lied about everything and the Geth are unharmed. (Not to mention you can see EDI come out of the Normandy after this, which I assume is in oversight.) After letting the game lie for a few weeks, I'm playing through with my second Shepard, but I'm quitting before going back to Earth. I refuse to play through that stomach-turning awfulness again.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

I think that this is actually a different issue.  I can understand the idea of player reactivity.  My big problem with the ME2 ending is that it's almost trivial to satisfy the prerequisites to achieve the perfect ending.  Even then, ultimately my first ending where Thane died was significantly more satisfying to me, even knowing that I can accomplish a superior ending, because to me the superior ending just comes across as being TOO badass.  It's too perfect which, for me, actually compromises the narrative because the variability of the ending ends up coming across as more "Did you play the game right" as opposed to "did you make difficult choices."


Something like Tuchanka works so much better for me, because the only way you can save Mordin is to have made different difficult choices in ME2 (which means that the consequence and choice are far enough removed that it isn't as foreshadowed nor as easy to "game the system.")  I personally feel that brokering the peace between the Geth and Quarian (which IS probably my favourite moment in the game) is probably just a smidge too easy to accomplish too.

[mashintao]

One thing that I found odd was how the control ending is the only ending that actually lets you defeat the reapers without committing some horrible crime against the galaxy. In the synthesis ending you are taking Saren's philosophy of turning all life into half-machine creatures which is supposed to be some kind of 'peak of evolution', whereas the destroy ending kills all synthetic life in the galaxy... which most players spent a great deal of effort to save.

Another thing that makes no sense is the catalyst's claim that synthetics and organics will always be at war. The synthetic vs organic war was broken in this cycle. Shepard can create peace on the Rannoch missions. So when the Catalyst claims that the Reapers are a necessary response to perpetual war, Shepard has proven that they are now obsolete - peace in diversity can be obtained.

Legion:"Yes, but with free will, each Geth unit would be true intelligence - we would be alive... and we could help you."

Tali:"Legion, the answer to your question... was yes [you have a soul]."

This is a major concern players have with the ending... why does Shepard not reject the Catalysts logic when he himself has disproved it?

Modifié par mashintao, 28 avril 2012 - 03:53 .

[Bill Casey]

Because of the way synthetics are portrayed, the Catalyst's premise is racist...
The Reapers have to be incorrect, or the game becomes racist...

That bothers me more than anything except this...
I shouldn't have to pick genocide as a lesser of three evils...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[Bill Casey]

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?

That choice is a million times more moral than any of the choices presented...
What kind of hero gives into an ultimatum like that?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 avril 2012 - 04:07 .

[DrowVampyre]

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?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, she would tell EDI something along the lines of "then we'll just have to have faith in the combined races of the galaxy". Maybe with the addition of "see what happens if you don't aim it at a relay and instead hit a Reaper directly with the beam" or the like.

But for me, and for my Shepard, all three of the endings are worse than going down fighting. It would be better to fight them to the bitter end and do as much damage as possible, and leave as much data as possible for the next cycle if we lose, than to doom the galaxy to a dark age and the mass starvations and destruction of any kind of real life that would follow when you cut off transportation that most planets depend on for survival (not to mention killing everyone on Earth - not from the relay exploding, though that should to, but from the multiple extinction events that the chunks of the Citadel crashing down are going to cause).

[Bill Casey]

I've posted this several times, but here's Kermit the ****ing Frog being a better hero than Shepard...
Hopper gives him an ultimatum. Be a spokesperson for his restaurant chain or Hopper will kill him and all of his friends...

Kermit the Frog tries to reason with him, but won't back down. Kermit says "Go ahead and kill me"...

Kermit Takes A Stand

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 avril 2012 - 04:17 .

[Bill Casey]

Shepard: "It's not just about living 'till tomorrow. Sometimes you take a stand."

EDI: "But the probability of success was near zero. And ultimately, they failed. No prisoners escaped."

Shepard: "Are you saying submission is preferable to extinction?"

________________________________________________________________________________


Saren: "You saw the visions. You saw what happened to the Protheans. Surrender or Death. There are no other options."

Shepard: "You could have resisted. You could have fought. Instead you surrendered. You quit."

________________________________________________________________________________


Shepard: "You’re playing with things you don’t understand. With power you shouldn’t be able to use."

