they could have just made the crucible do what happened to Sovereign but only stronger
Extended Cut: SPOILER Discussion
Débuté par
FatalX7.0
, juin 26 2012 09:30
Retour en haut
#3628
Posté 01 août 2012 - 06:06
Zukota
-
- Members
- 20 messages
@3DandBeyond
I would have been far more accepting of that ending style, having our Shepard react in a way matching his character up to that point, rather than being a blank slate with an ability to choose three options regardless of morality.
The fact of the matter is that they told us we were getting one thing and gave us another, it's something I expect from Peter Molyneux, not Bioware.
I would have hoped that they would listen to fan criticism and improved things rather than going, "What we need is a slide show, some added length and mild variation to the palette swapped cut scenes, and narration by one of three characters. That ought to make everything better!"
I would have been far more accepting of that ending style, having our Shepard react in a way matching his character up to that point, rather than being a blank slate with an ability to choose three options regardless of morality.
The fact of the matter is that they told us we were getting one thing and gave us another, it's something I expect from Peter Molyneux, not Bioware.
I would have hoped that they would listen to fan criticism and improved things rather than going, "What we need is a slide show, some added length and mild variation to the palette swapped cut scenes, and narration by one of three characters. That ought to make everything better!"
#3629
Posté 01 août 2012 - 04:14
TGiNcRySiS
-
- Members
- 147 messages
Here's the thing. People like happy endings. We have no option for this AT ALL. A last gasp? That's not exactly happy. For example The Empire Strikes back wasn't a happy ending but we all loved that movie. But we also knew that the next installment was going to end well because that's how things work. Reapers destroyed with repercussions...fine. I can live with that. But 4 endings with 3 of them being total crap is just ludicrous. I think the folks at Bioware ran into a problem. They couldn't figure out a way to make things turn out to match your Shepard in the time given in development. (See Dragon Age 2 as an example of meeting deadlines for games) All along you are told the choices dictate the game and all of a sudden they don't. I would have waited an extra year and paid an extra 40 bucks if the game was "finished". Maybe "polished" is a better word because it certainly is finished. This maybe one of the most talked about gaming controversies ever. This isn't a 50/50 split for like/dislike ending. The dislike side is way bigger.
How can Bioware rebound? Like I said, give some GOOD DLC for free. Dragon Age 3 needs to be epic. They took a decent step yesterday with a F2P version of SWTOR. Deep down I want to believe that EA is at the root of all this evil.
How can Bioware rebound? Like I said, give some GOOD DLC for free. Dragon Age 3 needs to be epic. They took a decent step yesterday with a F2P version of SWTOR. Deep down I want to believe that EA is at the root of all this evil.
#3630
Posté 01 août 2012 - 04:28
V-rcingetorix
-
- Members
- 575 messages
One thing that I find somewhat interesting is the potential for all three endings. Think about it, in ME1, you have to earn a high enough Paragon to save Zhu's Hope, successfully talk down the Alliance Admiral, and talk down Wrex.
In ME2, you have to have a high enough Paragon to talk down Miranda/Jack, and to make other decisions.
In ME3, I didn't notice any decisions nearly as important; no loyalty hinged on Paragon level, no resources were rescued because Shepard did their part last (for optimum Paragon pts)...am I wrong?
In ME2, you have to have a high enough Paragon to talk down Miranda/Jack, and to make other decisions.
In ME3, I didn't notice any decisions nearly as important; no loyalty hinged on Paragon level, no resources were rescued because Shepard did their part last (for optimum Paragon pts)...am I wrong?
#3631
Posté 01 août 2012 - 05:21
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
TGiNcRySiS wrote...
Here's the thing. People like happy endings. We have no option for this AT ALL. A last gasp? That's not exactly happy. For example The Empire Strikes back wasn't a happy ending but we all loved that movie. But we also knew that the next installment was going to end well because that's how things work. Reapers destroyed with repercussions...fine. I can live with that. But 4 endings with 3 of them being total crap is just ludicrous. I think the folks at Bioware ran into a problem. They couldn't figure out a way to make things turn out to match your Shepard in the time given in development. (See Dragon Age 2 as an example of meeting deadlines for games) All along you are told the choices dictate the game and all of a sudden they don't. I would have waited an extra year and paid an extra 40 bucks if the game was "finished". Maybe "polished" is a better word because it certainly is finished. This maybe one of the most talked about gaming controversies ever. This isn't a 50/50 split for like/dislike ending. The dislike side is way bigger.
