138 réponses à ce sujet

[dunre646]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Note, the open ended nature of the ending means you cannot definitively conclude whether the ending is good or bad compared to the others.

There's been a lot of discussion about the three choices, and a common topic that comes up is that some people feel they couldn't choose the Control ending because it's what The Illusive Man wanted.

It's perfectly justified for you to feel that the Control ending is the best and most ideal of the three choices presented to you though.

the ending is bad.

[eddieoctane]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Note, the open ended nature of the ending means you cannot definitively conclude whether the ending is good or bad compared to the others.

That, right there, is probably the biggest reason as to why the ending fails. Truthfully, Allan, that sounds like a cop-out. It sounds like you now that narratively, the ending is terrible. But we can't take the discussion much further than that because we know nothing about what happens.

But let's take your suggestion and roll with it. The only things shown dying in the destroy scenario are the Reapers. Not the Geth, not EDI, just the big squid-ships. Since no one knows if other synthetics die and the Catalyst is decidedly an untrustworthy source of information, we can't make any assumptions and end up with a glactic-scale Schrodinger's cat.

But a lack of information and blindly guessing was not what the fans have come to expect from Mass Effect. After going through so much effort to explain things, it's jarring enough to be broken from the narrative when we are forced to make relatively baseless assumptions about what should be the most critical decision in the game. Consider this: when talking with Mordin about the genophage, he explains that genophage latched onto segments of DNA and resulted in fatal birth defects. The Krogan, in turn, evolved genetic adaptations that prevented the genophage from attching by replacing the chemical structed it was targeted to by adding thier own new genetic sequences. That's a lot of detail for a passing conversation. Why abandon all of that in the final moments of the game? Why suddenly move so far away from what the players have come to expect? It rarely works out well to take such a drastic course of action, and BioWare is not the exception to the rule in this case.

[Devil Mingy]

The thing that bothers me most about the "you decide what the ending is for yourself" mentality is that we have tweets from official channels and paraphrased interviews telling me that some of my speculations are wrong. This is implying to me that there is clearly a defined canon set of events that occur after the ending, but they simply didn't think it was important enough to show.

[antares_sublight]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Similar to Legion's loyalty mission, though,  I found the ending made me pause for a moment and more seriously evaluate the consequences of my actions.  I wanted to defeat the reapers, but at what cost?

i.e. 2 of the 3 endings are choice-by-guilt. The whole goal of the series get a novelty negative thrown in just to force you to consider the other novelty endings Shepard just found out about but has absolutely no understanding of (kind of except for Control, which Shepard has only negative ideas of).

Please don't confuse "open ending" with "jumbled mess of nonsense and newly introduced characters and plot lines that completely turn around other major plot lines of the past 2.999 games, neuter the main villains and make the player's character act differently than (s)he has the entire rest of the time and can only lead to endless speculations because no one has any idea what just happened and a lot of people don't even want to know because of what a mess it is".

A "white screen, fade to credits" after harbinger's blast would have been a better "open ending"

Modifié par antares_sublight, 31 mai 2012 - 02:29 .

[Artemillion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Note, the open ended nature of the ending means you cannot definitively conclude whether the ending is good or bad compared to the others.

There's been a lot of discussion about the three choices, and a common topic that comes up is that some people feel they couldn't choose the Control ending because it's what The Illusive Man wanted.

It's perfectly justified for you to feel that the Control ending is the best and most ideal of the three choices presented to you though.

Allan, it's a pleasure to get responses from someone from the company again  We appreciate

[Lyrebon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm ambivalent towards the open ended ending.  I don't really mind it, but I don't think I would have necessarily enjoyed the ending more if a full epilogue also existed.  Both have there merits IMO.