_________________________________________________________________________________


Shepard: "No matter what kind of technology we might find, it’s not worth it."

Illusive Man: "Shepard, you died fighting for what you believed. I brought you back so you could keep fighting. Some would say what we did to you was going too far, but look what you’ve accomplished. I didn’t discard you because I know your value. Don’t be so quick to discard this facility. Think of the potential."

Shepard: "We’ll fight and win without it. I won’t let fear compromise who I am."

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 avril 2012 - 04:23 .

[Aquilas]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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 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)

Why shouldn't I consider your scenario?  Because BioWare says so.  I clearly stated why your scenario is irrelevant, and I clearly defined my argument.  But since you've provided an Extended Cut response, I'll address it.

I likened the choices to a crap sandwich because no matter which choice Shepard makes, Shepard has to eat crap, figuratively.  I base that simile on how I roleplay my Renegade Shepards.  Have you ever had to eat crap, figuratively, in your personal or professional life?  I sure have.  If the crap sandwich choices were served on a silver platter, with sprigs of celantro and dribbles of honey, and brought to my Renegade Shepard by a hot asari dancer, they'd still taste like crap.

I never mentioned the intrinsic nature of the choices, though I undestand why you think I might have.  Whether or not Shepard (we) object to the very nature of the choices is irrelevant.  There's no doubt the Catalyst is powerful enough to compel Shepard to make some choice, whether or not the choice provides rainbows and ponies for all (not available), or destroys all synthetic life in the galaxy. The Catalyst hands Shepard the platter of crap and says, "Chow down."  Again, I'm characterizing the choices based on how I roleplay my Shepards, particularly my Renegades.  I'm sure you grasp the concept since you mentioned your own roleplaying credentials.

My proposition is simple, straightforward: without the option to refuse the Catalyst's choices, Shepard is denied the last great act of defiance--you may want to Google that phrase and take a look at the poster associated with it.

I'd address more of your complete response about endings in general, but it's 12:30 a.m. here, and I'm tired.  I might take a look tomorrow.  Again, thanks for your time.

Modifié par Aquilas, 28 avril 2012 - 11:21 .

[Fapmaster5000]

I just have to leave this here:

I finally completed a personal project, where I tried to figure out if the endings were just bad, or simply badly conveyed/interpreted. I put together this thread, where I tried to rework the endings into ways that were the same but differently viewed, and I think they came out pretty well!

EDIT:  Basically, it's designed to fix the problems of "you can't say no to the Catalyst", "choices/morality/EMS mean nothing", and "the Catalyst is a giant box of endings and plotholes".  

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 28 avril 2012 - 04:58 .

[Storin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I think that this is actually a different issue.  I can understand the idea of player reactivity.  My big problem with the ME2 ending is that it's almost trivial to satisfy the prerequisites to achieve the perfect ending.  Even then, ultimately my first ending where Thane died was significantly more satisfying to me, even knowing that I can accomplish a superior ending, because to me the superior ending just comes across as being TOO badass.  It's too perfect which, for me, actually compromises the narrative because the variability of the ending ends up coming across as more "Did you play the game right" as opposed to "did you make difficult choices."


Something like Tuchanka works so much better for me, because the only way you can save Mordin is to have made different difficult choices in ME2 (which means that the consequence and choice are far enough removed that it isn't as foreshadowed nor as easy to "game the system.")  I personally feel that brokering the peace between the Geth and Quarian (which IS probably my favourite moment in the game) is probably just a smidge too easy to accomplish too.

Eh, I think that's really a matter of taste. Being able to save everyone strikes me as kind of the point of Shepard's character. He solves problems no one else thinks can be solved. And that itself leads up to the confrontation with the Reapers; this sense that Shepard himself is the difference between this cycle and all previous ones. If nothing I do in the third game impacts the ending in a meaningful way, that sense is destroyed. The game just becomes depressing, because now matter what my Shepard is like, I can't change anything. What it boils down to really is, I prefer to be able to get the "good" ending.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think that this is actually a different issue.  I can understand the idea of player reactivity.  My big problem with the ME2 ending is that it's almost trivial to satisfy the prerequisites to achieve the perfect ending.  Even then, ultimately my first ending where Thane died was significantly more satisfying to me, even knowing that I can accomplish a superior ending, because to me the superior ending just comes across as being TOO badass.  It's too perfect which, for me, actually compromises the narrative because the variability of the ending ends up coming across as more "Did you play the game right" as opposed to "did you make difficult choices."