How can Bioware rebound? Like I said, give some GOOD DLC for free. Dragon Age 3 needs to be epic. They took a decent step yesterday with a F2P version of SWTOR. Deep down I want to believe that EA is at the root of all this evil.
Well that's exactly the issue. I don't begrudge anyone having a sad or bittersweet or even a demented, I am god of all things, ending. Great. But then why were a great many of us denied one freaking happier one? I'm not saying that's the only type of "authentic" ending to have but a possibility. How can you reconcile the endings of ME1 and 2 with the crap endings of 3. But, if people love them then that's fine. A great many of us have no ending at all because there is no good ending. And this was forseeable. It's basically a known way of ending a Mass Effect game. The possibility for a win.
I have no interest in any other BW titles. This is it for me. What I mean is I didn't play DA2, so DA3 doesn't interest me. That SWTOR is meant to get you to buy ingame things so F2P is really not as decent as it seems. They had lost so many subscribers it wasn't funny and laid off people due to it.
And I wouldn't be so quick to put everything on EA-who knows what happened there. A good employee can find ways to get bosses to agree to things. The mantra is that you go to bosses with solutions and not problems. Had BW gone to EA and said they needed more time (if that was the issue) and the game needed to be bigger (which I think it did) and then had a solution, I think EA as a business would have listened. 2 bigger games-a delay in the first in order to tie up content and then DLC for that one-getting war assets, getting the galaxy to work together and so on. Then later on a second half of ME3 to finish it off-the battles and reclaiming not only Earth but the galaxy and DLC to go with that. Right away you could have DLC to reclaim Omega and get Aria on board as one DLC. And even that search for the Leviathan perhaps as a way to figure out reaper vulnerabilities. So 2 DLCs off the bat, to go with the first game. Maybe even revisiting Ilos for clues-heck since Ilos was really kind of hidden away maybe the crucible plans (if you needed the crucible) could have been found there. And since they already had the settings for Omega and Ilos, they wouldn't have had to recreate all of that.
Anyway, one of the devs in an interview said that the only involvement EA usualy has in a project was the reminder to make it profitable. He made it sound like they don't micromanage things-and this was not in response to any complaints, just a bit of general info. Of course, he may have felt it was a good thing to say about the boss, but...
#3632
Posté 01 août 2012 - 06:07
sdinc009
-
- Members
- 253 messages
Reposting this so everyone is clear about the difference:
MacGuffin
In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist (and sometimes the antagonist) is willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to pursue, often with little or no narrative explanation as to why it is considered so desirable. A MacGuffin, therefore, functions merely as "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction".[1] In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, a potential threat, a mysterious but highly desired item or object, or simply something that is entirely unexplained.
The MacGuffin is common in films, especially thrillers. Usually the MacGuffin is the central focus of the film in the first act, and then declines in importance as the struggles and motivations of characters play out. It may come back into play at the climax of the story, but sometimes the MacGuffin is actually forgotten by the end of the story.
Deus Ex Machina
Deus ex machinamight be one of the world's oldest plot devices. The ancient Greek playwright Euripides used this device in nearly half of his plays that still exist - and based on the writings of Aristotle and others, we know that Euripides was considered one of the foremost writers of his day. If that's the case, then we can probably safely assume that a deus ex machina was used in a lot of Greek plays - the same source that most of our modern narrative techniques come from.
Deus ex machina (pronounced day-oos x mach-ee-na) means "god out of the machine" or "god from the machine" in Latin. As a literary device, it is where, at the conclusion of the narrative, a climax and ending simply presents itself. In Euripides' play, it would have been a god causing something to occur, which triggers the ending - this is where we get the name.
Essentially, the deus ex machina is when, at the end of a story, an extraneous element appears, having nothing to do with the main characters or the central plot, that solves all the problems in the narrative and effectively ends the story.
So why is this bad for modern readers?
In modern narratives, readers expect that the writer will solve the narrative (the story-wide tension building leading from the instigating incident to the climax) by building a set of clues into the main characters' actions and personalities. If you have a murder mystery, you want your main character to solve the problem - not a random cop you've never seen before show up to explain what really happened.
Even Sherlock Holmes can sometimes be considered a deus ex machina, because some of the lesser stories don't have enough clues in place for Holmes to really be able to solve the case, so his explanations just sound like a justification for the ending. "Miracle" endings - where things suddenly change for the better, like incurable cancer suddenly goes into remission despite no effort on anyone's doing, are also deus ex machina.
Basically, when deus ex machina happens, it breaks the readers' trust in the writer, because the writer wasn't able to solve the narrative organically and from within the story. We go to stories to escape from reality, but not to the point where reality doesn't hold.
