Ce sujet est fermé
Problem is, again, that relies on the kid telling the truth. I cannot comprehend any thinking person in Shepard's shoes trusting a word the kid says. He's been turning people into goo.Geneaux486 wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
Actually, you are quite wrong.
Actually, I'm quite right. The Catalyst says quite clearly regarding the Crucible's functions, "I can't make them happen." That's about as straightforward as it gets.
In regards to Bioware changing the ending completely, that would be the worst possible thing they could do. Why? Because the conclusion, like it or not, logically follows the rest of the story. The goal was to use the Crucible, and you spent the entire game collecting assets for it and the assault who's purpose was to get the Crucible in position to fire. The fact that you get to choose how you use the Crucible? Follows the theme of choice that's been in all three games. If Bioware put out a brand new ending it would either be so similar to what we already have that it would be pointless to do, or it would be drastically different and disconnect the ending from the rest of the game. Furthermore, as much as people claim that everyone agrees on how it should end, everyone's still got their own ideas. Hell, the fact that so many people want to argue against using the Crucible with the Catalyst demonstrates a lack of awareness of the situation. It makes no sense for a protagonist with a fully functional brain to argue against using his own weapon (which he was ordered to do at all costs, and given the chance to do at the cost of hundreds if not thousands of lives and countless hours of labor) while people are dying in the space around him.
In short, it's Bioware's story, so it's their perogative to tell it how they want. They're doing us a favor by expanding on thier endings, and contrary to what people say, the solution they've chosen could easily improve the ending drastically.
Uh, the fact that there are 3 inserted choices that have nothing to do with the choices you already made (other than if you have EMS or not) renders them meaningless as far as the story is concerned. The crucible was a flawed idea, but the star kid is the part most take issue with-that and the dumb choices.
The choices are like this---you play a game of (American) football. Your team runs that ball down the field, passes it, gets first downs, keeps making forward progress towards the end zone. At the one yard line, the game stops and up pops 3 buttons that will determine the outcome of the whole game. Everything you did before got you there, but all that you did or could still do means nothing. Button 1-touchdown, you win, but half your team must die and you might die. Button 2-no touchdown, but you control the ball and you die. Button 3-your team and the other team all become one big team and you die. Seriously, my point is nothing led to those 3 choices-they are from another game. They are from Deus ex (2000 game)-destroy, merge, control.
The kid is another matter and the crucible is a seperate matter. The ending is completely disconnected from the game as it is. The reapers were the antagonists-if they wanted the kid to be, then he should have been introduced as such far earlier than in the last few moments of the game. And his dialog-his ugh, logic, is some of the worst I've read in anything in my many years of life. He totally disregards choices made in 3 games and in ME3 itself. The dyring reaper on Rannoch told my Shepard that synthetics and organics must fight-my Shepard said that wasn't true. My Shepard also said you don't condemn a whole race to extinction based upon what might happen, yet says nothing when the star kid says some future synthetics might kill organics so to save organics he must kill them now. BS, total ridiculous crapola of the highest magnitude. This has no basis for any believability.
Did you play ME1 and 2? I can't see how you could have. There was nothing to point us to this kid popping up and spewing this garbage. Nothing.
Sure it's Bioware's prerogative to do whatever they want with it-I can make fish and pickle cookies and try to sell them, too. But if I promise you I'm going to make chocolate chip cookies and you buy the cookies and they are fish and pickle cookies, is that my prerogative to give you what I want to give you? And not what you want or were told you'd get?
Casey Hudson repeatedly said the game is a collaboration between the fans and Bioware-to quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what he (sic) thinks it means." He repeatedly said it was as much our story as theirs. But, yes they have the right to do whatever they want with it. So, if in the EC they decide that the kid is really Lady Gaga and she's using reapers as her back up dancers and it's all been one big joke. And Shepard turns into Queen Elizabeth wearing a bikini, would that be ok with you if that's their vision of how the game should end?
Should consumers if they have a problem with a product and if they were misled by certain statements made about that product just "live with it"? Keep in mind ME3's ending not only impacts ME3, but 1 and 2, and numerous graphic novels, collectibles, and other accessory items fans bought. Replayability is a big selling point for games and part of the value, the price. If nothing substantial is changed with the EC, for most replayability is gone-for 3 games. And quite often people have been told to play it all again for a completely different experience-well, if all you get are the same 3 choices and endings basically, there is not completely different experience. Maybe the EC will help some of this, but having the 3 choices just ruins all this. The game actually just falls off a cliff.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 juin 2012 - 06:31 .
Retour en haut
