4048 réponses à ce sujet

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

With a record of how the Crucible is a gigantic failure... why would anyone build it again?

My theory of what could have worked was actually having it be intact.  If you listen to the kid when he describes destroy, it is largely intact-that means it's not intact.  Either you failed to have enough assets to protect it or it is not finished.

I wish the BW would use some method to complete it so that it can discriminate and only destroy reapers.  Right now the kid links it not being intact to it not discriminating and damaging all tech and destroying synthetics.

100% agree.  How could we have it discriminate, Reapers from Non-reaper Sentient Synthetics?  It can ALREADY tell Synthetic Life from Synthetic TECH, since it doesn't also blow up the Fleets and the Citadel.  So it's got some way to do THIS and not also THAT.  So let's plug the Reaper IFF into it.  Let's hook EDI up to it, so she can do the targeting.  Let's not assume that Art can only leave people feeling disappointed.

[AresKeith]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

With a record of how the Crucible is a gigantic failure... why would anyone build it again?

My theory of what could have worked was actually having it be intact.  If you listen to the kid when he describes destroy, it is largely intact-that means it's not intact.  Either you failed to have enough assets to protect it or it is not finished.

I wish the BW would use some method to complete it so that it can discriminate and only destroy reapers.  Right now the kid links it not being intact to it not discriminating and damaging all tech and destroying synthetics.

100% agree.  How could we have it discriminate, Reapers from Non-reaper Sentient Synthetics?  It can ALREADY tell Synthetic Life from Synthetic TECH, since it doesn't also blow up the Fleets and the Citadel.  So it's got some way to do THIS and not also THAT.  So let's plug the Reaper IFF into it.  Let's hook EDI up to it, so she can do the targeting.  Let's not assume that Art can only leave people feeling disappointed.

exactly, they made such a big deal about the Reaper IFF in ME2 why not use it for the Crucible also to make sure it targets the Reapers, I think TIM had tons of them during ME3 at their main base

[CitizenThom]

Well... I had to check youtube to see the original ending, because I didn't finish this game until the extended cut came out.

The ending, all things considered, is a bit deus ex machina in my opinion. Not as terrible as I was led to believe it would be, but not entirely worthy of the buildup from playing the rest of the game either. The story arc in general was pretty compelling (Be it the first moments on Palaven or the failure on Thessia), but there were things towards the end of the arc that were a tad forced (Guess what! Cerberus in a matter of seconds just took over the Citadel eventhough C-sec would've seen them coming...badabing!).

As to the final decision, I wasn't even clear on the first playthrough that I chose not through dialogue, but by which path I walked on ha ha. Then I chose to destroy synthetics, even after all the efforts to help EDI and the Geth individuate, because in the end, the only way to stop the cycle is to destroy the creators of the cycle, the synthetics.

Lastly, the 'Catalyst' makes me ponder something with regards to writing... an author puts themselves in a tough position when they try to spell out the reasoning of 'superior' being/intellect, because it tends to make that being/intellect more relatable, and therefore less superior. I imagine that a superior being's reasoning should simply be beyond the comprehension of lesser beings, simply a black box. A superior being should simply say what it thinks, not why a lesser being should necessarily agree with it.

Unless of course, the end conclusion is supposed to be that the creators of the Reapers and of the Catalyst aren't half as superior as they thought they were. That's kind of the conclusion I finished the single player campaign with.

[3DandBeyond]

CitizenThom wrote...

Well... I had to check youtube to see the original ending, because I didn't finish this game until the extended cut came out.

The ending, all things considered, is a bit deus ex machina in my opinion. Not as terrible as I was led to believe it would be, but not entirely worthy of the buildup from playing the rest of the game either. The story arc in general was pretty compelling (Be it the first moments on Palaven or the failure on Thessia), but there were things towards the end of the arc that were a tad forced (Guess what! Cerberus in a matter of seconds just took over the Citadel eventhough C-sec would've seen them coming...badabing!).

As to the final decision, I wasn't even clear on the first playthrough that I chose not through dialogue, but by which path I walked on ha ha. Then I chose to destroy synthetics, even after all the efforts to help EDI and the Geth individuate, because in the end, the only way to stop the cycle is to destroy the creators of the cycle, the synthetics.

Lastly, the 'Catalyst' makes me ponder something with regards to writing... an author puts themselves in a tough position when they try to spell out the reasoning of 'superior' being/intellect, because it tends to make that being/intellect more relatable, and therefore less superior. I imagine that a superior being's reasoning should simply be beyond the comprehension of lesser beings, simply a black box. A superior being should simply say what it thinks, not why a lesser being should necessarily agree with it.

Unless of course, the end conclusion is supposed to be that the creators of the Reapers and of the Catalyst aren't half as superior as they thought they were. That's kind of the conclusion I finished the single player campaign with.

I think basically because the kid's "logic" is so twisted that is what most of us that dislike him are saying.  He sets himself up as superior, sees tech as perfection (meaning he apparently sees himself kind of that way) and he adjusts his solution to his original goal in some very odd ways.  He was given the programming to find balance and peace amongst synthetics and organics.  He creates war and creates the situation by seeding reaper tech throughout the galaxy so that organics will advance.  It is all so incredibly ridiculous and convoluted.  He believes synthetics are always destined to become killer robots once they are smart enough.  Yet, he sees full understanding of organics as the pinnacle of the evolution of synthetics. 

So, synthetic beings become smart and are killers but if even smarter with understanding of organics they become peaceloving, sane beings.  So, what we have here is the oldest freaking crazy robot story of all time.  Crazed powerful robots will kill people unless they become more like people.  This is boring and rather timeworn.  It was much more interesting that synthetics never wanted to kill people and really just wanted to be themselves and alive.  It was more interesting when they didn't need to be like organic beings in order to be authentic people.

The problem, the main problem with the endings from which everything else stems is two fold:  the inclusion of a reaper apologist (the kid) and the departure from the main goal of 3 games.  It would be like Harry Potter deciding at the end he doesn't want to destroy Valdemort, instead some clown shows up and says Valdemort just needs to be understood and needs help fulfilling his goal.