In essence, the deus ex machina breaks the reader's willing suspension of disbelief - the act of believing in a story's truth, even when the reader knows it's just a story. Since this break happens only in the final moments of a story, the deus ex machina generally ruins the entire narrative for the reader. It is the considered one of the weakest narrative endings.
The Crucilbe= MacGuffin
The Catalyst= Deus Ex Machina
MacGuffin
In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist (and sometimes the antagonist) is willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to pursue, often with little or no narrative explanation as to why it is considered so desirable. A MacGuffin, therefore, functions merely as "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction".[1] In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, a potential threat, a mysterious but highly desired item or object, or simply something that is entirely unexplained.
The MacGuffin is common in films, especially thrillers. Usually the MacGuffin is the central focus of the film in the first act, and then declines in importance as the struggles and motivations of characters play out. It may come back into play at the climax of the story, but sometimes the MacGuffin is actually forgotten by the end of the story.
Deus Ex Machina
Deus ex machinamight be one of the world's oldest plot devices. The ancient Greek playwright Euripides used this device in nearly half of his plays that still exist - and based on the writings of Aristotle and others, we know that Euripides was considered one of the foremost writers of his day. If that's the case, then we can probably safely assume that a deus ex machina was used in a lot of Greek plays - the same source that most of our modern narrative techniques come from.
Deus ex machina (pronounced day-oos x mach-ee-na) means "god out of the machine" or "god from the machine" in Latin. As a literary device, it is where, at the conclusion of the narrative, a climax and ending simply presents itself. In Euripides' play, it would have been a god causing something to occur, which triggers the ending - this is where we get the name.
Essentially, the deus ex machina is when, at the end of a story, an extraneous element appears, having nothing to do with the main characters or the central plot, that solves all the problems in the narrative and effectively ends the story.
So why is this bad for modern readers?
In modern narratives, readers expect that the writer will solve the narrative (the story-wide tension building leading from the instigating incident to the climax) by building a set of clues into the main characters' actions and personalities. If you have a murder mystery, you want your main character to solve the problem - not a random cop you've never seen before show up to explain what really happened.
Even Sherlock Holmes can sometimes be considered a deus ex machina, because some of the lesser stories don't have enough clues in place for Holmes to really be able to solve the case, so his explanations just sound like a justification for the ending. "Miracle" endings - where things suddenly change for the better, like incurable cancer suddenly goes into remission despite no effort on anyone's doing, are also deus ex machina.
Basically, when deus ex machina happens, it breaks the readers' trust in the writer, because the writer wasn't able to solve the narrative organically and from within the story. We go to stories to escape from reality, but not to the point where reality doesn't hold.
In essence, the deus ex machina breaks the reader's willing suspension of disbelief - the act of believing in a story's truth, even when the reader knows it's just a story. Since this break happens only in the final moments of a story, the deus ex machina generally ruins the entire narrative for the reader. It is the considered one of the weakest narrative endings.
The Crucilbe= MacGuffin
The Catalyst= Deus Ex Machina
#3633
Posté 01 août 2012 - 06:14
TGiNcRySiS
-
- Members
- 147 messages
@3DandBeyond
Do you think Bioware pays any attention to anything we say here? I bet they are told not to engage in any of these conversations. Those stupid press releases don't do anything for me. It's like they just don't care really. You just get the usual we are listening to the fans and blah blah blah. NO YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. If you were listening this would not have happened. In the end what could they have done other than clarify the ending? They weren't going to break the game down so choices matter. Eh. I imagine me being pissed off will subside eventually.
Do you think Bioware pays any attention to anything we say here? I bet they are told not to engage in any of these conversations. Those stupid press releases don't do anything for me. It's like they just don't care really. You just get the usual we are listening to the fans and blah blah blah. NO YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. If you were listening this would not have happened. In the end what could they have done other than clarify the ending? They weren't going to break the game down so choices matter. Eh. I imagine me being pissed off will subside eventually.
#3634
Posté 01 août 2012 - 06:37
sdinc009
-
- Members
- 253 messages
Another reason the ending is crap. "Your hero is only as good as the villain". Throughout the entire series Shepard is up against an unkowable evil, uberpowerful, monstrosities right out of Lovecraftian lore. Shepards just a human with his ragtag crew against this force and we've got an epic and complelling story. And then the end, happens. The villain is now some retard AI that wants the protagonist to pick a color. It doesn't even act menacing really it seems to want to help. So if the protagonist is unltimately defined by the antagoinst, it's clear why in the final scene everything crumbles. The antagonist is weak and poorly written which redefines Shepard as well. The reason Shepard seems to act out of character is because he/she is no longer counterbalanced by the menacing Reapers from the rest of the series, no it's Starkid retard logic and space magic
#3635
Posté 01 août 2012 - 07:33
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
TGiNcRySiS wrote...