Ah but the problem here isn't that you can get a perfect ending, but that it's too easy to do so, yes?  I don't particularly disagree with that sentiment, but I do like that it's possible to keep everyone alive.  

The problem with ME3's endings is the exact opposite, the price you pay for any of the endings is so high that Shepard feels distinctly less than heroic in picking any of them.  And there's absolutely nothing Shepard can do about it.  Heck Shepard can't even save his/herself without going afield from the SP campaign.

Something like Tuchanka works so much better for me, because the only way you can save Mordin is to have made different difficult choices in ME2 (which means that the consequence and choice are far enough removed that it isn't as foreshadowed nor as easy to "game the system.")  I personally feel that brokering the peace between the Geth and Quarian (which IS probably my favourite moment in the game) is probably just a smidge too easy to accomplish too.

Tuchanka actually goes back to ME1 decisions, as I'm pretty sure you can't save Mordin if Wrex is alive.

Rannoch I'm reasonably sure (but not 100% certain) that peace is impossible unless both Tali and Legion (the original one) are alive.  And possibly loyal too.

[Siegdrifa]

Nope, for me the answer was totaly clear, because one corresponded near to my goal, and i totaly reject the two other option for many reasons, so it was very simple, even if i don't liked it at 100%.
In fact, i don't remember any choices in the games that was a dilema, not because i don't give thought, in fact i do, a lot.

What is "making a choice", it's a matter of comparaison. Sometimes there is no right choice, but it's not a reason to make it random (unles the player totaly don't give a damn, wich mean, may be, the problem he is facing is not very well introduced or pertinent).
So, what will matter is what will tip the balance for you, it is at the same time an objective AND subjective analysis. As long as you determine what tip the balance, even from 1%, then it become a no brainer choice, if your still hesitating, you are still processing the data, so you are still comparing, and i think making a choice while you haven't finish to compare is what can make you doubt.

To be honest i'm not fond of choices where you can't answer, and when it happend, in don't find them intresting or pertinant choice most of the time (some realy are).
What is the purpose of a choice ? It's to complish your vision (or what you think it will carry).
If you can't choose, it's sadly too often because none of them carry a responsability that fit your perspective.

So, my point is, if the writter can't figure out something else than making sure none of the choice he present to you could fit one of your perspective to make sure you esitate, it's nothing to be proud of.
What do you chooce, HIV or Cancer ?
Proposing only wrong choice doesn't give credits to a good writting, if he can't think of somehting else than poisoning all the choice he gives you to make you hesitate.

So, what will it be for your sir ?
choco cake with poison ?
vanilla cake with poison ?
coffe cake with poison ?

And again, "difficulte" choice is relative to how each individual process the data while comparing i think, i don't think a writter could propose "hard choice" for all their audiance, may be X% will find them hard to answer while Y% wouldn't find them hard and could come up with more justification than X.
I think writters shouldn' focus on "damn i have to make EVERYBODY hesitate !" making people hesitate is a secondary related aspect of "choice", they should focus on what makes those choices pertinent a priority, because pertinences among choices will likely make the processing data longer (so, what we actualy call "hesitation") without requiring an injection of poison dose in each choice to provok hesitation on the player.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 28 avril 2012 - 05:46 .

[Noelemahc]

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?

We'd be able to discuss them at length, theorize on the implications and ask her how does she feel about possibly dying along with Shepard. Depending on how you handled the issue earlier, she will reiterate that she did/did not alter her core programming to prioritize Joker's survival over her own for a reason and thus change her advice to you.

POOF, you have a moral investment in the story that is a direct result of the player's actions. Woah. Quick, check if writing that hurt? No? Did it cause moral resonation within the bowels of your soul? Yes? Then why was this not done in the actual game?

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?

Good question. If anyone recalls, every single Silent Hill has at least five endings, two of which are suicide-inducingly depressing (one acid-drinking level of suicidal intent, the other usually shotgun-eating), one is marginally happy, but suicide-inducingly depressing, and one is mostly happy, but still has you needing those happy pills for a few days and is, more often than not, obscenely hard to obtain without a walkthrough. And the fifth is usually a nonsensical self-parody that has grown to be its own soap opera, as they're all interconnected through the series.