The whole idea was to destroy the reapers and the ending should not have diverged into ways to solve a problem that was never authentic within 3 games (always solved in some way).  The endings should have been different based on how good or bad you were at destroying the reapers and they should have developed naturally from how you played, decisions made, war assets in place, and individual choices still being made.  They should not have had some artificial choices pop up to decide the outcome-and they especially should have addressed solely the destruction of the reapers, that status of the galaxy and the status of those that lived or died in the execution of the goal.  That would have led to varied endings from a total loss to a sad or sacrificial partial win, to a sacrificial win, to a full on win-not bunnies and rainbows because of the devastation that has occurred.  It would have been great then to have a true epilogue that varied from horrific to full on devastation even after a win to devastation from which they could recover even if it would take awhile.  And Shepard could live or die in all types of endings-but if alive, the epilogue could have featured Shepard once again getting people to come together to rebuild.

Yes, we got what we got, but since they seem hell bent of people having to head canon an appropriate ending, then I disregard all of their trumped up artificial choices and I opt for Shepard and the galaxy working to destroy and only to destroy the reapers and then dealing with the aftermath.  That way my Shepard still is Shepard.  Any Shepard that would listen to half of the garbage from that kid and then make a choice is some new character and is not my Shepard.  This is the real disconnect-I have no emotional attachment to that character at all.  The game was told from Shepard's viewpoint and in my game Shepard rejected control and synthesis because anyone she respected also rejected them, and she said it herself that they were not good ideas.  In my game, Shepard cared about EDI and the geth and didn't believe you won by sacrificing some people over here to save others over there.  She said it several times.  The game abandoned my Shepard and substituted some lookalike reaper wannabe in her place.  No wonder the devs didn't think she was worthy of being picked up out of the rubble--it wasn't Shepard.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CitizenThom wrote...

Well... I had to check youtube to see the original ending, because I didn't finish this game until the extended cut came out.

The ending, all things considered, is a bit deus ex machina in my opinion. Not as terrible as I was led to believe it would be, but not entirely worthy of the buildup from playing the rest of the game either. The story arc in general was pretty compelling (Be it the first moments on Palaven or the failure on Thessia), but there were things towards the end of the arc that were a tad forced (Guess what! Cerberus in a matter of seconds just took over the Citadel eventhough C-sec would've seen them coming...badabing!).

As to the final decision, I wasn't even clear on the first playthrough that I chose not through dialogue, but by which path I walked on ha ha. Then I chose to destroy synthetics, even after all the efforts to help EDI and the Geth individuate, because in the end, the only way to stop the cycle is to destroy the creators of the cycle, the synthetics.

Lastly, the 'Catalyst' makes me ponder something with regards to writing... an author puts themselves in a tough position when they try to spell out the reasoning of 'superior' being/intellect, because it tends to make that being/intellect more relatable, and therefore less superior. I imagine that a superior being's reasoning should simply be beyond the comprehension of lesser beings, simply a black box. A superior being should simply say what it thinks, not why a lesser being should necessarily agree with it.

Unless of course, the end conclusion is supposed to be that the creators of the Reapers and of the Catalyst aren't half as superior as they thought they were. That's kind of the conclusion I finished the single player campaign with.

I think basically because the kid's "logic" is so twisted that is what most of us that dislike him are saying.  He sets himself up as superior, sees tech as perfection (meaning he apparently sees himself kind of that way) and he adjusts his solution to his original goal in some very odd ways.  He was given the programming to find balance and peace amongst synthetics and organics.  He creates war and creates the situation by seeding reaper tech throughout the galaxy so that organics will advance.  It is all so incredibly ridiculous and convoluted.  He believes synthetics are always destined to become killer robots once they are smart enough.  Yet, he sees full understanding of organics as the pinnacle of the evolution of synthetics. 

So, synthetic beings become smart and are killers but if even smarter with understanding of organics they become peaceloving, sane beings.  So, what we have here is the oldest freaking crazy robot story of all time.  Crazed powerful robots will kill people unless they become more like people.  This is boring and rather timeworn.  It was much more interesting that synthetics never wanted to kill people and really just wanted to be themselves and alive.  It was more interesting when they didn't need to be like organic beings in order to be authentic people.

The problem, the main problem with the endings from which everything else stems is two fold:  the inclusion of a reaper apologist (the kid) and the departure from the main goal of 3 games.  It would be like Harry Potter deciding at the end he doesn't want to destroy Valdemort, instead some clown shows up and says Valdemort just needs to be understood and needs help fulfilling his goal.

The whole idea was to destroy the reapers and the ending should not have diverged into ways to solve a problem that was never authentic within 3 games (always solved in some way).  The endings should have been different based on how good or bad you were at destroying the reapers and they should have developed naturally from how you played, decisions made, war assets in place, and individual choices still being made.  They should not have had some artificial choices pop up to decide the outcome-and they especially should have addressed solely the destruction of the reapers, that status of the galaxy and the status of those that lived or died in the execution of the goal.  That would have led to varied endings from a total loss to a sad or sacrificial partial win, to a sacrificial win, to a full on win-not bunnies and rainbows because of the devastation that has occurred.  It would have been great then to have a true epilogue that varied from horrific to full on devastation even after a win to devastation from which they could recover even if it would take awhile.  And Shepard could live or die in all types of endings-but if alive, the epilogue could have featured Shepard once again getting people to come together to rebuild.

Yes, we got what we got, but since they seem hell bent of people having to head canon an appropriate ending, then I disregard all of their trumped up artificial choices and I opt for Shepard and the galaxy working to destroy and only to destroy the reapers and then dealing with the aftermath.  That way my Shepard still is Shepard.  Any Shepard that would listen to half of the garbage from that kid and then make a choice is some new character and is not my Shepard.  This is the real disconnect-I have no emotional attachment to that character at all.  The game was told from Shepard's viewpoint and in my game Shepard rejected control and synthesis because anyone she respected also rejected them, and she said it herself that they were not good ideas.  In my game, Shepard cared about EDI and the geth and didn't believe you won by sacrificing some people over here to save others over there.  She said it several times.  The game abandoned my Shepard and substituted some lookalike reaper wannabe in her place.  No wonder the devs didn't think she was worthy of being picked up out of the rubble--it wasn't Shepard.