@3DandBeyond
Do you think Bioware pays any attention to anything we say here? I bet they are told not to engage in any of these conversations. Those stupid press releases don't do anything for me. It's like they just don't care really. You just get the usual we are listening to the fans and blah blah blah. NO YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. If you were listening this would not have happened. In the end what could they have done other than clarify the ending? They weren't going to break the game down so choices matter. Eh. I imagine me being pissed off will subside eventually.
It's very likely they don't. However, Mike Gamble did come on here once and posted in response to just that sort of statement-it's been a couple weeks now.
The other thing that seems to indicate they do or did, but I have no proof is what the EC ended up showing. The original endings came out and people posted all that they hated. Joker running away, team on planet with Joker, relays destroyed, and the endings as well. Everyone guessed what stupid thing the endings might mean and guess what, the EC shows them almost exactly as people guessed. Control-Shepard's energy-thoughts and memories are taken and used, but Shepard is dead. Synthesis-Shepard's energy is used and joined with energy from the beam to well it's still magic. But, look at how they worked out Joker the coward and the teammate evacuation and the jungle planet scene. And then look at the relays. People said that at least they could show a memorial scene for a dead Shepard and there you go. Much of what people said was ignored-get rid of the kid, make choices matter, use war assets, and so on. So BW read where people said the endings were awful but it probably means this and then they copied it and made the EC. I think that was what speculation was for.
They like twitter, but I don't even know if too many of them use that anymore either. There's an offchance the do read here and if so, I doubt they like me at all. And that's sad. There was a time I truly "loved" them for creating my favorite game of all time. I don't hate them now. I feel sad for them, I pity them, because they squandered so many chances and so much good will. Fans would have bought a lot more ME. Many people that loved it, have deleted their game saves and will never come back because they hated the ending. Many that liked the original ending or the EC weren't that excited to play it any more. So, BW failed. The people that would have played it again and again are more people like me who would have bought more from them just to be able to play it again.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 août 2012 - 07:37 .
#3636
Posté 01 août 2012 - 07:36
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
sdinc009 wrote...
Another reason the ending is crap. "Your hero is only as good as the villain". Throughout the entire series Shepard is up against an unkowable evil, uberpowerful, monstrosities right out of Lovecraftian lore. Shepards just a human with his ragtag crew against this force and we've got an epic and complelling story. And then the end, happens. The villain is now some retard AI that wants the protagonist to pick a color. It doesn't even act menacing really it seems to want to help. So if the protagonist is unltimately defined by the antagoinst, it's clear why in the final scene everything crumbles. The antagonist is weak and poorly written which redefines Shepard as well. The reason Shepard seems to act out of character is because he/she is no longer counterbalanced by the menacing Reapers from the rest of the series, no it's Starkid retard logic and space magic
Well it's quite true because the hero must rely on the villain to help finish the story or to finish off the enemies and himself. It's like having a conversation with the enemy and asking him to please kill himself-well I guess they figured this was a winning strategy what with TIM and Saren doing it.
Take Earth Back should be called, "Ask the Bad Guy to Give Earth Back".
#3637
Posté 01 août 2012 - 09:14
Captain McBuck
-
- Members
- 209 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
sdinc009 wrote...
Another reason the ending is crap. "Your hero is only as good as the villain". Throughout the entire series Shepard is up against an unkowable evil, uberpowerful, monstrosities right out of Lovecraftian lore. Shepards just a human with his ragtag crew against this force and we've got an epic and complelling story. And then the end, happens. The villain is now some retard AI that wants the protagonist to pick a color. It doesn't even act menacing really it seems to want to help. So if the protagonist is unltimately defined by the antagoinst, it's clear why in the final scene everything crumbles. The antagonist is weak and poorly written which redefines Shepard as well. The reason Shepard seems to act out of character is because he/she is no longer counterbalanced by the menacing Reapers from the rest of the series, no it's Starkid retard logic and space magic
Well it's quite true because the hero must rely on the villain to help finish the story or to finish off the enemies and himself. It's like having a conversation with the enemy and asking him to please kill himself-well I guess they figured this was a winning strategy what with TIM and Saren doing it.
Take Earth Back should be called, "Ask the Bad Guy to Give Earth Back".
