587 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

HagarIshay wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

No, you have no control over Shepard's motivations after Shepard is dead. You have no control over Shepard's actions after choosing one of the choices. You have no choices so you can no longer roleplay.. Again, your logic is flawed. What you believe in your head doesn't magically appear in your video-game character's head in the ending. Otherwise you are confusing reality and fantasy.

Also, Shepard does have specific values. Destroying the Reapers. Whether Shepard is a Soft Touch or a Hot Head A**hole, destroying the Reapers are his values.

Shepard value of destroying the reapers is based on the fact that Shepard don't know any other option. Except from what TIM is offering. Which the methods that are used is what repulse Shepard. And also the the assumption it can't be done.

But when you are given the three choices, Shepard doesn't automatically goes for the destroy option. S/he goes for where the player direct her/him to. Meaning Shepard is ours. We decide what is right for him/her to do. 

All I'm saying is until that ending, Shepard's goal has been to Destroy the Reapers. Certainly, you as the player can suddenly decide that Shepard has changed his mind because of new circumstances, but the fact of the matter remains that until then Shepard's values have always been destroy and the option is further supported by the fact that a vision of Anderson chooses it.

First, as i said, Shepard didn't know about other choices.

And Anderson wasn't very familiar with synthetics lives at Shepard was. He might not see  as being important or relevant. So seeing Anderson shooting the pod doesn't say much whether the choice is the right one. Just what Anderson, with his experience and knowlage, would do.

Like I said, certainly you can change your mind at the end.

Your point about Anderson is true and I concede that point.

[tetsutsuru]

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

What?  Hell, no.

We don't live in a bubble.  With that logic, decisions are merely superficial and thus, pointless.  Might as well watch a movie, or read a book.  And this is NOT what one of the Mass Effect experience's key concept is about:  "Player Choice".

Decisions without right/wrong/good/bad consequences?  We're not 5.  There are more than a few reasons why the Mass Effect game series is rated M for Mature.

Modifié par tetsutsuru, 17 mai 2012 - 07:15 .

[JamieCOTC]

HagarIshay wrote...


The reason i'm not saying the other options are better in my OP is simply because i don't think they are better options. Like i said, there is no right choice. There is what is right for you. So saying what i think is right will not accomplish anything.

This a thousand times. 

There is no right choice in the Mass Effect ending and in a very big way, that's what went wrong.  Since no choice can be right (all the endings must be equal in triumph and tragedy somehow) there cannot be a "happy ending." For the same reason there is no “Reapers win” ending either.  However, with the 16 different endings BW advertised a great number of players hoped that one would be serve up a happy ending for Shepard and the galaxy.  Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case.  All endings are equal to some degree so that no one would feel “punished.” There's an old saying for that. When you try to please everyone, more times than not you wind up pleasing no one. 

As for the IT itself, I don’t buy it.  It only works if the story isn’t complete and BW sold us all an incomplete game. I know that has been done before by other developers, but I don’t believe even BW would push it that far. And EC is just what it is, an option for clarity and closure, not something different or new.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 17 mai 2012 - 07:13 .

[mango smoothie]

BatmanTurian wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

But ME2 had those choices multiple times. Make enough bad decisions and not even Shepard lives. All bets are off on a bad ending after ME2's ending.

In my opinion though that wasn't a lose ending Shepard, it just ended the Mass Effect series early Shepard still completed his goal on destroying the Collectors he just gave his life to do it. Also I find a big difference between making choices and deciding not to do quests. Players should be punished for skipping important quests.

[mango smoothie]

tetsutsuru wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

What?  Hell, no.

We don't live in a bubble.  With that logic, decisions are merely superficial and thus, pointless.  Might as well watch a movie, or read a book.  And this is NOT what one of the Mass Effect experience's key concept is about:  "Player Choice".

Decisions without right/wrong/good/bad consequences?  We're not 5.  There are more than a few reasons why the Mass Effect game series is rated M for Mature.

You missunderstand me I don't mean every choice should lead to a good ending. I just think that you shouldn't have choices that make you totally lose the game. An example would be if t Bioware would do  the indoctrination theory, and then go like ok control and synthesis players you lost then credits, then thats just stupid. Instead show how this cycle fails, but then have a Shepard VI warning the next cycle. Con this cycle fails to stop Reapers, but Pro they warn the next civilization with very important data.

Sorry for double post.

Modifié par mango smoothie, 17 mai 2012 - 07:24 .

