55528 réponses à ce sujet

[TJBartlemus]

 Here is a good ending to a series. Halo 3's ending was excellent. (The music. The drama. I loved all of it.) Not that I'm saying that BioWare didn't end ME3 on a high note. They did. And I was moved. It's just it left as many questions as awnsers. Also it left out a dramatic ending like Halo 3. The choices were just given to you. You didn't have to do anything to get those choices. (Why BioWare? Why make it so easy?) Just the results were affected by your choices. 



I also liked how Halo ended like it started. Maybe ME3 could have used that??

[BansheeOwnage]

HellishFiend wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Twas a good speech, but I still say it's the non-Charm Paragon option.

Actually that fits the theory that destroy and refuse breack indoc because even with the collector base saved you could still break free, but at a higher cost.

The question is, if you have Destroy available, which provides a better defense against Indoctrination?

Delivering an epic refusal speech? Or sticking to the established themes of sacrifice and victory at any cost by picking Destroy? Tough question to answer. 

Yes it is.

[Big_Boss9]

comrade gando wrote...

I recall a bioware dev tweeting about talking about "stuff" at san diego comic con on july 12. I'm expecting to hear something maybe there. hope it doesn't turn out to be another PAX 2012 ooo man that was horrible.

I also hope they don't just throw a earth MP dlc in my face because playing ME3 is the LAST thing I want to do if these endings stay the way they are.

Agreed. I've gotten tired of MP as it is.

[HellishFiend]

Andromidius wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...
This is incredibly awesome and I hate and despise you for coming up with it before I did. I have an enormous envy boner right now. 

Thanks.  If it helps, I am a writer - problem being I seem best at coming up with ideas for other people's stories.  Which is rather frustrating to say the least - I can't seem to keep my own best ideas for myself...

Thats actually not very uncommon. I'm the same way. Some people work best with a blank slate, others work best when they have something upon which to improve. Different circumstances spark up the creative flow for different people. 

[Auralius Carolus]

D.Sharrah wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Fair point. Ultimately, I think IT is a fascinating interpretation of the ME3 ending. However, after Bioware screwed the pooch on DA2 and SWTOR is bleeding subscribers ad nauseum, I'm not sure why ME3 is the brilliant exception. They just haven't been the same since EA acquired them. If anything, I'd rather give massive credit to the dedicated fanbase that dissected, analyzed, and hypothesized a more interesting outcome than the writers intended.

I think I'm one of the few people that enjoyed DA2. I really enjoyed it.

But yeah, kudos to the people that gave the theory a voice.

Same here...never understood what all the angst was about...and I am excited about DA 3.

I wished the environments were more open, varied and larger, but that's about it. And the she-elf in the brothel, with the secrect, caused me to all but leap out of my chair screaming.

[Andromidius]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

I just want to point out that it would be very very very improbable for the next cycle to win. Why? Because after avery harvest the reapers leave behind a vanguard to make sure all the organics advance along "The paths they desire". How could they possibly build a massive fleet capable of overcoming the reapers without it noticing? How could they build the crucible without it stopping them. Don't forget the next cycle has to evolve a lot.

Indeed.  With the Salarians interfering and 'uplifting' two races to help fight their battles, they have cherry-picked the best of the next cycle's races and pulled them into this one.  Well, one - they didn't quite have time to finish uplifting the Yahg.  Though if I was a Reaper I'd blow them up from orbit early, just to make sure.

[BleedingUranium]

HellishFiend wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Twas a good speech, but I still say it's the non-Charm Paragon option.

Actually that fits the theory that destroy and refuse breack indoc because even with the collector base saved you could still break free, but at a higher cost.

The question is, if you have Destroy available, which provides a better defense against Indoctrination?

Delivering an epic refusal speech? Or sticking to the established themes of sacrifice and victory at any cost by picking Destroy? Tough question to answer. 

From my entirely subjective point of view, Destroy seems more... heroic? I think that's the word. More confidence and such, blasting the Reapers apart, shooting the tube, big explosion. It's more of a "I'm going to kill every single one of you!".

Whereas Reject is more like "I hate you and disagree with you, but I'm not actually going to do anything about it".

