202 réponses à ce sujet

[Artemis_Entrari]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't think the OP is talking about the EC. My impression is that he's talking about an altogether new ending -- I'm guessing a happy one.

Why would you assume the OP wants "happy endings" when he stated what kind of endings he's talking about right in his first post?

Jeric wrote...
So my questions is, why are those that like the ending SO opposed to Bioware adding/creating NEW endings that reflect how people played the game? I think most people don’t want complete changes, I think most people what more options. Options that validate their choices!

I totally agree that there are lots of people out there that are completely happy with what they got, but would it really be so bad to include those that aren’t by adding a few endings. After all, isn’t the whole feel of the game about choices affecting the outcome?

I see him mention "choices affecting the outcome" and "Options that validate their choices", but I don't see "Happy endings with rainbows and unicorns" in there.

So I'm a bit curious, why do you seem to always suggest that those who want new endings or better endings are only after happy endings?

Modifié par Artemis_Entrari, 02 mai 2012 - 10:04 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Icemix wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
Just like, since its pretty easy to have everyone survive the so called suicide mission, anything else is a clear inferior choice.

Yep. I'd pay $5 for a DLC that forces you to do the Reaper IFF mission as soon as it's available.

Edit: actually, more like $1.

I'd pay, like $5 that made it so that no matter how well prepared you are for the Suicide Mission, at least one squadmate always dies - just to reinforce that fact that it's supposed to be a SUICIDE mission...

Again you are missing the point. ME is about beating the odds. Stop Saren and Sovereign, everyone said its impossible, but you do it. Go to the galaxy core to stop the Collectors, suicide mission, yet you come out with everyone alive. It has always been about doing the impossible.

And how many people died stopping Saren and Soverign? Either the council and all the people on the Destiny Ascension, or a bunch of Alliance ships. Impossibility achieved - but with consequences. The "suicide mission" is the weakest part of an otherwise fantastic game because there's simply no challenge or drama to it. Simply through the course of ordinary gameplay, you put lie to the name "suicide". 

If you don't want someone to die during the "suicide mission", then you should have to go to extraordinary measures to be able to prevent it. Not just... doing the missions you'd normally do and not completely f up the assignments. You have to TRY to actually make the suicide mission have consequences, and that's bad design.

[Icemix]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
Just like, since its pretty easy to have everyone survive the so called suicide mission, anything else is a clear inferior choice.

Yep. I'd pay $5 for a DLC that forces you to do the Reaper IFF mission as soon as it's available.

Edit: actually, more like $1.

I'd pay, like $5 that made it so that no matter how well prepared you are for the Suicide Mission, at least one squadmate always dies - just to reinforce that fact that it's supposed to be a SUICIDE mission...

Again you are missing the point. ME is about beating the odds. Stop Saren and Sovereign, everyone said its impossible, but you do it. Go to the galaxy core to stop the Collectors, suicide mission, yet you come out with everyone alive. It has always been about doing the impossible.

And how many people died stopping Saren and Soverign? Either the council and all the people on the Destiny Ascension, or a bunch of Alliance ships. Impossibility achieved - but with consequences. The "suicide mission" is the weakest part of an otherwise fantastic game because there's simply no challenge or drama to it. Simply through the course of ordinary gameplay, you put lie to the name "suicide". 

If you don't want someone to die during the "suicide mission", then you should have to go to extraordinary measures to be able to prevent it. Not just... doing the missions you'd normally do and not completely f up the assignments. You have to TRY to actually make the suicide mission have consequences, and that's bad design.

Its a hard thing to do from a designer's point of view. They have to make sure to please the people that want a challange, like you do, yet they can't make it so hard that casual people that pick the game for a first time and have no idea what is going on just get  a "EVERYONE DIED YOU FAILED" screen. And you are saying it takes no effort to get everyone out alive, but that is easy to say now that you can meta it.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Icemix wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
Just like, since its pretty easy to have everyone survive the so called suicide mission, anything else is a clear inferior choice.

Yep. I'd pay $5 for a DLC that forces you to do the Reaper IFF mission as soon as it's available.

Edit: actually, more like $1.

I'd pay, like $5 that made it so that no matter how well prepared you are for the Suicide Mission, at least one squadmate always dies - just to reinforce that fact that it's supposed to be a SUICIDE mission...

