4048 réponses à ce sujet

[JeosDinas]

IanPolaris wrote...
Given enough time, resources, and galactic unity, I see no intrinsic reason why the Reapers can't be beaten and the star-gazer scene after refusal (which I regard as non-canonical) seems to strongly imply that the cycle after yours using Liara's data does just that.  Beats the Reapers conventionally.

Which is largely fitting in with the themes of the series. Particularly the notion of sacrifice. Shepard still is the one who allows the Reapers to be defeated. She just decides to take the risk, no compromise her ideals, and see what happens. It doesn't work out well for the current cycle but the next? Yeah. Seems so.

Modifié par JeosDinas, 26 juin 2012 - 02:30 .

[bleetman]

I-AM-KROGAN wrote...

 Does anyone know who the second flashback is? Like i mean i got EDI and my friend got thane. Why did we get those?

What ending did you choose? What ending did your friend choose?

I got EDI after picking destroy, and generally guessed it was just Here's Someone Who Died This Game shot.

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Can someone elaborate on the Normandy scene during the Conduit Run? What happens now? Normandy comes in and your squadmates leave? Why? What's said to make them okay with that? Is the entire Hammer squad just watching you say goodbye before they make a run? Or are they being flung around in the background by Harbinger while you have a moment?

This happens.

Which personally raises more questions than it answers, specifically "why doesn't Harbinger notice", and "why didn't they just land right next to the beam", but hey. A for effort.

Modifié par bleetman, 26 juin 2012 - 02:32 .

[BalooTheBear]

What happens if your LI was a ME2 character. Does the end scene with the memorial wall change. Who puts it on it not?

[ThatDancingTurian]

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Can someone elaborate on the Normandy scene during the Conduit Run? What happens now? Normandy comes in and your squadmates leave? Why? What's said to make them okay with that? Is the entire Hammer squad just watching you say goodbye before they make a run? Or are they being flung around in the background by Harbinger while you have a moment?

Seconded. I'd like to see a video or a transcript of the goodbyes there, specificallly the FemShep/Garrus one.

[Sia_Sinblade]

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...


Ahem...how is Shep supposed to know all of this. You guys are looking at this from YOUR perspective. YOU know what each choice results in. Shepard doesn't. How is she supposed to know everything is happy happy in any one given ending?

She makes a choice based on the situation at hand.

We are judging this on a meta-gaming perspective because we are critiquing the game design. Was it right to have this as the only way for a reunion to happen. Not whether the choice was right for an in-game character.

Uh...OK.

Then I conclude, yes. It was right.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

WastedHeart wrote...

I completely disagree that destroy only has one advantage over the others. In synthesis you have still forced the entire galaxy to become synthetic/organic hybrids and not everyone is going to be happy about that. And in control you have to presume that Shepard will be able to control the Reapers forevermore and that people will be happy with the Reapers still being around. Destroy comprehensively ends the threat without having to alter life as we know it in any way and, imo, is what most of the galaxy would have chosen given the option. The geth dying is awful, but that doesn't mean destroy doesn't have certain other advantages over the other ends that have nothing to do with Shepard living.

I don't disagree.

If you believe that picking Destroy is the best option because you don't want to do the hybrid thing or because you're afraid that Control won't end well, then you get to have your cake and eat it too: you get the ending you prefer and you get to live. Everything's coming up millhouse.

I only disagree when people claim that picking destroy is the only way to save the galaxy. It's firmly established that it isn't, so I get frustrated when people say "but trillions would have died if I didn't pick Destroy." That part isn't true.

If you picked Destroy knowing that it wasn't the only possible solution but feeling that the downsides of the other two possible choices were worse, I respect that completely. It's people who speak as if not choosing destory means the Reapers win that I take issue with.

Also, if you think that destroy is just as valid on its own merits as the other endings, then why should Shepard living be correlated with that particular ending? People keep saying that if Shepard lived in any ending other than destroy, that would be "bad," but if Destroy is fine on its own merits, why is that the case?

[Nerevar-as]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...

Sorry, but I just have to chime in here.

You don't commit genocide to see your LI.