Plus breath scene is still just destroy.

[Arian Dynas]

Andromidius wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...
This is incredibly awesome and I hate and despise you for coming up with it before I did. I have an enormous envy boner right now. 

Thanks.  If it helps, I am a writer - problem being I seem best at coming up with ideas for other people's stories.  Which is rather frustrating to say the least - I can't seem to keep my own best ideas for myself...

You already know I am one too, and I often find the best way to get a good idea...

is to steal it 

Well, ok I find other ideas from multiple sources and play with them, some of the best ideas come from bad sources so I can salvage good or cool ideas they did badly and attempt to do them well, like how Twilight, if it had some realism, common sense, actual vampire lore and wasn't written like teenaged fanfiction could turn out to be some pretty decent vampire fiction.

[D.Sharrah]

Arian Dynas wrote...

@D.Sharrah

Maybe. ^-^

Give yourself more credit...your thoughts are usually spot on...I find myself aiming people at you marketing theory a ton, just to give one example.

[BansheeOwnage]

TJBartlemus wrote...

 Here is a good ending to a series. Halo 3's ending was excellent. (The music. The drama. I loved all of it.) Not that I'm saying that BioWare didn't end ME3 on a high note. They did. And I was moved. It's just it left as many questions as awnsers. Also it left out a dramatic ending like Halo 3. The choices were just given to you. You didn't have to do anything to get those choices. (Why BioWare? Why make it so easy?) Just the results were affected by your choices. 



I also liked how Halo ended like it started. Maybe ME3 could have used that??

Interesting you'd say that. ME3's end from a literal standpoint almost had that effect. (Whem I first played it I sooooo expected to have a showdown on the citadel again. Where you would fight reapers [all the MP enemies] on the citadel). From an IT perspective, it also has almost that effect because everything is built from Shepard's memories.

[D.Sharrah]

Andromidius wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

I just want to point out that it would be very very very improbable for the next cycle to win. Why? Because after avery harvest the reapers leave behind a vanguard to make sure all the organics advance along "The paths they desire". How could they possibly build a massive fleet capable of overcoming the reapers without it noticing? How could they build the crucible without it stopping them. Don't forget the next cycle has to evolve a lot.

Indeed.  With the Salarians interfering and 'uplifting' two races to help fight their battles, they have cherry-picked the best of the next cycle's races and pulled them into this one.  Well, one - they didn't quite have time to finish uplifting the Yahg.  Though if I was a Reaper I'd blow them up from orbit early, just to make sure.

Hackett tells you in game that the Reapers are avoidoing them...

[HellishFiend]

BleedingUranium wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Twas a good speech, but I still say it's the non-Charm Paragon option.

Actually that fits the theory that destroy and refuse breack indoc because even with the collector base saved you could still break free, but at a higher cost.

The question is, if you have Destroy available, which provides a better defense against Indoctrination?

Delivering an epic refusal speech? Or sticking to the established themes of sacrifice and victory at any cost by picking Destroy? Tough question to answer. 

From my entirely subjective point of view, Destroy seems more... heroic? I think that's the word. More confidence and such, blasting the Reapers apart, shooting the tube, big explosion. It's more of a "I'm going to kill every single one of you!".

Whereas Reject is more like "I hate you and disagree with you, but I'm not actually going to do anything about it".

Plus breath scene is still just destroy.

I agree. Destroy still feels like the best choice out of the 4 if the ultimate goal is to eliminate the Reaper threat at any cost. 

[Andromidius]

Arian Dynas wrote...


You already know I am one too, and I often find the best way to get a good idea...

is to steal it 

Actually, I didn't know that!  But its always nice to meet fellow authors:lol:

My main problem is one of my two pet projects is rooted in fanfiction (Warhammer 40,000, and any attempts to alter it into my own setting results in it being too similar to Mass Effect...), and the other is about Vampires (and thus is highly sterotypical, cliché and get associated with either Twilight or Underworld almost instantly).

Tis rather depressing at times.

[BansheeOwnage]

BleedingUranium wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Twas a good speech, but I still say it's the non-Charm Paragon option.

