4048 réponses à ce sujet

[Untold]

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.

I have a question. The breathing scene in destroy still had no further ellaboration. Is this something that will be touched on at a later time or is that just left to speculation again?

[SaladinDheonqar]

And it took them 3 months to come up with this? Sigh.......

Oh well, that's it for me. Goodbye Bioware.

[Team Value]

tamperous wrote...

Yes but it was never they "artistic vision" for a solution to be reached by co-operation and trust between people that are different. Solutions can only come from some sort of Godlike intervention which involves smiting a race, replacing god with yourself (presumably more benevolant but human and ultimately corruptable), or manipulating everyone's genetics against their will.

Hudson, Walters, It's not that I don't understand your art, it's that I understand it too well and reject it completely. I intend to be rejecting it every time a new piece comes out for sale from now until the end of days.

This.

I could accept a "there is no ideal choice" ending (I love the Witcher series and there are no ideal choices anywhere to be found there), but the fact that Bioware doesn't even seem to understand how repulsive the options they force us to accept in order to "win" are is baffling. If anything, the control and synthesis endings are even worse than before. I reject the idea of having to appeal to a Space God to solve my problems and I reject the idea that only by homogenizing everything in the universe can peace be achieved. These ideas are poorly thought out and--frankly--I consider them insulting.

What Bioware has never seemed to figure out is that the vitriol over the endings isn't (just) about bad writing. ME1 had bad writing (although the plot was quite good overall), ME2 had bad writing (the individual parts were generally good, but the overall plot was a non-sequitur), but people still love them, because they didn't present reprehensible worldviews that the player is forced to accept in order to succeed (in fact, you reject them and prove them to be misquided). The endings to ME3--minus the only truly noble choice of rejecting the Catalyst's BS, which results in automatic failure--do.

In short, I could accept a game that makes me choose between the lesser of two evils, but I cannot accept a game that tries to convince me an evil is good.

[Dwarva]

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.

Thank you for clarifying this.

[JamieCOTC]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

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. 

Thank you.

[Sia_Sinblade]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

I'd much rather believe that people are clever enough to form their own opinions rather than "Oh look, Shepard blows up a race to have sex with his GF, so genocide must be cool!".

I mean...really? People think that way? If that's true it only makes me lament the state of society even more.

[Joukahainen]

Well okay i played the "Rejecting" ending and if i remember correctly that endings was written by someone in these forums and Bioware added little bit more to it.
Okay well now i didnt get that "wtf **** is this" moment when Shepard was standing on Normandy after the ending and now i was reliefed of the ending how they made it. Well they added few cutscenes and dialogues and removed some of the evidence pointing towards Indoc theory.

I expected alot wotse after listening Hudsons podcast and after it i just tought that ending would be everything but what he told us. Now im surely going to try other endings and hopefully they have gotten big change also.

Overall i think Bioware made a good move listening players and making more content for the ending.

Thank you Bioware!

EDIT: Okay well best possible Destroy ending was just awesome. It game just what i was seeking from the game.

Modifié par Joukahainen, 26 juin 2012 - 04:11 .

[tamperous]

Nerevar-as wrote...

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.

Newp, I'm playing it straight as a benevolant but narcicistic god. My Spacer FemShep is a big fan of Plato's Republic and the idea of the Enlightened Despot. 

Modifié par tamperous, 26 juin 2012 - 03:21 .

[mrbauxjangles]

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.

Sadly my LI was Miranda and she only got a slide in the EC.  Kind of makes me regret picking Miranda

[GreenDragon37]

JamieCOTC wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

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. 

Thank you.

No prob. I still chose Destroy because it is the closest thing that fit him without the rejection ending... which doesn't go well.

[Drenick18]

Hey Bioware. I remember posting my dissatisfaction with the ending here at the forums a few months ago. lots of comments, ranging from rageface wtf have you guys done to meh to some of it was okay.

