2621 réponses à ce sujet

[IscrewTali]

Aegisje wrote...

The only thing i wanted explained is why shepard killed the whole universe by blowing up all the mass relays....

That only happens if you choose destroy and your EMS is too low. Meaning, you did not gather enough intelligent and capable minds to complete the Crucible and something went wrong.

In every other ending, only the circular(w/e theyre called) parts get destroyed(due to the stress of the energy being released), leaving the rest of the relay intact.

CONTROL FTW

[MoonsKisu]

I am now extremely satisfied with the ending (actually quite pleased) and want to thank Bioware for putting things right. I even hate the star kid less, he kinda made sense to me now. Thank you for all the work put into this EC. Saved the series for me.

[Raybanus]

Simply put, I love it!!

I just finished my game picking each of the 3 options and the amount of detail now in the ending is very satisfying. I actually have no questions that I can think of.

Out of the three, I still think control is the best solution. Synthesis is cool and all, but what do you do when you finally have a perfect utopia? Besides, I like the idea of a bunch of Shepard controlled reapers protecting the galaxy.. He almost becomes a god basically.

[Archonsg]

Here's some food for thought on the EC. I recognize some footage that were originally seen in a leaked release of the original ending. Example; the scene where a large reaper uses its arms to "mount" an alliance destroyerand crush it.

And later we see a layover of the Relays so this time it only shows the rings being blown apart but later we see the sword fleets / reapers passing or repairing ruptured Relays.

So, my guess was that the EC was already being done or was done but was cut out. They obviously reused already worked on scenes and from the looks of that scene where reapers were repairing the ruptured relsy was very likely meant for the original "control" ending... with exploding relays. Only that we called out on the whole ruptured relay thing and they scrambled to try to "fix" it but when reusing the "repair" scene forgot about the whole issue.

[zer0netgain]

TcomJ wrote...

Yap, the rejection ending is retarded. They literally just give you a middle finger regardless of how good you do....its sad.

Don't hate me for this, but if I was the lead writer, and I wasn't pressured to continue the ME universe for the sake of future game titles post-Shepard, I would have made the "rejection" ending the only ending.

Why?

I feel ME deserved a "dark ending."  In spite of all you do, you fail, BUT thanks to Liara's project, a future cycle finds a way to defeat the Reapers....something not possible but for your efforts.

After all, is that not what every cycle that came before that sought a way to defeat the Reapers had to face?  Is it not too predictable to expect the game would end on a happy note for OUR cycle?

I would have written an epic final combat scene (or scenes), and I would have shown many making noble sacrifies, but in the end, the Reapers would prevail.

Then you get the old man and the kid scene, voices altered to sound more "alien," and you hear (with more detail) of how "the Shepard" made it possible for them to be free from the Reaper threat.  I'd not give too much detail, so you can imagine what you want of the aftermath, but I'd leave the gamer with a bittersweet conclusion to the story.

The hero (heck, everyone) dies, but the seed is planted to undo the Reapers at some time in the future.

So, I'm glad it was added into the EC.  While the "destroy" ending makes the most sense based on the events of all three titles, I didn't think any of the given endings were very believable.

Destroy = Stop Reapers but must deal with organic/synthetic conflict that lead to a generation creating the Reapers.

Control = Trust Reaper AI that you can set new agenda for mechanisms out to harvest all advanced organic life (still not enough time to trust the Catalyst at its word).

Synthesis = Who am I to force "conversion" on a whole galaxy?

Modifié par zer0netgain, 28 juin 2012 - 11:58 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

Wesker1984 wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

What the endings really mean:

Control: You fought your way through the Thorian, Sovereign, Saren, the Geth, Collectors and Cerberus. For what? So you can be the foreman on a series of construction projects for the buddies you left behind who are, by the way, all out partying on beaches and dancing in Afterlife. When you are not doing that, you are the equivalent of a third grade teacher breaking up fights between squabbling children. Oh, and even though the Reapers have to do what you tell them, after all you've been through with them, you know deep down, they hate you. P.S. Someone else is now sleeping with your love interest. Embrace eternity.

Synthesis: For three games you've been fighting against hulking machines purging the galaxy of all organic life. The enemy is a group of machines that are part organic and part synthetic. So you beat them by....wait for it...turning every living creature into an organic/synthetic concoction. Plus, everyone you know now has big green eyes. If they also grew red hair, they'd be Irish. So basically, you make everyone Irish. Also, meals now take hours. It's like eating unboned fish. "Waiter, there is a capacitor in my salad!"

Destroy: You've spent at least a game and a half learning that what separates your electric toothbrush from a sentient being is self-awareness leading to a "soul." It is a good thing you've been brushing up on your buddhist discourse. You're going to need it. Enter the biggest bully on the galactic playground, StarBrat. He's after a lot more than your lunch money, by the way. And, he's a clever kid too. Showing early aptitude, StarBrat has figured out that you might actually want to kill him off along with all of his Reaper pals. Obviously, a future Mensa member. You can get rid of the Scut Farcus of video games and all of his giant shrimp machines, but you have to kill off all of your new "soul-mates" to do it. Why? Because StarBrat says so, that's why. Duh! As sad as that is, at least after your done, you get to dig out of your personal rubble pile, dust yourself off and go watch a football game with Ashley (you know she loves football), or a National Geographic special with Liara. You get the picture. Plus, you won't miss any of your favorite shows from now on because you know you're not going to be in any Mass Effect sequels. In honor of your lost friend, you name your flatscreen "EDI."