In terms of making the choice, I prefer an open ended ending.  This prevents any choice from being the "wrong" choice, and makes the choices more a reflection about the player/Shepard and what they feel is the best decision.  It tells a slightly different story than one that has full epilogues, where I feel more weight would be placed on the aftermath of the choice made, rather than the choice itself.  Having the full epilogues also enables the player to make a choice based on information that Shepard actually cannot.  I found it interesting that, while there being some additional information, we don't reall see much more than what Shepard already knows.  We have to make the same difficult decision not knowing the full effect of our actions, the same way that Shepard must.

While an open ended ending lets you morally justify your decision, the full epilogue effectively has the writers judge the player on their decision.  Whether or not the decision was a good one to make is now determined by the contents of the epilogue.  It does provide closure, but is actually still just as susceptible to being disappointing for the gamer.  Closure works well if it fits in line with what you're expecting or hoping for.  If I pick the destroy ending thinking it's the best option, and it turns out that by wiping out the Geth total anarchy happens and the galaxy dies a horrible death, well that still kind of sucks.  But if the epilogue were to show the Quarians mourning the Geth, and attempting to recreate them to atone for their past actions, ultimately succeeding and having the Geth/Quarians working together and proving the Catalyst wrong, I think it'd be better received.  So it really depends on what is provided.  I loved the epilogues in Baldur's Gate saga, as well as Fallout 1 and 2, so I'm not at all against them.

Making the wrong choice is a part of causal-reactance and something we must accept when we happen upon a decision with negative consequences. We deal with them every day, however miniscule or grand, and have to live with them. If Bioware were attempting in any way to correlate a story to the gritty reality of war, they failed.

Making the endings open ended where positive outcomes can always be interpreted grants no gravity to the summary of our choices. They just are; choose A, B, or C and you get a different colour explosion with little to no conclusion afterwards. What's the point in making a game with difficult choices throughout the series, only to make it easy at the end because none of the endings hold any inherent reward or value (because they have no proven consequences)?

For all I know the outcome in the Control ending is the same as Synthesis. We're never actually shown the impact our decisions made and thus feel no reason to accept responsibility for the consequence. I chose Destroy but the Starchild only hinted at it killing the geth, and from how I interpreted that scene, Starbrat is a liar and a scoundrel so maybe the geth survived? I don't know because the only "evidence" is the word of one character we're meant to treat as gospel. A character thrown in at the last second and a self-proclaiming Reaper construct.

I want to be judged for my decision, I want to know that the Destroy option killed the geth because then I have to live with the guilt of killing a sentient species. And yes, you're right, closure does work well within expectations... of which Mass Effect 3's ending was the complete polar opposite of everyone's expectations. I'll give you a hint as to how much closure was provided: none.

Modifié par Lyrebon, 31 mai 2012 - 02:41 .

[eddieoctane]

Devil Mingy wrote...

The thing that bothers me most about the "you decide what the ending is for yourself" mentality is that we have tweets from official channels and paraphrased interviews telling me that some of my speculations are wrong. This is implying to me that there is clearly a defined canon set of events that occur after the ending, but they simply didn't think it was important enough to show.

More or less. If it's actually open ended, almost everyone is going to eventually headcanon that the Catalyst was lying about killing anything but the Reapers with the cherry kool-aid, and this results in destroy being the only ending. Shep survives, crew survives, Geth survive, Reapers are dead as dead gets, galaxy goes about rebuilding relays.

But if we are speculating wrong, not giving us all the details form day one is inexcusable. It means that we were given an incomplete game solely for some idiot's artistic ambitions. It's neither open-ended nor artistically good. Yes, there is such a thing as bad art. Running out of time is forgivable. Refusing to finish is not. And if we don't have the information to "specualte properly", the latter scenario seems to be what we have going on.

[ArcanistLibram]

The ending fails because Shepard is no longer the protagonist of the story and the player has no control over what happens. The plot is resolved by the Catalyst who magnanimously allows Shepard to choose what color the last cut scene's explosion is going to be.

[Silpheed58]

Given the task and labor... and how the last section of the game felt, I am inclined to believe the ME team was either weary after working so hard on the series and phoned it in, or they got new people to work on the game that really have no past vestment in the series.