Just played through the Extended Cut. and I have to say thanks for making the effort. I'm still bugged by a few things (like stuff I hated about the ending before and still hate even now), but more importantly, you guys did a lot of stuff that were unexpected and were actually REALLY AWESOME. So congrats to you guys and awesome work, (some of it is still **** tho but yeah, I', over it)

That said, I think the best complement I can give you guys now is that I ACTUALLY feel like replaying the entire trilogy again and continuing some of my other play-thoughs now up to the ending (can you believe that? up to the ending!). So thanks for that.

[WastedHeart]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

But the thing is ALL of the endings have some really unpleasant implications. Not just destroy. That was why so many people were upset by them. It's about picking the one you can stomach most.

Personally, I find synthesis the most 'wrong', and some people have even argued it has fascist overtones (not me personally though). You clearly find destroy the most distasteful. That's fine. But I don't see the point in signalling destroy out the way you are just because Shepard lives in it. It's a valid choice for some people, and many of them do not pick it because Shepard lives. Saying that we all want a Disney ending is way over generalising.

Also, BioWare are the ones who linked the survival of Shepard to him or her killing the Geth, not the people who chose destroy. It not our fault that things ended up that way. 

Modifié par WastedHeart, 26 juin 2012 - 03:40 .

[Bendigoe]

Did anybody notice that odd noise when you're first transported into the Citadel tunnels?
It happens just after Anderson contacts Shepard on the radio and She/He lifts their head.

Edit: Not an IT fanatic, just curious.

Modifié par Bendigoe, 26 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[dragonator89]

I don't feel as bad or pissed as I did when I first saw the original ending. Why? Because before the EC was released I had low expectiations, a part of me expected them to f**k up their second chance, and they did. Although the EC was slightly better than the original ending,  personally the IT ending would be 1000x better, I would even be willing to wait a couple more months, hell I 'll even pay to have the IT ending.  Oh well.
My reactions to the, not new, but expanded endings:

"Expect the worse and you won't be disappointed"

Modifié par dragonator89, 26 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sia_Sinblade wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

I'd much rather believe that people are clever enough to form their own opinions rather than "Oh look, Shepard blows up a race to have sex with his GF, so genocide must be cool!".

I mean...really? People think that way? If that's true it only makes me lament the state of society even more.

Just read these forums and you'll see. A lot of people who were previously on the fence about whether or not the Geth were people have decided to just assume they're not so they can kill them guilt-free. There are pages upon pages of posts stating that if someone allies with you in a war, it's OK to kill them all, because the act of allying with you in a war means they have agreed to die at your whim without consultation.

Either people who picked destroy had crazy views about alliances and genocide before this game was released, or they've been strongly influenced to be more accepting of the concept of genocide by the games. I'm not sure which is the case.

If they already thought genocide was OK before they played the game, they tend to feel that the ending shows that they're "smarter" and more "practical" than people who thought genocide was wrong. There have been many people who have said their Shepard can comfortably commit genocide without it "changing who they are." 

Other posters probably wouldn't have said "oh yeah, Genocide's fine!" before playing this game.., but if you ask them if they feel bad about killing the geth now, they'll say "nothing matters but my happiness!" 

Either society is more messed up than I'd like to believe, or this particular piece of art is changing people's ethical views on genocide in a very distrubing way.

It may just be that society was more messed up to start than I thought, and that Bioware is catering to the huge "genocide is cool!" demographic that I never knew existed.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 03:25 .

[Iakus]

So we still have to commit genocide to get a
Ending where Shep lives and we can' even get a three second reunion scene for our troubles...

Fail.

[nitefyre410]

tamperous wrote...

Yes but it was never they "artistic vision" for a solution to be reached by co-operation and trust between people that are different. Solutions can only come from some sort of Godlike intervention which involves smiting a race, replacing god with yourself (presumably more benevolant but human and ultimately corruptable), or manipulating everyone's genetics against their will.

Hudson, Walters, It's not that I don't understand your art, it's that I understand it too well and reject it completely. I intend to be rejecting it every time a new piece comes out for sale from now until the end of days.

