4048 réponses à ce sujet

[GreenDragon37]

They actually did a good job. There, I said it. It wasn't the change I wanted, but it was an improvement none-the-less.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 26 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[Maera Imrov]

JeosDinas wrote...

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.

Which I see the merit in, and do not disagree with on the whole, but this notion amongst the fanbase that the Crucible is necessary to defeat the Reapers is ridiculous, and trumped by the post-Refusal Stargazer. I just don't see how the next cycle will have anymore of this elusive 'time' people keep saying is working against this cycle to put the tech we managed to build up into use galaxy wide across all fleets. By the time they find the beacons, or the capsule Liara has left behind, it could already be reapin' time again, in which case they're in the same boat we were.

...except they obviously win.

So do we assume they found it in enough time to get that tech passed around, a Council that actually believes the Shepard of that time that the Reapers are coming, and the money to implement said tech on every ship in every fleet in the galaxy? Obviously they won't try the Crucible again, Liara tells them it does not work. So they just happen to get lucky with time and money and resources and happen to beat them conventionally with a super-strong Galactic Fleet without the Crucible, where we couldn't? When that tech was already in use by some, or maybe even a large portion of our fleet? I thought I recalled the game implying that it had been implemented on some fleets. Especially the fleets the tech originated from.

So while I have no issue with the 'sacrifice' aspect of giving the next cycle that leg up, it seems to rely on a good bit of luck and providential timing for the next cycle, and heavily on the idea that they just turtle up a bit better than we do, when we'd already managed to do quite a bit of it, while also uniting synthetics and organics under one banner.

And yet they win. And we can't.

Something about it seems far fetched, on one end or the other.

[Sia_Sinblade]

Maera Imrov wrote...

JeosDinas wrote...

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.

Which I see the merit in, and do not disagree with on the whole, but this notion amongst the fanbase that the Crucible is necessary to defeat the Reapers is ridiculous, and trumped by the post-Refusal Stargazer. I just don't see how the next cycle will have anymore of this elusive 'time' people keep saying is working against this cycle to put the tech we managed to build up into use galaxy wide across all fleets. By the time they find the beacons, or the capsule Liara has left behind, it could already be reapin' time again, in which case they're in the same boat we were.

...except they obviously win.

So do we assume they found it in enough time to get that tech passed around, a Council that actually believes the Shepard of that time that the Reapers are coming, and the money to implement said tech on every ship in every fleet in the galaxy? Obviously they won't try the Crucible again, Liara tells them it does not work. So they just happen to get lucky with time and money and resources and happen to beat them conventionally with a super-strong Galactic Fleet without the Crucible, where we couldn't? When that tech was already in use by some, or maybe even a large portion of our fleet? I thought I recalled the game implying that it had been implemented on some fleets. Especially the fleets the tech originated from.

So while I have no issue with the 'sacrifice' aspect of giving the next cycle that leg up, it seems to rely on a good bit of luck and providential timing for the next cycle, and heavily on the idea that they just turtle up a bit better than we do, when we'd already managed to do quite a bit of it, while also uniting synthetics and organics under one banner.

And yet they win. And we can't.

Something about it seems far fetched, on one end or the other.

Why? If our cycle had poured all resources into actually building up conventional defenses, maybe additional research etc. instead of spending a GOOD bit on building a device that didn't work...maybe we would have managed it, too.

Maybe THAT was the important part. Maybe it was that little bit of information, to NOT waste time on the Crucible and instead pour everything you have into research and development of Reaper Killing weaponry.

Sounds OK to me?

[Warlegend]

What do you think deserves to be the "good" ending? according to music and scenes i would still say red - Destroy. But now i´m not sure anymore... Control is much better now.

[tamperous]

Sia_Sinblade wrote...



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.

Since BW wants to be critiqued as art, video game art isn't just the writing, graphics or soundtrack. Video game art is also the design of the challenge, the progression, and the resolution of the challenges or problems posed by the narrative.

Art is both a reflection of and instructive to the society created it. What does it say about gaming culture and game developers when they provide the user as the only choice for personal survival as an easter egg after comitting genocide? 
 
It's certainly not a society I'd like to be a part of.

Modifié par tamperous, 26 juin 2012 - 02:55 .

[Kitten Tactics]

I love both the new Control and the new Destroy. Synthesis is still too weird.

[wafflez]

So... no new content at the cerberus base? At all?

[Seriuz Biznus]

I'm glad that a few of the big problems were addressed (Mass Relays blowing up, squadmates teleporting to the Normandy) but the one issue I really cared about has just been swept under the rug. Why even bother having a scene where Shepard takes a breath - a scene that requires the highest amount of EMS to attain - if you're not going to deal with it? At least before the EC the timeline made sense.