@3D:
Exactly, I mean I could live with the Crucible being such an ass pull if it had been an actual weapon, we were told it was a weapon through the entire game then in the last 10 minutes - Nope not a weapon; its just a device that lets you negosiate with Nightlight Boy.- Really Bioware? - really? the Reapers ground people up into goo to reproduce thats all the reason we need to want them dead we don't need to give the reapers some insane God complex where their just 'misunderstood'. in the last 5 minutes.
#3638
Posté 02 août 2012 - 01:59
Zukota
-
- Members
- 20 messages
@Captain McBuck
I know right; couldn't they have just set up a skype conference with light bulb boy? I do love it how that one dying reaper was saying, "your puny little mind couldn't possibly comprehend our plans or purpose!!!" then we get this "explanation" from boyo and he says, "I created synthetics from ground up organics, to kill organics, so that synthetics wouldn't kill organics." I understand that perfectly; it's stupid, but I understand it.
I know right; couldn't they have just set up a skype conference with light bulb boy? I do love it how that one dying reaper was saying, "your puny little mind couldn't possibly comprehend our plans or purpose!!!" then we get this "explanation" from boyo and he says, "I created synthetics from ground up organics, to kill organics, so that synthetics wouldn't kill organics." I understand that perfectly; it's stupid, but I understand it.
#3639
Posté 02 août 2012 - 07:54
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 700 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
Well that's exactly the issue. I don't begrudge anyone having a sad or bittersweet or even a demented, I am god of all things, ending. Great. But then why were a great many of us denied one freaking happier one?
Of course, you already know the standard reply to that. The presence of a happier ending turns the bittersweet ones into failures. Shep screwed up, and so he didn't get the happier ending.
#3640
Posté 02 août 2012 - 09:49
gr_leon
-
- Members
- 3 messages
There are billions of stars. Each one of them might have a different world within them. Each world might be the home for different species of life. And every life has a different story to tell from history. I know you wish on them when you look at them at the night sky, I know because I do wish on them too and my prayers find response in galaxy as a whole. The details might have been lost in time, everything might have become so much older or simply we might not have translated the signs correctly. I make a step forward in order to comprehend this wish, and who knows? By starting on this journey, it might not be impossible or it might not have even started…
Usually, there aren’t many games that exist in our path that give us the chance to let go and “succeed in completing” our life’s dreams and journeys to other places so alive and multi-dimensional like those that were created by the Mass Effect Trilogy. It’s part of that continuous search for the core meaning of existence and the role of the human intervention in vicious cycles that, on the one hand, were created for maintaining a vague universal harmony, but they don’t have any luck versus the basic instinct of survivorship, when that is not embellished by meanings and values like Love, companionship, friendship, dignity and choice. It’s one of those modern types of art that when completed, with the turn of a glance towards the clear night sky and the billon of its stars, it wasn’t the same anymore…
Thank you for this wonderful journey
Usually, there aren’t many games that exist in our path that give us the chance to let go and “succeed in completing” our life’s dreams and journeys to other places so alive and multi-dimensional like those that were created by the Mass Effect Trilogy. It’s part of that continuous search for the core meaning of existence and the role of the human intervention in vicious cycles that, on the one hand, were created for maintaining a vague universal harmony, but they don’t have any luck versus the basic instinct of survivorship, when that is not embellished by meanings and values like Love, companionship, friendship, dignity and choice. It’s one of those modern types of art that when completed, with the turn of a glance towards the clear night sky and the billon of its stars, it wasn’t the same anymore…
Thank you for this wonderful journey
Modifié par gr_leon, 02 août 2012 - 09:51 .
#3641
Posté 02 août 2012 - 01:12
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 349 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
Well that's exactly the issue. I don't begrudge anyone having a sad or bittersweet or even a demented, I am god of all things, ending. Great. But then why were a great many of us denied one freaking happier one?
Of course, you already know the standard reply to that. The presence of a happier ending turns the bittersweet ones into failures. Shep screwed up, and so he didn't get the happier ending.
That may be the "standard arguement" but it's never made any sense to me. If the Warden does the Ultimate Sacrifice ending, is ti any less valid than any ending where teh Warden lives?
If an ending where Shepard lives and has a "happy ending" makes teh other endings feel like failures, maybe it's because those endings are already failures?
#3642
Posté 02 août 2012 - 02:24
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
Well that's exactly the issue. I don't begrudge anyone having a sad or bittersweet or even a demented, I am god of all things, ending. Great. But then why were a great many of us denied one freaking happier one?
Of course, you already know the standard reply to that. The presence of a happier ending turns the bittersweet ones into failures. Shep screwed up, and so he didn't get the happier ending.
