2621 réponses à ce sujet

[Maximillianmax1]

I am a little late with writing this and I am sure my
sentiments have already been echoed a million times, but I feel like I need to
contribute. Well I beat finished the extended cut on release Tuesday and have
been letting it digest since then, and I just wanted to say directly to anyone
from Bioware, Mike Gamble for example, thank you so much for what you have
done. I doubt anybody from Bioware is reading this, but in case you are, I
cannot express how thankful I am that Mass Effect now has an ending that makes
me actually feel like I have saved this wonderful galaxy that I have come to
love over the years.

 The LI parting scene between
(fem) Shep and Liara was one of the most emotionally moving scenes I have seen
in a game, and left me in tears afterwards. While I did not get everything I
wanted, like a squad/LI reunion scene, the Destroy ending so heavily implies
that Shepard lives that I think it’s more than safe to say it happens.

I really appreciate the fact that the details and background
of the Catalyst were explained. One of my complaints with the original is he
was made out to be some sort of infallible god-like being, but was in reality
only a misguided AI, sort of like the HAL 9000. Though I will always pick
Destroy, I really enjoyed watching the other endings on YouTube and appreciated
the differences and outcomes within.

This is an ending that feels like a worthy close, and a goal
that is worth fighting through all of what Shepard must face to reach. I thank
all of Bioware’s writers, animators, and staff for doing this and giving this Sci-Fi
masterpiece the ending it deserved. I feel like I can come back and enjoy this
wonderful galaxy many more times in the future.

[linsanity]

You have choice, more then you deserve.

[atarit3]

I just wanted to say thank you.
     I just played the extended cut and I wanted to get back with you that from a player's stand point I really appreciate what you did.

I don't get on the forums much, and the last time I got on was when it released after beating it.  I was one who was dissapointed with the original ending.  With your extention it's added clarity for me, and it's still left me with a few questions for curiosity.

After playing the whole series I'm trying to get a freind to try it out.  Let me know if you ever decide to come out with a gigantic collectors edition for the series .  I'm still deciding onto wether to buy the "from Ashes" DLC, but after my last play-through it's actually making me more curios of more detail in the universe.

But what I really wanted to thank you for was making this.  I think I may have recieved an error in downloading it though because it said "free".
    Not only have you guys listened to your fans but you put out a DLC for the game, after it was finished, AND you didn't charge you fans a dime for this; for over 3 months of work.  You guys could have just headed out on vacation and told everyone "thanks for your feedback, but no", but you didn't.  You listened to us, and not only did you create it, but you considered everone's opinions the best you could.

You have my respect, and you've made an impressed game player out here in Arizona.

Best of luck in your future endevors.

[AsteroidBlues]

linsanity wrote...

You have choice, more then you deserve.

I tried to let that line brush off when I played the EC for fear I was reading too into it.  But it's too obvious to be anything else.

I see what you did there, Bioware.

[G_r_I_f_F_i_N]

 I kept my char since ME1, I spent a LOT of time on it overall, and after so many efforts, after gathering a fleet with strength over 6600, the best I can get is a two second gasp scene? You kidding me. I realy liked ME3, more then that, I believe that it's the best part of all ME series. But what I saw in the ending, it made me very sad.This game realy needs an "extended extended cut" DLC. Not to mention there is only 3 endings, none of wich fits me quite enough, there is too many questions left unanswered.
P.S. I really hope that you are going to improve the ending part with another DLS. Great game worth of a great finale.
P.P.S. Somehow, I haven't saw a single geth to support the land operation on earth, though their forces is among the largest.

Modifié par G_r_I_f_F_i_N, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:47 .

[3DandBeyond]

Other questions keep popping up for me. If you ask the kid about destroy he says something like you will suffer losses but no more than you already have. What does that means? EDI and the geth are destroyed. I'd say that's more.

And as far as refuse as they have written it it's really telling you you are an idiot for choosing it. Refuse is one way to say you think the crucible might be the kid's trap-you won't make any of his choices. And the choices are all bad. However, you refuse and then leave the crucible plans (or some say even the crucible) for a future generation to "finish", but then that's telling someone else to make and use the kid's trap. And they might decide to make a choice you would consider the worst one to make. So, if someone in the future will use it what is the point of not using it now?

I fully understand that refuse was written to show it as a stupid choice.

[KiganMatsuei]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Other questions keep popping up for me. If you ask the kid about destroy he says something like you will suffer losses but no more than you already have. What does that means? EDI and the geth are destroyed. I'd say that's more.

And as far as refuse as they have written it it's really telling you you are an idiot for choosing it. Refuse is one way to say you think the crucible might be the kid's trap-you won't make any of his choices. And the choices are all bad. However, you refuse and then leave the crucible plans (or some say even the crucible) for a future generation to "finish", but then that's telling someone else to make and use the kid's trap. And they might decide to make a choice you would consider the worst one to make. So, if someone in the future will use it what is the point of not using it now?

I fully understand that refuse was written to show it as a stupid choice.

I was confused about the Geth and EDI as well. No more losses than already suffered...but EDI dies and the Geth are completely wiped out. I'd agree that it counts as "more".

[G_r_I_f_F_i_N]

Refuse might implement the destruction of the citadel. If the AI that dwells here die, something might happen to the reapers. Maybe thay get individual mentality and individual goals, or thay will just "turn off".

[Redbelle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Other questions keep popping up for me. If you ask the kid about destroy he says something like you will suffer losses but no more than you already have. What does that means? EDI and the geth are destroyed. I'd say that's more.