I am serious, there is so much apathy felt through the game design once you reach earth.

[CINCTuchanka]

I think that epilogues are fine as long as they don't judge our decisions as rjght or wrong, so to speak. Each should more explicitly show the implied sacrifice and benefits of each. This can be done while remaining open ended and open to interpretation. The community needs more narrative details, whether subtle or overt, in order to allow for interpretation. Right now it is speculation that leads to frustration because our discussions be,kme circular and self defeating as to which choice was the right choice. I don't need hobbits jumping on a bed, just a better idea of what I did at the emd. But Allan is right, epilogues should describe rather than editorialze.

[Silpheed58]

I agree that none of the options are really "good."  Personally that's what I like about them.  I think the execution of the ending could be better, but the fundamental choices that are provided are actually very interesting for me.  The only thing missing is a 4th "do nothing" option, but the "jerk developer" in me would make that result in a situation where the fleet puts up a good fight, but ultimately ends with Shepard and Co. fighting to preserve their knowledge (Liara's project) and fire it off for another cycle to discover.  If done well I think it still could have been very powerful too.

Similar to Legion's loyalty mission, though,  I found the ending made me pause for a moment and more seriously evaluate the consequences of my actions.  I wanted to defeat the reapers, but at what cost?

Actually, I missed making my point. It's a moral vacuum. We are left
with speculations and no foundations to make a moral judgment for
ourselves. We have to try to head-canonize the endings, but in the end,
it's still just head-canon. Some part of us is always stuck wondering if
it's the way things happened or not.

Speculations on the
consequences of a moral judgment that affects the entire fate of
everything Shepard knows leaves everyone hanging.

Any morality of
the choices become meaningless. The ultimate moral decision has no
basis for people to place their the morality upon it.

I'm ambivalent towards the open ended ending.  I don't really mind it, but I don't think I would have necessarily enjoyed the ending more if a full epilogue also existed.  Both have there merits IMO.

In terms of making the choice, I prefer an open ended ending.  This prevents any choice from being the "wrong" choice, and makes the choices more a reflection about the player/Shepard and what they feel is the best decision.  It tells a slightly different story than one that has full epilogues, where I feel more weight would be placed on the aftermath of the choice made, rather than the choice itself.  Having the full epilogues also enables the player to make a choice based on information that Shepard actually cannot.  I found it interesting that, while there being some additional information, we don't reall see much more than what Shepard already knows.  We have to make the same difficult decision not knowing the full effect of our actions, the same way that Shepard must.

While an open ended ending lets you morally justify your decision, the full epilogue effectively has the writers judge the player on their decision.  Whether or not the decision was a good one to make is now determined by the contents of the epilogue.  It does provide closure, but is actually still just as susceptible to being disappointing for the gamer.  Closure works well if it fits in line with what you're expecting or hoping for.  If I pick the destroy ending thinking it's the best option, and it turns out that by wiping out the Geth total anarchy happens and the galaxy dies a horrible death, well that still kind of sucks.  But if the epilogue were to show the Quarians mourning the Geth, and attempting to recreate them to atone for their past actions, ultimately succeeding and having the Geth/Quarians working together and proving the Catalyst wrong, I think it'd be better received.  So it really depends on what is provided.  I loved the epilogues in Baldur's Gate saga, as well as Fallout 1 and 2, so I'm not at all against them.

You pretty much say why this is a fail ending.  While an open ending is, usually open ending are for leaving room for there to be more of a story to tell.  These endings don't really, the ends are SO cryptic and bleak it makes it appear everything is in ruins(Not to mention a certain someone saying they have no intrest in making ME games set after Shepard's story) and there is nothing left out.  That alone makes me kinda unintrested in future story DLC or another ME based game(prequels and deffinatly no to mmorpg).