Again you are missing the point. ME is about beating the odds. Stop Saren and Sovereign, everyone said its impossible, but you do it. Go to the galaxy core to stop the Collectors, suicide mission, yet you come out with everyone alive. It has always been about doing the impossible.

And how many people died stopping Saren and Soverign? Either the council and all the people on the Destiny Ascension, or a bunch of Alliance ships. Impossibility achieved - but with consequences. The "suicide mission" is the weakest part of an otherwise fantastic game because there's simply no challenge or drama to it. Simply through the course of ordinary gameplay, you put lie to the name "suicide". 

If you don't want someone to die during the "suicide mission", then you should have to go to extraordinary measures to be able to prevent it. Not just... doing the missions you'd normally do and not completely f up the assignments. You have to TRY to actually make the suicide mission have consequences, and that's bad design.

Its a hard thing to do from a designer's point of view. They have to make sure to please the people that want a challange, like you do, yet they can't make it so hard that casual people that pick the game for a first time and have no idea what is going on just get  a "EVERYONE DIED YOU FAILED" screen. And you are saying it takes no effort to get everyone out alive, but that is easy to say now that you can meta it.

I'm not saying "EVERYONE DIES" I'm saying, if you would have otherwise gotten everyone else out alive, one person is randomly selected to die, excluding your love interest. And it's not like it was EVER hard to do it so everyone survives, my first playthrough a couple weeks after ME2's release date, before any DLCs other than Zaeed had been released, I made it through with everyone surviving simply by playing the game and not making obviously stupid choices - like having Jack be the one to hack the overrides in the tube. 

It takes no effort not because you can meta it, but because it takes no effort.

[Vormaerin]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...


So I'm a bit curious, why do you seem to always suggest that those who want new endings or better endings are only after happy endings?

What are the better endings being proposed?  The EC is a better ending pretty much by definition, since it will make the current ending better executed (though not necessarily palatable to all).  

A fourth option where you reject the Star Child and the reaper cycle continues?   Or maybe one where you fight to the bitter end and weaken the reapers so much that the next cycle can win?


Its really easy to assert "I'm not arguing that" when you aren't arguing for anything in particular except "not this."  

[Icemix]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
Just like, since its pretty easy to have everyone survive the so called suicide mission, anything else is a clear inferior choice.

Yep. I'd pay $5 for a DLC that forces you to do the Reaper IFF mission as soon as it's available.

Edit: actually, more like $1.

I'd pay, like $5 that made it so that no matter how well prepared you are for the Suicide Mission, at least one squadmate always dies - just to reinforce that fact that it's supposed to be a SUICIDE mission...

Again you are missing the point. ME is about beating the odds. Stop Saren and Sovereign, everyone said its impossible, but you do it. Go to the galaxy core to stop the Collectors, suicide mission, yet you come out with everyone alive. It has always been about doing the impossible.

And how many people died stopping Saren and Soverign? Either the council and all the people on the Destiny Ascension, or a bunch of Alliance ships. Impossibility achieved - but with consequences. The "suicide mission" is the weakest part of an otherwise fantastic game because there's simply no challenge or drama to it. Simply through the course of ordinary gameplay, you put lie to the name "suicide". 

If you don't want someone to die during the "suicide mission", then you should have to go to extraordinary measures to be able to prevent it. Not just... doing the missions you'd normally do and not completely f up the assignments. You have to TRY to actually make the suicide mission have consequences, and that's bad design.

Its a hard thing to do from a designer's point of view. They have to make sure to please the people that want a challange, like you do, yet they can't make it so hard that casual people that pick the game for a first time and have no idea what is going on just get  a "EVERYONE DIED YOU FAILED" screen. And you are saying it takes no effort to get everyone out alive, but that is easy to say now that you can meta it.

I'm not saying "EVERYONE DIES" I'm saying, if you would have otherwise gotten everyone else out alive, one person is randomly selected to die, excluding your love interest. And it's not like it was EVER hard to do it so everyone survives, my first playthrough a couple weeks after ME2's release date, before any DLCs other than Zaeed had been released, I made it through with everyone surviving simply by playing the game and not making obviously stupid choices - like having Jack be the one to hack the overrides in the tube. 

It takes no effort not because you can meta it, but because it takes no effort.

Ok imagine this. I pick the game for the firts time. I have never heard of ME before. I just do the main missions and I get to the ending. Everyone dies. See for people that just invest more and are aware of common stuff that to a casual player would not apear so common, it would appear like it doesn't take any effort. But for a casual first time guy, it does take more effort.