Reject/"The Finger": Let's be honest. The best parts of the "original endings" of Mass Effect 3 were StarBrat, a gun, and unlimited ammo! Even more funny was watching YouTube video after YouTube video of people shooting StarBrat over and over and over again. Apparently, this moment of player improvisational freedom was not appreciated by certain Mass Effect 3 "ending writers." Shoot the StarBrat now and it's time for the biggest temper tantrum in galactic history (for both StarBrat and the writers). BratBoy screams, pouts, and takes his Reaper toys home along with all organic life. Except the Yagh. (By the way, don't Google 'Yagh.' Trust me.) We didn't spend a lot of time with the Yagh in the Broker DLC. But I do remember his twitchy ears. After watching what happens now when you shoot the StarBrat, I suspect that there are some other people at BioWare who also have twitchy ears. Just sayin'. The good news is that, like all Brats, Star and otherwise, eventually someone kicks their butt. It just won't be you. Or your friends. Or anyone else you know. It will be a big fat Yagh. With twitchy ears.

So you see, what could there possibly be to complain about?

You are not funny. And the green eyes mean they are all now part synthetics dont act like an ignorant by saying such negative things you worth more than that. Be happy we got the altered endings for free.

And dont get why peoples are so upset about the REFUSE option, during the entire game we hear more than once that we can't beat the Reapers with conventional means.

I respect your opinion.  I just don't agree with it.  At all.

What BioWare describes as further "closure" on the endings was, in fact, a complete rewrite of the "original endings."  The "original endings" were just empty cinematic vessels, and, frankly, you could have done almost anything and said you were just expounding upon them.  If that way you need to describe a rewrite so you don't have to concede that the endings were a major problem and strongly disappointing to your customer base, that's what you say.  You can verbalize that you were true to some undefined vision, but I don't think the EC can be called anything but a substantial rewrite. 

What I suspect happened here is that the portion of Mass Effect 3 that is the "ending" was not written by the same team that wrote other parts of the story.  In fact, I can't imagine that the people that gave us other parts of the story thought these "original endings" were remotely faithful to the prior art.  Not only were they artistically inferior (and they are) but they were also commercially foolish. 

There is art in video games.  No question.  But any product producer needs to understand its customers.  I actually think EA knows its customers.  Imagine EA putting out Madden NFL without the Super Bowl champion.  Not smart.  I think BioWare let its project get highjacked in creating the endings.  And I would love for someone in the media to tell that story.  It will take some real investigative reporting, but it is a story worth telling.

BioWare forgot that the Mass Effect franchise was innovative, funny, progressive, all while letting its consumer battle a detestible but clever enemy and shoot it in the face.  You got to make friends, form a team, and win.  The decision to depart from that successful formula was a serious error in art and marketing.  You can't look back on what has happened and conclude differently, in my opinion.  It was bad business, pure and simple. 

To me, it feels as if the endings were highjacked internally.  There is none of the creativity that other parts of the story reflect.  And the EC seems to me like those people who produced other, better parts of the narrative were called in to rescue the ending.  But all they could really do was put lipstick on a pig.  Now, all we are debating is whether we like the shade.  If you do, fine.  But for the first time in this trilogy, there was fan fiction that was really significantly better that the narrative BioWare created.  I wasn't an indoctrination theory believer.  (I believed that there was a story within BioWare about what happened to the creative process with the endings from the time ME3 was released.)  But the IT theory was creatively better than what BioWare produced; it was also responsive to customers. 

I think history will show that this episode did real damage to the brand.  Someone at EA may realize that producing Tiger Woods PGA Tour without Tiger Woods is, well, pretty silly.  And pointless.  And unnecessary.

But I am interested in some reporter telling the real story of the "Ending of Mass Effect 3."

[Redbelle]

Well lets be honest. The reapers were the big scary boogy man and we only downed two..... three if you count the worm kill. Plus any killed offscreen. It's a Reaper war and the war part played second fiddle to bringing the galaxy together so we could have our really big war. That turned out not so big in the end, just a desperate struggle to not get blown up till the armarda could be directed towards somewhere were the fighting mattered.

I'm not against what BW did with the relationship building as ME is a richer experience for the way you interacted with your comrades. Something other games can not hold a candle too. But while fighting on Earth, I never got that 'War' sense, in that we never got to fight alongside our allies.

The only point where I remember seeing NPC allies was near the thanix missle Mako's and I only saw them from a distance before they all got shot down. Still NPC allies in a shooter is a hard trick to pull off so perhaps BW did themselves a favour by only biting off what they could chew.