So tell me this. Why not do THAT kind of ending range instead of the "well, there's an ending anyone gets, an ending most will get, and an ending you can only get if you play multiplayer, oh, and they're all rather easy to do without much extra effort, really, so as not to alienate anyone or make them feel left out, they're not that different"? I'm very interested.

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.

It's not about the Catalyst being jarring by itself (which it totally is). It's about the fact that Shepard has no palpable reason to accept ANYTHING the hologram says specifically because it admits to be the perpetrator of all the crap that Shepard had to deal with. If it's EDI delivering the options, it's a reliable source, someone we have grown to know and trust over the course of two games. Even if she pulls a SHODAN on us at that point for picking Destroy if she did not modify her core programing, it would be consistent with the story we have had until now, and we could have inferred that in advance.

TL;DR: The Catalyst fails as the options-presenter not because it is shoddily written (although it is), but because Shepard's opinion of the options will be coloured (should be coloured?) by the fact that it's who we've JUST been told is the Big Bad.

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

But they ARE equivalent. Common Warfare as an option would naturally require in excess of 7K EMS to achieve what the Destroy ending allows with 3K EMS, with the tiers going down in parallel. So at 5K EMS, while you *might* win in Common Warfare, be prepared to live with the fact that Shepard will most certainly not make it off the Citadel, that Hackett, the Normandy, and most everyone you know will die fighting and -- oh, dear Saren, there might not be enough hoo-mans left in the universe afterwards to sustain a viable population.

It is the moral high ground, yes, but it should NOT be the "assured victory" that everyone somewhy assumes it would automagically be. Remember, the 4K EMS cutoff point is "we can protect and build the Crucible to spec", not "we may have enough ships to whup the cuttlefish". Therefore, the "we totally can whup the cuttlefish" level should be much higher. It's very simple.

I personally feel that brokering the peace between the Geth and Quarian (which IS probably my favourite moment in the game) is probably just a smidge too easy to accomplish too.

The game balances it out by not importing the saves correctly sometimes. I had to edit my saves to restore the proper values, because apparently, it did not enjoy the fact that all but one of my Shepards had fulfilled all the prerequisites in ME2.

Also, I would've felt much better if the Geth/Quarian peace was NOT resolved by a bizarrely-conditioned Para/Rene check (I won't get into detail, much more eloquent men than me have spent hours discussing WHY the requirements don't make much internal sense), but by a series of gateway dialogues setting up the doubts in the minds of the Quarian admirals which you may or may not opt to exploit in the showdown scene by YELLING AT THEM. Winning by power of eloquence rather than picking an "I win" option is always more enjoyable.

The problem with ME3's endings is the exact opposite, the price you pay for any of the endings is so high that Shepard feels distinctly less than heroic in picking any of them. And there's absolutely nothing Shepard can do about it. Heck Shepard can't even save his/herself without going afield from the SP campaign.

Pretty much what he said. The sense of loss and suffering Shepard accumulates over the course of the game is great and enjoyable from a storytelling perspective, but the fact that the ending decides to drive a steamroller across all of it by introducing an entirely different, mostly unrelated, framework of values and decisions ruins everything for most people.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 28 avril 2012 - 05:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think that this is actually a different issue.  I can understand the idea of player reactivity.  My big problem with the ME2 ending is that it's almost trivial to satisfy the prerequisites to achieve the perfect ending.  Even then, ultimately my first ending where Thane died was significantly more satisfying to me, even knowing that I can accomplish a superior ending, because to me the superior ending just comes across as being TOO badass.  It's too perfect which, for me, actually compromises the narrative because the variability of the ending ends up coming across as more "Did you play the game right" as opposed to "did you make difficult choices."

Ah but the problem here isn't that you can get a perfect ending, but that it's too easy to do so, yes?  I don't particularly disagree with that sentiment, but I do like that it's possible to keep everyone alive.

I'm certainly more receptive to a perfect ending if it's difficult to achieve.  At the same time, though, I was more defining the perfect ending as the crew all surviving, which wouldn't exclude a prerequisite of having to make a very hard choice affecting a non-party member (or something on a larger scale) in order to happen.