You missed alot of points of the ending then. Synthetic don't kill because they are smarter, they kill because they are locked in  logic if they are shackled. They see life only as a numeric value and think in only absolutes, which can be very dangerus think being that the worst horriers in the world we cause because of such thinking.

Added, the catalyst logicis not his, it belong to his creators. It's just a puppent regurgitating what it creators programed into him. It has no free will.

[MartinPenwald]

Back when I beat Mass Effect 3 for the first time, just like many other players, I was sorely disappointed by the ending(s) which I regarded as one of the worst screw-ups I've experienced in 25 years of gaming.

Now that the Extended Cut is out and I had some time, I decided to play through ME3 for a second time to experience what it is like now (I had watched the new endings on Youtube before, but I though that I should give the game a proper second chance and experience the extended cut ending the way it is supposed to be experienced, i.e. as a part of the whole).

I'm sad to say that it still does not work for me. While the extended cut ending improves the game quite a bit, it is still not where it needs to be for me. Throughout the entire game, no matter how enjoyable any particular part was, I always had that nagging voice in the back of my head saying "this won't end well for Shepard", and that ruined the entire experience. It just wasn't fun to go through the game again, knowing that the ending will leave me unsatisfied, which is exactly what happened when I finished it.

I'm firmly in the camp of people who would like to see a happy end for the person Shepard. Not a happy end where magically everyone survives and everything is rainbows and cakes, but an end where Shepard can do what the Commander mentions quite a few times throughout the games: retire and enjoy life with the LI. This little bit of happiness is what I was looking for in the game and what simply was not delivered (sorry, but Shepard_Alive_Fem/Male.bik just does not cut it in that regard). Many people seem opposed to this, and while they should be absolutely able to enjoy the endings as they are and I do not want to take that away from them, I wonder why it is so hard to understand that some people want this little nugget of happiness. We have "known" our Shepard(s) for five years and helped them through quite a few hard times; is it so weird that we want that person we "know" to be happy? This probably sounds a lot creepier than I intend it to; in the end, it is the same why we root for characters in TV series of books: we like them, so we want them to be happy, just like in real life.

Considering that Bioware does not seem interested in releasing any kind of paid DLC that would make this little bit of happiness available to the gamers who want it, I do not think I'm going to play through the game again. It just is not enjoyable in its current state, and why would I subject myself to something I do not enjoy?

Oh well, guess all that is left now is selling the game.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

You missed alot of points of the ending then. Synthetic don't kill because they are smarter, they kill because they are locked in  logic if they are shackled. They see life only as a numeric value and think in only absolutes, which can be very dangerus think being that the worst horriers in the world we cause because of such thinking.

Added, the catalyst logicis not his, it belong to his creators. It's just a puppent regurgitating what it creators programed into him. It has no free will.

Please dreman, if you are going to comment on my posts, comment on the context of the post.  We were talking about what the kid says.  I don't think synthetics would kill just because they are smarter.  The kid doesn't say shackled AIs will kill when they get smart.  He says they will surpass their creators and will rebel.  They will evolve, that is all. 

You absolutely know I don't agree with you (nor do most people) about the kid/catalyst.  He is not following his programming.  And is not shown anywhere to be shackled.  I'm not discussing this with you because it becomes a black hole discussion and no one wants that.

[3DandBeyond]

MartinPenwald wrote...

Back when I beat Mass Effect 3 for the first time, just like many other players, I was sorely disappointed by the ending(s) which I regarded as one of the worst screw-ups I've experienced in 25 years of gaming.

Now that the Extended Cut is out and I had some time, I decided to play through ME3 for a second time to experience what it is like now (I had watched the new endings on Youtube before, but I though that I should give the game a proper second chance and experience the extended cut ending the way it is supposed to be experienced, i.e. as a part of the whole).

I'm sad to say that it still does not work for me. While the extended cut ending improves the game quite a bit, it is still not where it needs to be for me. Throughout the entire game, no matter how enjoyable any particular part was, I always had that nagging voice in the back of my head saying "this won't end well for Shepard", and that ruined the entire experience. It just wasn't fun to go through the game again, knowing that the ending will leave me unsatisfied, which is exactly what happened when I finished it.

I'm firmly in the camp of people who would like to see a happy end for the person Shepard. Not a happy end where magically everyone survives and everything is rainbows and cakes, but an end where Shepard can do what the Commander mentions quite a few times throughout the games: retire and enjoy life with the LI. This little bit of happiness is what I was looking for in the game and what simply was not delivered (sorry, but Shepard_Alive_Fem/Male.bik just does not cut it in that regard). Many people seem opposed to this, and while they should be absolutely able to enjoy the endings as they are and I do not want to take that away from them, I wonder why it is so hard to understand that some people want this little nugget of happiness. We have "known" our Shepard(s) for five years and helped them through quite a few hard times; is it so weird that we want that person we "know" to be happy? This probably sounds a lot creepier than I intend it to; in the end, it is the same why we root for characters in TV series of books: we like them, so we want them to be happy, just like in real life.

Considering that Bioware does not seem interested in releasing any kind of paid DLC that would make this little bit of happiness available to the gamers who want it, I do not think I'm going to play through the game again. It just is not enjoyable in its current state, and why would I subject myself to something I do not enjoy?

Oh well, guess all that is left now is selling the game.

I agree 100%.  In playing ME3 the first time, the goal was always to destroy the reapers.  Anything that does not satisfactorily achieve this, for me, is superfluous and nonsense.

And a Shepard lives ending would not be sunshine and puppies.  Shepard has sacrificed enough already and the galaxy is a mess.  In the aftermath of war, heroes and unity are often needed more and harder to find or achieve.  They need Shepard alive to remind them of what they fought for.  This is a dumb galaxy.  Remember, they're squatters (took up residence in the citadel and asked no questions), they had to be forced or bribed to work together to save themselves, they picked up any old thing lying around and used it (reaper tech), and none of them wondered about the wisdome of making the crucible.  They desperately need Shepard and EDI and the geth alive or they are lost.