That may be the "standard arguement" but it's never made any sense to me. If the Warden does the Ultimate Sacrifice ending, is ti any less valid than any ending where teh Warden lives?
If an ending where Shepard lives and has a "happy ending" makes teh other endings feel like failures, maybe it's because those endings are already failures?
That whole idea that a bittersweet ending is considered a failure if there's a happier ending is ludicrous on its face.
If you have 2 people that disagree on what the real ending should be they either believe what they say or they don't.
If you believe that everyone dies and the reapers all win is the valid ending and the best ending, then the inclusion of a happier ending will not or should not change your mind.
If I believe that a happier ending is the best ending, then having a reapers win ending will not and should not change your mind.
If however, they include a happier ending and you suddenly choose that one, then you never believed that a sad ending was the best and only valid ending.
And if I go for the sad ending all the time, then I never believed what I said either.
It's like you saying that you'd never pick Vega for your female Shepard's LI if he was an LI. You'd always pick Garrus no matter what. If you'd always pick Garrus, then what's so wrong with having Vega as one? The valid LI for you is Garrus. But others want something different. Others don't want Garrus. If you do pick Vega, then Garrus was not the only valid LI.
If they included a happier ending and people that said a bittersweet ending was the best end up picking the happier one, then they were wrong or they were lying about only wanting a bittersweet one.
The inclusion of multiple endings based on choices was promised. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't always pick your favorite. You pick what's canon for you. If you pick something else, then your canon ending was not your canon ending.
If they had included a happier ending, I wouldn't even always choose it-I mostly would. I might play sadder endings just to see them and then always know I could still go back and get the ending that is the best for me. That's variety.
I like to drink Coca Cola. Most often if I have pop, that's what I will have. Every once in awhile, I like Root Beer. That doesn't mean CC isn't my favorite, but I like variety and I'd hate it if CC wasn't available.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 août 2012 - 02:27 .
#3643
Posté 02 août 2012 - 02:34
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
I had another idea for what the crucible could have been used for. Go back to ME2 and the plague. The collectors were interested in human genetic mutations. The reapers were interested in humans as the most advanced race this cycle. Humans were immune to the plague, but what if they were carriers of it? What if the plague was actually something the protheans had set up to disburse to humans? And the collectors unknowingly or even with some prothean memory still intact were sending it out to humans. And then, what if the crucible needed that contagion and was set up to disburse it from humans to the reapers. Reapers have organic material within them-what if the plague (fast acting) was set to kill the organic material within reapers? They needed a carrier so that the plague was alive. And maybe the destruction of organic material within the reapers would destroy them or even just make them weaker.
#3644
Posté 02 août 2012 - 03:09
Sheridan31
-
- Members
- 142 messages
After being open for both the literal 3 (4) ending of ME3 AND the indoctrination theory, to me the ending is still not clear.
Indoctrination part:
There is harbinger saying something like "serve us" when he hit sheppard. There are trees like in the dream afterwards. There are feelings of being watched e.g. by the keeper who never bothered for anyone before. There is ringing and buzzing in the ears of shepard. There are oily shadows when the illusive men and anderson are shown. Its unlikely that they are there (real). When i shot Anderson in the side, i bleed afterwards. This is certanly not real (indoctrination)
I like the 4 ending variants, but i still do not know whether or not they are for real. Is the indoctrination attempt over when i make my choice? (no obivous indoctrination). Did i have defeated the reaper in the endings like stated in the message afterwards?
Or is it still an indoctrination (ghostly presences, 1M1, shepard being highly suseptable, like an broken "animal" as indoctrination codex and starchild called).
I suppose starchild is still an indoctrination and the choices are not real. Only my breathing scene after choosing destroy. What then? I haven´t destroyed the reaper then, have i? it feels incomplete.
Are the choices for real despite the indoctrination attempts? Is there proof for it, after having an anderson-illusion who makes me bleed?
Don´t get me wrong, i can live with the 4 endings for being real. I would also be happy if there is indoctrination and a final fight after shepard did his breathings on london.
I just want answers, 6 month after i bought this game. Which part is indoctrination illusion and which is for real?
Indoctrination part:
There is harbinger saying something like "serve us" when he hit sheppard. There are trees like in the dream afterwards. There are feelings of being watched e.g. by the keeper who never bothered for anyone before. There is ringing and buzzing in the ears of shepard. There are oily shadows when the illusive men and anderson are shown. Its unlikely that they are there (real). When i shot Anderson in the side, i bleed afterwards. This is certanly not real (indoctrination)
I like the 4 ending variants, but i still do not know whether or not they are for real. Is the indoctrination attempt over when i make my choice? (no obivous indoctrination). Did i have defeated the reaper in the endings like stated in the message afterwards?