You commit genocide to save the entire galaxy. Big difference, IMHO. .

No, the EC firmly establishes that the galaxy is saved no matter which of the original endings you pick.

The only advantage genocide gives you is that you live. So in a way, you are committing genocide in order to see your LI...

However, it's still possible that your Shepard believes that committing genocide is the only way to save the galaxy. It's just that the other new endings show us that the galaxy is in good shape no matter what you picked.

Ahem...how is Shep supposed to know all of this. You guys are looking at this from YOUR perspective. YOU know what each choice results in. Shepard doesn't. How is she supposed to know everything is happy happy in any one given ending?

She makes a choice based on the situation at hand.

Sure, but she has no reason, other than a personal hunch, to believe that Destroy is any more likely to work than Synthesis or Control. She has no reason to believe that it's the only way to save the galaxy, so she commits genocide on a hunch.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that's what happens: you get to live if you're willing to commit genocide based on nothing but a personal instinct. Bioware said a sacrifice had to be made for shepard to live, and that sacrifice is genocide.

Most people who picked destroy seem fine with the idea of killing the Geth to get to see their LI again.

Shephard knows destroy will kill the Reapers 100% sure. It´s control and synthesis where s/he follows a hunch hoping s/he´ll be able to control the Reapers forever, or that synthesis will do whatever it does (because it doesn´t stop Singularity, so when new AIs rebel what do you think Repaers will do?). And YOU know Shep will live, in game s/he is told destroy will kill him/her too.

So no, at least I don´t pick destroy to be with my LI again, I do because I´m taking no chances with genocidal machines that can live for tens of millions of years.

[burritosenior]

I just... do not feel satisfied. After four months and two GB of download, I suppose it's just that I was expecting... closure and meaning. Our war assets still meant nothing. I still don't have a grasp as to how any of my decisions mattered. There are VERY few additional cutscenes, and the actual 'closure' is just a slideshow with a narrator. That killed me the most.

... And if there's going to be an extra ending... why NOT add a happy one? I don't WANT all the Geth to die to have the happiest ending (i.e. I'm still alive).

It's better, definitely... but I just... I don't feel like their heart was in it this time.

[Kitten Tactics]

I just watched the Control ending. And this time, I cried for the RIGHT reason. I'm now just sad to see my now (again!) favorite game series EVER, end. I loved this ending.

This game feels VERY incomplete without the EC.

[KLGChaos]

For me, there isn't any real reason to play ME again. I give props to Bioware for trying to provide some clarity on things and giving it out for free. Very few other companies would do that. The problem is that no matter how much EMS I gather, none of the endings fit my Shepard.

Rejection-- The new ending would be the most likely option my Shepard takes. He believes in his forces and in the galactic community he's gathered together. He made peace between the Quarians and Geth, the Turians and Krogan, had a Rachni army and every squad member from ME1 and ME2 (minus the ones forced to die for story reasons). And in the end, it just gets everyone killed. Not going to happen as it goes against everything ME stood for in the beginning of the series-- fighting against impossible odds and coming out on top. It's just bleak and seems like a big "FU" from the team for daring to question their vision.

Control-- Become God, Save the Galaxy! Sadly, this is probably the most appropriate ending for my Shep-- sacrificing himself to save everyone else and keep the diversity he was aiming for. But, the Reapers are still around and frankly, my Shep didn't want to be a God. He just wanted to relax on the beach with Garrus and help Tali build her house.

Synthesis-- My Shep went through each game believing that it was the galaxy's diversity that makes it strong (which convos between Liara and Javik reinforced). Forcing everyone to become some giant, homogenous man-bot race goes against those themes completely.

Destroy-- Reapers and dead, my Shep lives. Yay. Too bad it once again goes in the face of all the games themes about overcoming diversity. Legion, EDI and the Geth's storyline ends up meaning absolutely nothing when you choose this. It's basically saying the Reapers are right. Yeah, you save yourself and your friends, but the synthetics you just made friends of are wiped out in mass genocide.

This was definitely my last Bioware game. Between DA2 and ME3, I've just lost my faith in them being able to keep their promises and worse, in their writing, which has always been their strongest point. It was so great up until the end...

