154 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

1. No ending is going to truly be happy. Billions died, earth, Palaven, Thessia and a crap ton of other worlds are ruined. Friends are dead and much of what was lost will never be replaced. It will only be happy in the sense the Reapers are dead and you minimized what losses where you could.

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."I prefer endings that are qualitatively similar.  That is, an ending where it's not as obvious which one is the "more ideal result."My preference for a "happier ending" would have preconditions that involve making more difficult choices (not just playing the game better or more thoroughly) at earlier points of the game (ideally significantly earlier parts of the game to prevent save scumming).  In fact, I'd even make it more interesting and set up the situation that the only way to have a "happier ending" would be for Paragons to have to choose a renegade option earlier in the game, and for Renegades to have to make a paragon option.  Make it so that if you want things to work out, sometimes you have to make choices you don't think are appropriate choices at other points.  (I'm actually not a fan of morality scoring systems like Paragon/Renegade because I think they make decisions that could be interesting just academic: "This gives me Paragon?  I'm picking that").As for player choice, I am more just a fan of "does the game react to my choice in some capacity" as opposed to "I'd prefer to choose specifically how the narrative proceeds."  I think this has been the one thing I've learned the most since frequenting the forums though, as it seems many people (at least people on the BSN) prefer their choice to be more along the lines of "How would you like to proceed through the game" as opposed to difficult choices with no obvious good outcome.  As an example, while I think it's interesting for the crew to all die in ME2, it's really a situation that requires the player to consciously make "bad" game decisions in order to achieve.  That's less interesting in my opinion, but it is indeed a "choice" we can allow.

good luck with that...in a game like ME I have an individual save at the beginning of each level for me to go back to regardless of how far I am in the game

[Apathy1989]

My biggest issue with the Suicide Mission is that its possible for everyone to survive. I think that should have been impossible. Having to choose Ash or Kaiden was a big plot point in ME1, and I wish they replicated that moment in ME2 and 3

(maybe not so obviously between two people, maybe someone needs to hold a position and will die doing so. Maybe choosing a Zaeed to hold that position will result in just him dead, but sending Tali would result in her dead, the enemy catching up and you losing a second person).

[Apathy1989]

crimzontearz wrote...


good luck with that...in a game like ME I have an individual save at the beginning of each level for me to go back to regardless of how far I am in the game

I don't know if thats normal, it wasn't for me.



Personally I only loaded back once in ME1, and once in ME2. Both were for paragon points, because while I did want to do the renegade option, my character was so far mostly paragon and would lose out conversation options later.

I remember rewriting the Geth, simply because I wanted the Paragon points to convince Miranda to become loyal again (chose Jack in the fight).

I remember also losing Legion in the Suicide mission, cause guess what, Miranda still wasn't loyal (my rewriting didn't get enough) and I made her squad leader. I accepted it, and it made ME3 much more dramatic.

[Kunari801]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
...  As for player choice, I am more just a fan of "does the game react to my choice in some capacity" as opposed to "I'd prefer to choose specifically how the narrative proceeds."  I think this has been the one thing I've learned the most since frequenting the forums though, as it seems many people (at least people on the BSN) prefer their choice to be more along the lines of "How would you like to proceed through the game" as opposed to difficult choices with no obvious good outcome....

...As an example, while I think it's interesting for the crew to all die in ME2, it's really a situation that requires the player to consciously make "bad" game decisions in order to achieve.  That's less interesting in my opinion, but it is indeed a "choice" we can allow.

I'll cover the second part first.  I agree, it was TOO easy in ME2 to have few or zero losses.   My first ME2 game I only lost one squad member.   I was hoping ME3 would take the idea and just make it more difficult.   

I like player choice having unforeseen consequences at the time the decision is made.  However, as it comes to the ending of ME3, I also want a more satisfying ending than the one(s) we currently have.    Thus, as we get closer to the ending of ME3 the decisions we made previously should start to come to life and give us some chance to make current choices that may help steer the ending where we prefer.  The current endings to not give a variety of endings.  Shepard can *maybe* live in one "Destroy" with high EMS.  All others Shep dies.  

The Normandy crashes in ALL endings and why Joker and crew is running away is never explained. 
The Citadel is destroyed in most endings, except Control
The Relays are destroyed in all endings or highly damaged at best

Basically, everything us players loved about Mass Effect is destroyed in the ending and those characters we cared about are left in a limbo.   At most we only see three crew members come out of the Normandy crash.  