[Epic777]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


In terms of making the choice, I prefer an open ended ending.  This prevents any choice from being the "wrong" choice, and makes the choices more a reflection about the player/Shepard and what they feel is the best decision.  It tells a slightly different story than one that has full epilogues, where I feel more weight would be placed on the aftermath of the choice made, rather than the choice itself.  Having the full epilogues also enables the player to make a choice based on information that Shepard actually cannot.

That is one of my main issues with the ending, synthesis is shoved in the players face as the best ending. "The final stage of evolution", the geth and edi live....

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


In terms of making the choice, I prefer an open ended ending.  This prevents any choice from being the "wrong" choice, and makes the choices more a reflection about the player/Shepard and what they feel is the best decision.  It tells a slightly different story than one that has full epilogues, where I feel more weight would be placed on the aftermath of the choice made, rather than the choice itself.  Having the full epilogues also enables the player to make a choice based on information that Shepard actually cannot.

An open-ended ending has to make sense, though. If ME3 ended when Shepard was reaching out for the console to the Catalyst, that would be open ended.

Did Shepard do it? Will the Reapers be defeated? Will the Crucible, the hope of the organics, prevail? 

If you then have EMS just count for how injured Shepard is during the scene (up to an almost undamaged Shepard with companions ready to trigger the beam) then you get open ended, with varying degrees of hope.

[AIR MOORE]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Note, the open ended nature of the ending means you cannot definitively conclude whether the ending is good or bad compared to the others. ...

So we have an ending we don't know what to feel about? What kind of ending is that? Open ended is one thing, questioning an ending without story cohesion (among other issues) is another matter entirely.


What kind of choice is there, when the choice is something you cannot (definitively) compare to the others? Note: Very well played using "definitively", as it allows you to backpedal as much, or little as you wish... very wishy washy.


By the the nature of what you stated, every choice is just as good or bad as all the others, so in that sense it doesn't much matter what choice you pick...




(PS: I do thank you and the one [or two] other BioWare employees who post on these boards fairly regularly... I am sure you feel bombarded, but that is because so few other employees post on here and respond to us fairly regularly.) Maybe if a few more of your cohorts replied to us on here, might ease the bombardment (on you at least) just a bit.

-As an addendum to that, I am not saying ME team members be on here 24/7 as I understand the whole "that would take away from development deal", but maybe set aside 15 minutes at the end of every day for say 2 members each of the ME team to respond to some pressing question(s) of the mob at the time, or the team does an hour at the end of each week to respond to the big question of the week as voted y members.

Modifié par AIR MOORE, 31 mai 2012 - 04:49 .

[AIR MOORE]

Back to original topic, I think the massive failure of the ending as a whole is the problem... not just the differentiation between choices.

Modifié par AIR MOORE, 31 mai 2012 - 04:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

That, right there, is probably the biggest reason as to why the ending fails. Truthfully, Allan, that sounds like a cop-out. It sounds like you now that narratively, the ending is terrible. But we can't take the discussion much further than that because we know nothing about what happens.

I emphatically disagree that it's a cop-out. I do not think it would have been very difficult to add on some junk after the fact and go "hey look epilogue." I do not think that that would have made the endings better. I think it would have made them worse. I also think it's important to note that there are still a lot of people that DO enjoy the endings.

As I said, it changes what the ending focuses on. If you would rather have the endings be qualitatively superior to the others, then that is simply a reflection of what differs between you and I as a gamer.

I've been giving this a bit more thought as it commonly comes up, and the main reason I don't think it's a cop out is because a game like the original Deus Ex (easily in my Top 5 of all time) is a game that presented 3 choices at the end of the game, with no real epilogue about what happens afterward. It's also 3 choices where anyone could make an argument that any of the endings is superior to the rest. Had Ion Storm shown full epilogues of your decisions, it'd undermine this choice because it'd enable the player to make a more informed decision. If merging with Helios ends up resulting in a perfect Utopia (or backfires and ends up making humanity extinct and forces everyone to become cyborgs) then the player can more definitively state if that is the ideal ending.