Remember, I'm the guy that finds the Virmire more interesting if it required you to choose between your two favourite party members (determined by some metric such as most frequently used).

I think what I've kind of noticed while talking with people is many people like their choice to be purely the ability to drive the narrative.  Meaning, if they want to make a "suboptimal" choice, then it's interesting for them to have that narrative flexibility.  What I look for in choice is more along the lines of "provide me with a choice where the outcomes are unclear, or at least evaluated to be equivalent."  Which I think is just a difference in what I like out of an RPG narrative.  (I'm not all nihilist and am totally okay with a standard heroic romp Baldur's Gate style though haha).  

Tuchanka actually goes back to ME1 decisions, as I'm pretty sure you can't save Mordin if Wrex is alive.

True.  Though I think that just helps reinforce my point of consequences significantly later than the choice hehe.

[Rabid Rooster]

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?

Well I can say for myself it would not matter who/what/how the 3 choices are presented by, The Shepard (and myself in his place) i got to know and play  throughout ME regardless of paragon/renegade would still say screw that we will find another way. Just as He/I did with the choice offered by the salarian chick about the genophage, and with the geth etc....

Out of all 3 choices I find distory as the only somewhat exceptable one, if it did not kill EDI and the geth and destroy the citadel and relays then it would have been perfect...I could have even lived with the starbrat as bad as it was.

[NickelToe]

I would happily take a 4th option to refute Casey Hudson (cough Starchild) and flat out lose. Since artsy requires some emo-like intelligence I don't have I just want to say no to StarBrat and lose earth. The catalyst is total bs. The endings to the movie "Eyes Wide Shut" had more meaning than the RGB garbage.

4th option - "Hacket its a trick, they wanted us to build this thing. Fire on the Catalyst." Casey Hudson gets his blow up the galaxy ending for art class at community college and you lose. - roll credits

Would have been more meaningful than anything we got. I dont want Shepherd to end up the worst villain in history(even regengade shep) after fighting for survival for 100+ hours per playthrough. Those that did not play ME, should play the first. That is how you put feel into the game, not deus ex machima.

Modifié par NickelToe, 28 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[thefallen2far]

I didn't like any of the 3 options. Thematically, they all felt awkward. Control was literally what TiM was preaching.... which I was preaching was a bad call. I guess I was supposed to take into account that he was a "villain" that he was wrong. But if you do the exact same thing for the same reasons... what's the point? Synthesis was awkwardly bad. Imagine that.... changing every being in the universe into half organic/half synthetics.... for no reason. I mean, it doesn't make sense. How is that a solution to anything? That's not going to stop the new cyborgs from creating more synths. Destroy was spiteful and costly. I didn't choose until I went online to get more verification on what they meant. When I found out the endings, I still haven't gone back to beat it. It makes no sense. There's no positive in any of the choices. I mean, it's like choosing your own execution.... your first choice is "none of the above, please". And when that doesn't work, you go with the one that's least crappy. There's no positives to any of the choices.

They should have added something positive.... ever play those "this or that" games where people would give you scenarios and you choose which you would prefer.... there has to be a positive for these things to work. Surviving at the end in the destroy or the mass relays still working and functioning. That's a choice. Your love interest dying or saving an entire species, that's a choice. Synth, Control or Destroy is choosing a flavor..... black licoriche, methane saturated cake or raw cinnimon sticks.... enjoy.

[Kreidian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Ah but here there is a bit of a disconnect. We're not asking for a 4th option that is clearly better, we're just asking for a 4th option. Technically we're taking about any other option that makes more sense. It doesn't have to sacrifice the whole rest of the story, and it doesn't have to be a perfect win every time. Because as most of us have said on this thread, the current three options are just terrible.

Yes, a lot of that is how it's presented. If EDI presents these options then that instantly chances the types of choices we're making. It becomes more of our desicion, our work, not some lame options laid before you by some sparkle kid who you have no reason to trust. You potentially have the option to ask EDI herself or your companions what they think instead of making the desicions in a vaccum detached from the rest of the people who matter to you. But the fact that all three choices available leave you feeling like you're going to lose no matter how hard you try; kinda leaves alot of people thinking, well what the hell was the point then?