And as far as refuse as they have written it it's really telling you you are an idiot for choosing it. Refuse is one way to say you think the crucible might be the kid's trap-you won't make any of his choices. And the choices are all bad. However, you refuse and then leave the crucible plans (or some say even the crucible) for a future generation to "finish", but then that's telling someone else to make and use the kid's trap. And they might decide to make a choice you would consider the worst one to make. So, if someone in the future will use it what is the point of not using it now?

I fully understand that refuse was written to show it as a stupid choice.

Tbh though, aren't we saying that on some level all the choices are stupid? The ECDLC has brought a sense of closure but story narrative analyst's on youtube pointed out that the even if they fix the plot holes the narrative context would still suffer.......... and here we are still bringing the discussion back to the endings. Hmmmm

The ending is, not so much an ending as a progression through the final choice. Control, destroy, synthesis...... they are all a means of progressing the galaxy along a certain avenue, even if Shep won't be there to see it....... Unless your a Shreaper....... or buried under rubble, sort of.......

Refuse is still an a good option if the others are complete no go's as avenues you want the galaxy to go......... but to get into specifics, the worst idea about how it ends is that we, the player, are not allowed to fight on to the bitter end. We are told everyone got Reaped but, being an interactive game, I'would have a easier time believing this if we fought till we got overwhelmed. This tangible experience of getting over run through gameplay instead of a cutscene would have been the bittersweet ending for refuse that BW were seeking. However, given that Shep has been stripped down, figuratively and metamophically it may seem silly to BW to have a Shep at death's door suddenly go all Jack Bauer on the Reapers........

This however could have been the greatest gameplay moment in the context of refuse......... A fading Shep who is getting slower, whose aim gets worse, who has to hold the line, at this point just for the sake of holding it, could get overrun. Or he could hold till a flaming Normandy comes in and evacs his insensate body and blasts off with the remains of the fleet to fight another day. Or have to take on another suicide mission to destroy Harbinger..........

Seriously why do BW shield Harbinger from us so much in ME3. Just gimme 5 minutes and a truck load of Cain's

Modifié par Redbelle, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:18 .

[GreenFlag]

All what Bioware doing has a reason for the future game.

Modifié par GreenFlag, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:45 .

[V-rcingetorix]

The ending for Mass Effect 1, if not loaded into ME2, is that Shepard sacrificed the Council to save lives. Shepard kills Wrex on Virmire, and does not save Shiala from the Thorian.

Now, while I have yet to play the ME3 as a game on its own (power outages tend to stall my gaming :/), I have watched Toegoff's youtube ME2 (standalone) import. It's different from my own, but not terribly so.

Therefore, the ending most likely chosen for ME3, without input from the player (like the start of ME2), would reflect Shepards sacrifice of Wrex, Council and etcetera.

Synthesis:
To paraphrase 3D, forcing foreign objects into and onto people would be a felony in most countries.

My opinion is more of that the Reapers must pay for their crimes. If a rabid fox bit someone, it would have to be exterminated, to save others from being bitten. If a man knifes people in a bus station, he would be put on trial for execution, if not life imprisonment. If a country starts a war, the leadership is put on trial for war crimes...as the Reapers all share command, that would include all of them.

Still, if Shep lived through the experience, I might be more willing to accept the "sunshine and bunnies" ending.

Control:
You are what you eat, or, you eat fat greasy food, you're a fat greasy dude. If Shep becomes a Reaper-Master, losing his humanity, then his benevolence lasts only so long as his memories of being human maintain supremacy in his decision-making processes. If he sends the Reapers into the sun, and makes himself a body like Cerberus did for EDI (unintentionally), that would be more acceptable.

Destroy:
Problem solved: Reapers go boom. It's a Draconian solution, and one where I prefer the Geth/EDI to live, but that's how it goes.

If BioWare had given an option of killing EDI OR the geth, that would have been much much better, angst ridden, kill a whole people, or just Jeff's girlfriend? Similar to the decision back in ME2, warn the Batarians, or call the Normandy...only time for one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, Shepards' promise to the LI. Since when has Shepard broken a promise? That's what makes a hero so spectacular, their ability to follow through and keep their promises.

Shep does fail several times to keep his word, but not because he didn't try. In this case, the promise is so important, wouldn't he defy death to come back? Again?

The story plot has several Messianic elements; a prophet who is not believed, who sacrifices himself to save others, who faces the ultimate enemy alone (should have had at least two witnesses though to make the analogy complete). Shepard should come back to fulfill his promise.

Chant with me: DLC! DLC!

[G_r_I_f_F_i_N]

I came up with an idea, that the whole ground operation was not necessary. I'am sure that there is plenty of other ways to get troops into citadel. Like turning some ships into assault pods. Maybe I played games like Master of Orion too much, but, if thay could remove all the weapon systems, and get much better armor and shield instead, thay could make it straight to the citadel, and ram it's walls through, to drop the army. This is what reapers could expect least.

DLC! DLC!

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Tricia Helfer and all the VAs is fantastic.  Never a problem.

Synthesis requires Shepard force something into people's bodies (still) without their consent.  The kid still states it was always his goal but he tried it and couldn't make it happen, because it couldn't be forced.  But, it still is.  There were people in ME that didn't even want any implants so doing this is a violation.

There's even a poll here on how many people would want this if it were real.  Most wouldn't (last time I looked), but even if most people would like it (people in the game), it wouldn't matter.  If one person wouldn't (people in the game), it's wrong.

There are other problems with it.  The kid sees it as perfection and he thinks people seek perfection through tech-in whose warped mind?  Well, his.  First, perfection is not the goal of everyone and even if people seek it, tech is not what everyone sees as the way to it.  It also may lead to immortality.  No disease, no war, endless life.  Population explosion?