Whereas a game like Fallout doesn't actually provide any real choice at the end, but the epilogue nature of it shows the consequences of the choices you made throughout the game. If you want the moment to be about the choice itself, I think an open ended ending can work really well because you're left only with your own internal justifications about why that is the correct choice.


This is I think why I have no real issue with the choices as they are on a fundamental level. I think if the execution of them was a bit better done they would have been received a lot better, even if the choices were not any different.

[Devil Mingy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I emphatically disagree that it's a cop-out. I do not think it would have been very difficult to add on some junk after the fact and go "hey look epilogue." I do not think that that would have made the endings better. I think it would have made them worse. I also think it's important to note that there are still a lot of people that DO enjoy the endings.

So, if I may ask, what is your opinion on the Extended Cut that may potentially add such things?

On your main point, I do see where you're coming from, though I do not agree that Deus Ex and Mass Effect are similar enough in tone and style to share the same ending as they did. However, I can definitely see how adding details and results can hurt their intention to have everybody personalize the ending for themselves (though, as I said, being told that what I have speculated is wrong has already soured this for me).

For example, if they omitted the Normandy escape and crash scene altogether and let me "speculate" on their fate, I would have about 15 less problems with this ending than I do now.

Modifié par Devil Mingy, 31 mai 2012 - 05:17 .

[antares_sublight]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I emphatically disagree that it's a cop-out. I do not think it would have been very difficult to add on some junk after the fact and go "hey look epilogue." I do not think that that would have made the endings better. I think it would have made them worse. I also think it's important to note that there are still a lot of people that DO enjoy the endings.

This is I think why I have no real issue with the choices as they are on a fundamental level. I think if the execution of them was a bit better done they would have been received a lot better, even if the choices were not any different.

The fact that people from BioWare keep talking as if the only problem with the endings is execution of the exposition of what happens after
(but secretly keep inserting that the endings were awesome with no real fundamental problems) is a big sign to everyone outside of BioWare that the EC and every BioWare game from now on is going to be total junk. BioWare just thinks people didn't get it.

It's a total cop-out to say it was just an issue of execution and the only problem was a little lack of closure. There are fundamental problems with the ending choices in themselves and the whole ending plot line, not just "execution". That's the biggest cop-out in this whole mess. The endings in themselves, not just the execution of the endings, are fundamental failures. 

Watch, the EC is simply going to be the exact same endings, just slowed down so all us morons can uuuuunnnnndeeeeeeerrrrsssstaaaaaaaannnnnnnd them. 

It's not just a problem with execution. 
It's not just a problem with execution.  
It's not just a problem with execution. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Devil Mingy wrote...

So, if I may ask, what is your opinion on the Extended Cut that may potentially add such things?

My point was more "Epilogues would only help the ending if they are good epilogues.  The ending is not inherently weaker than one with epilogues simply because it's open ended.

On your main point, I do see where you're coming from, though I do not agree that Deus Ex and Mass Effect are similar enough in tone and style to share the same ending as they did. However, I can definitely see how adding details and results can hurt their intention to have everybody personalize the ending for themselves (though, as I said, being told that what I have speculated is wrong has already soured this for me).

I think a good way to illustrate this is when RPGs provide epilogues for the PC, and people get upset because that epilogue depicts actions that the player doesn't feel they would have done had they still controlled the PC.

At this point though the decisions has been made to provideing the ending DLC, so yes any of the open endedness that exists is essentially not going to applicable anymore.

For what it's worth, I've really enjoyed a lot of the discussions I have had with people about the ending too.

For example, if they omitted the Normandy escape and crash scene altogether and let me "speculate" on their fate, I would have about 15 less problems with this ending than I do now.

Agreed haha.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 05:29 .

