176 réponses à ce sujet

[JamesFaith]

LucasShark wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Irish286 wrote...

Why couldn't they just ad one last ending where if we have enough war assets we could defeat the reapers... Are they that intent on a bittersweet ending?

Lets put aside if endings are good or not and use simple logic on this.

We have four ending now.

To achieve Destroy you must fight through London, get to Citadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and destroy Reapers.
To achieve Control you must fight through London, get to Citadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and take control of Reapers.
To achieve Synthesis you must fight through London, get to Citadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and start synthesis.
To achievenew end you must fight through London, get to CItadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and refuse his option.

But end you demanding simply don't need London, Citadel, TIM and Catalyst - which means that such end would be totally unfitting to others four. No arrogance, ego or love for bittersweet ends here, it just not fitting.

If you have a gourmet table, with four silver platters, each with a different coloured turd upon it, would you want a fifth option to be at all like the others?  I'd settle for a styrofoam plate and a card table if it meant a decent meal.

Using your comparison, there would be four platters on table and fifth you must eat in lobby before entering room with table, because simply victory would end 10, 15 minutes sooner then rest of game - Fleet arrived and defeated Reapers... end of story.

[LucasShark]

SNascimento wrote...

No.
.
Without the catalyst victory is impossible, simple as that.

BOy is your avatar fitting... what games were you playing?

[Oransel]

samb wrote...

Logic says (even in the real world) that you can't beat a force that is technologically superior to you, you has no logistic issues, who can replenish its ranks with your dead and brainwash your living, and who has culled a vast portion of your population. It's not a jump in logic to see why conventional methods would work. We are even given a previous example of how the combination of those factors make conventional warfare against the Reaper unfeasible in the form of the Protheans. 

Shep and co beat the collectors because they had the reaper IFF. The Crucible is the key in this game and serves the same function in ME3. If you refuse to use it then the logical consequence is death. If you have a hard time accepting that then don't play or do anything that has any possibility of working against you. 
Even if those consequences were the result of your own actions. 

I still dissagree. Sure at low EMS it would be impossible. Even on high EMS it wouldn't. But on ~ 8000 EMS or more, this would work. Why not add this very special ending of conventional victory if everything goes right?

[LucasShark]

JamesFaith wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Irish286 wrote...

Why couldn't they just ad one last ending where if we have enough war assets we could defeat the reapers... Are they that intent on a bittersweet ending?

Lets put aside if endings are good or not and use simple logic on this.

We have four ending now.

To achieve Destroy you must fight through London, get to Citadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and destroy Reapers.
To achieve Control you must fight through London, get to Citadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and take control of Reapers.
To achieve Synthesis you must fight through London, get to Citadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and start synthesis.
To achievenew end you must fight through London, get to CItadel, speak with TIM and Catalyst and refuse his option.

But end you demanding simply don't need London, Citadel, TIM and Catalyst - which means that such end would be totally unfitting to others four. No arrogance, ego or love for bittersweet ends here, it just not fitting.

If you have a gourmet table, with four silver platters, each with a different coloured turd upon it, would you want a fifth option to be at all like the others?  I'd settle for a styrofoam plate and a card table if it meant a decent meal.

Using your comparison, there would be four platters on table and fifth you must eat in lobby before entering room with table, because simply victory would end 10, 15 minutes sooner then rest of game - Fleet arrived and defeated Reapers... end of story.

Good enough for me: and if I could I'd wipe those 10 minutes from my mind so I could feel some liking for this universe again.

[Kanon777]

z_gun wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

z_gun wrote...

Pretty much the refusal ending was Bioware raising their middle finger saying, "Screw you and your fan suggested endings. See, they made you lose your game. You should have picked our endings."

I am sorry, but Bioware has lost me now.

More or less what I got out of it.

Yup. So the lesson they want to teach us with the Refusal ending is "Pick a color or die!!!!"

Screw you and the artistic integrity you rode in on Bioware!

Or maybe, they realised that giving the option to end the cicle without the catalyst would make the entire plot of ME3 pointless, so its best to let players make the choice and lose the war (even tho the cycle after us DOES defeat the reapers).

There is no "raising their middle finger" going on here, they just made a 4rth option with its own rewards and consequences. If you dont like them you can chose something else...

[LucasShark]

Kanon777 wrote...

z_gun wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

z_gun wrote...

Pretty much the refusal ending was Bioware raising their middle finger saying, "Screw you and your fan suggested endings. See, they made you lose your game. You should have picked our endings."

I am sorry, but Bioware has lost me now.