Also, it advances people beyond their readiness for it.  When has this ever been a problem in the game?

The only thing Shepard had ever had "permission" to do was destroy the reapers.  The fact the writers gave destroy some awful consequences is their way to not make it the canon ending.  But control and synthesis both have real long-term worse consequences.

---  It's pretty obvious why BioWare put so many obvious and blatant flaws into all the endings.  They were trying to create some kind of thought provoking "Pick the lesser of three (now four) evils... but which is the lesser?" kind of feel to the end of it.  I'll admit, if a MOVIE ended this way, with the hero forced to pick one of four, and then it faded to black before he made his choice, it would be thought provoking and pretty cool.

Problem is, as 3D said just a page or two ago, this is a Video Game.  And Video Games, as all games are, are a form of competition.  People compete to put their strength against the strength of an opponent.  The opponent may be other players, it may be AI opponents, or it may even be horrible controls that make you want to rip your hair out (the new Wobble Aiming against Marauder Shields!!!)  But we're there to find a challenge that we can overcome.

Lots of work is put into tuning games these days: you want people to win, but you want them to feel they've earned it.  You stimulate the same part of the brain that's there to reward us when we catch and kill our prey, mate with the object of our affection, save our children from danger, etc.  It's a part of the brain that ensures that our existence, or at least the continuation of our DNA, is assured.  If victory is handed to someone, they feel something is wrong.  If every softball game ends in a tie, or if nobody keeps score, the children inherently know that something is a little off.  We're hardwired to seek success, it's not something that we can turn off.  And that's why these endings, while complete, working, and not nonsensical, are still failures.

Reading a book, listening to a song, watching a movie, or seeing an event play out before us; those are thought actions.  All we can do is emphathize with them.  Playing a video game is different.  We invest our own emotions in it, rather than piggybacking on the emotions of a disconnected protagonist.  And at the end of Mass Effect 3: no matter what we do, the game ends in an artificial tie.  Look at the endings:

Possibility One:  My team, family, pack, society is destroyed.  The opposing team is also destroyed.  A third team wins.  While I may derive success from the loss of the opposing team, I can also derive failure from the equal loss of my team.  Neither Victory nor Defeat: a tie.

Possibility Two:  The Opposing Team forefeits.  In order to bring this about, players on my own team are fired without pay, breaking the contract I have made with them.  This was done because the opposing Coach did not like them, and I appeased his irrational hatred as part of a behind the scenes agreement.  My fired players are banned from ever playing the game again.  The game never truly began, we merely warmed up and then I decided my team was too weak to win.  No game played at all: a presumed loss averted at the cost of a real loss.

Possibility Three:  The Opposing Team now falls under my command.  They are merged with my team, therefore there is only one team, therefore we are unopposed.  However, my team did not defeat the other team.  We have not acchieved a victory.  Further, the other team's members are still of a nature diametrically opposed to the nature of my team's original members.  Both sides only accept this merger because I have forced it upon them, and I deny them both the game.  Without the game, there can be neither victory nor defeat.  An artificial tie.

Possibility Four:  The Opposing Team and my team are intermingled and merged, giving both teams new green uniforms.  Every other person alive at any place in the universe is also drafted into my team.  Every team member is merged into one being.  There is only one player, therefore the game can not be finished, nor can a new game ever begin again.  With no possible opponents, there can be neither victory nor defeat.  A one man tie.

CORRELARY:  No matter which option is taken, the Coach (you) must give up the game altogether.

As a STORY Mass Effect 3, and therefore Mass Effect as a whole, succeeds in getting from A to Z without including any symbols like # % or &.  As a Game, it fails at the very end as it forgets its very nature and denies players the ability to win the game.

I wanted to chime in here because these posts are from two of my favorite, thoughtful posters:

First, I agree with 3DandBeyond that the voice acting, throughout the game and the EC DLC is terrific.  No complaints about these talented people and the great performances they gave us throughout 3 games. 

Second, I agree that these ending choices are flawed and antithetical to game experience.  I actually think the "team analogy" is a good one.  And I concur that these choices, and these choices alone, create an artificial construct that is contrary to the way this game was pitched to players and that it is a poor payoff for those who invested in the trilogy. 

The tragedy is that this was very easy to get right.  BioWare also seems to know this.  According to its player guide, the "Destroy" ending with the "Shepard breath"  (which is described in the BioWare strategy guide as "Shepard lives") is the hardest ending to achieve in terms of "Readiness Rating."  Since this is a "game," the points do matter.  The notion that you could play the "game" with mediocrity and achieve an equally valid ending is like everyone getting a ribbon for running the race.  That's great in pre-school, but it seems out of place in a game about galactic warfare. 

It is particularly out of place, however, when you have pitched to players Mass Effect:  Infiltrator, Mass Effect Datapad, and Multiplayer (for Galactic Readiness and War Assets) as ways to increase a single player score.  These additions to the single player game require a time commitment and, in some instances, a financial commitment, all with one of the marketed impacts being a better single player rating.  That score is supposed to make a difference in the outcome.  But both the control and synthesis options are really easy to achieve.  None of these add ons are required to get there.  Destroy with the "Shepard lives" feature is relatively hard to achieve.  Almost twice as hard to be precise.  If all the endings have their pros and cons, does this make sense?  Does the marketing of these other methods to increase your single-player score make sense?  Not really.  If doing all these things outside of the single player game is really helpful to get the "Shepard lives" ending and you promote them, is it then fair to not have an ending that clearly and decisively shows the benefit to the player that does those things to "win"?