[AIR MOORE]

...
I've been giving this a bit more thought as it commonly comes up, and the main reason I don't think it's a cop out is because a game like the original Deus Ex (easily in my Top 5 of all time) is a game that presented 3 choices at the end of the game, with no real epilogue about what happens afterward. It's also 3 choices where anyone could make an argument that any of the endings is superior to the rest. Had Ion Storm shown full epilogues of your decisions, it'd undermine this choice because it'd enable the player to make a more informed decision. If merging with Helios ends up resulting in a perfect Utopia (or backfires and ends up making humanity extinct and forces everyone to become cyborgs) then the player can more definitively state if that is the ideal ending. ...

You are comparing a stand alone game that was (as far as I know) never intended to have sequels or prequels, but very well could... to Mass Effect 3?


Tisk, tisk... I wouldn't imagine you'd lose sight of that glaring difference in these two games and why "3" can work in game "D" but not "M". .

It can "work" in a stand-alone game, because there was nothing stopping them from doing this namely: (Cohesion with the rest of Universe created in games 1 & 2, ability to create a sequel that could pick up on all this and show us exactly what happend, and notions this was a conclusion of the trilogy of our Shep all along, whereas DE had nothing of the sort).

There you have it, explained why it's fundamentally different than DE... and a very bad analogy if that is how you harken these two together.

In other words: I agree with you that it worked in DE, but it fails as an end to a trilogy in ME3.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's a total cop-out to say it was just an issue of execution and the only problem was a little lack of closure. There are fundamental problems with the ending choices in themselves and the whole ending plot line, not just "execution". That's the biggest cop-out in this whole mess. The endings in themselves, not just the execution of the endings, are fundamental failures.

When I say execution, I'm more referring to the context by which the choices were provided. Had the Catalyst been completely omitted from the end of the game, but some alternative way resulted in the same three choices being provided to the player would constitute a difference in the execution of the endings. As a result, I as a player have little issue with the actual choices presented to me as they stand. The choices I find interesting and make me think. The execution of it (i.e. via the Catalyst and so forth) is where I think people would have liked to see improvement.

Unless you're trying to tell me that people don't want to see changes to the Catalyst. After all, I'm the person (that hasn't been commenting on the EC since I don't know anything about it) that "just doesn't get it" so I probably could use a little hand here.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 05:29 .

[Allan Schumacher]

AIR MOORE wrote...

You are comparing a stand alone game that was (as far as I know) never intended to have sequels or prequels, but very well could... to Mass Effect 3?

It can "work" in a stand-alone game, because there was nothing stopping them from doing this namely: (Cohesion with the rest of Universe created in games 1 & 2, ability to create a sequel that could pick up on all this and show us exactly what happend, and notions this was a conclusion of the trilogy of our Shep all along, whereas DE had nothing of the sort).

There you have it, explained why it's fundamentally different than DE... and a very bad analogy if that is how you harken these two together.

In other words: I agree with you that it worked in DE, but it fails as an end to a trilogy in ME3.

When dealing purely with the notion of whether or not an open ending works, I find your explanation of why it's a bad analogy arbitrary.

Taken as a whole, the ME saga is coming to an end.  There's been talk that this will be the last game in the Mass Effect series, and certainly the last one with regarding Shepard's story. 

If you agree that it can work in Deus Ex because there's no certainty that anything will come after it, then the only distinction you have made is that ME3 is the third part of a game.  So am I correct in assuming that had the entire Mass Effect trilogy just been a single game from start to finish, you'd have less issue because the only meaningful difference is that Mass Effect's story takes place over 3 games instead of just 1.

If your issue lies with things like the Catalyst or the options that are provided themselves and whether they make thematic sense with the rest of the Mass Effect story, that is a different issue than whether or not the ending is open ended or provides closure.

Tisk, tisk... I wouldn't imagine you'd lose sight of that glaring
difference in these two games and why "3" can work in game "D" but not
"M". .

I try my best to not talk down to people when I disagree with them.  I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 mai 2012 - 05:35 .

[AIR MOORE]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

AIR MOORE wrote...

You are comparing a stand alone game that was (as far as I know) never intended to have sequels or prequels, but very well could... to Mass Effect 3?