Actually that fits the theory that destroy and refuse breack indoc because even with the collector base saved you could still break free, but at a higher cost.

The question is, if you have Destroy available, which provides a better defense against Indoctrination?

Delivering an epic refusal speech? Or sticking to the established themes of sacrifice and victory at any cost by picking Destroy? Tough question to answer. 

From my entirely subjective point of view, Destroy seems more... heroic? I think that's the word. More confidence and such, blasting the Reapers apart, shooting the tube, big explosion. It's more of a "I'm going to kill every single one of you!".

Whereas Reject is more like "I hate you and disagree with you, but I'm not actually going to do anything about it".

Plus breath scene is still just destroy.

No idea how, but it could work like this: Refuse = you win/break free but Shepard dies. Destroy = you win/break free Shepard lives. It fits your theory too.

[D.Sharrah]

And with that I need to head to bed...keep the faith, cause I tell you the stank of seafood has not gone away (I really do need a "fish" smiley)!

[BansheeOwnage]

D.Sharrah wrote...

And with that I need to head to bed...keep the faith, cause I tell you the stank of seafood has not gone away (I really do need a "fish" smiley)!

See you later.

[BleedingUranium]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Twas a good speech, but I still say it's the non-Charm Paragon option.

Actually that fits the theory that destroy and refuse breack indoc because even with the collector base saved you could still break free, but at a higher cost.

The question is, if you have Destroy available, which provides a better defense against Indoctrination?

Delivering an epic refusal speech? Or sticking to the established themes of sacrifice and victory at any cost by picking Destroy? Tough question to answer. 

From my entirely subjective point of view, Destroy seems more... heroic? I think that's the word. More confidence and such, blasting the Reapers apart, shooting the tube, big explosion. It's more of a "I'm going to kill every single one of you!".

Whereas Reject is more like "I hate you and disagree with you, but I'm not actually going to do anything about it".

Plus breath scene is still just destroy.

No idea how, but it could work like this: Refuse = you win/break free but Shepard dies. Destroy = you win/break free Shepard lives. It fits your theory too.

Yeah that's pretty much what I meant, but all my explainations get overly long  It also fits with Harby raging only in Reject, because Shep isn't as awesome (and therefore useful) as he thought, so he kills him in reality.

[Rifneno]

D.Sharrah wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Fair point. Ultimately, I think IT is a fascinating interpretation of the ME3 ending. However, after Bioware screwed the pooch on DA2 and SWTOR is bleeding subscribers ad nauseum, I'm not sure why ME3 is the brilliant exception. They just haven't been the same since EA acquired them. If anything, I'd rather give massive credit to the dedicated fanbase that dissected, analyzed, and hypothesized a more interesting outcome than the writers intended.

I think I'm one of the few people that enjoyed DA2. I really enjoyed it.

But yeah, kudos to the people that gave the theory a voice.

Same here...never understood what all the angst was about...and I am excited about DA 3.

It might've been okay as book.  Which is what Gaider needs to stick to writing.  It was a colossal failure as an RPG for the simple fact the plot was set in sto--hell, not even stone, that plot was set in 10 foot thick osmium.  No choice you were given made any difference and your character was repeatedly forced to be an idiot to let the plot move on its triple tungsten-titanium alloy reinforced rails.  As were other characters, especially if you dared to try to make a change in the story.  The best example of this is warning Cullen about the Chantry in Act III.  He says he understands and will take care of it.  And the only thing that changes is you lose respect for BioWare when everything plays out exactly the same, not even with extra dialogue from Cullen about how he failed.  That priestess and her fascist boyfriend tried to have you murdered just to make a point to other people?  Cool, you've got them alone in an abandoned slum and no one knows they're there.  There's no way you'll get caught for your retribution!  "I should kill you for this!" "You can't, I'm needed later in the story."  "Oh, damn, okay."  And you'll step aside so she can leave unharmed.

I respect your opinions, don't get me wrong, but I seriously just don't understand how anyone could like that waste of good DVDs.

[comrade gando]

I noticed during that strange scene with shepard flying in to the crucible, there's a keeper pulling a helmet out of the pile of corpses then looking at shepard. what in the world do you think it means?