Not allowing an ending where the player can win isn't particularly fair, and I don't like the endings to ME3 as a result.  (I also don't think they make much sense for the reasons better stated by the above posts.)  Somewhere, BioWare forgot this was a game, forgot the player's investment of time, energy and cash into the game, and went off in some direction that was counter to its lore.  As I have stated previously, in ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were malevolent, trash talking, evil jerks.  You can't convert them to unemotional conflict avoiders in the final scene.  And you can't make credible a Shepard that is willing to accept the unsubstantiated representations of a Reaper hologram in the face of two games full of trash talking evil.  I would have prefered a blue screen after Cronos Station saying, "Shepard delivered the Crucible and the Alliance defeated the Reapers.  Congratulations!" to the endings we received.  At least the game would have been replayable.  Now, frankly, for me, it isn't.  And it isn't a movie I'd want to see either. 

There is a reason why The Adjustment Bureau didn't end with Matt Damon becoming the Head of the Bureau, or sending out his DNA so we didn't need a Bureau or blowing up the Bureau.  Instead, he overcame the need for Adjustment, showed his path was "better," and ended up with his LI.  Good script writers know what works.  The Adjustment Bureau writers made a better decision than BioWare did.

Anyway, I rate the trilogy this way:  Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 1, then Mass Effect 3 because of the ending.  As for Plotlines:  (1) Suicide Mission (Collector Base)(ME2); (2) Cure the Genophage (ME3); (3) Save the Citadel/Defeat Saren (ME1); (5) Geth/Quarian War (All); (6) Story of Jack (ME2-ME3); (7) Miranda/Oriana (ME2-ME3); (8)Tali Treason (ME2); (9) Rachni (All); (10) Kai Leng/Illusive Man (ME2-ME3).

Nowhere on here is the war against the Reapers, because there isn't anything compelling in the narrative with its 180 degree turn at the end.  It is one of the least interesting narratives as a result.  And there aren't any characters other than the ME3-disappearing Harbinger with any personality on the Reaper side.  The Illusive Man (excellent voice acting) would have been higher but for the silly ending sequence.  And no, I wouldn't pay to see a movie about the Reapers. 

Modifié par PuppiesOfDeath2, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:31 .

[hawat333]

Now -stone me to death- I liked the endings in first place, even with the holes it had. Now it is simply great; at least for my taste, it is perfected.

[MaskofSkin]

I've been pretty negative on the original endings but just wanted to stop by and say I enjoyed the Extended endings. Thanks Bioware!

[Macro Dude]

Well, I just finished playing all 3 endings. I'm pleased I didn't have to muck around with multi-player. I'm happier than I was about the endings. Sorry if anyone dosen't agree. I think they should have included this "EC" in the original product. I, and alot of other fans of this series might not have been as upset by it then. In a way I got what I wanted,which was for Shep to survive. Well, in control and sysnthisis, Shep does survive, at least, in a way. The closing message from the MassEffect team also iludes to "further adventures" in the MassEffect universe. Does this mean other MassEffect games playing as an altogether different character? hmmm Well, we will see. In the mean time this will be my last post on the subject.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Just some interesting things I just found out. There is a bit of dialog change with Hackett when you are on the Normandy and select to attack cerberus base--when it automatically sends you to talk to Hackett.

He and Shepard used to talk about the Crucible's readiness and if they don't find or get the Catalyst. Now he only offers 2 options-ready to go or need more time to get ready. If you pick that Shepard needs more time Sam tells you Hackett is available to talk. You get some of the dialog options that were available at other times-about the state of readiness for everyone. I don't know if the options or Hackett's answers are dependent on whether you are paragon or renegade (I have an almost full paragon) but there are new questions you can ask.

One line of questions is about Cerberus. If you select it Hackett says something like this, that the Illusive man is crazy and there's only one way to defeat the reapers, no more reapers. And then you can ask what if the Illusive man is right, what if the reapers can be controlled. Hackett says that's like trying to tame a shark, someone could get killed. And he orders Shepard to kill TIM.

The implications of this are clear. Hackett is ordering Shepard to kill TIM, he thinks controlling the reapers is a bad idea, and he is basically ordering Shepard to destroy the reapers. He doesn't have to say I'm ordering you to destroy it-his wishes are clear and as Shepard's commander, his wishes are an order.

I think it's easy to miss this dialog because generally if you select TIM's base you are ready to go, so you don't select the other.

---  Ah ha!  So THERE'S the reason they wanted me to redo Chronos Station.  So there we have it; destroy the Reapers.  I now have a definite ending to pick.  Like it or not, my Shepard follows orders.

So now I have a definite ****ty ending that makes sense.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Other questions keep popping up for me. If you ask the kid about destroy he says something like you will suffer losses but no more than you already have. What does that means? EDI and the geth are destroyed. I'd say that's more.

And as far as refuse as they have written it it's really telling you you are an idiot for choosing it. Refuse is one way to say you think the crucible might be the kid's trap-you won't make any of his choices. And the choices are all bad. However, you refuse and then leave the crucible plans (or some say even the crucible) for a future generation to "finish", but then that's telling someone else to make and use the kid's trap. And they might decide to make a choice you would consider the worst one to make. So, if someone in the future will use it what is the point of not using it now?

I fully understand that refuse was written to show it as a stupid choice.

---  They won't use it.  Liara says in the message that we united and fought and built the crucible, but none of those things did the trick.  That seemed to imply, to my understanding at least, that the Reapers will be defeated without playing into Moron's bull**** premise.

The Forbes article linked a few pages before pointed out how with 5 years to prepare, one ship with maybe 20 people aboars it who really, REALLY believed that they needed to stop the Reapers took out at least 3 Capital Ships and many many more lesser Reapers.  And the Turians' ambush-at-the-relay tactics took out a bunch more.  With thousands of years to prepare and all our information on Reapers' makeup, technology, and tactics, it's not tough to believe that the next cycle actually beat them conventionally.