[BatmanTurian]

mango smoothie wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

But ME2 had those choices multiple times. Make enough bad decisions and not even Shepard lives. All bets are off on a bad ending after ME2's ending.

In my opinion though that wasn't a lose ending Shepard, it just ended the Mass Effect series early Shepard still completed his goal on destroying the Collectors he just gave his life to do it. Also I find a big difference between making choices and deciding not to do quests. Players should be punished for skipping important quests.

Shepard dying is a lose ending because your game cannot be imported into ME3.
If you didn't play ME1 or ME2 or did many of the sidequests, you're going to have a shi**y universe in ME3.

The only way choice can matter is if there is a right and a wrong. Otherwise there is no " choice" . Your choices must have bad consquences sometimes just as they can have good consequences. Otherwise what is the point of having choice when you might as well just watch a cutscene and have the choice made for you?

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 07:27 .

[Rip504]

BatmanTurian wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

But ME2 had those choices multiple times. Make enough bad decisions and not even Shepard lives. All bets are off on a bad ending after ME2's ending.

At least some of you have finished and beaten ME3. I have made no choice as each is an unexplained mystery.(Yes I have chosen and have watched all 3.) I have to wait from March 6th 2012 to whenever they decided to release this EC to choose an ending. As it sits right now, no choice & no ending for any of my Shepards. My autosaves are at the beginning of the Citadel,before the TIM conversation. I have an unfinished product,they have promised to finish. And it sucks.

I have multiple Shepards all waiting around for the ending to be explained,so they can make a somewhat educated choice. Not one based on assumption and speculation.

Example: I assume they are trying to indoctrinate me,so I will risk destroying the ME universe as I know
it,in order to wake up from this dream. As obviously this is and can be the ONLY case.<- Also an assumption.

Modifié par Rip504, 17 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[Rip504]

BatmanTurian wrote...
Shepard dying is a lose ending because your game cannot be imported into ME3.
If you didn't play ME1 or ME2 or did many of the sidequests, you're going to have a shi**y universe in ME3.

The only way choice can matter is if there is a right and a wrong. Otherwise there is no " choice" . Your choices must have bad consquences sometimes just as they can have good consequences. Otherwise what is the point of having choice when you might as well just watch a cutscene and have the choice made for you?

Neo:
But if you already know, how can I make a choice?



The Oracle:
Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it.
You're here to try to understand *why* you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Modifié par Rip504, 17 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[mango smoothie]

BatmanTurian wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

But ME2 had those choices multiple times. Make enough bad decisions and not even Shepard lives. All bets are off on a bad ending after ME2's ending.

In my opinion though that wasn't a lose ending Shepard, it just ended the Mass Effect series early Shepard still completed his goal on destroying the Collectors he just gave his life to do it. Also I find a big difference between making choices and deciding not to do quests. Players should be punished for skipping important quests.

Shepard dying is a lose ending because your game cannot be imported into ME3.
If you didn't play ME1 or ME2 or did many of the sidequests, you're going to have a shi**y universe in ME3.

The only way choice can matter is if there is a right and a wrong. Otherwise there is no " choice" . Your choices must have bad consquences sometimes just as they can have good consequences. Otherwise what is the point of having choice when you might as well just watch a cutscene and have the choice made for you?

In my opinion there is no right or wrong choice in real life, so why should there be in games. Some choices might make the present great, but give a crappy future, others might have a horrible present, but the future holds great hope. Having right or wrong choices makes a game boring, Sure punish players for making a certain decision, but still have it so it might be right choice then, but hurts them in the long run or Hurts them then, but adds some help later on.

[BatmanTurian]

mango smoothie wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

What?  Hell, no.

We don't live in a bubble.  With that logic, decisions are merely superficial and thus, pointless.  Might as well watch a movie, or read a book.  And this is NOT what one of the Mass Effect experience's key concept is about:  "Player Choice".

Decisions without right/wrong/good/bad consequences?  We're not 5.  There are more than a few reasons why the Mass Effect game series is rated M for Mature.

You missunderstand me I don't mean every choice should lead to a good ending. I just think that you shouldn't have choices that make you totally lose the game. An example would be if t Bioware would do  the indoctrination theory, and then go like ok control and synthesis players you lost then credits, then thats just stupid. Instead show how this cycle fails, but then have a Shepard VI warning the next cycle. Con this cycle fails to stop Reapers, but Pro they warn the next civilization with very important data.

Sorry for double post.

If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

[BatmanTurian]

mango smoothie wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

mango smoothie wrote...