[LazyTechGuy]

Any real reason why it's 2 GB? It looks like the Normandy scene is different with a different Joker animation and all that. So is 2 GB just the new stuff plus stuff that replaces some of the previous things?

[Bendigoe]

Why was this DLC 1.85GB for talking and static scenes?
Or did it really take up that much memory to get your squadmates onto the normandy?
Are there extra scenes spread throughout the game?

[ussbones6]

bleetman wrote...

I-AM-KROGAN wrote...

 Does anyone know who the second flashback is? Like i mean i got EDI and my friend got thane. Why did we get those?

What ending did you choose? What ending did your friend choose?

I got EDI after picking destroy, and generally guessed it was just Here's Someone Who Died This Game shot.

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Can someone elaborate on the Normandy scene during the Conduit Run? What happens now? Normandy comes in and your squadmates leave? Why? What's said to make them okay with that? Is the entire Hammer squad just watching you say goodbye before they make a run? Or are they being flung around in the background by Harbinger while you have a moment?

This happens.

Which personally raises more questions than it answers, specifically "why doesn't Harbinger notice", and "why didn't they just land right next to the beam", but hey. A for effort.

It's like Harby's going "Yea, I SEE YOU... Awww, I blinked for a very long time and you flew away... Drat, i'll just kill shepard now then"

[burritosenior]

KLGChaos wrote...
Shep didn't want to be a God. He just wanted to relax on the beach with Garrus and help Tali build her house.

I don't care how cheesey it would have been or how hard it would have been to make it fit. I would have given anything to have had those two moments in this DLC- no joke. It just seems so impersonal. And those were indeed the two biggest things I was hoping for, ridiculous or not.

[tamperous]

Sia_Sinblade wrote...

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...


Ahem...how is Shep supposed to know all of this. You guys are looking at this from YOUR perspective. YOU know what each choice results in. Shepard doesn't. How is she supposed to know everything is happy happy in any one given ending?

She makes a choice based on the situation at hand.

We are judging this on a meta-gaming perspective because we are critiquing the game design. Was it right to have this as the only way for a reunion to happen. Not whether the choice was right for an in-game character.

Uh...OK.

Then I conclude, yes. It was right.

Cool because there's this hot girl on this tropical island, she loves me but I have to kill everyone on Tahiti to be back together with her.  

Many people will still reject their art for the morally repugnant consequences of extending their in-game logic to the real world. 

[I-AM-KROGAN]

BalooTheBear wrote...

What happens if your LI was a ME2 character. Does the end scene with the memorial wall change. Who puts it on it not?

Who ever you talked to the most on the ship does. I got Kaiden and i romanced Jack.

[WastedHeart]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

WastedHeart wrote...

I completely disagree that destroy only has one advantage over the others. In synthesis you have still forced the entire galaxy to become synthetic/organic hybrids and not everyone is going to be happy about that. And in control you have to presume that Shepard will be able to control the Reapers forevermore and that people will be happy with the Reapers still being around. Destroy comprehensively ends the threat without having to alter life as we know it in any way and, imo, is what most of the galaxy would have chosen given the option. The geth dying is awful, but that doesn't mean destroy doesn't have certain other advantages over the other ends that have nothing to do with Shepard living.

I don't disagree.

If you believe that picking Destroy is the best option because you don't want to do the hybrid thing or because you're afraid that Control won't end well, then you get to have your cake and eat it too: you get the ending you prefer and you get to live. Everything's coming up millhouse.

I only disagree when people claim that picking destroy is the only way to save the galaxy. It's firmly established that it isn't, so I get frustrated when people say "but trillions would have died if I didn't pick Destroy." That part isn't true.

If you picked Destroy knowing that it wasn't the only possible solution but feeling that the downsides of the other two possible choices were worse, I respect that completely. It's people who speak as if not choosing destory means the Reapers win that I take issue with.

Also, if you think that destroy is just as valid on its own merits as the other endings, then why should Shepard living be correlated with that particular ending? People keep saying that if Shepard lived in any ending other than destroy, that would be "bad," but if Destroy is fine on its own merits, why is that the case?