And frankly, that's really the only thing acceptable to me.  Destroying the Reapers with the crucible actually makes US into the Reapers.  We accept their bull**** non-problem as a real thing and act on it.

---  I was thinking today, seeing a chart of all the cuts of meat on a pig, is it inherently wrong to raise a form of life solely to benefit you?  I would say no, it's not.  Then I thought "isn't that what the Reapers did with all Organics?"  I mean, they let them advance until it's time to Reap.  So is it WRONG for them to Reap us?  In a very cold and logical sense, no, it's not.  And if we want them to stop, we need to earn it.  If a Pig wants people to stop eating Bacon and Eggs, is it acceptable for the Pig to wipe out humans AND CHICKENS?  The Chickens didn't do anything wrong, and they're more like the Pigs than they are to we humans.  If Pigs want me to stop eating bacon, well, they can come and kill me.  And if Pigs DO try to kill me, I won't fault them for it.  And guys, if tomorrow I'm eaten by pigs?  AVENGE ME.

[TheHoneyRuns]

I had enough faith in Bioware to spend the last week-plus replaying the series again with my original Shepard. I downloaded the Extended Cut DLC in preparation during my ME2 replay. I also copied her face exactly during the ME2 customization bit in the beginning, so that she was correctly transferred to part three. Built up all as many War Assets as I could while staying true to the choices my Paragon FemShep would make.

It was all worth it. I just went through every ending, finishing off with the Destroy Ending that, for my Shep, is definitely canon. Bioware, I can not thank you enough. My faith has been restored. I can nitpick here and there, but that's all it would be. It's no longer the stuff of heartbreak I went through four months ago. It is now concrete. My choices mattered again. Shepard is alive and Liara will find her, the threat of the reapers gone. And the bittersweet knowledge that victory (and life, which I no longer would've been forced to play Multiplayer to achieve, something I outright refused to do) came at the price of a character as beloved to me as EDI, is absolutely perfect.

You took an ending of forced genocide and and confusing betrayals and made it right. You made it something worthy of Bioware again.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

EDIT - Oh, almost forgot. One Nitpick is worth mentioning. **** the God Child. If Drew was still heading this, that little **** would never have been crapped into existence. That whole part is idiotic and doesn't fit in with the rest of the series.

But honestly, I don't care. Cause everything else? Perfect. Thanks again.

Modifié par TheHoneyRuns, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:40 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

@BlueStorm83

My breakfast is now ruined. So are the endings, but that isn't your fault.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Other questions keep popping up for me. If you ask the kid about destroy he says something like you will suffer losses but no more than you already have. What does that means? EDI and the geth are destroyed. I'd say that's more.

And as far as refuse as they have written it it's really telling you you are an idiot for choosing it. Refuse is one way to say you think the crucible might be the kid's trap-you won't make any of his choices. And the choices are all bad. However, you refuse and then leave the crucible plans (or some say even the crucible) for a future generation to "finish", but then that's telling someone else to make and use the kid's trap. And they might decide to make a choice you would consider the worst one to make. So, if someone in the future will use it what is the point of not using it now?

I fully understand that refuse was written to show it as a stupid choice.

Tbh though, aren't we saying that on some level all the choices are stupid? The ECDLC has brought a sense of closure but story narrative analyst's on youtube pointed out that the even if they fix the plot holes the narrative context would still suffer.......... and here we are still bringing the discussion back to the endings. Hmmmm

The ending is, not so much an ending as a progression through the final choice. Control, destroy, synthesis...... they are all a means of progressing the galaxy along a certain avenue, even if Shep won't be there to see it....... Unless your a Shreaper....... or buried under rubble, sort of.......

Refuse is still an a good option if the others are complete no go's as avenues you want the galaxy to go......... but to get into specifics, the worst idea about how it ends is that we, the player, are not allowed to fight on to the bitter end. We are told everyone got Reaped but, being an interactive game, I'would have a easier time believing this if we fought till we got overwhelmed. This tangible experience of getting over run through gameplay instead of a cutscene would have been the bittersweet ending for refuse that BW were seeking. However, given that Shep has been stripped down, figuratively and metamophically it may seem silly to BW to have a Shep at death's door suddenly go all Jack Bauer on the Reapers........

This however could have been the greatest gameplay moment in the context of refuse......... A fading Shep who is getting slower, whose aim gets worse, who has to hold the line, at this point just for the sake of holding it, could get overrun. Or he could hold till a flaming Normandy comes in and evacs his insensate body and blasts off with the remains of the fleet to fight another day. Or have to take on another suicide mission to destroy Harbinger..........

Seriously why do BW shield Harbinger from us so much in ME3. Just gimme 5 minutes and a truck load of Cain's

Agree with this so much.

Ok and about Control.  Shepard can't communicate with anyone after becoming Shreaper, so how would anyone know they are not docile?  Or, trust that they are and will stay that way?  They see them fly off but then they start fixing things-couldn't they reasonable assume they are slipped a wing nut (are a bit crazy) and might start attacking again?

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:57 .

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Just some interesting things I just found out. There is a bit of dialog change with Hackett when you are on the Normandy and select to attack cerberus base--when it automatically sends you to talk to Hackett.

He and Shepard used to talk about the Crucible's readiness and if they don't find or get the Catalyst. Now he only offers 2 options-ready to go or need more time to get ready. If you pick that Shepard needs more time Sam tells you Hackett is available to talk. You get some of the dialog options that were available at other times-about the state of readiness for everyone. I don't know if the options or Hackett's answers are dependent on whether you are paragon or renegade (I have an almost full paragon) but there are new questions you can ask.