I just don't understand why you would go to the trouble of creating an EC only to half-ass it.

[Sia_Sinblade]

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...



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.

Since BW wants to be critiqued as art, video game art isn't just the writing, graphics or soundtrack. Video game art is also the design of the challenge, the progression, and the resolution of the challenges or problems posed by the narrative.

Art is both a reflection of and instructive to the society created it. What does it say about gaming culture and game developers when they provide the user as the only choice for personal survival as an easter egg after comitting genocide? 
 
It's certainly not a society I'd like to be a part of.

Your mixing things to make your point. You either look at the game from an in-game perspective for purposes of story or you look at it from a metagame perspective where none of the ingame decisions reflect on life.

You as a player never commit genocide. You select an option with the full knowledge that nothing you do is real and with the sole intent of seeing a different ending. Something that can in no way shape or form be connected to an in-game decision where all those lives would actually matter.

I feel like the only thing you are doing is complaining that you didn't get to see the LI reunion in the ending you desired and now try to paint that as forcing you to commit genocide.

[tamperous]

For me Control is still the least morally bankrupt ending. I'll just convince myself Frodo cannot be corrupted by taking up the mantle of the One Ring after he replaces Sauron.

Genocide and Eugenics really don't appeal to me at all. Suicide while paragon is frickin suicide for everyone.

[I-AM-KROGAN]

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.

Yes. thanks for all that. But i still feel that us who romanced people who are not on the normandy got the shaft. All i saw was jack looking onto the sunset. Wish there would of been a cinematic.

[JamieCOTC]

Only one question here. Is Shepard still abhorrently out of character in the final? Thanks.

[tamperous]

Sia_Sinblade wrote...




Your mixing things to make your point. You either look at the game from an in-game perspective for purposes of story or you look at it from a metagame perspective where none of the ingame decisions reflect on life.

You as a player never commit genocide. You select an option with the full knowledge that nothing you do is real and with the sole intent of seeing a different ending. Something that can in no way shape or form be connected to an in-game decision where all those lives would actually matter.

I feel like the only thing you are doing is complaining that you didn't get to see the LI reunion in the ending you desired and now try to paint that as forcing you to commit genocide.

I don't care about the LI, my attachment to Liara isn't that great. It's enough that they all live. I still think that the Easter egg should be included in the other two colours with sufficient EMS as well. Do you understand now?

Modifié par tamperous, 26 juin 2012 - 03:04 .

[jokey javik]

Well extended cut worst birthday gift ever refusal should of had Shepard get back in the fight synthesis is still impossible and control did anyone back when me1 came out say ohh yeah Shepard is going to be a reaper one day.


I had low expectations but and I mean really low but come one Bioware learn from the Greek stories of old hubris was the moral of those stories you can do better but be humble.

I am more sad, depressed, and angry so my sixteenth birthday will run hollow with this indescribable injustice to logical story telling and yet I remain to try and convince others and to reinforce logic and true hope viva la indoctrination theory viva.

[jeff359]

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.

Hey thanks for taking the time to clarify this. Its nice to have some bioware interaction.

[Sia_Sinblade]

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...




Your mixing things to make your point. You either look at the game from an in-game perspective for purposes of story or you look at it from a metagame perspective where none of the ingame decisions reflect on life.

You as a player never commit genocide. You select an option with the full knowledge that nothing you do is real and with the sole intent of seeing a different ending. Something that can in no way shape or form be connected to an in-game decision where all those lives would actually matter.

I feel like the only thing you are doing is complaining that you didn't get to see the LI reunion in the ending you desired and now try to paint that as forcing you to commit genocide.

I don't care about the LI, my attachment to Liara isn't that great. It's enough that they all live. I still think that the Easter egg should be included in the other two colours with sufficient EMS as well. Do you understand now?

I understand you fine. I just don't agree with your reasoning and your hypothesis that, being OK with the way things are handled equates to being ok with genocide for LI.

That's some weird logic.

[Vikali]

jokey javik wrote...
I am more sad, depressed, and angry so my sixteenth birthday will run hollow with this indescribable injustice to logical story telling and yet I remain to try and convince others and to reinforce logic and true hope viva la indoctrination theory viva.

Hahaha! Kudos. I like you already.
( God I hope that was a joke or I'll look like an ass. D: )

[GreenDragon37]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Only one question here. Is Shepard still abhorrently out of character in the final? Thanks.