More or less what I got out of it.

Yup. So the lesson they want to teach us with the Refusal ending is "Pick a color or die!!!!"

Screw you and the artistic integrity you rode in on Bioware!

Or maybe, they realised that giving the option to end the cicle without the catalyst would make the entire plot of ME3 pointless, so its best to let players make the choice and lose the war (even tho the cycle after us DOES defeat the reapers).

There is no "raising their middle finger" going on here, they just made a 4rth option with its own rewards and consequences. If you dont like them you can chose something else...

I'd take 1 pointless game plot over 2 pointless game plots... basic logic says 1 is less than 2.  And honestly: ME3's plot isn't that good.

[samb]

Oransel wrote...

I still dissagree. Sure at low EMS it would be impossible. Even on high EMS it wouldn't. But on ~ 8000 EMS or more, this would work. Why not add this very special ending of conventional victory if everything goes right?

Okay I can certeinly support another ending, especially one that rewards me for promoting in multiplayer.  But my point has always been that the refusal ending does make perfect sense. Taking it personal ("I'm being punished") is the only reason why you can't see the ending for what it is. 

[TurambarEA]

It felt like a punishment to me. Your war assets don't factor into it at all. Not even with 7K+ EMS do they make a difference. I really, really wanted a reject/conventional option in there but this outright defeat/extermination/failure feels like a punishment.

[chuckles471]

samb wrote...

Oransel wrote...

As I said, it's hard to grasp fictional logic invented by other man, who refuses common sense. Yes, I refuse Starchild because it's the most rational way of thinking. You can't trust Deus Ex Machina affilated with Reapers. You just can't... Oh sorry, you can.

Logic says (even in the real world) that you can't beat a force that is technologically superior to you, you has no logistic issues, who can replenish its ranks with your dead and brainwash your living, and who has culled a vast portion of your population. It's not a jump in logic to see why conventional methods would work. We are even given a previous example of how the combination of those factors make conventional warfare against the Reaper unfeasible in the form of the Protheans. 

Shep and co beat the collectors because they had the reaper IFF. The Crucible is the key in this game and serves the same function in ME3. If you refuse to use it then the logical consequence is death. If you have a hard time accepting that then don't play or do anything that has any possibility of working against you. 
Even if those consequences were the result of your own actions. 

Vietnam, Scotland and others that I can't think of the top of my head would disagree.  You can win a war when the odds are stacked against you.  It's a little thing called tactics but yeah chances are they would wipe the floor with us.  
I would mention a country from central Europe but they were the bad guys.

[z_gun]

LucasShark wrote...

Kanon777 wrote...

z_gun wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

z_gun wrote...

Pretty much the refusal ending was Bioware raising their middle finger saying, "Screw you and your fan suggested endings. See, they made you lose your game. You should have picked our endings."

I am sorry, but Bioware has lost me now.

More or less what I got out of it.

Yup. So the lesson they want to teach us with the Refusal ending is "Pick a color or die!!!!"

Screw you and the artistic integrity you rode in on Bioware!

Or maybe, they realised that giving the option to end the cicle without the catalyst would make the entire plot of ME3 pointless, so its best to let players make the choice and lose the war (even tho the cycle after us DOES defeat the reapers).

There is no "raising their middle finger" going on here, they just made a 4rth option with its own rewards and consequences. If you dont like them you can chose something else...

I'd take 1 pointless game plot over 2 pointless game plots... basic logic says 1 is less than 2.  And honestly: ME3's plot isn't that good.

I did like a lot of ME3's plot, but I pretty much agree with you. I would rather have an ok ending that saves three games than a horrible ending that ruins the series.

And to the comment about removing the catalyst making ME3's plot pointless, THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Bioware cannot seem to grasp that the Star Child is a lame story device that ruins a lot of the intriguing elements of the ME universe and that is spouts canon-contradicting logic. So the fact they decided to hinge the end of on series and the future of another on a plot-ruining character is why it is lame.

And if the "good options" were the original three, then they should have have teased us with an alternate solution AFTER the original ending. Usually that would mean there is an ALTERNATE way to solve a problem, not an alternate ending where we are told that we shoudl have taken the red pill like you did in the first place! That is why it is such a middle finger: it acknowledges our complaints for an alternate ending and tells us how stupid we are for asking.

[z_gun]

chuckles471 wrote...

samb wrote...

Oransel wrote...

As I said, it's hard to grasp fictional logic invented by other man, who refuses common sense. Yes, I refuse Starchild because it's the most rational way of thinking. You can't trust Deus Ex Machina affilated with Reapers. You just can't... Oh sorry, you can.