[CitizenThom]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CitizenThom wrote...

Well... I had to check youtube to see the original ending, because I didn't finish this game until the extended cut came out.

The ending, all things considered, is a bit deus ex machina in my opinion. Not as terrible as I was led to believe it would be, but not entirely worthy of the buildup from playing the rest of the game either. The story arc in general was pretty compelling (Be it the first moments on Palaven or the failure on Thessia), but there were things towards the end of the arc that were a tad forced (Guess what! Cerberus in a matter of seconds just took over the Citadel eventhough C-sec would've seen them coming...badabing!).

As to the final decision, I wasn't even clear on the first playthrough that I chose not through dialogue, but by which path I walked on ha ha. Then I chose to destroy synthetics, even after all the efforts to help EDI and the Geth individuate, because in the end, the only way to stop the cycle is to destroy the creators of the cycle, the synthetics.

Lastly, the 'Catalyst' makes me ponder something with regards to writing... an author puts themselves in a tough position when they try to spell out the reasoning of 'superior' being/intellect, because it tends to make that being/intellect more relatable, and therefore less superior. I imagine that a superior being's reasoning should simply be beyond the comprehension of lesser beings, simply a black box. A superior being should simply say what it thinks, not why a lesser being should necessarily agree with it.

Unless of course, the end conclusion is supposed to be that the creators of the Reapers and of the Catalyst aren't half as superior as they thought they were. That's kind of the conclusion I finished the single player campaign with.

I think basically because the kid's "logic" is so twisted that is what most of us that dislike him are saying.  He sets himself up as superior, sees tech as perfection (meaning he apparently sees himself kind of that way) and he adjusts his solution to his original goal in some very odd ways.  He was given the programming to find balance and peace amongst synthetics and organics.  He creates war and creates the situation by seeding reaper tech throughout the galaxy so that organics will advance.  It is all so incredibly ridiculous and convoluted.  He believes synthetics are always destined to become killer robots once they are smart enough.  Yet, he sees full understanding of organics as the pinnacle of the evolution of synthetics. 

So, synthetic beings become smart and are killers but if even smarter with understanding of organics they become peaceloving, sane beings.  So, what we have here is the oldest freaking crazy robot story of all time.  Crazed powerful robots will kill people unless they become more like people.  This is boring and rather timeworn.  It was much more interesting that synthetics never wanted to kill people and really just wanted to be themselves and alive.  It was more interesting when they didn't need to be like organic beings in order to be authentic people.

The problem, the main problem with the endings from which everything else stems is two fold:  the inclusion of a reaper apologist (the kid) and the departure from the main goal of 3 games.  It would be like Harry Potter deciding at the end he doesn't want to destroy Valdemort, instead some clown shows up and says Valdemort just needs to be understood and needs help fulfilling his goal.

The whole idea was to destroy the reapers and the ending should not have diverged into ways to solve a problem that was never authentic within 3 games (always solved in some way).  The endings should have been different based on how good or bad you were at destroying the reapers and they should have developed naturally from how you played, decisions made, war assets in place, and individual choices still being made.  They should not have had some artificial choices pop up to decide the outcome-and they especially should have addressed solely the destruction of the reapers, that status of the galaxy and the status of those that lived or died in the execution of the goal.  That would have led to varied endings from a total loss to a sad or sacrificial partial win, to a sacrificial win, to a full on win-not bunnies and rainbows because of the devastation that has occurred.  It would have been great then to have a true epilogue that varied from horrific to full on devastation even after a win to devastation from which they could recover even if it would take awhile.  And Shepard could live or die in all types of endings-but if alive, the epilogue could have featured Shepard once again getting people to come together to rebuild.

Yes, we got what we got, but since they seem hell bent of people having to head canon an appropriate ending, then I disregard all of their trumped up artificial choices and I opt for Shepard and the galaxy working to destroy and only to destroy the reapers and then dealing with the aftermath.  That way my Shepard still is Shepard.  Any Shepard that would listen to half of the garbage from that kid and then make a choice is some new character and is not my Shepard.  This is the real disconnect-I have no emotional attachment to that character at all.  The game was told from Shepard's viewpoint and in my game Shepard rejected control and synthesis because anyone she respected also rejected them, and she said it herself that they were not good ideas.  In my game, Shepard cared about EDI and the geth and didn't believe you won by sacrificing some people over here to save others over there.  She said it several times.  The game abandoned my Shepard and substituted some lookalike reaper wannabe in her place.  No wonder the devs didn't think she was worthy of being picked up out of the rubble--it wasn't Shepard.

No +1's available on this forum, but great post, as words are available in this forum.

[Ieldra]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The whole idea was to destroy the reapers...

Speak for yourself. I've always regretted the need to destroy them and I'm fine with the way the ending made it possible to end the cycle without doing so.

[sdinc009]

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The whole idea was to destroy the reapers...

Speak for yourself. I've always regretted the need to destroy them and I'm fine with the way the ending made it possible to end the cycle without doing so.

3D is not making some open ended speculation. DESTROY THE REAPERS is and has always been the main driving goal of the entire series. It has been stated, referenced, and openly said repeatedly over the coarse of the trilogy. To break away from that pivotal element of the central plot breaks the narrative coherence of the story and renders it a broken mess. So if you're fine with a broekn story then fine, but most of us would rather have a narrative that fits with the story structure we've followed for the past 5 years.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The whole idea was to destroy the reapers...

Speak for yourself. I've always regretted the need to destroy them and I'm fine with the way the ending made it possible to end the cycle without doing so.

I'm speaking for the game.  The game repeatedly says that's the only way to deal with them.  I can't speak to the idea that would someone would regret destroying reapers.  Apparently all that people goo in them means nothing to you.  Nor the fact that they were abominations created by a crazed AI, counter to all logic.  So, yes I can see you'd care about them.

The game, Shepard and every sane person in it, said the reapers needed to be destroyed.  Destroy was said to be the goal over 3 games. 