- I do not think it's too much to ask for a path that'd allow for Shepard to live and reunite with his crew and LI.   
- If my Shepard must die fighting the Reapers, then let him do it as a hero not surrender to the AI controlling the Reapers. 

Modifié par Kunari801, 30 mai 2012 - 11:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

ReggarBlane wrote...

@Allan I dunno if it's that.

There's evidence that suggests (and not any more than just suggests) there were supposed to be things that showed how we affected the progress of the ending, such as having one or more Hammer sequences that didn't fail. Even if we killed Wrex, the Krogan are still present for the Hammer Massacre. No amount of TMS changes that scene. The video files actually have "fail" tacked onto them.

It's that once we get to the Hammer Scene, nothing changes no matter what the player did. There's no feedback to the player's efforts except which choices the player can make at the very end.

My comment regarding my preference for choice actually transcends just ME3 (ME2 is probably a better example since it's endings are more variable than ME3s).

Sorry for the confusion.

[Allan Schumacher]

crimzontearz wrote...

good luck with that...in a game like ME I have an individual save at the beginning of each level for me to go back to regardless of how far I am in the game

Eh, if you don't realize until 20 hours later that a choice you made has (or has not) allowed you to have a more ideal ending, the effect I'm looking for is still accomplished.  Especially if you don't realize it until the ending itself is actually being played out.  Doubly especially if you don't actually learn it until you replay the game or read up about it on the internets.

At that point, reloading the saved game prior the decision isn't much different than someone replaying the game from start and making metadecisions to drive to the conclusion that they'd like to experience.

[Total Biscuit]

Totally agree with the OP, forcing darkmiserable (bittersweet would require some sweet) on us no matter what just cheapens everything.

One of the big things Hudson talked up for this game was the concept of victory through sacrifice, and the ending as it stands completely undermines that concept, and is just heavy handed and emotionally hollow by forcing you down paths without any real choice or control over the things you actually care about.

Sacrifice Is meaningless and empty when you're forced into it. It's supposed to be what you're WILLING to give up, not what you HAVE to.

[CINCTuchanka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

1. No ending is going to truly be happy. Billions died, earth, Palaven,
Thessia and a crap ton of other worlds are ruined. Friends are dead and
much of what was lost will never be replaced. It will only be happy in
the sense the Reapers are dead and you minimized what losses where you
could.

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.


The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."

I prefer endings that are qualitatively similar.  That is, an ending where it's not as obvious which one is the "more ideal result."

My preference for a "happier ending" would have preconditions that involve making more difficult choices (not just playing the game better or more thoroughly) at earlier points of the game (ideally significantly earlier parts of the game to prevent save scumming).  In fact, I'd even make it more interesting and set up the situation that the only way to have a "happier ending" would be for Paragons to have to choose a renegade option earlier in the game, and for Renegades to have to make a paragon option.  Make it so that if you want things to work out, sometimes you have to make choices you don't think are appropriate choices at other points.  (I'm actually not a fan of morality scoring systems like Paragon/Renegade because I think they make decisions that could be interesting just academic: "This gives me Paragon?  I'm picking that").


As for player choice, I am more just a fan of "does the game react to my choice in some capacity" as opposed to "I'd prefer to choose specifically how the narrative proceeds."  I think this has been the one thing I've learned the most since frequenting the forums though, as it seems many people (at least people on the BSN) prefer their choice to be more along the lines of "How would you like to proceed through the game" as opposed to difficult choices with no obvious good outcome.  As an example, while I think it's interesting for the crew to all die in ME2, it's really a situation that requires the player to consciously make "bad" game decisions in order to achieve.  That's less interesting in my opinion, but it is indeed a "choice" we can allow.

I agree with pretty much all of these points.  Paragon/Renegade just became too much an exercise in "choose right up or right down."  I think this works fine for dialogue only encounters but for actualy decisions I believe it should be kept ambiguous.

I think that ME3 did this in a great way, ending included.  I think the ending didn't do a good job of potraying the decisions, but the decisinos themselves were compelling.  There wasn't a "choose X for Paragon, Y for Renegade" style ending and no "perfect" ending either.  Other decisions like curing the Genophage and Geth/Quarian war were more complex depending on decisions such as whether Wrex/Eve survived or if Legion survived. 