I still hope that the Earth MP DLC will somehow fill into the SP mode. though without the save game option my only concern, should that happen, is the length of time it'll take to get through it. that's a significant portion of an evening right there.

[BlueStorm83]

---  I've been thinking about this more and more.

The reason I'm still here is because I would still like "better" or "more favorable" endings to the game.  I'm asking now, not demanding, because I feel that the way the game concludes stays true to what was going on all along.

See, BioWare gave us Shepard.  We got to be him, we got to make his choices and live his missions.  But BioWare was the rest of the Universe.  BioWare is Liara and Tali and Mordin and Thane and Miranda and Jacob and Jack and Admiral Hackett and The Illusive Man and This One and Councillor Udina and (triumphantly) even the Elcor.  They get to out Shepard into whatever situation they want.

They just put him into a REALLY ****ty situation.  Like, REALLY ****ty.  I concede: they are allowed to do that so long as we get to keep in command of Shepard.  And that's what we get.  We get to be Shepard and not have any of our options artifically limited.  Shepard having to move slowly and be damaged, well, we got a movie for that (nice to see that the Harb-Beam doesn't hit him right in the boys anymore, and now it's far off and it's just, like, the periphery that messes him up.)  That's more a factual limitation.  Just plain not having options to ask, refute, refuse, etc. in the original endings, which I will call the "Bull**** Cut," was artificial.  There was no good reason why Shepard couldn't at least ASK things.

Now, in that ****ty situation, the 4 reactions that Shepard can make are all... I'll say Valid, for different Shepards being played by different PEOPLE.  Though I like the success and happiness of the Synthesis Ending now (That one scene of Kasumi with Hologram Keiji, dammit, I liked that more than a Hetero Man should be able to!) I still can't really pick it predicated on the information that New Catalyst tells me.  To my Shepard, Control is a hell of a risk, and Refusal is 80% likely the way he'll go.  But there's nothing else that I think he'd consider to do, besides to try and kill the Catalyst.  Which I tried to do by looking around, hoping for some sort of computer core, but didn't find one.

---  But here's the small problem.  And I can overlook this problem, but still, it is very slightly abrasive.  Like how your hands get after handling bricks for an hour or two.  The problem is... Shepard's reacting.  RE-acting.  Shepard has been very Pro-active in the past.

"Saren's gonna screw the Galaxy with ancient robots of death.  I'm gonna assemble a team of commandos, hunt down ancient knowledge, and find a way to stop them!" - Commander Shepard, Mass Effect 1

"A moon's about to hit a colony?  Who's behind it?  Batarian Bastards?  BASTARIANS?!?  Not on my watch!  Time to land on that moon in a sneak attack and find a way to stop it!" - Commander Shepard, Bring Down the Sky.

"Thanks for making me not a gooey corpse on an Ammonia Planet, Cerberus.  Now I'm gonna go against all odds to save Human Colonies from the Collectors, who are pawns of the Reapers, because the Reapers are still gonna kill us all, and I'll find a way to stop them!" - Commander Shepard, Mass Effect 2.

There's more simplified, one paragraph encapsulations of the previous adventures I could come up with, but you get the point.  Enemies had a Plan.  Then Shepard made and enacted a plan to undermine their plans.  Okay, waking up in the Catalyst Room doesn't allow for much time to plan, and he doesn't have much to work with.  That's why the reactive nature of the situation can be overlooked.  By me.

But as a whole, this scenario now feels less limiting than the old Vermire choice.  I really would have liked to try and save them both, even if it resulted in losing both.  I always have to try.  Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann has taught me to never give up.

[BlueStorm83]

--- OH, and here's a cool idea that would be a nice amendment in a future DLC, though it would take some work, and would necesssitate bringing back voice actors. Depending on a lot of dialogue choices that Shepard has made through the game, when discussing things about the war, what he regrets, choices he's made in the past, people he couldn't save... I'd like the Catalyst to be able to take the form of any dead allies. It would pick one, depending on what Shep has said in the past, and also determined by who's dead, of course.

For instance, a Pragmatic Paragon Shepard might see Mordin as the Catalyst; wanting to do the right thing, but believing in picking the lesser of two evils. A Shepard that had a more Renegade background but who grew as a Paragon later on could see Thane. A Humans First Shepard would have the Illusive Man. You'd get Anderson if you were Paragon all along. If you cured the Genophage, but had killed Wrex on Vermire, you'd see him. There would of course be the Ashley or Kaiden possibility. If you had a Love Interest in ME2 that died, you'd get that one. Basically, it would take the form of whatever Shepard's biggest regret or sense of failure would be.

"Hey, wake up, Loco!"
"Wha... James? Oh God, you're dead... was the Normandy destroyed? Is everyone gone?"
"Nah, I'm not dead, Commander. You just regret me being such a late introduction to the series, with possibilities, but not enough content to really flesh out my character."

[Archonsg]

@bluestorm83 that is very B5 nature of order and chaos argument.
I. approve.

[3DandBeyond]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...


I respect your opinion.  I just don't agree with it.  At all.