If I were to guess (because it can only be a guess), I would say it is because BioWare originally intended destroy to be the renegady organics first end. So then it makes sense that Shepard lives only in that one. But a lot of people (including me) don't pick it for that reason. Even if my Shep died in destroy, I'd still choose it because I simply can't quite stomach aspects of the other two. I believe in people having the freedom to make their own destinies and so does my canon Shep, and the majority of the galaxy's races (minus the geth) can do just that in the destroy end without the Reapers' shadow hanging over them anymore . Plus, my Shepard has no God complex so would find it difficult to believe she could control the Reapers for any period of time (nor would she want to) or to believe that she had any right to fundamentally alter all life in the galaxy.

Also, personally I'd have no problem with Shep living somehow in all three. But even if she did, I'd still pick destroy.

Modifié par WastedHeart, 26 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[Nerevar-as]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Also, if you think that destroy is just as valid on its own merits as the other endings, then why should Shepard living be correlated with that particular ending? People keep saying that if Shepard lived in any ending other than destroy, that would be "bad," but if Destroy is fine on its own merits, why is that the case?

Well, s/he kind of lives in Control.

But probably, because the way the endings are presented, Shepard dying is the only cost to c&s endings. If s/he lived and got back to the LI in those too it would be a totally happy ending. And a full sunshine&rainbows ending to such a threat would be almost as bad as the galactic society destroyed we had before EC.

Destroy already has a cost , if you think AIs qualify as life. So Shepard possibly living makes it easier to take. Of course, if you don´t give a damn about AIs then it´s the perfect happy ending, so it looks like it´s rewarding genocide. Not that it´s the first time they do something like this. I think back in BG2 redeeming Viconia got her killed, while letting her going on being evil got her power.

[Megaolix]

So, who do you think got mad at people shooting SC to code in that trigger for new ending if you do so now?

Modifié par Megaolix, 26 juin 2012 - 02:40 .

[Sia_Sinblade]

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...


Ahem...how is Shep supposed to know all of this. You guys are looking at this from YOUR perspective. YOU know what each choice results in. Shepard doesn't. How is she supposed to know everything is happy happy in any one given ending?

She makes a choice based on the situation at hand.

We are judging this on a meta-gaming perspective because we are critiquing the game design. Was it right to have this as the only way for a reunion to happen. Not whether the choice was right for an in-game character.

Uh...OK.

Then I conclude, yes. It was right.

Cool because there's this hot girl on this tropical island, she loves me but I have to kill everyone on Tahiti to be back together with her.  

Many people will still reject their art for the morally repugnant consequences of extending their in-game logic to the real world. 

I don't quite understand your logic here.

If you go into metagaming, it just so happens that we KNOW nothing is real. It's a game. No consequences are important, because there are no REAL consequences to your actions. All you are doing is selecting an option.

If you want to talk about consequences, it only makes sense in an in-game environment.

What in-game logic is extended to the real world?

I fear I have lost you.

[LTKerr]

Subject M wrote...

I think part of the reason why we did not see a reunion is part of the original intent or "vision" of the ending.
It was supposed to be the "worst" ending from a certain point of view and perhaps they did not want to be the ones telling a story about committing genocide of your allies would result in Shepard "getting the girl" and living happy ever after.

I don't want Shepard to become a damn blue God, it's wrong in any way. Besides, I thought Mass Effect were a realistic science fiction series, I don't see how an electrocuted and carbonized person can still exists and then control giant squids. Uhh... no.

I don't need to merge every organic and synthetic to consider synthetics as living beings. I already considered EDI and the Geth alive since ME2, I don't need green space magic. What I need is the synthetics being treated as organics by the galactic comunity: put the Geth in the Council, give them the same "human rights", do whatever it takes that symbolizes this treatment. Each race is unique and perfect as it is, it's this diversity what makes the whole universe beautiful. If I choose the synthesis option, I'm breaking this perfection, I'm ruining the most beatiful thing about diversity: diversity itself.