Shepard, Anderson, Hackett, and every sane person said they needed to be destroyed.  Hmmm, let's see who wanted them as best friends, neighbors, and or puppets.  TIM and some Protheans wanted to control them.  Indoctrinated.  Saren, Sovereign, the crazy glow boy AI wanted synthesis.  Indoctrinated, crazy, and reapers.  Gee, let me put that on the scale of decision here.  On the one hand we have Destroy with the majority of the galaxy.  On the other hand we have, let's say Control and TIM and some Prothean group.  Destroy wins.  Next round.  On the one hand let's just say we have oh Shepard, Anderson, Hackett and half the galaxy (trying to give you a bit of an edge).  On the other hand we have Saren, Sovereign, the reapers, and the kid.  Well the reapers may be large and in charge, but the opinions of real people as opposed to killing machines led by glow boy make this decision easy.  Destroy wins.  And I don't even think if the essence of organic beings live on in reapers that they would want to remain "alive" in reapers.  The kid's creators didn't want to go into a reaper.  I don't think anyone in the galaxy wanted to become goo and thought.  I definitely believe most if not all would rather be dead than to be kept in this form.

Destroy wins.  I'm not going to substitute my "wisdom" for what people in the galaxy would want.  I personally don't like it because it's obvious the cost of the geth and EDI and then not giving closure to the gasping torso was intentional so they could avoid the appearance of playing favorites.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 août 2012 - 05:09 .

[liggy002]

TullyAckland wrote...

Staarbux wrote...

Yep. All I really wanted was a scene where Shep's LI discovered she was alive. Really all I wanted. But I guess there were far fewer of us than I realised.

One of the goals for the Extended Cut, as part of addressing player feedback, was to provide more time with the love interest, and more opportunity for players to say goodbye to them and provide additional moments of connection between them. We did this in several ways:

• Shepard can now actually say goodbye to the love interest when they are split up at the conduit run.
• When Shepard sees flashbacks of important characters during the final decision, the flashbacks are now variable based on your playthrough – so your love interest can appear as one of the flashbacks, providing another moment of reflection between Shepard and that character.
• A memorial scene was added, partly to show a close bond between Shepard and the love interest. The scene is variable, and if Shepard has a love interest in a given playthrough, it will be that character who places Shepard’s name on the memorial wall.
• You may notice that in the “Shepard lives” ending, the love interest hesitates to place Shepard’s name on the wall, and instead looks up as though deep in thought. This is meant to suggest that the love interest is not ready to believe Shepard is dead, and the final scene reveals they are correct. As the Normandy lifts off, there is hope that the love interest and Shepard will again be together.

It's amazing that Shepard's love interest even survived at all.  Harbinger was staring at the Normandy and had a clear shot.  Care to explain that?  And, from what I hear, he just mumbled?

[Iakus]

liggy002 wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

Staarbux wrote...

Yep. All I really wanted was a scene where Shep's LI discovered she was alive. Really all I wanted. But I guess there were far fewer of us than I realised.

One of the goals for the Extended Cut, as part of addressing player feedback, was to provide more time with the love interest, and more opportunity for players to say goodbye to them and provide additional moments of connection between them. We did this in several ways:

• Shepard can now actually say goodbye to the love interest when they are split up at the conduit run.
  
  
• When Shepard sees flashbacks of important characters during the final decision, the flashbacks are now variable based on your playthrough – so your love interest can appear as one of the flashbacks, providing another moment of reflection between Shepard and that character.
  
  
• A memorial scene was added, partly to show a close bond between Shepard and the love interest. The scene is variable, and if Shepard has a love interest in a given playthrough, it will be that character who places Shepard’s name on the memorial wall.
  
  
• You may notice that in the “Shepard lives” ending, the love interest hesitates to place Shepard’s name on the wall, and instead looks up as though deep in thought. This is meant to suggest that the love interest is not ready to believe Shepard is dead, and the final scene reveals they are correct. As the Normandy lifts off, there is hope that the love interest and Shepard will again be together.

It's amazing that Shepard's love interest even survived at all.  Harbinger was staring at the Normandy and had a clear shot.  Care to explain that?  And, from what I hear, he just mumbled?

I think it's amazing that Bioware didn't realize that fans wanted more time with the LI after the Crucible goes, off, not before.  Or barring that, confirmation that they will see each other again.  EC was supposed to provide clarity and closure, not continue to be coy with the players.  That's what caused the stir to begin with.

[BlueStorm83]

iakus wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

Staarbux wrote...

Yep. All I really wanted was a scene where Shep's LI discovered she was alive. Really all I wanted. But I guess there were far fewer of us than I realised.

One of the goals for the Extended Cut, as part of addressing player feedback, was to provide more time with the love interest, and more opportunity for players to say goodbye to them and provide additional moments of connection between them. We did this in several ways:

• Shepard can now actually say goodbye to the love interest when they are split up at the conduit run.
  
  
• When Shepard sees flashbacks of important characters during the final decision, the flashbacks are now variable based on your playthrough – so your love interest can appear as one of the flashbacks, providing another moment of reflection between Shepard and that character.
  
  
• A memorial scene was added, partly to show a close bond between Shepard and the love interest. The scene is variable, and if Shepard has a love interest in a given playthrough, it will be that character who places Shepard’s name on the memorial wall.
  
  
• You may notice that in the “Shepard lives” ending, the love interest hesitates to place Shepard’s name on the wall, and instead looks up as though deep in thought. This is meant to suggest that the love interest is not ready to believe Shepard is dead, and the final scene reveals they are correct. As the Normandy lifts off, there is hope that the love interest and Shepard will again be together.

It's amazing that Shepard's love interest even survived at all.  Harbinger was staring at the Normandy and had a clear shot.  Care to explain that?  And, from what I hear, he just mumbled?

I think it's amazing that Bioware didn't realize that fans wanted more time with the LI after the Crucible goes, off, not before.  Or barring that, confirmation that they will see each other again.  EC was supposed to provide clarity and closure, not continue to be coy with the players.  That's what caused the stir to begin with.