As an example I thought that achieving peace on Rannoch was actually a bit too easy in fact.  It was exciting at first, but if you simply played ME2 with all loyalties intact and played all ME3 side missions then you were fine.  This was a matter of "did you play the game as a completionist" rather than a difficult decision.  On the other hand, it was nice to have one decision in the game where it was Win/Win, if only so it wasn't completely dreary.  

I think having a similar "Win/Win" scenario for the ending would have been an even greater narrative disaster.  As it stands, at least your ending decision matters.  If you could get a "perfect" ending then your decisions wouldn't matter so much as your willingness to play through every side mission.  I think you should get BETTER endings with more sidemissions and fetch missions completed (i.e. EMS), but a perfect ending based off of EMS would have felt cheap. 

Again, the ending needs work, but it went wrong in execution, not on a conceptual level.

Modifié par CINCTuchanka, 30 mai 2012 - 11:27 .

[crimzontearz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

good luck with that...in a game like ME I have an individual save at the beginning of each level for me to go back to regardless of how far I am in the game

Eh, if you don't realize until 20 hours later that a choice you made has (or has not) allowed you to have a more ideal ending, the effect I'm looking for is still accomplished.  Especially if you don't realize it until the ending itself is actually being played out.  Doubly especially if you don't actually learn it until you replay the game or read up about it on the internets.

At that point, reloading the saved game prior the decision isn't much different than someone replaying the game from start and making metadecisions to drive to the conclusion that they'd like to experience.

I still do it...........and did it before

[covertdrizzt]

To Op: I agree 100% I also think that someone dying and there was nothing you could do about it diminishes the impact. If someone dies and it was because of your decisions it has a big impact.

[EricHVela]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

My comment regarding my preference for choice actually transcends just ME3 (ME2 is probably a better example since it's endings are more variable than ME3s).

Sorry for the confusion.

Gotcha. The confusion, I think, is on my part. I tend to consider choosing to do or not do something part of the equation instead of just this-or-that choices. ME2 and ME3 seem to hinge more on what you chose to do and not do over choosing this-or-that.

I'm not sure if I'm explaing that well. It's not a matter of choosing A-or-B. It's a matter of putting forth the effort to complete a mission or not. I consider that to be the choices.

In ME2, there was a larger impact to such. Sure.

In ME3, the impact from such choices throughout the series suddenly ceases and we're not at the end of the game yet.

I can understand the need to pull the game to a common end. This isn't Wing Commander where each game had no bearing on the start of the next. For those, a canon choice was made each time the next game started.

It's ridiculous to think that BWE should make multiple, complete games based on previous endings. To that end, the player must always start on Eden Prime, always kill Sovereign, always die, always stop the Collectors, always get arrested and always confront the Reaper threat once and for all. There's no problem with that. It's just being smart.

However, ME2 gave rather blunt feedback to the player's efforts in the final stage of the game. The this-or-that choices from ME1 weren't really much of an impact over some cameos and a couple of cameo missions.

ME3 does the opposite it seems. ME3 is giving feedback throughout the game based on the player's efforts throughout the series (managing to save Wrex by reputation or mission, doing all the bits for +5 Conrad, choreographing the 12 squadmates' and crewmates' survival by mission completion and more) until it suddenly stops well before the actual end of ME3. The story has not yet come to a head. It's like we jumped from multiple paths to a single path until we get one final choice of this-or-that.

(And again, the data files hint that there was something bigger planned than what actually happened. Not that such things aren't bound to happen in productions.)

[delta_vee]

@Allan:

As CINCTuchanka notes, the ME games tend towards rewarding completionism above all else. The SM in ME2 and the War Assets mechanism in ME3 were both constructed not to reward a particular decision path, nor did they allow for a branching in the main narrative (a la Witcher 2, for example). The more you do within the game, the better the ending played out. In ME3's case, I think the differences were too cosmetic (and the Synthesis option wasn't a compelling reward for filling the bar you're told to fill) - at least ME2's ending was more modular and responsive, however easy it was to get "right".

I think to get a better sense of "different but equal" without the metagaming of the SM, you'd have to commit to branching the narrative earlier.