Why bother going through all the trouble - importing games from ME and ME2, going the extra mile with every war asset you can find, playing multiplayer and the iPhone datapad, and everything else you've done up to that point - if in the end you are still left with no other options but to lose something more.

This is what I mean about writers hating happy endings. The fact that you HAVE to sacrifice something, no matter what, the fact that you can't do anything to change that. You might as well ignore the hundreds of hours played up to that point. You'd do just as well to have ignored the first two games and sped through the main quest chain of ME3. You'd get functionally the same ending.

You might enjoy endings like that but not everyone does. You worry about players 'gaming' the system and forget that this is supposed to be a game. I see no problem with there being one perfect way to play the game, so long as it is sufficiently difficult, because it is a game and it's important that people actually enjoy the experience. In truth most people won't really game the system. Because either they will be putting in the level of effort that makes them worthy of the perfect ending, or they simply won't bother and remain happy with the story they got.

Alot of people I know, more casual gamers you might say, never even bothered with a perfect ME2 playthrough. They played the game once, people died, they survived, they were happy. Most other people I know played the game without reading a "walkthrough" of the final mission, then replayed it with a perfect game. So it's not like people didn't experience the ending as it "should" have been, with companions dying. Plus it's not like there was anything stopping people who prefered the "imperfect" runthroughs from playing enjoying those as well.

Which is why I think there should be something that allows for the possibility of an ending where all our hard work really does pay off.

I'd say only consider a perfect happy ending in the case where very specific conditions are met.
- Where you have tons more EMS then you need.
- Where you brokered peace between the Qeth and Quarians - to show that synthetics and organics can live in peace.
- Where you cured the genophage with Wrex and/or Eve still alive - to show that even the most dangerous of organics can still have redeaming qualities.
- Maybe you saved the council or destroyed the collector base or some other combination that makes sense.
- Maybe these factors depend on your paragon / renegade rating.

Whatever else you want to throw into the mix, something where the best ending is only possible after a great deal of effort. Far more then surviving ME2's suicide mission. By all means let us work for it.

Modifié par Kreidian, 28 avril 2012 - 08:47 .

[a.m.p]

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 would be one way to adress that problem. Because as the catalyst is now, Shepard has really no reason to believe anything it says and by that I mean anything. That he is the catalyst, that he is on the citadel, that the crucible changed him and so on. Most importantly Shepard has no reson to believe that the strange actions (neither of which look like turning on the crucible) that would, as it claims, result in Shepard dying, would do anything to stop the cycle. Whenever we were previously presented with a choice provided by someone we couldn't trust there was always the "screw that, let's blow it up" option.

So yes. The problem with accepting of the catalyst consists of several sub problems.

1) We don't know what the crucible does. This is beyond ridiculous and absolutely unnecassary. If we had some explanation that made sense that proved that the crucible was indeed the product of prior cycles and not a reaper trap like any other piece of advanced tech conveniently lying around in the galaxy, we could have reasons to want to activate it.

2) The choice is predented by the reaper creator. Who is the enemy, at least to me, regardless of how he feels about organics. That's what I outlined above.

3) We are forced into choosing if we want to finish the game, because we can't defeat the reapers conventionally. Except there is a ton of lore that provides multiple ways to fight them. And at the very best that lore is retconned.

These problems run through the whole game and simply can not be fixed without redoing a lot of it. The EC announcement states that they are only adding content, not changing anything. Fair enough.

But all that vagueness allows for maneuver and a fourth option can still be attached without even changing the starchild. And as of this moment 548 people on my poll say that would fix the ending for them.

[Ariq]

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?

In the case you're describing, a trusted character would be providing guidance and information. The player would have every reason to believe EDI. The player wouldn't be caught in the strange situation of believing and cooperating with the self-proclaimed villain of the series. As is, the player is asked to make a choice without any reason to believe in the truth or the motive behind the possibilities. If we believe the Catalyst, then why should we ever choose Synthesis? Isn't that what the Reapers want? But it all becomes circular, because we don't even know whether to believe the Catalyst from word one. Maybe it's all a lie. Or a figment of our imagination (IT). The motive and trust issues would both go away if it were EDI (or Liara, or whoever) giving us this info. Even a Prothean VI would be preferable to the self-proclaimed leader of the Reapers. 

