Ce sujet est fermé
Modifié par Wesker1984, 29 juin 2012 - 04:29 .
BlueStorm83 wrote...
--- I was going over the Starboy's Destroy Option explanation dialogue. It struck me that he said "The Crucible is largely intact" when I asked what Destroy would do.
Hold up a second, "Largely Intact?" When I got hit by a Station Wagon, I was "Largely intact" but I still have permanent nerve damage in my left leg. To me, that does not sound like "Complete and undamaged." Does this leave the door open for a Destroy Ending where the Crucible is COMPLETELY, 100%, without any flaws or shortcomings operational? And could THAT Crucible be good enough to kill the Reapers without destroying EDI and the Geth? Even if it just adds a scene of slideshow scientists repairing EDI's body, and maybe building a new version of a Geth mobile platform?
Very interesting... very interesting indeed.
WolfyZA wrote...
Still boggles me how the Normandy crashed landed on planet "Eden" in the first place. The ship still looked fine and dandy to me when escaping the *insert colour* wave
BearlyHere wrote...
Those who still stand by "artistic integrity" should read The Agony and The Ecstasy," or just watch the old movie, to see what a real artist, Michelangelo, had to contend with from Pope Julius II while working on the Sistine Chapel. Artists always have to answer to their patrons, unless they're independently wealthy. That goes for writers as well. Most have editors they have to submit work to on a regular basis, until they get very popular, like Steven King for example. Then their readers just wish they still had to submit to an editor. In the same way, many movies are test marketed, and if the audiences don't get the ending, or hate it, it can and will be changed. Reworking the ending of a game has plenty of precedent in other creative venues.
Pinax wrote...
BearlyHere wrote...
Those who still stand by "artistic integrity" should read The Agony and The Ecstasy," or just watch the old movie, to see what a real artist, Michelangelo, had to contend with from Pope Julius II while working on the Sistine Chapel. Artists always have to answer to their patrons, unless they're independently wealthy. That goes for writers as well. Most have editors they have to submit work to on a regular basis, until they get very popular, like Steven King for example. Then their readers just wish they still had to submit to an editor. In the same way, many movies are test marketed, and if the audiences don't get the ending, or hate it, it can and will be changed. Reworking the ending of a game has plenty of precedent in other creative venues.
Generally "artistic" should always go together with "integrity" - this is how you find this is art that all it's composents are integral (style, story telling, characters, world etc.). The current endings, even with the EC, is not coherent with the whole series plot so, sorry, there is absolutely no "artistic integrity" here.
IMO the writers in ME3 were making the ending like all races were building the Crucible in the game: no one knows what it really does and if it makes sense, but all hope that at the end it will blow and resolve all problems.
Pinax wrote...
BearlyHere wrote...
Those who still stand by "artistic integrity" should read The Agony and The Ecstasy," or just watch the old movie, to see what a real artist, Michelangelo, had to contend with from Pope Julius II while working on the Sistine Chapel. Artists always have to answer to their patrons, unless they're independently wealthy. That goes for writers as well. Most have editors they have to submit work to on a regular basis, until they get very popular, like Steven King for example. Then their readers just wish they still had to submit to an editor. In the same way, many movies are test marketed, and if the audiences don't get the ending, or hate it, it can and will be changed. Reworking the ending of a game has plenty of precedent in other creative venues.
Generally "artistic" should always go together with "integrity" - this is how you find this is art that all it's composents are integral (style, story telling, characters, world etc.). The current endings, even with the EC, is not coherent with the whole series plot so, sorry, there is absolutely no "artistic integrity" here.
IMO the writers in ME3 were making the ending like all races were building the Crucible in the game: no one knows what it really does and if it makes sense, but all hope that at the end it will blow and resolve all problems.
Archonsg wrote...
The real question is, would it be commercially viable for EA/Bioware to produce another ending DLC for ME3 or Single Player Paid DLC?
Bubbles How long can they hold back on such content before fans become disinterested and go into "Nah, I'm going to play that other new and shiny game over there."?
As much as I want an alternate ending DLC, and am willing to pay for it (was willing to pay for it from day one) I can't honestly see EA/Bioware go "We'll make that Alternate Ending Pack after all..." but, hey, by all means surprise me.
As for the Leviathan DLC, I am asking myself seriously, what is the point of buying this or playing it if it does not allow for a drastic change? Meaning, no more Control, Destroy, or Synthesis ending. Would this give me a chance for victory with the reject option? If not why then bother to bother to play the game, to extend my game just so I can see Shepard die again?