It can "work" in a stand-alone game, because there was nothing stopping them from doing this namely: (Cohesion with the rest of Universe created in games 1 & 2, ability to create a sequel that could pick up on all this and show us exactly what happend, and notions this was a conclusion of the trilogy of our Shep all along, whereas DE had nothing of the sort).

There you have it, explained why it's fundamentally different than DE... and a very bad analogy if that is how you harken these two together.

In other words: I agree with you that it worked in DE, but it fails as an end to a trilogy in ME3.

When dealing purely with the notion of whether or not an open ending works, I find your explanation of why it's a bad analogy arbitrary.

Taken as a whole, the ME saga is coming to an end.  There's been talk that this will be the last game in the Mass Effect series, and certainly the last one with regarding Shepard's story. 

If you agree that it can work in Deus Ex because there's no certainty that anything will come after it, then the only distinction you have made is that ME3 is the third part of a game.  So am I correct in assuming that had the entire Mass Effect trilogy just been a single game from start to finish, you'd have less issue because the only meaningful difference is that Mass Effect's story takes place over 3 games instead of just 1.

If your issue lies with things like the Catalyst or the options that are provided themselves and whether they make thematic sense with the rest of the Mass Effect story, that is a different issue than whether or not the ending is open ended or provides closure.

Tisk, tisk... I wouldn't imagine you'd lose sight of that glaring
difference in these two games and why "3" can work in game "D" but not
"M". .

I try my best to not talk down to people when I disagree with them.  I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

I think you are putting far too much emphasis and weight on the minor concession I made to DE in that it can work in a stand alone game. That is largely twisting not only my point, but also reality... as the ME trilogy is not a single game... and was never intended to be.

In other words: Do I think this ending could have worked in ME 2 for example (Ok, take out all of the plotholes and the cohesion issues, as well as the ME Universe lore and the Catalyst altogether) yes (to an extent)... as ME3 could have picked up from there.

To this end you have placed weight incorrectly (and I do believe you know that) in my posting... and as such my re-weighting disposes of such hypotheticals of one game etc.

So bottom line: ME 3 ISN'T a standalone game, and ME developed the lore of the universe, was marketed as a trilogy and that we would be finishing the fight of our Shep (where we would expect to see our choices matter in the end).


ME3's ending is a massive let down because the rest of trilogy was so good. DE was a bright light, because it had no constraints on it, and up to that point (as far as I know) no game had really pulled off an ending like that... indeed it was a great way to leave it open for a sequel on the same story line, yet not make any claims.

ME trilogy and ME 3 reminds me of Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game(s)" in a comical sense.

(As an aside: The "tisk, tisk" was not meant to be as condescending as it surely seems), simply meant to draw attention to the fact that someone who knows trilogy gaming as I am sure you do, should know comparing the third game of a trilogy to a standalone game that didn't develop a fraction of the immersion the ME series did is bonkers. Not to mention it was (again as far as I know) a one-off at the time, which made it so great. In other words, just to highlight that you of all people should know not to compare a single game like DE to the end game of a trilogy like ME3. That just doesn't mesh.

At any rate, it does seem a bit brash, but was not meant to be scathing as it was taken. Call it an error of e-etiquette on my behalf.

Modifié par AIR MOORE, 31 mai 2012 - 06:08 .

[Spectre_Moncy]

Just beat ME3 last night. I must say that the endings are ~love~ terrible. I chose Synthesis ending because I thought it was least crappy.

[birdmojo]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There's been a lot of discussion about the three choices, and a common topic that comes up is that some people feel they couldn't choose the Control ending because it's what The Illusive Man wanted.

The Illusive Man wanted Control. Saren wanted Synthesis. My good friend wanted Destroy... and there is ample reason to believe that both the Illusive Man and Saren were, shall we say, not in full control of their own selves when they came to the conclusions that they subsequently fought for.

The argument that we should make the same decisions as those indoctrinated is not one that is obviously equally valid to me.