One line of questions is about Cerberus. If you select it Hackett says something like this, that the Illusive man is crazy and there's only one way to defeat the reapers, no more reapers. And then you can ask what if the Illusive man is right, what if the reapers can be controlled. Hackett says that's like trying to tame a shark, someone could get killed. And he orders Shepard to kill TIM.

The implications of this are clear. Hackett is ordering Shepard to kill TIM, he thinks controlling the reapers is a bad idea, and he is basically ordering Shepard to destroy the reapers. He doesn't have to say I'm ordering you to destroy it-his wishes are clear and as Shepard's commander, his wishes are an order.

I think it's easy to miss this dialog because generally if you select TIM's base you are ready to go, so you don't select the other.

---  Ah ha!  So THERE'S the reason they wanted me to redo Chronos Station.  So there we have it; destroy the Reapers.  I now have a definite ending to pick.  Like it or not, my Shepard follows orders.

So now I have a definite ****ty ending that makes sense.

But the old issues remain.  Destroy just as much as everything else is again based on the kid's word.  It relies on him being honest and credible and not manipulative.  But look what he did to his own creators.  He is like a cleansing fire with no remorse, no guile, no emotion, but he does see a need that is backed up by what he did to his creators and even what he is now doing with the reapers.  Anything he says is suspect.  So, you still have to meta-game to see that he's being honest.

Refuse seems like a good idea, but since they deleted Hackett saying that if they didn't find the catalyst they'd take their chances, it's just regular suicide.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Just some interesting things I just found out. There is a bit of dialog change with Hackett when you are on the Normandy and select to attack cerberus base--when it automatically sends you to talk to Hackett.

He and Shepard used to talk about the Crucible's readiness and if they don't find or get the Catalyst. Now he only offers 2 options-ready to go or need more time to get ready. If you pick that Shepard needs more time Sam tells you Hackett is available to talk. You get some of the dialog options that were available at other times-about the state of readiness for everyone. I don't know if the options or Hackett's answers are dependent on whether you are paragon or renegade (I have an almost full paragon) but there are new questions you can ask.

One line of questions is about Cerberus. If you select it Hackett says something like this, that the Illusive man is crazy and there's only one way to defeat the reapers, no more reapers. And then you can ask what if the Illusive man is right, what if the reapers can be controlled. Hackett says that's like trying to tame a shark, someone could get killed. And he orders Shepard to kill TIM.

The implications of this are clear. Hackett is ordering Shepard to kill TIM, he thinks controlling the reapers is a bad idea, and he is basically ordering Shepard to destroy the reapers. He doesn't have to say I'm ordering you to destroy it-his wishes are clear and as Shepard's commander, his wishes are an order.

I think it's easy to miss this dialog because generally if you select TIM's base you are ready to go, so you don't select the other.

---  Ah ha!  So THERE'S the reason they wanted me to redo Chronos Station.  So there we have it; destroy the Reapers.  I now have a definite ending to pick.  Like it or not, my Shepard follows orders.

So now I have a definite ****ty ending that makes sense.

But the old issues remain.  Destroy just as much as everything else is again based on the kid's word.  It relies on him being honest and credible and not manipulative.  But look what he did to his own creators.  He is like a cleansing fire with no remorse, no guile, no emotion, but he does see a need that is backed up by what he did to his creators and even what he is now doing with the reapers.  Anything he says is suspect.  So, you still have to meta-game to see that he's being honest.

Refuse seems like a good idea, but since they deleted Hackett saying that if they didn't find the catalyst they'd take their chances, it's just regular suicide.

---  None of them are good ideas.  It's like the old saying "You get out what you put in."  The Crucible as a MacGuffin is a ****ty premise for a game, the Catalyst is a ****ty antagonist/protagonist, the idea that a decision at the end of the game that reduces all of your hard hitting decisions to "HOW MANEY MANS YOU HAVE???" is a ****ty resolution.  So naturally Synthesis, Control, Destory, and Refuse turn out to be ****.

And let's be honest: if one's ****, then they ALL have to be ****.  I mean, if our choices were "Kill our friends, Betray our friends, Betray half our friends and kill the other half, or Betray our friends and make them our Enemies," and then we also got a "save our friends and kill our enemies" choice, well, duh, which do you think everyone would pick?

---  I'd like to once again point to inFamous 2 as to how you make a poignant sacrifice ending.  BE WARNED!  THIS SECTION WILL INCLUDE SOME SPOILERS!  IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME WITHOUT IT BEING
RUINED, JUST KNOW THAT I'M SAYING THAT HARD CHOICES CAN BE DONE WELL, IF THEY DON'T LEAVE
YOU FEELING DEFEATED! 

At the end of the game, our hero Cole McGrath has a choice to make, and it's a difficult one.  For the entire game, he's been trying to become stronger to defeat a being known as The Beast.  The Beast is immortal: it was utterly destroyed once, and came back.  Fighting The Beast is a bad idea: when Cole defeated The Beast once before, it detonated with the force of a nuclear weapon, destroying a city.  Cole's only hope was a device to take away The Beast's power and kill it.  But the problem at the end arises...

The Device, much like the Raysphere that gave many people their Powers, will affect the entire planet.  It will kill everyone with Powers, Cole included, as well as two of Cole's buddies, a Cajun girl names Nix, and an Asian girl named Kuo.  To make matters MORE difficult...