Aside to note, I'm not saying you can't have a situation where characters in conflict are forced to work together. That's fine, even mortal enemies can collaborate for the greater good, but we don't even know if the Catalyst is who he says he is. The level of doubt is too high, and breaks our suspension of disbelief. If we did believe him on a factual basis, we still have to question exactly what greater good the Catalyst is working towards - and the seemingly obvious conclusion that it isn't *our greater good*.

But would I be happy? No. Not really. For two reasons.
 
First, the choices aren't very appealling when considered. Synthesis would still be the Saren option, capitulation to the Reapers' stated goal of assimilating organic life into some syncretic form. Choosing such an outcome for the self is one thing, imposing synthesis galaxy wide is...problematic. (By the by, the ME team needs a thesaurus. Using "synthetic" to mean both artificial life and the outcome of merging artificial life with organic life is annoying.) Control would still be the path of the Illusive Man, still the worrying danger that it would end in Indoctrinated dead ghost Shepard, or just a laugh from the Reapers once Shepard had indeed "lost all he has." Destruction would be more palatable, I suppose, if EDI were the one presenting it, and I would have to grudgingly admit it as the only correct choice at that point. None of the choices would be very desirable, and several would negate the much more emotionally invested choices from earlier in the game. Destroy negate Rannoch, and arguably Synthesis renders curing the Genophage a bit irrelevant if the Krogan are suddenly all cyborgs anyway.

Second, this would still be a sudden shift in the thematic narrative of Mass Effect. I've argued elsehwere on this forum that the base theme of ME is the existential confrontation between the living and the Reapers. The latter represent not only physical destruction for most, but the erasure of identity on personal, cultural and ultimately galactic levels. Most of ME, ME2, and ME3 centered around rejecting that outcome. Whether Paragon or Renegade, Shepard stood for humanity and the galaxy. Shepard is defiant in the face of certain death, resolute in projecting the will of the human identity onto the galactic stage, determined in preserving the essence of his team, his people, his culture. But all the outcomes, all of the choices, require submission to annihilation. Synthesis is a galactic erasure button. In Control Shepard "loses all he has" in order to gain questionable command over beings already demonstrated to be a corrupting influence - the very point you argue in the last confrontation with the Illusive Man, and in Destroy you're potentially killing an entire race of your allies, a team-mate, yourself and who knows how many other individuals who also have implants (such as all Quarians? An ironic twist if so, though it isn't spelled out ingame.) None of these are thematically satisfactory.

So...to answer your question: no, not at all. I believe the three choices are fundamentally flawed at a conceptual level. Players' anger at the Catalyst is simply emblematic of that, not the other way around. That the Catalyst is a literal deux ex machina just exacerbates the problem; it didn't create the problem.

Modifié par Ariq, 28 avril 2012 - 05:24 .

[Noelemahc]

Yes, a lot of that is how it's presented. If EDI presents these options then that instantly chances the types of choices we're making. It becomes more of our desicion, our work, not some lame options laid before you by some sparkle kid who you have no reason to trust. You potentially have the option to ask EDI herself or your companions what they think instead of making the desicions in a vaccum detached from the rest of the people who matter to you.

And therein lies something I remembered only yesterday. DA2 is about the only recent BioWare game where you can actually ASK WHAT YOUR TEAM THINKS about whatever it is you're trying to decide on right now. Mass Effect only lets you ask your teammates' opinions in certain situations, on certain matters, usually AFTER Shepard has made the decision (RE: Collector Base, for example), or without getting a proper answer (RE: Geth Heretics; almost everything you discuss with anyone in a helmet about the Geth Problem in ME3) to actually convince Shepard one way or the other.

So...to answer your question: no, not at all. I believe the three choices are fundamentally flawed at a conceptual level. Players' anger at the Catalyst is simply emblematic of that, not the other way around. That the Catalyst is a literal deux ex machina just makes exacerbates the problem, it didn't create the problem.

Exactly what I was trying to say earlier. I have a serious impression that everybody skips my walls of text in favours of everyone else's walls of text =(

1) We don't know what the crucible does. This is beyond ridiculous and
absolutely unnecassary. If we had some explanation that made sense that
proved that the crucible was indeed the product of prior cycles and not a
reaper trap like every other piece of functional advanced tech conveniently lying
around in the galaxy, we could have reasons to want to activate it.
<...>
3) We are forced into choosing if we want to finish the
game, because we can't defeat the reapers conventionally. Except there
is a ton of lore that provides multiple ways to fight them. And at the
very best that lore is retconned, if not ignored altogether.