[Mobius-Silent]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.


The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."

As long as the "balancing" of the different options isn't "You can do that but..... X also has to die, just because"
_That_ is really annoying.

Mordin Dying to cure Genophage, perfect. The option to save him and doom the Krogan if Wrex and Eve are dead is perfect to me, both are perfectly valid outcomes, it's either Mordin or the Krogan.

Reapers... oh and the Geth and maybe EDI, not so much.
Synthesis.... But Shep has to die.... why is that again?

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 30 mai 2012 - 11:44 .

[George-Kinsill]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

1. No ending is going to truly be happy. Billions died, earth, Palaven,
Thessia and a crap ton of other worlds are ruined. Friends are dead and
much of what was lost will never be replaced. It will only be happy in
the sense the Reapers are dead and you minimized what losses where you
could.

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.


The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."

I prefer endings that are qualitatively similar.  That is, an ending where it's not as obvious which one is the "more ideal result."

My preference for a "happier ending" would have preconditions that involve making more difficult choices (not just playing the game better or more thoroughly) at earlier points of the game (ideally significantly earlier parts of the game to prevent save scumming).  In fact, I'd even make it more interesting and set up the situation that the only way to have a "happier ending" would be for Paragons to have to choose a renegade option earlier in the game, and for Renegades to have to make a paragon option.  Make it so that if you want things to work out, sometimes you have to make choices you don't think are appropriate choices at other points.  (I'm actually not a fan of morality scoring systems like Paragon/Renegade because I think they make decisions that could be interesting just academic: "This gives me Paragon?  I'm picking that").


As for player choice, I am more just a fan of "does the game react to my choice in some capacity" as opposed to "I'd prefer to choose specifically how the narrative proceeds."  I think this has been the one thing I've learned the most since frequenting the forums though, as it seems many people (at least people on the BSN) prefer their choice to be more along the lines of "How would you like to proceed through the game" as opposed to difficult choices with no obvious good outcome.  As an example, while I think it's interesting for the crew to all die in ME2, it's really a situation that requires the player to consciously make "bad" game decisions in order to achieve.  That's less interesting in my opinion, but it is indeed a "choice" we can allow.

I do think you are parially right in that we care less about the facless billions. However, this could have been solved in the final mission if squad mates we did not bring with us were on their individual fleets and could die. I.E., Need a fleet to distract Harby and the incoming Reapers? Choose a squad led by Asari commandos with Liara or a Quarian strike by Tali, with whomever you choose most likely dying. Or something to this effect. 

And yes, the Suicide Mission was a little too easy. This doesn't mean the concept should be dropped however. It just means that the concept should be made harder and applied to ME3. Essentailly it would be SM missions assigned to crew, except there would be Virmire consequences, and if you choose the wrong guy, everyone wil suffer.

You are also definitely right about the morality system being to simple. It should either be abandoned, like how it is in the awesome Witcher games and Dragon Age Origins, or have an added orderly versus chaos along with good versus bad. Unfortunately, BioWare decided to bind themselves to their dual morality system.

In any case though, for sacrifice to have meaning, we must have choice in the matter. Knowing that we could have done better makes defeat feel worst. Seeing the impact of our choices is also needed. The endings as of now do not do this. 

I could tell that BioWare just wanted Shepard to die when they had him/her walk into the explosion in Destroy. I know Shepard isn't the brightest person, but my Shep is not an idiot and not suicidal. BioWare's decision to force a noble sacrifice took away the sadness of the noble sacrifice and replaced it with anger at the forced nature of everything. 

[KDD-0063]

Always bittersweet is okay, but the ending gives absolutely no satisfaction whatsoever.

[Baa Baa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

1. No ending is going to truly be happy. Billions died, earth, Palaven,
Thessia and a crap ton of other worlds are ruined. Friends are dead and
much of what was lost will never be replaced. It will only be happy in
the sense the Reapers are dead and you minimized what losses where you
could.

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.


The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."

I prefer endings that are qualitatively similar.  That is, an ending where it's not as obvious which one is the "more ideal result."