What BioWare describes as further "closure" on the endings was, in fact, a complete rewrite of the "original endings."  The "original endings" were just empty cinematic vessels, and, frankly, you could have done almost anything and said you were just expounding upon them.  If that way you need to describe a rewrite so you don't have to concede that the endings were a major problem and strongly disappointing to your customer base, that's what you say.  You can verbalize that you were true to some undefined vision, but I don't think the EC can be called anything but a substantial rewrite. 

What I suspect happened here is that the portion of Mass Effect 3 that is the "ending" was not written by the same team that wrote other parts of the story.  In fact, I can't imagine that the people that gave us other parts of the story thought these "original endings" were remotely faithful to the prior art.  Not only were they artistically inferior (and they are) but they were also commercially foolish. 

There is art in video games.  No question.  But any product producer needs to understand its customers.  I actually think EA knows its customers.  Imagine EA putting out Madden NFL without the Super Bowl champion.  Not smart.  I think BioWare let its project get highjacked in creating the endings.  And I would love for someone in the media to tell that story.  It will take some real investigative reporting, but it is a story worth telling.

BioWare forgot that the Mass Effect franchise was innovative, funny, progressive, all while letting its consumer battle a detestible but clever enemy and shoot it in the face.  You got to make friends, form a team, and win.  The decision to depart from that successful formula was a serious error in art and marketing.  You can't look back on what has happened and conclude differently, in my opinion.  It was bad business, pure and simple. 

To me, it feels as if the endings were highjacked internally.  There is none of the creativity that other parts of the story reflect.  And the EC seems to me like those people who produced other, better parts of the narrative were called in to rescue the ending.  But all they could really do was put lipstick on a pig.  Now, all we are debating is whether we like the shade.  If you do, fine.  But for the first time in this trilogy, there was fan fiction that was really significantly better that the narrative BioWare created.  I wasn't an indoctrination theory believer.  (I believed that there was a story within BioWare about what happened to the creative process with the endings from the time ME3 was released.)  But the IT theory was creatively better than what BioWare produced; it was also responsive to customers. 

I think history will show that this episode did real damage to the brand.  Someone at EA may realize that producing Tiger Woods PGA Tour without Tiger Woods is, well, pretty silly.  And pointless.  And unnecessary.

But I am interested in some reporter telling the real story of the "Ending of Mass Effect 3."

I agree with this so much.  I think refuse was put in there as an option in order to say, "see we were listening," but it was also flawed in its implementation.  I had no real problem with it ultimately not being a win (though I'd have loved the chance for that), but it was instant death, game over.  Critical Mission Failure was better because it allowed the player and not Shepard to make the stupid choice.  Picking refuse only allows some future cycle of people to make one of the 3 flawed choices the player would not let Shepard make.  It would have been far better to have a choice inserted (much like existed throughout the games) that allowed the kid to choose, requiring Shepard to enact the kid's choice.

I fully "get" that the whole thing wasn't necessarily about victory only, but more like about victory at any cost.  But the costs are too high.  And rejecting those costs on moral grounds shouldn't mean instant annihilation.  On the one hand, people will argue that real life has costs but on the other hand people will say this is just a game.  Well the thing is it could be viewed through both prisms.  It's a game that is infused with some bits of real life set within a fictional construct.  As a game, there still should be (and I will never concede otherwise) a total win-though with that win comes the knowledge that things are a bit of a mess and need cleaning up, so a win is not bunnies and rainbows, but a win over the big foe and a denial of death.  As fiction with real life undertones, there should be consequences to actions and some might need to be dire.  Those exist even within a total win.  The galaxy needs rebuilding, billions have died, many more suffer still.  Those are the consequences of conflict. 

But, as to the consequences of choice when no choice makes sense the consequence should not be sudden death because you are a fool for not choosing something that is immoral, unthinkable.  Yes, in real life sometimes choosing not to do one of many wrong things can be detrimental, but sometimes it can also let you find what is within you.  You might find you can stand on your own and face down the devil and even win.  But if you must die, let it be in action against such a real foe.  And not in acquiescing to its flawed constructed choice. 

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if the star kid did not create the choices offered to Shepard.  What matters is he set up the no-win scenario that is responsible for the creation of the choices.  He proposes that a conflict that does not exist, exists.  And choices built to address a flawed artificial conflict can never be valid.  The reject option is not only a rejection of the choices, but of the whole illogical concept they were made to address.  The kid was created as a solution to something that does not exist in Shepard's vision.  But, it also sets up the necessity for a solution to deal with the kid and his solution, but not any original problem.  You have to choose because the kid is stuck on stupid.  And reject does not fix the problem which is the kid.

Many people say Control is just great.  Well it's the same thing it always was and more.  Now people actually are shown accepting that mass murderers can become the policemen of the galaxy.  And a humble human can become an artificial god that owns them.

And Synthesis sets up the ultimate solution to a false idea.  People do not seek perfection.  But if given perfection they are advanced beyond what they are ready to be.  And though it cannot be forced upon people, as the kid says, it is forced upon people.  And why is this so, because the kid says people seek perfection through technology.  NO, NO THEY DON'T.  This indicates that at the core people just hate being people.  People seek happiness.  Perfection does not equal happiness.  Advancement for that sake does not create happiness and in fact introduces problems. 