[Vormaerin]

Icemix wrote...

And you are saying it takes no effort to get everyone out alive, but that is easy to say now that you can meta it.

Yeah, it takes no effort to get everyone out alive.   The only way to get screwed in the ending is to skip lots of the game and/or do the Reaper IFF quest as soon as its available, despite the warnings to build up the crew more.

The only real way to lose anyone on the mission is to make a serious error in understanding the characters' ability.   Zaeed is the only one who could reasonably be expected to do something successfully, yet can't.

All those metagaming pages are so you can figure out how to kill off the specific individuals you want.

Icemix wrote...
 But for a casual first time guy, it does take more effort.

Well, I'll grant that it requires actually playing the quests.  Not skipping them is "more effort" in some sense...

Modifié par Vormaerin, 02 mai 2012 - 10:31 .

[Tirigon]

Link Ashland 614 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Link Ashland 614 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


Most pro-enders are just spiteful children and want to bereft others of their fun. That is all.

I've seen more of that behavior on people who hated the endings, and still complain like if there was no more important thing other than insult Bioware and such.

That is because we are about 5 times more people than the pro-enders.

So it's completely justified to act like an ass just because you hate the ending. And it makes you a better person too.
That's new. And no, I'm not calling you an ass, I'm refering to others that hate the endings.

No, you misunderstand me.
It is not OK.

What I was trying to say however is that, even if there were 4 times more anti-ending r*tards than pro-ending r*tards, it would still be a lesser percentage of us than of youB)

[The Razman]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

The Razman wrote...

We've talked about this before.

Also:

Jeric wrote...
So another question for “pro-enders”, wouldn’t
it be totally awesome if you could play through ME3 a few more times
with different outcomes? Think about, you could start a new character
clear back in ME1 and have a different outcome!!  Why would that be
bad!?

You can. Almost every mission that takes place in ME3 is different with different possible outcomes depending on what you've done in the first two games. The possible outcomes are so numerous they're practically uncountable.

Yep, definitely uncountable.

... why do people even bother responding to posts that they haven't read? Seems like if you don't have enough time to read, typing nothing at all would save even more time.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Vormaerin wrote...

What are the better endings being proposed?  The EC is a better ending pretty much by definition, since it will make the current ending better executed (though not necessarily palatable to all).  

A fourth option where you reject the Star Child and the reaper cycle continues?   Or maybe one where you fight to the bitter end and weaken the reapers so much that the next cycle can win?


Its really easy to assert "I'm not arguing that" when you aren't arguing for anything in particular except "not this."  

What does that have to do with my post you quoted?  The only thing I was doing was pointing out the OP wasn't just asking for a happy ending, which is what AlanC9 presumed he was asking for despite the fact he mentioned all he's after is "choices mattering" as part of any changes to the ending.

So I was asking AlanC9 why he seems to often assume that anyone who wants changes to the ending are only after happy endings, even though the OP mentioned what he's looking for in any changed endings in the very first post.

Modifié par Artemis_Entrari, 02 mai 2012 - 10:59 .

[sharkboy421]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And how many people died stopping Saren and Soverign? Either the council and all the people on the Destiny Ascension, or a bunch of Alliance ships. Impossibility achieved - but with consequences. The "suicide mission" is the weakest part of an otherwise fantastic game because there's simply no challenge or drama to it. Simply through the course of ordinary gameplay, you put lie to the name "suicide". 

If you don't want someone to die during the "suicide mission", then you should have to go to extraordinary measures to be able to prevent it. Not just... doing the missions you'd normally do and not completely f up the assignments. You have to TRY to actually make the suicide mission have consequences, and that's bad design.

I agree that the drama of the SM is somewhat lessened once you unnderstand how it works but I think the concept behind it is fantastic.  Would it be such a bad thing to take that concept and apply it to the endings of ME3? Only as this would be the 2nd time Bioware has used the concept they would be able to make it much more of a challenge to achieve a "perfect" outcome.

[Vormaerin]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

What does that have to do with my post you quoted?  The only thing I was doing was pointing out the OP wasn't just asking for a happy ending, which is what AlanC9 presumed he was asking for despite the fact he mentioned all he's after is "choices mattering" as part of any changes to the ending.

Well, because if you aren't one of the people who insist that a self destruct order blows up the relays the same way an asteroid impact does, then your choices do matter.