My preference for a "happier ending" would have preconditions that involve making more difficult choices (not just playing the game better or more thoroughly) at earlier points of the game (ideally significantly earlier parts of the game to prevent save scumming).  In fact, I'd even make it more interesting and set up the situation that the only way to have a "happier ending" would be for Paragons to have to choose a renegade option earlier in the game, and for Renegades to have to make a paragon option.  Make it so that if you want things to work out, sometimes you have to make choices you don't think are appropriate choices at other points.  (I'm actually not a fan of morality scoring systems like Paragon/Renegade because I think they make decisions that could be interesting just academic: "This gives me Paragon?  I'm picking that").


As for player choice, I am more just a fan of "does the game react to my choice in some capacity" as opposed to "I'd prefer to choose specifically how the narrative proceeds."  I think this has been the one thing I've learned the most since frequenting the forums though, as it seems many people (at least people on the BSN) prefer their choice to be more along the lines of "How would you like to proceed through the game" as opposed to difficult choices with no obvious good outcome.  As an example, while I think it's interesting for the crew to all die in ME2, it's really a situation that requires the player to consciously make "bad" game decisions in order to achieve.  That's less interesting in my opinion, but it is indeed a "choice" we can allow.

Good points

[George-Kinsill]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.


The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."

As long as the "balancing" of the different options isn't "You can do that but..... X also has to die, just because"
_That_ is really annoying.

Mordin Dying to cure Genophage, perfect. The option to save him and doom the Krogan if Wrex and Eve are dead is perfect to me, both are perfectly valid outcomes, it's either Mordin or the Krogan.

Reapers... oh and the Geth and maybe EDI, not so much.
Synthesis.... But Shep has to die.... why is that again?

Another good point. I really think BioWare stumbled into this problem for the control ending. Of all the endings, it would make the most sense for Shep to survive that one. Yet he dies, loses everything that he is, not even becoming the catalyst (or if he does, it's not stated).

[tomcplotts]

George-Kinsill wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

I'm one of those people that thinks a rainbow farting unicorn ending trivializes the seriousness of the Reapers. I'm also one of those grumpasauruses that finds the LI obsession during the gameplay as well as the end a little creepy.

But if there's a way to keep a "happy" option in there to please the players that really need this, I'm all for it. As long as I can avoid it without sabotaging my own gameplay. And that's where I think the problem with this is. How do you access a happy ending? If it's by massing enough points, then those of us who would prefer something a little more balanced would have to shave our own accomplishments to "darken the game down".

This is one of those issues where I do think the story has to go the way the writers envision it for better or worse, because I don't think you can have radically different endings without significantly affecting someone's game. On the other hand, the sheer nihilism on display for the current ending is even worse than the dancing Ewoks ending some people were hoping for.

The current endings trivialize the Reapers far more than a happy ending could. They are defeated with a Reaper off switch, are enslaved to the Catalyst, who is really in control, can be defeated with a cain, and even the most unprepared Shepard defeats them; there is no way the Reapers can win.

The current endings have the weaknesses of both dark and happy endings and the strengths of neither.

Which I say in my post. The current endings are bad, but they're not bad because they're dark; they're bad because they're stupid.

[christrek1982]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Agreed.

Is a noble sacrifice really all that noble if you don't have a choice in it?

spot on and that's what DAO did right they gave you the choice and I CHOSE to kill the warden for the grater good and I felt fine about it I'd probably feel ok about Shepard if i was given the choice and it was explained in a way that I understood but the choice is very Important.

[Apocaleepse360]

There can always be a happy ending. What I hate is when writers will make the ending depressing on purpose just because they couldn't think of anything else to do.

[christrek1982]

George-Kinsill wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.


The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."

As long as the "balancing" of the different options isn't "You can do that but..... X also has to die, just because"
_That_ is really annoying.

Mordin Dying to cure Genophage, perfect. The option to save him and doom the Krogan if Wrex and Eve are dead is perfect to me, both are perfectly valid outcomes, it's either Mordin or the Krogan.

Reapers... oh and the Geth and maybe EDI, not so much.
Synthesis.... But Shep has to die.... why is that again?

Another good point. I really think BioWare stumbled into this problem for the control ending. Of all the endings, it would make the most sense for Shep to survive that one. Yet he dies, loses everything that he is, not even becoming the catalyst (or if he does, it's not stated).

the reality of all the choices a daft the most obvious is the destroy one. Simply because there is no need to stand so close to the tube and he/she is meant to be special op and he/she suddenly can't hit something the size of a person at any kind of range?