[*]
[*]---  Correction.  What caused the stir in the first place was that the ending lost narrative cohesion, broke the game's dialogue and choice mechanics, was predicated on self-contradictory nonsense, and 100% invalidated at least one style of Shepard.
[*]
[*]Now with the EC, Narrative Cohesion is maintained... but taken in a disappointing, anticlimactic, derivative direction.  The game's Dialogue and Choice mechanics are once again intact... but the information they give us is useless, albeit informative, and chosing to stand up like a man and fight is futile.  The self-contradictory nonsense has been replaced with nonsense that is internally cohesive, but is negated by 90% of everything that happens in the game - no, the SERIES - before that point.  And the style of the Paragon Shepard is no longer invalidated 100%.  Now it is merely invalidated around... let's say 92%.
[*]
[*]Wah wah waaaaaah.

[M1 Hero]

MartinPenwald wrote...

Back when I beat Mass Effect 3 for the first time, just like many other players, I was sorely disappointed by the ending(s) which I regarded as one of the worst screw-ups I've experienced in 25 years of gaming.

Now that the Extended Cut is out and I had some time, I decided to play through ME3 for a second time to experience what it is like now (I had watched the new endings on Youtube before, but I though that I should give the game a proper second chance and experience the extended cut ending the way it is supposed to be experienced, i.e. as a part of the whole).

I'm sad to say that it still does not work for me. While the extended cut ending improves the game quite a bit, it is still not where it needs to be for me. Throughout the entire game, no matter how enjoyable any particular part was, I always had that nagging voice in the back of my head saying "this won't end well for Shepard", and that ruined the entire experience. It just wasn't fun to go through the game again, knowing that the ending will leave me unsatisfied, which is exactly what happened when I finished it.

I'm firmly in the camp of people who would like to see a happy end for the person Shepard. Not a happy end where magically everyone survives and everything is rainbows and cakes, but an end where Shepard can do what the Commander mentions quite a few times throughout the games: retire and enjoy life with the LI. This little bit of happiness is what I was looking for in the game and what simply was not delivered (sorry, but Shepard_Alive_Fem/Male.bik just does not cut it in that regard). Many people seem opposed to this, and while they should be absolutely able to enjoy the endings as they are and I do not want to take that away from them, I wonder why it is so hard to understand that some people want this little nugget of happiness. We have "known" our Shepard(s) for five years and helped them through quite a few hard times; is it so weird that we want that person we "know" to be happy? This probably sounds a lot creepier than I intend it to; in the end, it is the same why we root for characters in TV series of books: we like them, so we want them to be happy, just like in real life.

Considering that Bioware does not seem interested in releasing any kind of paid DLC that would make this little bit of happiness available to the gamers who want it, I do not think I'm going to play through the game again. It just is not enjoyable in its current state, and why would I subject myself to something I do not enjoy?

Oh well, guess all that is left now is selling the game.

My experience was similar to yours, unfortunately. The game was pretty good, but it just didn't live up to the expectations set by the quality of the first two, I also didn't like how it pretty much turned into an Action Game only with few RPG elements compared to Mass Effect 1 and 2.

How poor the ending sequence was and Bioware's attitude to those who didn't like it only soured my experience futher.

Ah well, shame I can't sell the game since I bought in on Origin.

Modifié par M1 Hero, 25 août 2012 - 12:16 .

[M1 Hero]

Modifié par M1 Hero, 25 août 2012 - 12:15 .

[M1 Hero]

What did you guys think of CleverNoob Network's latest Documentary: " The Indoctrination Theory-A Documentary | Extended Cut" ?

Link:

Modifié par M1 Hero, 25 août 2012 - 12:14 .

[StElmo]

if the Lore wasn't flushed down the toilet, then BW would be willing to reply to fan questions regarding it.

[3DandBeyond]

StElmo wrote...

if the Lore wasn't flushed down the toilet, then BW would be willing to reply to fan questions regarding it.

This is what ME: the twitter game, is for.

Seriously, they use twitter to retcon the game, to talk about it and all, but then in a recent podcast one BW person said people that don't fully explain the things they don't like aren't helpful (this is paraphrasing).  She also heavily implied it was due to a lack of a proper education and an emphasis on math and other things.  I tend to have to calm down when I even think of this, because it makes my blood boil.  First of all, if you never come on here to actively discuss anything or to even try to promote positive discussion and use twitter where verbosity is impossible, what the heck do you expect?  Secondly, the idea that it's due to education or the lack thereof indicates a willful ignorance. 

People that even may have gotten a top notch education are not always the most eloquent writers or talkers.  They may do well in other things, but not in communicating.  And, there are many that could not adequately put into words all that they thought was wrong, but they wanted to voice an opinion.  They might have just said they agreed with what someone else said.  It's often easier to feel or know what is wrong with something than to explain it.  And considering neither this one BW employee nor any other has yet explained even in brief just what is "right" with what they produced, even the less verbose here have done far more than they have.  They at least said something.  BW as yet has said nothing.

And lastly, the podcast comment indicates this person does not even recognize that some (a lot) of ME fans are from very diverse backgrounds and nations.  Some are not great at English (but far better at it than I am at any other language than English), but they too wanted to be heard.

So, to really emphasize a point, I will repeat this one BW employee in a podcast complained that people were not always being verbose enough in explaining what they didn't like about the endings and that was not helpful.  While at the same time, BW has not been verbose at all in explaining why they created these endings and what they think is right about them.  Put up or shut up seems appropriate here.

Here's a link to the podcast-it's about all EA games, but BW is there partway through.  I think BW starts around 9:00, but sorry I can't listen to the junk again to find it exactly.

http://soundcloud.co...nears-podcast-4

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 25 août 2012 - 05:43 .

[johnj1979]

I have less of a clue on what is happening in Mass Effect 3 with the "Extended Cut" installed than I did without the DLC. What I mean is what is happening to Shepard because I know that the indoctrination cannot happen because the events of indoctrination are ALL wrong but talking with THAT "StarChild" it proves that Shepard is being indoctrinated by what is being said and the different ending options, so which is it indoctrination or not, not both.

Also in the Destroy ending how does Shepard escape the explosion when he/she blown up in the explosion but is then later taking a breath on Earth. To me this event suggests that Shepard has escaped indoctrination but because of Mass Effect 1 and 2 I know that indoctrination is not possible YET it still there. Maybe this new “Leviathan” DLC will help explain it.