Logic says (even in the real world) that you can't beat a force that is technologically superior to you, you has no logistic issues, who can replenish its ranks with your dead and brainwash your living, and who has culled a vast portion of your population. It's not a jump in logic to see why conventional methods would work. We are even given a previous example of how the combination of those factors make conventional warfare against the Reaper unfeasible in the form of the Protheans. 

Shep and co beat the collectors because they had the reaper IFF. The Crucible is the key in this game and serves the same function in ME3. If you refuse to use it then the logical consequence is death. If you have a hard time accepting that then don't play or do anything that has any possibility of working against you. 
Even if those consequences were the result of your own actions. 

Vietnam, Scotland and others that I can't think of the top of my head would disagree.  You can win a war when the odds are stacked against you.  It's a little thing called tactics but yeah chances are they would wipe the floor with us.  
I would mention a country from central Europe but they were the bad guys.

I could also add the Revolutionary War, the Afghans fighting the Russians and other conflicts to that list. Also, I believe EDI mentioned in ME2 how the balance of her and Joker flying the ship defies predictive models. Superior technology would win in a one on one match, but the addition of Joker allows for a way for the lesser model to win. So therefore ME3's logic defies the series own established logic.

[mupchu777]

Seriously...

I think it was a nice gesture... It was a valid option but as they stated in the podcast they were not trying to appease those who flat out hated all of the ending and wanted a brand new one... I appriciated the option was givin to tell the star kid to take a hike... Yeah you lose, but you win in the end (due to Liara's capsule).. that truely is a bittersweet ending if I saw one...

Would I have liked all of the fleets to defeat the repears if you had enough ems... yes but highly unrealistic... I think it balanced walking between pissing off those people who liked the original endings (all 10 of them) and those that want closure... The IT was a nice dream but we need to wake up now...

[A0170]

"I am, literally, absolutely, satisfied with the EC."

*points* Anne Perkins

[Theobuomai]

It's possible as punishment, but I like that it keeps the Reapers as the significant, overwhelming force they are. I felt a bit like they were getting nerfed throughout ME3. Plus, I like the meaning behind the fact that just because you stick to your idealistic decision doesn't mean victory for you (though it does here for the future ultimately). Kinda like a Braveheart heroism.

I tend to interpret it as the Bioware team just giving a realistic consequence to your choice, at least one consistent with the Reapers finally being an overwhelming force for the galaxy, which I feel fits better with ME1 & 2.

[LucasShark]

Theobuomai wrote...

It's possible as punishment, but I like that it keeps the Reapers as the significant, overwhelming force they are. I felt a bit like they were getting nerfed throughout ME3. Plus, I like the meaning behind the fact that just because you stick to your idealistic decision doesn't mean victory for you (though it does here for the future ultimately). Kinda like a Braveheart heroism.

I tend to interpret it as the Bioware team just giving a realistic consequence to your choice, at least one consistent with the Reapers finally being an overwhelming force for the galaxy, which I feel fits better with ME1 & 2.

#@&$ REALISTIC!

I'm playing as a man who fell from high-orbit and lived, give me a decent ending.

[samb]

z_gun

I could also add the Revolutionary War, the Afghans fighting the Russians and other conflicts to that list. Also, I believe EDI mentioned in ME2 how the balance of her and Joker flying the ship defies predictive models. Superior technology would win in a one on one match, but the addition of Joker allows for a way for the lesser model to win. So therefore ME3's logic defies the series own established logic.

There also many more examples of technologically superior forces beating weaker ones. In fact they are so common that to list them be insulting to your grasp of history.  EDI did mention her surprise but then Joker quickly put into perpective: we just need a gun that fires thresher maws. Basically those are exceptions rather than the rule. 

And let's not forget all the other advantages that the Reapers enjoy. Being about to turn your dead and living against you with, having no need for sleep or food etc. 

Its like arguing with a Birther. No matter what proof is presented, they still can't believe a black guy is President. 

[Oransel]

Game has, indeed, violated realistic part long ago with Shepard being resurrected. Not to mention a lot of other cool things. That's why "impossible" conventional victory is possible.

[LegendaryBlade]

It was Bioware's form of a temper tantrum, I wont let it taint the rest of the EC if it's any good (I'm downloading it now, just watched the refusal on youtube) but that's obviously what it is. Bioware wanted to stomp their feet and make a point, fine, whatever.