So there's only the red one left. It seems Bioware can't understand that with the other two options they are breaking the series themes. In fact, EDI and Geth die in this option just because Bioware wanted to add some kind of punishment in the most obvious option. I played 100 hours wanting to destroy the reapers even if I believed they are alive and have the right to live. 100 hours... you can call it determination. They could reward this determination like a lot of movies/books/real life do.

[LazyTechGuy]

ussbones6 wrote...

bleetman wrote...

I-AM-KROGAN wrote...

 Does anyone know who the second flashback is? Like i mean i got EDI and my friend got thane. Why did we get those?

What ending did you choose? What ending did your friend choose?

I got EDI after picking destroy, and generally guessed it was just Here's Someone Who Died This Game shot.

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Can someone elaborate on the Normandy scene during the Conduit Run? What happens now? Normandy comes in and your squadmates leave? Why? What's said to make them okay with that? Is the entire Hammer squad just watching you say goodbye before they make a run? Or are they being flung around in the background by Harbinger while you have a moment?

This happens.

Which personally raises more questions than it answers, specifically "why doesn't Harbinger notice", and "why didn't they just land right next to the beam", but hey. A for effort.

It's like Harby's going "Yea, I SEE YOU... Awww, I blinked for a very long time and you flew away... Drat, i'll just kill shepard now then"

Thank you.  Better than I thought it'd be.  Not perfect, but we get more intensity with the Conduit Run.  

[JusticarDoom]

I think the overall reactions people have and will have is that the ending is good. But because it was not the original, it is not enough to totally forgive BWare or heal the wounds that are in the community. I do, however, now think that I got what I was promised; clarity and closure, and I can now say fully that this is the best gaming trilogy and story I will ever have the pleasure of playing. I now know that at the end, my decisions meant something, and the galaxy will, for the foreseeable future, be a good place to live.

Thank You, Bioware.

[Kitten Tactics]

JusticarDoom wrote...

I think the overall reactions people have and will have is that the ending is good. But because it was not the original, it is not enough to totally forgive BWare or heal the wounds that are in the community. I do, however, now think that I got what I was promised; clarity and closure, and I can now say fully that this is the best gaming trilogy and story I will ever have the pleasure of playing. I now know that at the end, my decisions meant something, and the galaxy will, for the foreseeable future, be a good place to live.

Thank You, Bioware.

Agreed, I feel like Mass Effect has been given back to me.

[levannar]

IanPolaris wrote...

LazyTechGuy wrote...

I actually like the idea that you can't defeat the Reapers with brute force. You just can't. They have a pretty big head start on life. I know you want to shoot the Reapers in the face, but you can't. You have to beat them by going to the source (oh... now the Matrix connection is coming into play).

Why not?  Oh I agree that for most cycles there wouldn't be enough force, but the Reapers themselves know they are far from invincible.  That's WHY they try to cripple the C3I as part of their initial attack in most cycles.  However we know that Reapers can be defeated conventially.  Not easily no, but it can be done.

Given enough time, resources, and galactic unity, I see no intrinsic reason why the Reapers can't be beaten and the star-gazer scene after refusal (which I regard as non-canonical) seems to strongly imply that the cycle after yours using Liara's data does just that.  Beats the Reapers conventionally.

-Polaris

The way I see it is this: We were shown numerous times that a Reaper is not invincible and can be taken down through conventional warfare. Because of this, it stands to reason that a fleet of individual Reapers, no matter how large, can also be defeated through conventional warfare. It's unlikely, but the chance is there. It has a probability greater than zero.

And it's here that the Catalyst's (and the Reapers') own logic comes back to bite them in the ass. They say that the fact that a technological singularity has a chance to happen means that, if given enough time, it WILL happen eventually. The same logic says that because the Reapers can be destroyed conventionally, they eventually WILL be destroyed conventionally (unless someone uses the Crucible before that, of course).

Actually, the Catalyst itself may be aware of this. It'd explain why it's so pissed if you refuse to use the Crucible (Control and Synthesis would leave the Reapers alive, and even Destroy would be better than leaving it to conventional warfare, since it at least destroys all currently existing synthetics along with the Reapers).