[V-rcingetorix]

 Near as I can tell, BioWare made it with the three big [BASIC] rules on ME1 and ME2, then lost it on ME3.
For those who don't know the three rules of storytelling, here they are:
Act 1: Normal life is depicted, either by the poor, good, or boring quality. This is a depiction of Life As We Know It. Generally, this is the second longest part of the game/movie, and involves introduction of characters, continuum establishment and an opportunity to familiarize the audience with the main character/situation. This is followed/ended by a Call To Action.

Act 2: The Call To Action is given, either as a deliberate change in the protagonists situation, or a shift in reality. This part involves finding a trainer, training, research and resource gathering, personnel obtainment and travel. This is usually the longest part of any movie/game, and has the most combat involved. Also involved is Plot Development, where the main task/quest is advanced along with the activities in Act 2.

Act 3 is the shortest and most difficult part of any movie or game. This is the part that has plot resolution, where all the various story-lines come to a close. Usually, Act 2 has been building up so that there is a maximum level of anticipation. Also, there is usually a final conflict where the protagonist proves his/her superiority, followed by quiet segment for reflection.

Example: Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.
Act 1: Life in the galaxy is shown (conflict), a hero is introduced with his boring life (Tatooine) and the stage is set. The Call To Action occurs when droids arrive and give a message to Luke Skywalker.
Act 2: Luke must leave with a trainer and helpers (Han Solo, R2-D2, etc) and begin gathering training and resources. Plot development continues with the destruction of Alderaan, the Death Star rescue and escape to Yavin IV.

Act 3: Fight against the Death Star, victory, celebration.

Other examples occur, like in the first Matrix movie, Lord of the Rings (Fellowship of the Ring) and Batman Begins.

So, segue into Mass Effect.

ME1: Act 1: Shepard the Alliance Soldier, Commander on the Normandy, serves under Captain Anderson. Up for evaluation for Spectre status.
Call To Arms: Geth on a human colony, rival Spectre tries destroying all evidence.

Act 2: Shepard hunts for evidence convicting Saren, gains data and becomes a Spectre, journies the galaxy to stop Saren. Allies, resources and information come his way (Feros, Noveria, and Therum) and training is achieved.

Act 3: Shepard breaks the rules, steals the Normandy and hits Iilium, gains data heightening the tension and travels to the Citadel. Confrontation with Saren, followed by a closing scene with Shepard walking off camera, steely-eyed and smug.

ME2: Act 1: Shepard is shown in the SR1 Normandy, then killed. His body is then revived and given a basic education in current events.
Call To Action: Colonies are disappearing, Shepard given the Normandy again.

Act 2: Shepard scoots around the galaxy, two plot twists (Collectors are Protheans) and TIM is willing to let Shepard hang loose on Collector vessels, research/training/data.

Act 3: Collectors capture most of Normany crew, Shepard goes after them, big boss fight. End scene is minimal, but Shepard goes past his surviving crew and watches the starscape with grim gaze. Alternative view shows Reapers approaching the Milky Way.

Addendum: additional DLC and conversations may be had after the end of ME2. Brilliant.

ME3: Act 1: "Hot food and soft beds," some in the Alliance are prepping for war, other refuse to acknowledge it. Shortest Act 1 in the Mass Effect series.
Call To Action: Reapers attack

Act 2: Resources gathered, data gathered (Crucible uncovered at last moment). Turian/Krogan treaty, Quarian/Geth treaty, Asari/Salarians brought on board. Various planets explored for war-research/preparation.

Act 3: Longest in ME series. Cerberus assault, final data obtaiend. Several "final fights" but no "boss fight." Closing scenes with crew prior to final action scene. Prolonged discussion with a non-foreshadowed character. Triple button decision, death for protagonist in all situations. Cutscenes show effects of previous game on galaxy, nothing for protagonist.

Addendum: one gasp for an armor piece that may or may not be Shepard. No LI reunion, no steely-eyed grim gaze, or even a slightly punch-drunk glance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: The only training I have in writing is a few English classes. I got the formula for a high-fantasy genre from Wikipedia, and Extra Credit movies (well done shows imho).

Great first two games; some hangups, but I can live with them. Last game had excellent Act 1, Act 2, but did not fulfill the 3-act story established by the previous two games.

Addendum: EC fixed errors in major plot holes (opened others, eg Harbinger watching you fix a sandwich in front of the Elevator Of Light, etc), but did not complete the story. Story completion  in the same manner as previous two games requires a living Shepard (unless you really, really failed in ME2), plus a post-conflict reunion.

EDIT: space

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 26 août 2012 - 12:35 .

[V-rcingetorix]

3DandBeyond wrote...

StElmo wrote...

if the Lore wasn't flushed down the toilet, then BW would be willing to reply to fan questions regarding it.

This is what ME: the twitter game, is for.

Seriously, they use twitter to retcon the game, to talk about it and all, but then in a recent podcast one BW person said people that don't fully explain the things they don't like aren't helpful (this is paraphrasing).  She also heavily implied it was due to a lack of a proper education and an emphasis on math and other things.  I tend to have to calm down when I even think of this, because it makes my blood boil.  First of all, if you never come on here to actively discuss anything or to even try to promote positive discussion and use twitter where verbosity is impossible, what the heck do you expect?  Secondly, the idea that it's due to education or the lack thereof indicates a willful ignorance. 


So, to really emphasize a point, I will repeat this one BW employee in a podcast complained that people were not always being verbose enough in explaining what they didn't like about the endings and that was not helpful.  While at the same time, BW has not been verbose at all in explaining why they created these endings and what they think is right about them.  Put up or shut up seems appropriate here.

Here's a link to the podcast-it's about all EA games, but BW is there partway through.  I think BW starts around 9:00, but sorry I can't listen to the junk again to find it exactly.

http://soundcloud.co...nears-podcast-4

Thanks for the link. It begins at 9:40, comments on complaints at 12:00; feedback @12:46

Heavy handed encouragement to "move on and stop dwelling on something"@ 13:50

Chris Priestly acknowledging that they listen to the community 15:06
Chris points out the long complex posts that specify errors 16:20 "These are great, because we can take notes and pass on those messages."