@Op

This one of the many reasons why I'm mostly against the IT.Players shouldn't be punished that badly for choosing a choice in a RPG game, and this coming from a person who picked Destroy. One thing that I believe every RPG game should follow is that there is no right or wrong decisions only consequences. Meaning that each choice should have Pros and Cons, not this choice= win and this choice =lose.

But ME2 had those choices multiple times. Make enough bad decisions and not even Shepard lives. All bets are off on a bad ending after ME2's ending.

In my opinion though that wasn't a lose ending Shepard, it just ended the Mass Effect series early Shepard still completed his goal on destroying the Collectors he just gave his life to do it. Also I find a big difference between making choices and deciding not to do quests. Players should be punished for skipping important quests.

Shepard dying is a lose ending because your game cannot be imported into ME3.
If you didn't play ME1 or ME2 or did many of the sidequests, you're going to have a shi**y universe in ME3.

The only way choice can matter is if there is a right and a wrong. Otherwise there is no " choice" . Your choices must have bad consquences sometimes just as they can have good consequences. Otherwise what is the point of having choice when you might as well just watch a cutscene and have the choice made for you?

In my opinion there is no right or wrong choice in real life, so why should there be in games. Some choices might make the present great, but give a crappy future, others might have a horrible present, but the future holds great hope. Having right or wrong choices makes a game boring, Sure punish players for making a certain decision, but still have it so it might be right choice then, but hurts them in the long run or Hurts them then, but adds some help later on.

There are right and wrong choices in real life. I murder my neighbors, I go to jail or get the death penalty. I offer to be friends, hang out with them, and do things together, I keep my life and freedom.

I disagree that having right and wrong choices makes a game boring. It gives the choices weight and makes them matter if one of them has dire or at least very awful consequences. Otherwise, why make a game that gives players a choice, when you can just cutscene like Assassin's Creed.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 07:37 .

[BatmanTurian]

Rip504 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Shepard dying is a lose ending because your game cannot be imported into ME3.
If you didn't play ME1 or ME2 or did many of the sidequests, you're going to have a shi**y universe in ME3.

The only way choice can matter is if there is a right and a wrong. Otherwise there is no " choice" . Your choices must have bad consquences sometimes just as they can have good consequences. Otherwise what is the point of having choice when you might as well just watch a cutscene and have the choice made for you?

Neo:
But if you already know, how can I make a choice?



The Oracle:
Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it.
You're here to try to understand *why* you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.

She means his choice is already predestined. That doesn't apply in a player-choice-driven video game.

[ZackG312]

LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

[mango smoothie]

BatmanTurian wrote...

If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

I'm not saying that all three endings should be happy in fact I think all choices should entail bad things, but also some Pros, even if it's a heroic last stand that ends in extinction at least make it good, and give the player a sense of satisfaction.

[mango smoothie]

BatmanTurian wrote...


There are right and wrong choices in real life. I murder my neighbors, I go to jail or get the death penalty. I offer to be friends, hang out with them, and do things together, I keep my life and freedom.

I disagree that having right and wrong choices makes a game boring. It gives the choices weight and makes them matter if one of them has dire or at least very awful consequences. Otherwise, why make a game that gives players a choice, when you can just cutscene like Assassin's Creed.

A murderer who murders his neighbors would be a bad thing for the murderer, but could possibly end a family line that would've eventually lead to the birth of phsyco path who would've done far worse than the murderer ever did.

Modifié par mango smoothie, 17 mai 2012 - 07:47 .

[BatmanTurian]

mango smoothie wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

I'm not saying that all three endings should be happy in fact I think all choices should entail bad things, but also some Pros, even if it's a heroic last stand that ends in extinction at least make it good, and give the player a sense of satisfaction.

fair enough

[BatmanTurian]

mango smoothie wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...


There are right and wrong choices in real life. I murder my neighbors, I go to jail or get the death penalty. I offer to be friends, hang out with them, and do things together, I keep my life and freedom.

I disagree that having right and wrong choices makes a game boring. It gives the choices weight and makes them matter if one of them has dire or at least very awful consequences. Otherwise, why make a game that gives players a choice, when you can just cutscene like Assassin's Creed.

A murderer who murders his neighbors would be a bad thing for the murderer, but could possibly end a family line that would've eventually lead to the birth of phsyco path who would've done far worse than the murderer ever did.

Speculations. Noone can possibly know what their choices will do. If you mean to say that none of us know what our choices will do to the ME universe in the EC, then I agree with you.