[jgibson14352]

just something to post to keep the thread going, and a thought that i still cant get out of my head,
regarding the Rachni, javik says they were in his cycle as well. remember the prothean vi on thessia? he said that certain patterns repeat themselves in each cycle, one being the protheans and the Zha'Til in the metacon wars, this current cycles being with the geth. they both faced opposition form organic, then later synthetic enemies. while those conflicts split galactic organization, the reapers, half organic half synthetic, would strike. remember javik said he thought the protheans had hunted the rachni to extinction as well. the rachni are important because they imply that the reapers use the rachni and the synthetics in every cycle against the larger organic population. the queen said there was a maddening sour note, showing that the reapers took control over the rachni. in ME3, if you killed the rachni in ME1, the reapers have cloned a new queen.
if you havent put the puzzle together yet, it shows that the rachni have always been a tool of the reapers
but where does that put them in the war against the reapers? couldnt they just retake control?

Modifié par jgibson14352, 29 juin 2012 - 03:47 .

[BleedingUranium]

comrade gando wrote...

I noticed during that strange scene with shepard flying in to the crucible, there's a keeper pulling a helmet out of the pile of corpses then looking at shepard. what in the world do you think it means?

Playing with your head

[Andromidius]

Rifneno wrote...

It might've been okay as book.  Which is what Gaider needs to stick to writing.  It was a colossal failure as an RPG for the simple fact the plot was set in sto--hell, not even stone, that plot was set in 10 foot thick osmium.  No choice you were given made any difference and your character was repeatedly forced to be an idiot to let the plot move on its triple tungsten-titanium alloy reinforced rails.  As were other characters, especially if you dared to try to make a change in the story.  The best example of this is warning Cullen about the Chantry in Act III.  He says he understands and will take care of it.  And the only thing that changes is you lose respect for BioWare when everything plays out exactly the same, not even with extra dialogue from Cullen about how he failed.  That priestess and her fascist boyfriend tried to have you murdered just to make a point to other people?  Cool, you've got them alone in an abandoned slum and no one knows they're there.  There's no way you'll get caught for your retribution!  "I should kill you for this!" "You can't, I'm needed later in the story."  "Oh, damn, okay."  And you'll step aside so she can leave unharmed.

I respect your opinions, don't get me wrong, but I seriously just don't understand how anyone could like that waste of good DVDs.

Sounds suspitiously like ME3...

Doesn't matter what you do, you follow the same plot rails.  Though at least you can 'choose' who lives and dies at certain points, though ultimately it makes no odds since if they were required for the plot they are replaced with another character who does the exact same things.

[BansheeOwnage]

jgibson14352 wrote...

just something to post to keep the thread going, and a thought that i still cant get out of my head,
regarding the Rachni, javik says they were in his cycle as well. remember the prothean vi on thessia? he said that certain patterns repeat themselves in each cycle, one being the protheans and the Zha'Til in the metacon wars, this current cycles being with the geth. they both faced opposition form organic, then later synthetic enemies. while those conflicts split galactic organization, the reapers, half organic half synthetic, would strike. remember javik said he thought the protheans had hunted the rachni to extinction as well. the rachni are important because they imply that the reapers use the rachni and the synthetics in every cycle against the larger organic population. the queen said there was a maddening sour note, showing that the reapers took control over the rachni. in ME3, if you killed the rachni in ME1, the reapers have cloned a new queen.
if you havent put the puzzle together yet, it shows that the rachni have always been a tool of the reapers
but where does that put them in the war against the reapers? couldnt they just retake control?

Not always, but they are useful largely for their "ease-of-use"; they have a hive mind. Indoctrinate the queens, indoctrinate species.

[BansheeOwnage]

BleedingUranium wrote...

comrade gando wrote...

I noticed during that strange scene with shepard flying in to the crucible, there's a keeper pulling a helmet out of the pile of corpses then looking at shepard. what in the world do you think it means?

Playing with your head

I laughed.  It was great.
Edit: Man that's like the 7th time I've got the top of the page since EC

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 29 juin 2012 - 03:53 .