I just guess I still have the same problems with the choices as ever, but probably even more so now.

[Drammattex]

MoonsKisu wrote...

I am now extremely satisfied with the ending (actually quite pleased) and want to thank Bioware for putting things right. I even hate the star kid less, he kinda made sense to me now. Thank you for all the work put into this EC. Saved the series for me.

Ditto. 

Loved it.

Bioware, thanks a million for the expanded ending. To me, it felt like the natural conclusion to the game I'd been playing.

When I finished the game prior to the DLC, I was confused and apathetic. 

This time I was engaged,  joyful, sad. Bittersweet. A whole gamut of emotions. The new clarity, more consistent Shepard behavior, and "concluding notes" truly made it into the game I had always hoped it would be.

Thanks, thanks, and thanks again. 

[3DandBeyond]

One of the things I will add is that though I hate Destroy for what it does (still genocide), I see it as the only possible authentic ending.

Control and Synthesis both say that people cannot do anything on their own. The reapers have forever been seeding the galaxy with their tech. In Control it's most obvious-people can't achieve on their own and need the reapers to fix it. In Synthesis it's obvious-people can't work out conflict on their own and need intervention, need to be fixed so it never happens.

Neither choice allows for people relying on themselves and on the faith in their own better natures. People become mere children in need of this intrusive overseer who will take care of everything. This could be seen as the devs expose on religious faith, but it lacks this feature. In religious faith it's the human spirit that seeks to do better for something seen as real, but still unseen. It helps formulate values and gives direction at its best.

Control and Synthesis create a "direct intervention", that is tangible and complete, overwhelming and decides values and mandates direction.

It is one thing to believe in something and try to do better. It is another to be forced to do that. Because it also removes any ability to decide for oneself just what "better" is.

Control and Synthesis have many things wrong with them, but they exist to tell people you can't achieve on your own. Mass relays need repair-it's unnecessary to learn how to make one for yourself, because the reapers will fix them OR you will automatically know how to do it, never needing to learn for yourself-the knowledge has been given to you. The growth of the soul (religious or not-the heart) is denied.

It's like having a child. Do everything for that child, tell them what to think, deny them their independent will and they will always remain an immature child. Guide their learning, let them even fail at times, be there when you can, and not always when they want, and they grow and adapt and they learn. Otherwise, they may as well be non-sentient synthetic beings.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

*snipped*

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if the star kid did not create the choices offered to Shepard.  What matters is he set up the no-win scenario that is responsible for the creation of the choices.  He proposes that a conflict that does not exist, exists.  And choices built to address a flawed artificial conflict can never be valid.  The reject option is not only a rejection of the choices, but of the whole illogical concept they were made to address.  The kid was created as a solution to something that does not exist in Shepard's vision.  But, it also sets up the necessity for a solution to deal with the kid and his solution, but not any original problem.  You have to choose because the kid is stuck on stupid.  And reject does not fix the problem which is the kid.

Many people say Control is just great.  Well it's the same thing it always was and more.  Now people actually are shown accepting that mass murderers can become the policemen of the galaxy.  And a humble human can become an artificial god that owns them.

And Synthesis sets up the ultimate solution to a false idea.  People do not seek perfection.  But if given perfection they are advanced beyond what they are ready to be.  And though it cannot be forced upon people, as the kid says, it is forced upon people.  And why is this so, because the kid says people seek perfection through technology.  NO, NO THEY DON'T.  This indicates that at the core people just hate being people.  People seek happiness.  Perfection does not equal happiness.  Advancement for that sake does not create happiness and in fact introduces problems. 

I just guess I still have the same problems with the choices as ever, but probably even more so now.

---  Yep, Starboy still puts forward a "problem" that's not really a problem.  To everyone but him: so what if there's no harmony between Organics and Synthetics?  To him:  My programmed Goal is the only thing that matters, everyone who tells me that it's stupid is clearly wrong, life is no more than the sum of its parts and can easily be reduced and stored, either as a Reaper Monstrosity or as a Reaper full of data on a civilization that I wiped out because they couldn't be totally preserved.

Yes, Starboy is still The Villian of the series.  The only concession that I'll give him is that now he's CRIMINALLY insane, and not just "bounce off the walls, contradict myself left and right, la la la la la, the Geth aren't friends with the Quarrians now, la la la!"  Now he's more "Yeah, they're friends NOW, but in ym experience this won't last, and I need to preserve a non-conflicting state FOREVER, nothing else matters."  He's the maintenance man who kills people who work in the office, because if there's no people to leave coffee cups and cake wrappers and energy bar crumbs around, then the office will be clean and he'll have done his job.