Ms Merizan comments on the lack of education@ 17:02 "Teachers were so busy teaching math that they forgot to teach common decency and, like, articulating yourself 'use your words...OMG we're psychiatrists."

24:12; Ms Merizan: "This game isn't only about Cmdr Shepard, it's about Cmdr Shepard and Tali and Garrus...you can still come up with the resolution you wanted, which I still think we gave."

24:46 Ms Merizan: "We didn't just provide closure on Shepard, we provided closure on a lot of other aspects; clarity and closure were key aspects of the Extended Cut and I think that people *can't understand what is being said*."



Here is my response, pertaining to EC:

I am a college student. I tutor calculus, biology and (more importantly) Communications. I am no one's fool.

I earn money this way, and by being a mercenary musician. It doesn't pay for everything, but it at least helps with the bills. You can't be a stupid musician or tutor.

I can imagine life w/o the internet, and I don't have a Twitter account. When I play a game, especially when I pre-order a game, I do not read spoilers.

Mass Effect 3 is fantastic, until the end. I reached that conclusion on my own thank you very much. I have been as specific as possible in my constructive criticism; read my posts if you disbelieve me. If you do not wish to offend people like myself, kindly refrain from making "blanket statements."

Simply put, the Extended Cut helped. No doubt about it. But for the majority of people (note the qualifier statement) whom BioWare carefully cultivated, from Baldurs gate to DA:O and ME1 through ME3, the lack of a Shepard ending was bad. See my other posts for better descriptions. Don't check my twitter page. Maybe you can read my smoke signals.

[Iakus]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Thanks for the link. It begins at 9:40, comments on complaints at 12:00; feedback @12:46

Heavy handed encouragement to "move on and stop dwelling on something"@ 13:50

Chris Priestly acknowledging that they listen to the community 15:06
Chris points out the long complex posts that specify errors 16:20 "These are great, because we can take notes and pass on those messages."

Ms Merizan comments on the lack of education@ 17:02 "Teachers were so busy teaching math that they forgot to teach common decency and, like, articulating yourself 'use your words...OMG we're psychiatrists."

24:12; Ms Merizan: "This game isn't only about Cmdr Shepard, it's about Cmdr Shepard and Tali and Garrus...you can still come up with the resolution you wanted, which I still think we gave."

24:46 Ms Merizan: "We didn't just provide closure on Shepard, we provided closure on a lot of other aspects; clarity and closure were key aspects of the Extended Cut and I think that people *can't understand what is being said*."



Here is my response, pertaining to EC:

I am a college student. I tutor calculus, biology and (more importantly) Communications. I am no one's fool.

I earn money this way, and by being a mercenary musician. It doesn't pay for everything, but it at least helps with the bills. You can't be a stupid musician or tutor.

I can imagine life w/o the internet, and I don't have a Twitter account. When I play a game, especially when I pre-order a game, I do not read spoilers.

Mass Effect 3 is fantastic, until the end. I reached that conclusion on my own thank you very much. I have been as specific as possible in my constructive criticism; read my posts if you disbelieve me. If you do not wish to offend people like myself, kindly refrain from making "blanket statements."

Simply put, the Extended Cut helped. No doubt about it. But for the majority of people (note the qualifier statement) whom BioWare carefully cultivated, from Baldurs gate to DA:O and ME1 through ME3, the lack of a Shepard ending was bad. See my other posts for better descriptions. Don't check my twitter page. Maybe you can read my smoke signals.

Well put.

I'm also an educated adult, who has followed Bioware since the Baldur's Gate says.  And I've posted my share of long posts here.  And I've always tried to be coureous.  Or at least civil.  I've deleted more than one post before hitting "send" let me tell you.  

And I agree, the ending was bad.  Beyond bad.  Even with EC.  If this was my first Bioware game, I wouldn't buy a second one.  The clarity and closure EC was supposed to provide did nothing for Shepard as you said.  

If so many people "can't understand what's being said" maybe the problem's not at our end, huh?

[BlueStorm83]

--- I agree, V-rcingetorix. I was an English major in college, with intent to be an author. Though real life expenses have gotten in the way of that, I do understand stories. I enjoy them; I daresay that I revel in them. The English Language is a playground to me, and I can quite easily take in any idea that is stated in a way that makes even partial sense.

However, as I have stated in many lengthy posts in other threads that were ignored, the story at the end of Mass Effect 3 is not the same story from Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2, or even Mass Effect 3 at the beginning of the London mission. At that all points prior, the story was "The Reapers think that we're nothing, but we will band together and with our own strength we'll take our stand, beat them back, and make our own place in this universe." After Shepard calls for the Normandy (previously when Shepard was struck by Harbinger's beam) however, the story is "The Reapers believe that Organics and Synthetics will never exist without conflict, and they are right. The only way out is to agree with their goals and their means, and unity and taking a stand means nothing."

The tone of Mass Effect 3's ending is not the same as the tone of the rest of the series. Every decision to that point, no matter how difficult, had two options that dangled a rather large carrot in front of you, with the sneaking suspicion that if it went wrong, you would lose something. However, the endgame decision offers three, or now four, ABHORRENT outcomes, with the slightest shade of a hope that maybe it won't be as bad as your brain, your gut, and your very soul tells you that it will be.

And perhaps the worst aspect is that the BioWare of the ending of Mass Effect 3 is not the BioWare of Mass Effect 1 and 2, and presumably of the first 99% of Mass Effect 3. This new BioWare seems to deal wholesale in self contradiction, lies, and insults.

I try not to take personal offense at people who I have never met, but Ms. Merizan seems to be "trolling" us. People have clearly and succinctly explained exactly what the problems with the endings, Pre-EC and Post-EC, are. Some have focused on the mechanical problems, some the literary problems, some with the emotional problems, and some with the informational problems. I have seen step by step, point for point lists of every single thing that may be a problem with the endings, complete with suggestions for how to fix them. To say that we do not understand - that we CAN NOT understand - is to ignore any and all feedback from any who do, or at the very least did, call themselves Mass Effect Fans.