[Rip504]

Bioware stated multiple times,throughout the franchise. That choices are not about being right and wrong,but rather how your Shepard would deal with the current situation. Not outcomes.

Saving the council vs destroying the council. One is no more correct then the other. Collector base-destroy or save? One choice is no more correct then the other. So why all of a sudden at the very end of their trilogy would they throw this concept away? Destroy is correct & all others are incorrect. I doubt it highly. You could possible go through every choice in the ME series and state this.

[Ieldra]

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

[Ageless Face]

BatmanTurian wrote...

There are right and wrong choices in real life. I murder my neighbors, I go to jail or get the death penalty. I offer to be friends, hang out with them, and do things together, I keep my life and freedom.

I disagree that having right and wrong choices makes a game boring. It gives the choices weight and makes them matter if one of them has dire or at least very awful consequences. Otherwise, why make a game that gives players a choice, when you can just cutscene like Assassin's Creed.

If you murder your 
neighbors , you did it becaus of a reason. If you killed them becasue you are a hot headed fool, you desreve to be in jeil. If you murdered them because they have done something horrible that make them desreve death, Like being terrorists, or murder you family, than you should be commended, or at least give you a short time in jeil, while you have the satisfaction those peole are dead. That is what "no right or wrong options in life" mean.

If you want to play a game that the path is settled, then Mass Effect is not for you. Not becasue you may not like the game, but becasue you are asking from the developers to make a very good game into a different one. 

ZackG312 wrote...

LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

 

Well, small things like Garrus mentioning the calibrations, sure. Big things like making my choices invalid, no.

[BatmanTurian]

Rip504 wrote...

Bioware stated multiple times,throughout the franchise. That choices are not about being right and wrong,but rather how your Shepard would deal with the current situation. Not outcomes.

Saving the council vs destroying the council. One is no more correct then the other. Collector base-destroy or save? One choice is no more correct then the other. So why all of a sudden at the very end of their trilogy would they throw this concept away? Destroy is correct & all others are incorrect. I doubt it highly. You could possible go through every choice in the ME series and state this.

Many choices penalized you or made the game harder later. Those choices could be considered wrong or dubious.

[balance5050]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

They already ruined the players games, we're lobbying for Bioware to make it right. It's why we raised $100,000. I.T. is the most unified theory on how they could fix the ending.

[Ieldra]

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

[balance5050]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

Control- 

The reapers LOVE to control, it's what they are all about. They have left technology scattered around the galaxy in order to control our evolutionary path, they control our future by forcing the most advanced civilizations to become them, there is practically NO aspect of life that they don't control in one way or another

Synthesis-

The reapers have always regarded themselves as the most advanced civilization, they ARE the prime example of synthesis, it's not pretty. They ARE the alpha predator and DON'T consider pure organics or pure synthetics to be anything more than fuel or nuisances. They believe that synthesis is the best evolutionary model to live by.

Destroy- 

One thing the Catalyst says that rings true is they DO preserve life, they let organics live simply because they need us for survival, to destroy is to create chaos, but out of that chaos rises freedom, a new beginning, and infinite possibilities.

To believe that either control or synthesis is the answer is to agree with the reapers, which opens the door for them to exploit that side of your psyche, convincing you that siding with the reapers is a better solution than destroying them. 

[BatmanTurian]

HagarIshay wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

There are right and wrong choices in real life. I murder my neighbors, I go to jail or get the death penalty. I offer to be friends, hang out with them, and do things together, I keep my life and freedom.

I disagree that having right and wrong choices makes a game boring. It gives the choices weight and makes them matter if one of them has dire or at least very awful consequences. Otherwise, why make a game that gives players a choice, when you can just cutscene like Assassin's Creed.

If you murder your 
neighbors , you did it becaus of a reason. If you killed them becasue you are a hot headed fool, you desreve to be in jeil. If you murdered them because they have done something horrible that make them desreve death, Like being terrorists, or murder you family, than you should be commended, or at least give you a short time in jeil, while you have the satisfaction those peole are dead. That is what "no right or wrong options in life" mean.

If you want to play a game that the path is settled, then Mass Effect is not for you. Not becasue you may not like the game, but becasue you are asking from the developers to make a very good game into a different one.

I'm not sure that you understand that I don't want a linear game. If we had a linear game, then there would be no player choice. That is what I'm saying. Choices should matter and have good and bad consequences. Otherwise, why give players a choice?