Fixed that for you.

I'm afraid that Portal does a better job of explaining the hazards of using the Aperture-Science-We-Don't-Know-What-It-Does-Device in a JOKE SCENE than ME3 could ever hope to at its most serious. I'm afraid that outside of a few instances, nobody brings up the fact that the Crucible is untested, unproven, unguaranteed and totally not the most reliable solution to our problem. Usually Hackett and Liara just go on about "We don't know what it does, exactly, but the label clearly said "FOR MY ENEMIES". This is good, right?". Obviously neither read Harry Potter, have they? =)

And, to reiterate: I hate how stupidly oblivious everyone is to the fact that Vendetta practically  flat-out states that the Reapers may have had a hand (claw? tentacle?) in designing the Crucible.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 28 avril 2012 - 09:45 .

[Aznable Char]

I keep hearing all of this defense of the endings as permissible because they're wonderful "difficult choice" endings .

Difficulty of choice implies a heavy weight of real consequence and emotional weight .

I felt none of that with the endings . I didn't even get to see how this difficult choice played out .

Even at the end of ME2 you had Shep or Joker looking at the coffins and then suddenly here comes Harbinger .

There was none of that in ME3 . It was just walk out onto a piece of dirt planet and then cut to buzz aldrin saying it was all a beautifully clever artistic integrity frame story from a senile old man who doesn't know how to end a good tale . God bless you , Mr. Aldrin . I'm sorry they had you associated with this offense to narrative cohesion .

It was truly a difficult decision choosing a favourite colour since my favourite is orange , but my second favourite was blue .

Gosh so do I pick red because it's closest to orange ?

Or do I pick blue because it's my second favourite ?

At least the end of DA2 was actually compelling even if people say it was a monoending .

I loved the emotional choice of being there killing people with your own hands in the streets and listening to them confess about quentin or going insane .

Here , the choices were nothing but inhumane un-spoken fireworks . Gosh , I wish the DA2 people wrote the ending . Would have been better than any of this .

Modifié par Aznable Char, 28 avril 2012 - 10:01 .

[Direwolf0294]

Allan, I don't always need RPGs to offer a 'perfect ending' (I loved Human Revolution for example) but for Mass Effect, and to an extent any RPG that's going to span several games and lets you transfer your character over to the next installment in the series, I think it really needed that option.

One of the reasons I love Mass Effect 2 so much is because of this. The first time I played through ME2 I didn't get a perfect ending. I didn't know if I'd be able to keep playing the game and completing quests after the final mission so before going through the Omega Relay I made sure to visit every planet and do every side quest. This meant that when I did attack to Collector Base I was too late to save my crew who had been kidnapped by the Collectors. This made me sad. I later learned though that it was possible to save them and that inspired me to run through the game all over again just so I could do that.

I feel like I'm in a bit of a similar situation in ME3 because Miranda died in my game. I want to replay it just so I can save her but the current endings are stopping me from doing that because it's impossible to get a perfect, happy ending so what's the point in trying to save Miranda? What's the point in trying to save any of them?

I think it also falls back to how I approach RPGs, or at least how I approach BioWare RPGs. I see BioWare RPGs, and a couple other RPGs out there, as a way to custom create the sort of story I feel like experiencing. If I want to have a sad/depressing/dark story I'll play through the game making choices that makes that story happen. Purposely let characters die and the like. If I feel like experiencing a story that has some sad/depressing/dark parts in it but ultimately good triumphs over evil and everyone lives happily ever after then I make choices so that happens. For most of BioWare's games that is possible. In DA:O for example I had one playthrough where I let a lot of people die and didn't pick the perfect route because I wanted to experience that sort of story. I also had a playthrough where I did make all my choices so I could save a lot of lives and everyone lived happily ever after, or close enough, because that's also a story I wanted to experience. In ME3 though the option for that has been taken away. 

I want my ME3 story to have a happy ending because that's the sort of story I want to experience from these games. I want to be able to 'game' the system so everyone survives and lives happily ever after and I think it's really poor of BioWare not to offer me that choice.