Those are my  exactly my thoughts in the ending and while the presentation of the endings are better. The endings themselves are still  overall just bad. None of them  are self determined. More so these were all the Catalyst choices and none are Shepard . The only real choice the player can make is treated  like a patronizing  and condensing tone... oh  choice you future... auto- fail. 

All in all... ME 3 into is just sub par in the end and thats what its going to remembered as by many of the fans.  I'll get around to actually playing this when the game is about 20 bucks. I have other things to play... Darksiders 2 and Assasins Creed 3

[DarxydeBluus]

Watched the endings. Still don't like them, but they're at least not as offensive to me as the originals were. Of course that may be because I'm just tired of this whole thing. I certainly won't say that I'm satisfied with ME3 now and I still don't know if I could put my Shepard through those endings.

Destroy would still be my choice, even though it still throws out all of the work you've done in establishing coexistence between organics and synthetics.

Control isn't bad. I liked that they expanded on what Shepard became. I still would have liked to see a giant Reaper with the N7 logo on it smacking Harbinger around.

I still would never choose Synthesis. It's mass rape to me no matter how flowery they try to make it.

I like the idea of adding a refusal ending, even if it did feel like a big FU to people who don't like the original endings.

As for my future as far as BW products are concerned, I just don't know. I am sticking to my pledge that I will never preorder another BW game again.

Modifié par DarxydeBluus, 26 juin 2012 - 03:30 .

[Blackgate456]

Well thank you Bioware. It is not perfect but I can live with it now. I understand you wanted to move on with the franchise. If you finshed the serie with Mass Effect 3, Shepard would have survived, but he/she must die so you can continoue with Mass Effect..... But why could you not let Mass Effect 4 play 100 or 1000 years later, when every person died naturally? And Shepard would have lived with his Li and be happy? *ufff*

Well the show must go on, and I think now everybody has an ending he/she can live with. In the renegate ending we can assume that Shepard survived, in paragon he/she is some kind of immortal, protecting everybody and in synthesis everybody is alive but Shepard is dead....but in all 3 ending he/she will live on in the memories of the survivors. And with the refusal ending we can hope for a new species to finally beat the reapers.

Still not what I wished for but waaayyy better than before.

Modifié par Blackgate456, 26 juin 2012 - 03:31 .

[unreadierLizard]

Vikali wrote...

PraetorianNova wrote...

It looks like I won't be playing ME3. That depressing rubbish as canon? No.

Forced multiplayer play to get good endings? even worse. I don't want to spend my time with certain aspects of the multi-player community who have brains the size of a turnip.

Looks like ME2 is my ending for the series. In my mind, Shepard's indoctrinated, wakes up, beats the Reapers and the galaxy rebuilds. Not "everybody dies either way".

If you don't want to do multiplayer, there's a cool little program called gibbed's where you can boost your EMS and get the ending you want.

Where is this? I'd love to use it. 

[jokey javik]

I am sticking to my guns here like I should of done in the first place me3 is back in the horse manure pile I through it in before (I am being literal) I may be to much for symbolism but I did not see mass effect in that pile I saw what I believe to be perhaps the last videogame I will ever play not out of rage but out of love of video games how reach is the last halo I will ever play how kotor 2 was the last Starwars game I will ever play and skyrim the last true rpg I will ever play, and mass effect 2 the last game that ever made me feel truly victorious.

This maybe the last time anyone here will ever hear from me again so I say farewell but If a truly great game arises from Bioware again I will be back go forth then Bioware go forth.

Signed Adam Vergara

[Bendigoe]

How do the stranded Normandy crew know Anderson is dead but not Shepard?

[tettenjager]

thanks for this amazing ending bioware, props to you all!!

Now make me some epic SP content

[JamieCOTC]

wafflez wrote...

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

I was wondering about this too. I'm at this point and if there's nothing new, I'd like to go ahead and get it over with.

[FemmeShep]

Endings are still awful. 

Modifié par FemmeShep, 26 juin 2012 - 03:33 .