Obviously, the three star child choices make a difference.

The whole rest of the game is a series of major decisions that will have long lasting impact on the future.

Of course, we don't have cute little slide shows telling us how that works out.  But that's what the EC is apparently supposed to fix (not necessarily via a slide show, but more explanation).

So he has what he's asking for, in theory.   But it seems likely he wants different choices.   And certainly other posters in this thread and the many similar ones are plumping for those choices to be more upbeat.

So either he needs to spell out what he wants or he accepts being lumped in with the amorphous crowd generally supporting that sort of position.   There's a lot of support for happier endings out there.

[Vormaerin]

sharkboy421 wrote...

I agree that the drama of the SM is somewhat lessened once you unnderstand how it works but I think the concept behind it is fantastic.  Would it be such a bad thing to take that concept and apply it to the endings of ME3? Only as this would be the 2nd time Bioware has used the concept they would be able to make it much more of a challenge to achieve a "perfect" outcome.

There's some evidence that such a situation was considered.  But it wasn't implemented.  It would have been fun.  Though I suspect it would be rather a lot like DAO's ending, where you gather all these guys and it means jack all in reality.

[Shaigunjoe]

I like the endings.

The only reason I would be opposed to new endings would be if they made one that trivializes the other three.  ie, made one that was so glaringly happy that everyone would pick it because it was the 'best'.  I enjoy the debate as to which people picked one and why.

[Feanor_II]

ME 3 wrote...

Why so much objection to happy endings?
It should at least be one option.
Seriously, it's like half the forum turned emo overnight

Nothing to do with "emo" but I like being faced to dilemmas and having to analyze pros and cons of decisions instead of having to choose a "perfect road", makes me empathize more with those situations.

Also maybe my passion for Greek mythology which mixes glory and tragedy in every legend.

[shurikenmanta]

That's a bit of an unfair comparison. It's like asking why people who don't like the ending are so opposed to just letting it be (hint: not all of them are).

[Gibb_Shepard]

Lol. the same 3 or 4 people are the "pro-enders". They post so much that it feels like there might be a resistance movement out there. But there's not.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 03 mai 2012 - 06:32 .

[grimlock122]

i don't like the ending (needs more options) so i'm down with the directors cut.

[CARL_DF90]

Pro-enders need something to clear the fog from their brains. After which, they will be able to see the garbage for what the ending really is.

[Icemix]

grimlock122 wrote...

i don't like the ending (needs more options) so i'm down with the directors cut.

The EC does not provide any new options.

[AlanC9]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

Jeric wrote...
So my questions is, why are those that like the ending SO opposed to Bioware adding/creating NEW endings that reflect how people played the game? I think most people don’t want complete changes, I think most people what more options. Options that validate their choices!

I totally agree that there are lots of people out there that are completely happy with what they got, but would it really be so bad to include those that aren’t by adding a few endings. After all, isn’t the whole feel of the game about choices affecting the outcome?

I see him mention "choices affecting the outcome" and "Options that validate their choices", but I don't see "Happy endings with rainbows and unicorns" in there.

So I'm a bit curious, why do you seem to always suggest that those who want new endings or better endings are only after happy endings?

Because most of them are. I got the impression that the OP himself is from a later post. Hell, look at the way the thread's going.

And "choices affecting the outcome" are already in there, unless he was talking about lots of cutscenes showing the effect of choices (Vormaerin beat me to this). As for "options that validate their choices"... well, I had no clue what the OP meant by "validate" there. Still don't.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mai 2012 - 07:02 .

[shurikenmanta]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Pro-enders need something to clear the fog from their brains. After which, they will be able to see the garbage for what the ending really is.

Come on, you guys cry foul when you're not given respect for your views, least you could do is extend the same to those who disagree with you.

[AlanC9]

shurikenmanta wrote...
Come on, you guys cry foul when you're not given respect for your views, least you could do is extend the same to those who disagree with you.

Nah -- it's better to have people express this stuff rather than pretend to respect each other.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mai 2012 - 06:58 .

[Bfler]

There is an end in DA:O where the Archdemon is defeated, the hero and all of the party members, also the LI, are alive, one of the party members becomes king and the PC is considered as a real hero -> this is a perfect happy ending, but I have never read negative posts in the DA forum about it and people also choose the other variants f.e. sacrifice of the Warden.

Modifié par Bfler, 03 mai 2012 - 07:01 .