The Beast isn't just rampaging across the country.  When the Raysphere gave everyone their powers, it also unleashed a Plague.  The plague is the forced mutation of everyone on the planet.  1 in 10 is receptive of it: they can manifest powers if they survive the plague.  Everyone else will die.  There is no cure.  But even of the 1 in 10, 99% are dying anyway, from the stress of the change.  The Beast is using his destructive power to enable that 10% to mutate without dying: he's killing those who are doomed anyway in order to save everyone he can of the possible "conduits" in the world.  And to make matters EVEN MORE DIFFICULT!

Cole's best friend Zeke can not become a conduit.  The plague will definitely kill him, as well as 90% of the population, even if the Beast manages to save every single possible conduit out there.

Cole's decision is this: save Zeke and 90% but kill 10% immediately, including himself and 2 girls he cares for.  Or he can allow Zeke and the 90% of normal humanity die, and 10% of humanity survives with new astonishing super powers, possibly ushering in an incredible paradise.

I, personally, saved Zeke.  I didn't care for the 90%.  I didn't care that Nix and Kuo would die; they were heroes like I was, I assumed they'd make the same decision (we butted heads over this.)  But Zeke had made MAJOR effort to redeem himself from something he screwed up on before, and in the end, he really was Cole's best friend.  I led Cole to heroic sacrifice and never looked back.  And it was a hell of an end.

But that's how you do it.  Neither side here was all good or all bad.  One was more selfish than the other, but no matter what you pick, you give up something important.  There was no perfect ending to this game.  But both endings feel like victory of a sort.  Do you give up two friends to save one?  Do you give up one to save two?  Is your own survival a factor, or do you tell fate to go to hell?

---  What's my point in that long, Spoiler Crammed explanation of inFamous 2's hard choice at the end?  My point is that hard choices in the end aren't a bad thing: they just have to be done right, and not all come out as defeat.

[3DandBeyond]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...


I wanted to chime in here because these posts are from two of my favorite, thoughtful posters:

First, I agree with 3DandBeyond that the voice acting, throughout the game and the EC DLC is terrific.  No complaints about these talented people and the great performances they gave us throughout 3 games. 

Second, I agree that these ending choices are flawed and antithetical to game experience.  I actually think the "team analogy" is a good one.  And I concur that these choices, and these choices alone, create an artificial construct that is contrary to the way this game was pitched to players and that it is a poor payoff for those who invested in the trilogy. 

The tragedy is that this was very easy to get right.  BioWare also seems to know this.  According to its player guide, the "Destroy" ending with the "Shepard breath"  (which is described in the BioWare strategy guide as "Shepard lives") is the hardest ending to achieve in terms of "Readiness Rating."  Since this is a "game," the points do matter.  The notion that you could play the "game" with mediocrity and achieve an equally valid ending is like everyone getting a ribbon for running the race.  That's great in pre-school, but it seems out of place in a game about galactic warfare. 

It is particularly out of place, however, when you have pitched to players Mass Effect:  Infiltrator, Mass Effect Datapad, and Multiplayer (for Galactic Readiness and War Assets) as ways to increase a single player score.  These additions to the single player game require a time commitment and, in some instances, a financial commitment, all with one of the marketed impacts being a better single player rating.  That score is supposed to make a difference in the outcome.  But both the control and synthesis options are really easy to achieve.  None of these add ons are required to get there.  Destroy with the "Shepard lives" feature is relatively hard to achieve.  Almost twice as hard to be precise.  If all the endings have their pros and cons, does this make sense?  Does the marketing of these other methods to increase your single-player score make sense?  Not really.  If doing all these things outside of the single player game is really helpful to get the "Shepard lives" ending and you promote them, is it then fair to not have an ending that clearly and decisively shows the benefit to the player that does those things to "win"?

Not allowing an ending where the player can win isn't particularly fair, and I don't like the endings to ME3 as a result.  (I also don't think they make much sense for the reasons better stated by the above posts.)  Somewhere, BioWare forgot this was a game, forgot the player's investment of time, energy and cash into the game, and went off in some direction that was counter to its lore.  As I have stated previously, in ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were malevolent, trash talking, evil jerks.  You can't convert them to unemotional conflict avoiders in the final scene.  And you can't make credible a Shepard that is willing to accept the unsubstantiated representations of a Reaper hologram in the face of two games full of trash talking evil.  I would have prefered a blue screen after Cronos Station saying, "Shepard delivered the Crucible and the Alliance defeated the Reapers.  Congratulations!" to the endings we received.  At least the game would have been replayable.  Now, frankly, for me, it isn't.  And it isn't a movie I'd want to see either. 

There is a reason why The Adjustment Bureau didn't end with Matt Damon becoming the Head of the Bureau, or sending out his DNA so we didn't need a Bureau or blowing up the Bureau.  Instead, he overcame the need for Adjustment, showed his path was "better," and ended up with his LI.  Good script writers know what works.  The Adjustment Bureau writers made a better decision than BioWare did.

Anyway, I rate the trilogy this way:  Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 1, then Mass Effect 3 because of the ending.  As for Plotlines:  (1) Suicide Mission (Collector Base)(ME2); (2) Cure the Genophage (ME3); (3) Save the Citadel/Defeat Saren (ME1); (5) Geth/Quarian War (All); (6) Story of Jack (ME2-ME3); (7) Miranda/Oriana (ME2-ME3); (8)Tali Treason (ME2); (9) Rachni (All); (10) Kai Leng/Illusive Man (ME2-ME3).

Nowhere on here is the war against the Reapers, because there isn't anything compelling in the narrative with its 180 degree turn at the end.  It is one of the least interesting narratives as a result.  And there aren't any characters other than the ME3-disappearing Harbinger with any personality on the Reaper side.  The Illusive Man (excellent voice acting) would have been higher but for the silly ending sequence.  And no, I wouldn't pay to see a movie about the Reapers. 