You see, while the ECDLC did address some of the issues that plagued the original ending, the core issue that the writers' "artistic vision" called for Shepard's death at every choice point. Breath scene I still content is NOT a commitment to the fact that Shepard survives and lives. Note that they did not even try to explain how Shepard survives, or how or where Shepard is, amongst concrete and asphalt rubble. Last I checked, the Citadel does not use asphalt.
darkway1 wrote...
I think that Bioware not addressing or expanding on Shepard's rubble scene has given them a valuable open door of possibilities.......and I think they did this on purpose.......it's obvious that bringing Shepard back to life will generate mega sales for Bioware,there's such a huge demand for it but I have to ask is that what people actually want????.......I sense that what a lot of people really want is the reunion of Shepard and "LI" at the end?????..........would people give a **** about the universe blowing up if in the final moments you were with the one you love????......just curious.
3DandBeyond wrote...
Archonsg wrote...
The real question is, would it be commercially viable for EA/Bioware to produce another ending DLC for ME3 or Single Player Paid DLC?
Bubbles How long can they hold back on such content before fans become disinterested and go into "Nah, I'm going to play that other new and shiny game over there."?
As much as I want an alternate ending DLC, and am willing to pay for it (was willing to pay for it from day one) I can't honestly see EA/Bioware go "We'll make that Alternate Ending Pack after all..." but, hey, by all means surprise me.
As for the Leviathan DLC, I am asking myself seriously, what is the point of buying this or playing it if it does not allow for a drastic change? Meaning, no more Control, Destroy, or Synthesis ending. Would this give me a chance for victory with the reject option? If not why then bother to bother to play the game, to extend my game just so I can see Shepard die again?
You see, while the ECDLC did address some of the issues that plagued the original ending, the core issue that the writers' "artistic vision" called for Shepard's death at every choice point. Breath scene I still content is NOT a commitment to the fact that Shepard survives and lives. Note that they did not even try to explain how Shepard survives, or how or where Shepard is, amongst concrete and asphalt rubble. Last I checked, the Citadel does not use asphalt.
The Shepard lives ending is the only one that did not get full closure-I have theories as to why that is since closure was the thing the devs bandied about as the biggest concern. That they purposely left off closure for the one debatably "happier" ending (hated, hated, hated killing EDI and geth) says something. Their stated reason rings false. They said it's because people all might have different reunions they'd like to see. I say BS. I think people wouldn't mind imagining all the stuff that came after, but I think the most important thing would have been just seeing that Shepard was alive and all his/her friends knew that. Just one scene of an alive Shepard surrounded by friends and his/her LI or best friend stepping forward tearfully happy or just happy that Shepard lives. Sure, I think people dreamt of blue babies, homes on Rannoch, beers on a beach in Rio, drinking with Garrus and so on, but I don't think that was expected. One simple scene would have let us know that that did happen-a dramatic moment of victory and hope.
Because this didn't happen (and I'd rather there were different options for Shepard to survive that did not involve compromising his/her values and principles), I can see no reason for DLC that leads to the same endings. Nothing in that has changed. What good is fighting more against the reapers if nothing changes or if nothing more can happen? And since the War Asset ratings don't tend to make a lot of sense as far as the values given, what's one "rogue" reaper going to be worth? 25?
--------
My theory about the Leviathans---I know this is really long and don't expect everyone to read it, but if you do, thanks.
As I see the Leviathans, I think they were the original "reapers" but not reapers, if you get what I mean. They are more like the original geth as opposed to the heretic geth.
The star kid uploaded his creators into what became reapers-some leviathans and he put his own energy or his programming in them as well. It may be that the creators had made these since the Leviathan of Dis was found to be a genetically engineered ship's corpse that the Batarians found and that was indoctrinating the whole system when accidentally re-activated. It is perhaps this fact-that the reaper/leviathan could indoctrinate that is one of the original issues that brought about the creation of the catalyst. I think perhaps the leviathans are the machine devils the beings of light sought to protect organics from-but only some were part of the catalyst/reaper consciousness, and became the current reapers. So I don't see the leviathans as rogue reapers but non-reapers.
I am wondering if this isn't the goal of control--creating a more "sane" catalyst that can fight the oncoming threat of the return of the outlaw leviathans. Since the kid's creators are also within the reapers maybe they had originally created the crucible's plans as a failsafe against the kid whom they saw was going rogue himself. Maybe they saw that the kid had twisted the whole purpose for which he was created because the goal was to mitigate the threat of the leviathans and find balance and harmony. This might make sense as to why he thought the way to achieve it was to put the creators into one (maybe Harbinger) reaper.