I can also give the concession that with any of the 3 choices, at least the war is over now.  Control erases the Starboy.  COULD Shepard become just like him one day?  Possibly, but since Starboy never changed from the literalistic stupid AI he was all along, there's also a chance that Shepard could stay Shepard forever.  Synthesis gives in to his flawed logic that Organics and Synthetics even NEED a constant harmony, but with his purpose fulfilled, he's done.  Much rather kill him, but he'd never exterminate anyone again.  Destroy... honestly, I still don't know why this option is there at all.  Well, okay, it's a new possibility that Starboy never considered.  Totally removing any and all Synthetics, including himself.  Yes, again, it gives in to his logic; as long as there's no Synthetics, there will be no conflict-state between them and Organics.

Then there's the Reject Option.  Total and Ultimate Sacrifice.  CAN Shepard make this call for everyone?  Yeah.  SHOULD he?  Honestly, I don't know.  By refusing to accept Starboy's goal as all-important, all Shepard is doing is allowing Natural Selection to continue.  As cold and unfeeling as it sounds, if Humanity can't stand on its own two feet and survive, then it doesn't deserve to.  Liara's explaining that they built the Crucible, but it didn't work, gave me the impression that the forewarning that they gave to the next cycle, along with all of the information and technological data they left behind, allowed them to be ready for the Reapers when they showed up, and not need the Crucible at all.  I may be wrong, and that would suck.  Well, it would suck more than the current bad endings.

---  But you thought that I liked the endings now!  Nah.  I don't "like" them.  Well, that's not true: I like the way they play out, but I still think that necessitating the four choices is a **** situation.  Good as a coherent experience.  Good as a "work of art" whatever the HELL that means.  But still bad from the perspective that this is a videogame, and we play videogames to overcome incredible odds and save the day.

Look at that last statement.  SAVE the DAY.  Save it.  THIS day, right now.  Refusal saves SOME day.  Synthesis CHANGES the day.  Destroy saves afternoon and night, but destroys a morning we already thought we saved.  Control...  Well, control saves the day with the horrible possibility of one day, maybe, the sun will never rise on another day.  I don't think that it WILL backfire, based on the Sheaper Epilogue and his insistence on remembering and being guided by the sacrifices of Legion (individuality and self determination) Thane (Redemption and spirituality) and Mordin (Kindness and sacrifice,) but it could.  None of them are perfect endings.

Is there ever a Perfect Ending?  No.  I've never beaten a game and haven't thought that I couldn't do better.  Would these endings have removed around 98% of the complaints that we all had and even still have, had they been there from the begining?  Yeah.  I think that if we weren't already picking apart the previous blatantly broken endings even the most angry of us would have gone, "Wait, that's the ending?  Man, I wanted more."  Then shrugged and gone on with our lives.

But do I think that you can still keep the "integrity" of the current endings while also including a SUPER ending?  Yes, I do.  Like I keep saying.  Give us Leviathan.  Give us retaking Omega.  Give us opening a new relay and finding some new kind of ally.  Give us some new kind of secret Cerberus project to build their own Anti-Reaper that we can go and steal.  And then cap it all off with the Final Cut DLC that I'm dreaming of, where we can reject and fight and win.  Make it tough as hell to get that perfect ending, make us need 30,000 EMS, I don't care.  And when I say to "give" us those DLCs, I mean to SELL them to us.  If those things we do can contribute to an even better ending, I think that most of us would be willing to buy.  BioWare has brought many many incensed customers back to a state of neutrality.

---  But don't you dare think that you can get away with making games with **** endings in the future on purpose, to then capitalize with paid DLC.  Mass Effect is a special case.  A one time only.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 28 juin 2012 - 02:54 .

[BlueStorm83]

*Reply to an earlier post by 3DandBeyond:

Well, I seek perfection.  In every regard.  Synthesis would be cool for me, if it were my choice, and I didn't RAPE anyone else with it.  Optional Synthesis.  If Starboy had said that the energy would change all WILLING life into a new synthesized state, I'd say that this choice is acceptable.  It would have been nice to see the ending memorial wall, maybe Joker's synthesized to be more compatible with EDI, but James is still his old self, etc etc.  And the weird glowing organic circuitry on the skin doesn't make much sense.  Circuits have definite functions, and if one is cut, that function is lost.  Would a paper cut ruin your ability to do something until it healed?

I think that Synthesis would be more palatable if it removed the ALL life requirement and those stupid circuits.  They could keep the synth-eyes, I suppose.  I don't know, it would have worked out better to just see normal people walking around, projecting holograms with their hands or talking on phones that aren't there, or maybe see that Salarian videogame dealer from ME2 playing "Galaxy of Fantasy" online with a self-projected visor, like the one that EDI always had.  Maybe have the green shimmering circuits like wash over people and then disappear in a few seconds.

But again, this is just me offering opinions that BioWare could totally steal for a Final Cut (free) DLC later on.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 28 juin 2012 - 03:03 .

[Squeeze the Fish]

BioWare,

I am so pleased with the Extended Cut DLC. Thank you for fleshing out what you already established. I had no expectations, so this was quite a wonderful surprise for me. Also- LOVED the extra squad-mate extraction scene. Thank you guys!