Or is it still an indoctrination (ghostly presences, 1M1, shepard being highly suseptable, like an broken "animal" as indoctrination codex and starchild called).
I suppose starchild is still an indoctrination and the choices are not real. Only my breathing scene after choosing destroy. What then? I haven´t destroyed the reaper then, have i? it feels incomplete.
Are the choices for real despite the indoctrination attempts? Is there proof for it, after having an anderson-illusion who makes me bleed?
Don´t get me wrong, i can live with the 4 endings for being real. I would also be happy if there is indoctrination and a final fight after shepard did his breathings on london.
I just want answers, 6 month after i bought this game. Which part is indoctrination illusion and which is for real?
Modifié par Sheridan31, 02 août 2012 - 03:12 .
#3645
Posté 02 août 2012 - 03:32
sdinc009
-
- Members
- 253 messages
3DandBeyond wrote...
I had another idea for what the crucible could have been used for. Go back to ME2 and the plague. The collectors were interested in human genetic mutations. The reapers were interested in humans as the most advanced race this cycle. Humans were immune to the plague, but what if they were carriers of it? What if the plague was actually something the protheans had set up to disburse to humans? And the collectors unknowingly or even with some prothean memory still intact were sending it out to humans. And then, what if the crucible needed that contagion and was set up to disburse it from humans to the reapers. Reapers have organic material within them-what if the plague (fast acting) was set to kill the organic material within reapers? They needed a carrier so that the plague was alive. And maybe the destruction of organic material within the reapers would destroy them or even just make them weaker.
Wow, now there's something I never even considered. Very well thought out 3D! The only problem is that it focuses on a plot line that is isolated soley in the ME 2 game and Bioware clearly made ME 3 to stand alone so incorperating that plot line into ME 3 would make those that just played ME 3 brains hurt :-(
#3646
Posté 02 août 2012 - 03:34
TGiNcRySiS
-
- Members
- 147 messages
Sheridan31 wrote...
After being open for both the literal 3 (4) ending of ME3 AND the indoctrination theory, to me the ending is still not clear.
Indoctrination part:
There is harbinger saying something like "serve us" when he hit sheppard. There are trees like in the dream afterwards. There are feelings of being watched e.g. by the keeper who never bothered for anyone before. There is ringing and buzzing in the ears of shepard. There are oily shadows when the illusive men and anderson are shown. Its unlikely that they are there (real). When i shot Anderson in the side, i bleed afterwards. This is certanly not real (indoctrination)
I like the 4 ending variants, but i still do not know whether or not they are for real. Is the indoctrination attempt over when i make my choice? (no obivous indoctrination). Did i have defeated the reaper in the endings like stated in the message afterwards?
Or is it still an indoctrination (ghostly presences, 1M1, shepard being highly suseptable, like an broken "animal" as indoctrination codex and starchild called).
I suppose starchild is still an indoctrination and the choices are not real. Only my breathing scene after choosing destroy. What then? I haven´t destroyed the reaper then, have i? it feels incomplete.
Are the choices for real despite the indoctrination attempts? Is there proof for it, after having an anderson-illusion who makes me bleed?
Don´t get me wrong, i can live with the 4 endings for being real. I would also be happy if there is indoctrination and a final fight after shepard did his breathings on london.
I just want answers, 6 month after i bought this game. Which part is indoctrination illusion and which is for real?
The problem is we don't know what is what. Bioware won't confirm anything. The destroy ending with Shepard gasp seems to be indoctrination. I mean he is on the crucible in space and then he is in a pile of rubble like he never left the ground. But the other endings do not support that thought. I can admit that I have no clue what the hell happened. I just have theories. I will not choose anything other than destroy because that is the only logical ending. I have watched the other endings and they are terrible. I really don't know what a Shepard waking up in a pile gains us since Bioware has said several time the Shepard story is over. I think they are full of crap honestly. We don't even know if sShepard dies in the other endings really.
On another note I have come to the conclusion that there are indeed other flaws in this game other than the endings. The side quests(scan and fetch) are absolute trash. The side quests (Grissom Academy etc.) are short and in most cases boring. The endings weighed so heavy, I was oblivious to other issues. My current (third) playthrough is starting to give me more of a feeling of "rushed game" and not just a "rushed ending".
#3647
Posté 02 août 2012 - 03:40
sdinc009
-
- Members
- 253 messages
Sheridan31 wrote...