Not really. You get to ask a lot of questions. You can even to reject the Catalyst's plans. 

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 26 juin 2012 - 03:07 .

[snk575]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Only one question here. Is Shepard still abhorrently out of character in the final? Thanks.

There is a new choice to reject all 3 choices... that one seems like Shepard is still in character IMO.

[DarthMuffin]

Adding my drop the ocean because I think BioWare deserves our feedback.

I personally like this extended cut overall. It definitely gives more closure and answers many questions. Overall, I feel like I've truly completed the trilogy now and actually feel happy about it. It's not what I'd call perfect, but I think the remaining problems are things that couldn't really be fixed right now. Basically, I think BioWare did the best they could considering that they couldn't rewrite entire portions of the storyline. Thanks!

[ReaperDominator]

just finished the EC honestly thought it was brilliant!...absolutely no problems with it at all! amended everything i hated about the previous endings like the relays blowing up and really liked how shep is able to question the catalyst now...very happy!

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sia_Sinblade wrote...

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...
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.

Since BW wants to be critiqued as art, video game art isn't just the writing, graphics or soundtrack. Video game art is also the design of the challenge, the progression, and the resolution of the challenges or problems posed by the narrative.

Art is both a reflection of and instructive to the society created it. What does it say about gaming culture and game developers when they provide the user as the only choice for personal survival as an easter egg after comitting genocide? 
 
It's certainly not a society I'd like to be a part of.

Your mixing things to make your point. You either look at the game from an in-game perspective for purposes of story or you look at it from a metagame perspective where none of the ingame decisions reflect on life.

You as a player never commit genocide. You select an option with the full knowledge that nothing you do is real and with the sole intent of seeing a different ending. Something that can in no way shape or form be connected to an in-game decision where all those lives would actually matter.

I feel like the only thing you are doing is complaining that you didn't get to see the LI reunion in the ending you desired and now try to paint that as forcing you to commit genocide.

Let me give you another example: 

Kids see people on TV smoking: cartoon characters, cool people in movies. This makes kids think smoking is cool and want to smoke more. Seeing your hero do something makes it seem more acceptable. This is why they try to avoid having people smoke on TV as much as they did in the 50s, especially during programs developed for kids.

Now let's go one step further: say you watch a TV show where the hero uses torture on a captive, and it works: they get the coordinates of a ticking time bomb and are able to defuse it just in time. Watching programs like this has been shown to make people more likely to think that torture is acceptable: when they see a TV hero do it and get a good result, the part of their brain that processes stories associates torture with heroism and positive results.

Those of us who are concerned about the ending think it's troubling that genocide is being associated with heroism and positive results. I'd rather Shepard die in every ending than correlate survival with genocide.

But the destroy people want their fairy tale ending, so they insist that life must be correlated with genocide in this work of art... which some of us feel has unpleasant implications.

[Nerevar-as]

tamperous wrote...

For me Control is still the least morally bankrupt ending. I'll just convince myself Frodo cannot be corrupted by taking up the mantle of the One Ring after he replaces Sauron.

Genocide and Eugenics really don't appeal to me at all. Suicide while paragon is frickin suicide for everyone.

Convince yourself also that no Reaper will ever break free in tens of millions of years.

Control + fly Reapers into a black hole would be ideal, but it seems that´s not there.

[Linkinator]

can someone please confirm there is no extra scenes on the cerberus base because from what ive seen and played there are none!

[tamperous]

Sia_Sinblade wrote...

tamperous wrote...

Sia_Sinblade wrote...




Your mixing things to make your point. You either look at the game from an in-game perspective for purposes of story or you look at it from a metagame perspective where none of the ingame decisions reflect on life.

You as a player never commit genocide. You select an option with the full knowledge that nothing you do is real and with the sole intent of seeing a different ending. Something that can in no way shape or form be connected to an in-game decision where all those lives would actually matter.

I feel like the only thing you are doing is complaining that you didn't get to see the LI reunion in the ending you desired and now try to paint that as forcing you to commit genocide.

I don't care about the LI, my attachment to Liara isn't that great. It's enough that they all live. I still think that the Easter egg should be included in the other two colours with sufficient EMS as well. Do you understand now?

I understand you fine. I just don't agree with your reasoning and your hypothesis that, being OK with the way things are handled equates to being ok with genocide for LI.

That's some weird logic.

Did I ever say anything about players being okay with they way things are handled? Critiquing the writers isn't the same as critiquing people who are okay with the ending. And even a critique of society isn't any type of personal critique. I'm talking only about the writers and what their design choice says about what their views of games and society.