But his goal then just became more twisted as his programming unraveled. He was charged with finding harmony and balance, and his solution was to create more reapers which then turned into the need for more advanced organic intelligence energy to create more reapers. His solution to a problem (the threat of the leviathans) turned into his goal.
I say this because his original purpose was to find balance and harmony in order to save organic life. It wasn't to harvest advanced organic life to preserve it-it was to stop synthetics from destroying organic life. In fact he harvested his creators which they did not like-so that was not what he was supposed to do, so that was never the original purpose of the reapers, and it wasn't the desired solution. Something changed him and he needed to go. His creators may have finally found someone who could change all this by using the crucible. The kid clearly wants Synthesis because that would fit with his warped programming. Can't find an answer then you must change things to remove the problem. It's like a parent seeing kids fighting over toys and finding no way to get them to work together so the parent throws out the toys. The kid removes what he sees is the conflict. He doesn't see that the best solution is getting people to live peacefully together.
The kid hates control as a choice. Because he's replaced. But, if the reapers are to "survive" he must be replaced. I could see this making sense if the Leviathans were always the threat.
The kid doesn't seem to care about destroy as a choice. He gives commentary on the other 2 choices but nothing really on destroy other than its effect on some tech and the state of the crucible.
Reject just stands alone and is just letting someone later make a choice, but still no idea on what happened with the Leviathans. It seems clear to me to do justice to the story of the leviathans content would have to span (at least within narration) different generations, from their creation and beyond the current ending, but the devs have said there will be nothing that takes place after this ending. Who knows.
The real question is, would it be commercially viable for EA/Bioware to produce another ending DLC for ME3 or Single Player Paid DLC?
Bubbles How long can they hold back on such content before fans become disinterested and go into "Nah, I'm going to play that other new and shiny game over there."?
As much as I want an alternate ending DLC, and am willing to pay for it (was willing to pay for it from day one) I can't honestly see EA/Bioware go "We'll make that Alternate Ending Pack after all..." but, hey, by all means surprise me.
As for the Leviathan DLC, I am asking myself seriously, what is the point of buying this or playing it if it does not allow for a drastic change? Meaning, no more Control, Destroy, or Synthesis ending. Would this give me a chance for victory with the reject option? If not why then bother to bother to play the game, to extend my game just so I can see Shepard die again?
You see, while the ECDLC did address some of the issues that plagued the original ending, the core issue that the writers' "artistic vision" called for Shepard's death at every choice point. Breath scene I still content is NOT a commitment to the fact that Shepard survives and lives. Note that they did not even try to explain how Shepard survives, or how or where Shepard is, amongst concrete and asphalt rubble. Last I checked, the Citadel does not use asphalt.
Modifié par Pinax, 29 juin 2012 - 02:07 .
Pinax wrote...
The real question is, would it be commercially viable for EA/Bioware to produce another ending DLC for ME3 or Single Player Paid DLC?
Bubbles How long can they hold back on such content before fans become disinterested and go into "Nah, I'm going to play that other new and shiny game over there."?
As much as I want an alternate ending DLC, and am willing to pay for it (was willing to pay for it from day one) I can't honestly see EA/Bioware go "We'll make that Alternate Ending Pack after all..." but, hey, by all means surprise me.
As for the Leviathan DLC, I am asking myself seriously, what is the point of buying this or playing it if it does not allow for a drastic change? Meaning, no more Control, Destroy, or Synthesis ending. Would this give me a chance for victory with the reject option? If not why then bother to bother to play the game, to extend my game just so I can see Shepard die again?
You see, while the ECDLC did address some of the issues that plagued the original ending, the core issue that the writers' "artistic vision" called for Shepard's death at every choice point. Breath scene I still content is NOT a commitment to the fact that Shepard survives and lives. Note that they did not even try to explain how Shepard survives, or how or where Shepard is, amongst concrete and asphalt rubble. Last I checked, the Citadel does not use asphalt.
Exactely my concerns as well. To be honest I am completely uninterested by the Leviathan DLC with the current endings and this is not a question of money, but rather a feeling of being fooled. Moreover I am not even interested by getting back to ME1 and ME2 because of exactely the same reasons : tried to play ME2 yesterday and it was a complete emotional fail, knowing how all this is supposed to end.
Besides the idea of the "rogue Reaper" as a potential ally (please correct me if I am misinterpretating) seems so absurd to me in the context of the previous parts that I don't know if I am supposed to laugh or just forget I ever enjoyed ME.
As for me the only motivation for the ME3 DLC would be collecting more war assets and litterally see how they affect the ending (and not just having one more before final strike conversation!), just like I was hoping that any ME1 and ME2 DLC would affect my ME3 play though.
Retour en haut