[3DandBeyond]

See the thing is Bluestorm83,

I don't think people seek perfection. It's an end goal maybe, but always seen as unrealistic. Nobody's perfect, you can't be perfect, can't please everyone, and so on. We may seek it on some level, but we know it is never going to happen and we also know that there's no point beyond perfection. What we seek is happiness. We may say this or that would be great, but what's the goal really. If we look for perfection it is so that we can be happy. If we look to be rich, what good is it without happiness? But the fact that happiness is also somewhat transient and not a real end goal makes it more precious.  Often, nothing given to you as shown so freely is ever worth the price paid.

Now, Shepard's choice of Control or Synthesis are not free for Shepard, but they are for everyone else and so are their consequences, good and bad. They are childish choices. Control is the nanny (reapers that will fix it all) and Synthesis is automatic advancement to "perfection" as seen by the kid-his idea of perfection and mine are vastly different. I don't care to be augmented at a DNA level to be partly tech. That is not perfection. Perfection to me is an unreal goal, but it would be more in being the best (organic) person I could be.

And to add to the insult, if you are too stupid to see these wonderful choices and won't make one (because you might actually have a moral objection-stupid person that you are) then refuse to make a decision, because someone else well make it after you are gone. There is no moral objection to abhorrent choices. I don't know what they are commenting on but it's obvious it's something. Whether this is just the middle finger to players (part of it, I'm sure) or if they were trying to enforce their objection to an actual moral issue of the day I don't know. But, it's clearly a commentary on something.

Both Synthesis and Control indicate that people cannot stand on their own and solve their own problems. They need to be taken care of, by advancement or with the ever watchful nanny.

Destroy ends up being the most adult decision. It is genocide and I hate it just to be clear. But, it's the only one that says present day people will take their chances, find their own way, fumble forward and hopefully learn and grow on their own. Yes, they will have to learn how to fix and make relays. Yes, they will fail a lot, but that's life. And it's the only way to happiness, because happiness is a transitory state and it goes hand in hand with struggle. It isn't an end state of perfection (synthesis) or being taken care of (control), it is independent discovery, falling flat on your face and standing back up and trying again. But Destroy is treated with a lot of disdain by the devs. And so is Shepard. Destroy is also accepting the conclusions the kid offers, but at least he will forever be gone. The chaos or even the reapers may come back, but he's the one that turned them into what we see in ME. They were not intrinsically driven to destroy all advanced organics because that was not the reason for their creation.

Rejection is procrastination at its most awful. It does not accept the kid's crazy, but... It's just saying I don't want to make a choice so in making a choice I am really deciding we all die. No ifs, ands, or buts. Let someone else do it and in letting someone in the future do it Shepard may be allowing someone else to decide again that people are really stupid children incapable of standing on their own. It's almost as expressed in this way, the most childish decision of all and I think that's what they wanted it to be.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 28 juin 2012 - 04:06 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- I get you, I get you.

When I picked Rejection, I was flat out rejecting him. It wasn't indescision or procrastination. I clearly said to him that I reject him and his choices. And that is a way that present people will take their chances. The only thing is, they fail at it.

And yeah, I totally agree, Synthesis and Control do both take adulthood away from the present day races, and reduces them back to being children to be taken care of.

The only thing that makes the game's endings "acceptable" to me now is that there's nothing actually physically STOPPING Shepard from following anything besides the moral implications.

And yes, even becoming Organic Technology isn't actual perfection to me. There actually is no true perfection, as mind boggling as that is. Because if you have everything- well, now you're limited, since you can't get more. And if you can get more, then by definition you're not perfect.

Did you just shoot Starboy to get Rejection? Or did you pick the dialogue choices to tell him to shove it? Because Shepard's speech about freedom and self determination and taking our chances as we are and not submitting to his rhetoric were pretty sweet.

[Redbelle]

Here's a good take on rejection from Forbes

http://www.forbes.co...of-mass-effect/

[3DandBeyond]

I didn't choose any ending but Destroy because I saw that still as the goal all along. I have however watched all endings on youtube. My cousin played it and I watched other endings. I think Hale does a fantastic job in that refusal speech-Meers is wooden in my opinion and yes it's done well and I can't fault them for that ever. They do show the things they show well, if that makes sense. I just object still to the arbitrary nature of the costs of moral objection (because is this not also a morality play in many ways?), the definition of perfection and the audacity to suggest everyone sees it in one certain way, the devs' rewards to players who decided that death was the only authentic response to all this. I just think that in having moral objections to these things there should be some way forward.

I mean I picked Destroy because it was the reason we came there. This time around it really hurt because I could convince myself before that well EDI might make it, and knew the geth died. This time the kid hinted they might not die, but then there's EDI's name on the wall. I didn't see it the first time around and saw that in a post, so I went back and looked for myself and I was crushed. And then I noticed you don't see the geth in any slides, so they must have died too. I didn't just choose it so Shepard could live, but for me that was the most authentic choice. But it's apparently what they think is the most selfish. Shepard hasn't suffered enough. This is a video game, and that means you get video (visual content) and a game. Both of these indicate a win with pictures. But only those that wanted a dead Shepard got closure. You think it should end happier, well F U. That's what this game says to me.