You are kind so "back at you" as we say---like reading your thoughts as well.

The reason there is no war against the reapers on your list is because there is no war against the reapers.  It's like a golf ball that no one will ever hit.  They spent 3 games teeing it up, and then decided to play croquet instead.

From the very first bit of awareness Shepard had of the reapers, what was the goal?  To destroy them.  And even in the ME3 ending, what are we really not allowed to do?  In many ways, we can't destroy them.  You might say that there is a destroy choice though, but as I said it still suffers from what made the choices "wrong" in the first place.  They exist to solve a problem (the kid and reapers) that exist at the end of ME3 to solve a problem that is basically irrelevant or non-existent to Shepard.

Refuse stops it all, but it defers that decision to another time for other people to make.  The game ends well before the credits here, because I don't care what happens to future people (that's why the stargazer always was a joke to me).  I care about Shepard and the galaxy now.  I didn't make Shepard make choices, agonizing over them to just give up and wait to die.  Refuse is that battle, the war against the reapers that could have and should have been.  Not a certain loss, but a probable one, with possible choices that came from decisions and actions within ME before the ending.  This is where the beauty of the game could have been.  Fight and probably die and probably lose.  Fight and probably die and possibly win.  Fight and possibly die and possibly win.  Fight and probably die and probably win.  And so on.  But, it was all about the fight and the chance.  And the people NOW.

ME3 lost its way and got mired in complicated, when it needed to be simple at the end.  The big fight is where you forget to be artistic with a story like ME.  The art of the game already existed in Mordin and everything he said and did, with Jack and the way she finally was able to grow up, with Miranda similar in so many ways to Jack, the genophage and all that it conjured up, and so many other stories.  These moments were so powerful and all they needed was some reason for why they happened and mattered.  ME3 forgot all of that at the end.  So many of the stories were all about rising up against all odds and being better than before.  Like Jack-I think she finally learned it was ok to be herself, just as she was.  And Miranda, too.  Miranda created to be perfect, but not.  And then Ashley, trying to take responsibility or blame for what her grandfather did-she finally with Shepard's help, figures out that it's ok to be herself and that she doesn't have to pay for someone else's mistakes.  This is a constant thread.  The Krogan-they too repeatedly paid for mistakes others made.  Hated, feared, and so on-they may find a place among the races of the galaxy.

So, the story is beautifully, artfully woven.  Redemption, growth, self-appreciation, self-determination.  All of these are thoughts and things learned within the game that are squashed by the choices.  Synthesis and control are not about any of these things.  Destroy basically kills the newest life in the galaxy that just learned these things.  And refuse doesn't allow for what should be the real, honest way to protect all that has been achieved.  All in all, I am still left wanting to know what the devs were thinking.

Hackett IMO gives the very best speech of all (even though second is the Shep refusal) in the destroy ending.  I do wish it could have started with Hackett saying it and then Shepard finishing it, but...

Hackett expresses the ideas that a real defeat of the reapers could and would bear out.  The galaxy would finally fully and victoriously self-determine, become independent, and for the first time in "forever" be reaper free.  People would learn how to do things, create things perhaps independent of reaper tech (though the relays and citadel are still there).  They'd at least learn how to make these things-something only a few ever had the desire to do before.

And lastly as one indication of just how stupid people have become...what idiot would just automatically inhabit a place like the Citadel without knowing it fully?  I mean there are whole areas that are closed off (keeper zones) and yet no one ever has explored them or seems to have tried to.  And then the keepers-no freaking way.  The Protheans learned a little about them, but not enough-the fact they were created by the reapers is enough for me to want to know a bit more before thinking it's wise to trust them still.  But, going from ME1, where nobody believed in the reapers, there's still the open question of who in their right mind would accept this situation?  No one is allowed to examine a keeper (Chorbin scans them, but we learn nothing from this)--why?  Because they die?  Well, something is wrong with the whole picture.  People need to stop just accepting and being spoon fed crap and use their brains.  The whole Keeper thing is never addressed-yet there they are, doing stuff to bodies on the Citadel at the end.  And then there's Keeper 20 in LotSB, what was that all about?  Closure, I need more closure.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

snipped--

---  What's my point in that long, Spoiler Crammed explanation of inFamous 2's hard choice at the end?  My point is that hard choices in the end aren't a bad thing: they just have to be done right, and not all come out as defeat.

Totally true.  The choices need to have real meaning and be some sort of goal you are trying to achieve and must attain that goal in some way to be real choices especially if a sacrifice must be made.  I look at it like the one mission (darned if I can remember which one right now) where you can decide to save a community of people or an industrial site.  Both have consequences, but both have meaning.  It's ok to have to decide, but let the consequence make sense to me and make it matter in some tangible way.

There are many stories like this.  Hard choices are made that may kill the hero, but the end result has to make more sense and better achieve the goal to be a real choice.  The hero must die for something worthwhile.  In ME3, simply removing the reapers as a threat, no matter the consequences, is not enough and never has been.  The decision of the Collector's Base could apply here.  Anyone that destroyed the base would have realized that it wasn't supposed to be only about getting rid of the Collectors.  Someone on your team could even die or Shepard could die.  They didn't die in order to hand all this "knowledge" over to TIM and not only to just kill the Collectors, depending on your Shepard.

Keeping the base (as far as we knew at the end of ME2) would have big bad consequences in ME3.  Ok crap, well, it should have had, but you know the devs needed to keep finding ways to kind of even that EMS thing out so everybody could still be funneled into the same 3 (now 4ish) choices.