After being open for both the literal 3 (4) ending of ME3 AND the indoctrination theory, to me the ending is still not clear.
Indoctrination part:
There is harbinger saying something like "serve us" when he hit sheppard. There are trees like in the dream afterwards. There are feelings of being watched e.g. by the keeper who never bothered for anyone before. There is ringing and buzzing in the ears of shepard. There are oily shadows when the illusive men and anderson are shown. Its unlikely that they are there (real). When i shot Anderson in the side, i bleed afterwards. This is certanly not real (indoctrination)
I like the 4 ending variants, but i still do not know whether or not they are for real. Is the indoctrination attempt over when i make my choice? (no obivous indoctrination). Did i have defeated the reaper in the endings like stated in the message afterwards?
Or is it still an indoctrination (ghostly presences, 1M1, shepard being highly suseptable, like an broken "animal" as indoctrination codex and starchild called).
I suppose starchild is still an indoctrination and the choices are not real. Only my breathing scene after choosing destroy. What then? I haven´t destroyed the reaper then, have i? it feels incomplete.
Are the choices for real despite the indoctrination attempts? Is there proof for it, after having an anderson-illusion who makes me bleed?
Don´t get me wrong, i can live with the 4 endings for being real. I would also be happy if there is indoctrination and a final fight after shepard did his breathings on london.
I just want answers, 6 month after i bought this game. Which part is indoctrination illusion and which is for real?
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IT is complete fanfiction. It's wishful thinking and though in many ways it does help create a "backdoor" out of the train wreck of an ending that was the original and in less ways the EC endings, the IT is not real. Bioware has stated this and the EC DLC in many ways disproves it. It would have been a way for Bioware to fix the original ending, but they chose not to and now it's dead. Sorry my friend, but time to step into the final stage of grief, acceptance.
#3648
Posté 02 août 2012 - 03:47
Sheridan31
-
- Members
- 142 messages
sdinc009 wrote...
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IT is complete fanfiction. It's wishful thinking and though in many ways it does help create a "backdoor" out of the train wreck of an ending that was the original and in less ways the EC endings, the IT is not real. Bioware has stated this .
thx for the news anyway. Where did Bioware stated this, i like to see their words to go the grieve and accept thing...
#3649
Posté 02 août 2012 - 03:56
sdinc009
-
- Members
- 253 messages
Sheridan31 wrote...
sdinc009 wrote...
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IT is complete fanfiction. It's wishful thinking and though in many ways it does help create a "backdoor" out of the train wreck of an ending that was the original and in less ways the EC endings, the IT is not real. Bioware has stated this .
thx for the news anyway. Where did Bioware stated this, i like to see their words to go the grieve and accept thing...
They made reference to this at the PAX conference. They essentailly said that though they respect the creativity of their fans they are sticking with their "artistic integrity". Reading between the lines, the Indocrination Theory is just a fan made theory and take the game at face value. Honestly, I thought the IT would have been the best way for them to retcon the whole thing and make it right, but it's post EC DLC I don't see them getting on board with IT now.
#3650
Posté 02 août 2012 - 04:31
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
sdinc009 wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
I had another idea for what the crucible could have been used for. Go back to ME2 and the plague. The collectors were interested in human genetic mutations. The reapers were interested in humans as the most advanced race this cycle. Humans were immune to the plague, but what if they were carriers of it? What if the plague was actually something the protheans had set up to disperse to humans? And the collectors unknowingly or even with some prothean memory still intact were sending it out to humans. And then, what if the crucible needed that contagion and was set up to disperse it from humans to the reapers. Reapers have organic material within them-what if the plague (fast acting) was set to kill the organic material within reapers? They needed a carrier so that the plague was alive. And maybe the destruction of organic material within the reapers would destroy them or even just make them weaker.
Wow, now there's something I never even considered. Very well thought out 3D! The only problem is that it focuses on a plot line that is isolated soley in the ME 2 game and Bioware clearly made ME 3 to stand alone so incorperating that plot line into ME 3 would make those that just played ME 3 brains hurt :-(
Hey thanks. Yes, I think they would have had to really incorporate it into ME3 somehow. It just kind of makes me mad that they didn't think of a way to do this so everyone could play and none were left out. I can come up with wayas and I have. As it stands those that were all caught up in ME before ME3 are given the "lite" version of a game so that BW could get new fans. I can give you so many reasons as to why that's stupid. And I don't see any reason to leave new players out of it at all.
One way could have been a recap video and then after the video the player gets to make the most relevant choices or even another comic like Genesis with some choices (less work I'd think and less resource intensive). That worked out fine for the PS3 version.