I see Destroy as the only thinking quasi moral choice even with genocide. I don't want EDI and the geth dead, but at one point EDI did say she was prepared to die for an end to the reapers. I can convince myself she'd understand. The geth well I must do much the same thing. And I can't choose anything else. I won't give up the choice and let someone else make it sometime in the future-it is my choice. And I'm not offered any other way to reject it all other than to shut off the game.

I won't tell people, force people, or make people be children forever fated to not advancing as they see fit and in their own time-growing into themselves. All along my Shepard has been a real Shepherd to the future of the human soul. My Shepard helped people become alive and learn to care. My Shepard wouldn't want to be an example in the end of how wrong she was about all that, telling people that they aren't worth much without outside "direct intervention". All of Shepard's friends and teammates were flawed misfits, children. Shepard helped them become adults. So, my Shepard couldn't tell them they never were.

Just being stupid trying to explain why I never chose anything else.

[Redbelle]

Well Shep is a soldier, he's fighting a war and it's the only ending that leads to a gasp scene implying something more is going on there.

[sdinc009]

So, just finished last night a few of the EC endings with 100% Galactic Readyness and full completion. And though my opinion is bias from my extreme hatred of the original endings and thoughts that this was going to be another epic failure even up to re-meeting the stupid ghost kid, I've got to say, well done Bioware!. I've yet to complete the Synthesis and Destroy endings (will do today after work), but I was surprisingly satisfied with the endings so far. They weren't perfect and there are still some holes (the Catalysts logic is still stupid given that the synthetic vs. organic plot is already resolved in the narrative plus Deus Ex Machina's are bad plot devices), but they're now so minor as to not break the story or dissolve the suspension of disbelief. I've got to go through the remaining endings before I can comment further, but right now... Thank you Bioware, you've won back a loyal customer.

[zer0netgain]

Redbelle wrote...

Here's a good take on rejection from Forbes

http://www.forbes.co...of-mass-effect/

Makes some good points....

Without the intervention of Liara T’Soni, the rest of Mass Effect would
be an increasingly frustrated Shepard roaming the galaxy shooting at
Geth while having nightmares that resemble nothing so much as a Nine
Inch Nails video covered in marmalade, until the Reapers arrive and
civilized life is extinguished from the galaxy.

Made me chuckle.

So, while Shepard cannons around the galaxy recruiting allies however he
can, Liara devotes her archeological skills and network to trying to do
what none of these previous races have achieved. However, she also has a
backup plan. If the allied races are not able to defeat the Reapers
this cycle, she plans to make sure that the next cycle will not be
scrambling around, like Shepard and she are, trying to find obscure
clues from archeological artifacts. Instead, she is going to take
advantage of the time they have to create a complete record of all the
available anti-Reaper data up to that moment, so that, instead of being
surprised when the Reapers appear from deep space, the next cycle of
spacefaring races have millennia to prepare.

....

Shepard and his allies had to scramble through Reaper-occupied space
scanning for possible clues, as their industrial and scientific base was
destroyed around them. The next cycle, thanks to Liara, will
potentially have millennia to prepare, and a complete set of plans to
start out from. During this time, whichever species are at the apex of
galactic civilization can perhaps work out how to get the Crucible to
function more as hoped, or reverse-engineer its technology to create a
different weapon entirely.
Shepard is dooming her cycle to almost certain defeat. But she is
doing so in the knowledge that the next cycle will have the tools to win
– and to win without compromise.
Ladies, Gentlemen. I give you the true hero of Mass Effect. Scourge of the Reapers. Saviors of galactic civilization….
The Thessia University Archeology Department.

....

By refusing to use the Crucible, Shepard is taking a moral stance –
saying that she is willing to play the long game, if that’s what it
takes to defeat the Reapers. She is not prepared to write off an entire
sentient race as an acceptable cost. She is, in that sense, refusing to
think like a Reaper – with their genocidal utilitarianism – or to accept
the Reapers’ tools as the only way to deal with them.
Without Liara T’Soni’s knowledge, making that choice would be insane.
Without Liara T’Soni’s perspective, Shepard would not be able to
consider it. But she has both. So, the rejection ending is the ending
where Shepard stays true to her principles, refuses to compromise and
places her trust in her current cycle not to want victory at any cost,
and the cycles to come to defeat the Reapers without having to
compromise. It’s a difficult ending, and certainly a bittersweet one –
in all probability, none of the characters we have met over the three
games will get to live to a ripe old age surrounded by $alienskintone
babies. But it is still a heroic ending – and, thanks to the real hero
of Mass Effect, still a hopeful one.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

Here's a good take on rejection from Forbes

http://www.forbes.co...of-mass-effect/

Mass Effect Origins in 2015, what is that an MMO or what?

[Archonsg]

@bluestorm83
I choose the dialogue rejection.
The speech brought a tear to my eye as to me it was the "here is MY Shepard!" moment, to see not a beaten and spiritually dead Shepard but the one we have played with over the years.

Than came the "FU" moment and I was like "..."

I can accept why they did this, just not forgive.

Modifié par Archonsg, 28 juin 2012 - 05:11 .