Modifié par christrek1982, 31 mai 2012 - 12:42 .

[Apocaleepse360]

christrek1982 wrote...
the reality of all the choices a daft the most obvious is the destroy one. Simply because there is no need to stand so close to the tube and he/she is meant to be special op and he/she suddenly can't hit something the size of a person at any kind of range?

And why is there a need to shoot the thing in the first place? The Catalyst never told us to shoot the tube. What if Shepard didn't conveniently have a pistol at the time? What would we do then? But even then, why would shooting something cause it to activate the weapon? Why not just a switch, like any other machine? As explained in some video I watched about the ending, usually when you shoot something, it breaks. It doesn't activate some space magic powered weapon that destroys Reapers and all other synthetics. Oddly enough, Control doesn't control all other synthetics, it just controls Reapers. Every ending has flaw upon flaw.

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 31 mai 2012 - 12:54 .

[George-Kinsill]

christrek1982 wrote...

George-Kinsill wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think this works for the same reason that many have said the current endings are unsatisfying because they're less emotionally invested in the faceless masses and the fact that the future no longer needs to worry about systemic extermination at the hands of the Reapers.


The problem I have with a situation like the Suicide Mission is that the ending is effectively a game score.  Especially given how easy it can be to achieve, not achieving a nearly flawless playthrough more says "You didn't win as well as you could have if only you had played better."

As long as the "balancing" of the different options isn't "You can do that but..... X also has to die, just because"
_That_ is really annoying.

Mordin Dying to cure Genophage, perfect. The option to save him and doom the Krogan if Wrex and Eve are dead is perfect to me, both are perfectly valid outcomes, it's either Mordin or the Krogan.

Reapers... oh and the Geth and maybe EDI, not so much.
Synthesis.... But Shep has to die.... why is that again?

Another good point. I really think BioWare stumbled into this problem for the control ending. Of all the endings, it would make the most sense for Shep to survive that one. Yet he dies, loses everything that he is, not even becoming the catalyst (or if he does, it's not stated).

the reality of all the choices a daft the most obvious is the destroy one. Simply because there is no need to stand so close to the tube and he/she is meant to be special op and he/she suddenly can't hit something the size of a person at any kind of range?

Yeah, the destroy ending clip turned my wise, "Let's all get out of this alive" Shepard into a herp-derp suicidal Shep.

[George-Kinsill]

christrek1982 wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Agreed.

Is a noble sacrifice really all that noble if you don't have a choice in it?

spot on and that's what DAO did right they gave you the choice and I CHOSE to kill the warden for the grater good and I felt fine about it I'd probably feel ok about Shepard if i was given the choice and it was explained in a way that I understood but the choice is very Important.

BioWare definately should have borrowed what they did right in DA:O. There was a heroic sacrifice, the possibility to live with either Alistair/Loghain sacrificing himself or the dark ritual, giving a really ominous ending. Even better, to get the best ending, you had to do some moraly questionable things like not siding with Harrowmont for the Dwarven throne as he was to idealistic and not good at politics. If you think about it, BioWare really should have just unapolligetically borrowed as much as possible since it has pretty much the same concept in ME3; assemble allies across the land/galaxy to put an end to the darkspawn/Reaper threat to save all life. 

[LeTtotheC]

It wouldn't have been too hard to come up with five different endings, with minor variations to each to account for major decisions in the game.

Best ending: Shepherd survives, the reapers are defeated and the relays remain intact.

Moderately good ending: Shepherd dies, sacrificing themselves to defeat the Reapers. The fleet takes 60% losses and ground loss rate is 80-90%. Mass relays remain intact.

Neutral ending: Shepherd dies as does most of her friends and almost all of the ground troops and fleet. The victory is fairly pyrrhic, with devastation all over the shop. But there's the hope of rebuilding without the fear of another cycle.

True Pyrrhic victory: All forces are wiped out giving Shepherd the chance to end the Reapers. Costs Shepherd's life and unfortunately it also costs the Earth as Sol's Mass Relay is made to overload and take out most of the Reaper forces. May also lead to all other Mass Relays exploding.

Defeat: Reapers win. The galaxy is harvested, but hope remains that the next cycle will find a way to defeat them.

And that's just off the top of my head..