It's the only ending completely unaffected by EMS, it's the shortest ending, and uses a cheap fade to black. It was something they probably threw in last minute. Still, I find it funny that so many people are choosing it. If Bioware really monitors our choices for data, i'll probably choose it two or three times.

[lord_shift]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Well i'll say this. This EC has given me enough closure from bioware that I should never buy another game from them. Ever. It really isn't even about the ending anymore. It's about the lying and the way the fans are treated now. The passive aggressive refusal ending. The fact that they know most people hate the ending and just went through the motions of fixing it but actually did nothing, and actually point by point did what the fans said not to do in a EC.

At this point I just don't even know what to think anymore. I just know bioware is not a good game making company anymore by way of the games they make and how they treat the fans. Lying over and over while knowing you are lying is not okay.

[Jonathan Shepard]

Theobuomai wrote...

It's possible as punishment, but I like that it keeps the Reapers as the significant, overwhelming force they are. I felt a bit like they were getting nerfed throughout ME3. Plus, I like the meaning behind the fact that just because you stick to your idealistic decision doesn't mean victory for you (though it does here for the future ultimately). Kinda like a Braveheart heroism.

I tend to interpret it as the Bioware team just giving a realistic consequence to your choice, at least one consistent with the Reapers finally being an overwhelming force for the galaxy, which I feel fits better with ME1 & 2.

This. There definitely is a hint of arrogance coming from Mac and Casey/Starchild with this ending, but in the end, the next cyle prevails. And the whole "what if we don't make it" conversations mean much much much more. Liara's capsule actually has significance now, too. 

Perhaps they meant it as a "fine, here take your rejection and lose!" But to me? The fact that they actually DID add the new ending makes it smell of victory to me, despite the heavy sacrifice. It's not perfect, but I'll take rejecting the Starkid's logic and getting a cutscene over not doing anything and nothing happening except for a "critical mission failure" screen.

[LucasShark]

samb wrote...


Its like arguing with a Birther. No matter what proof is presented, they still can't believe a black guy is President. 

... That is the dumbest thing I've heard all morning: There is domonstratable proof that Barak Obama was born in the US, versus historical events which fall on both sides of an issue?  Are you high?

[Kirk377]

The Reapers would actually be spiteful enough to say 'so be it'? LOL so be it? Are you kidding me? Talk about bad writing. How cheap!? Speaking of cheap did anybody see the control option with Shepard talking all super AI Shepard God? It's reminds of like a cheap Sci Fi channel show.

[EvilChani]

LucasShark wrote...

Are we litterally being punished for not accepting the self-confirming circular reasoning of the catalyst's pseudo-intelectual rubbish?  I'm referring to the "reject ending" where in we more or less get the gaurenteed "everyone dies", and yet somehow it is still my favourite of the now 4 potential endings...

My take, after watching all four possible endings is this: 

1. The "screw you, kid, I won't be your slave" ending is, indeed, "punishment". It's BioWare's (i.e., Casey and Mac) temper tantrum and "f*** all of you who didn't like our awesome art!". On a positive note, however minor, they did actually pay attention and read the threads or they would not have included a scene for those of us who said our Shepard would tell the godbrat to go screw himself. They just wanted to make sure that, if our Shepard did not conform to what they saw as the only possibilities, then our Shepard destroyed all humans, Turians, Asari, etc. 

The bad part is that BioWare honestly seems to loathe the idea of freedom. Instead, they would rather ram the idea of submission down our throats - "The Catalyst knows more than you, you should just obey and not try to fight against him." - which infuriates me. Before the EC, I thought that the ending was nothing more than a political/social statement by BioWare, where they were trying to force their ideals down our throats. After the EC, I am more than convinced that I'm right. 

2. Someone, and I won't name names here, has the mentality of a freaking five-year old. The idea of synthesis is ridiculous, as is the idea that "If we were all just the same, then we'd never ever fight and would all get along forEVAH!!!". Look at the Geth...they were all the same, had a hive mind, shared all their thoughts and information and they STILL had a split between them because they managed not to agree! And we're supposed to buy this freedom-hating, individualist-despising view that we'll all be peaceful, loving, accepting, pot-smoking hippies if we just forget the individual and focus on the collective? Sorry, people, but you proved that theory wrong with the Geth. 

And don't even get me started on how utterly stupid it is to try to claim that Shepard "combining" with the crucible just magically and instantaneously coverts all life to a half-human, half-machine hybrid. I maybe could've bought future generations becoming some merging of the two - hell, they could've written it where they showed the birth of a "baby" from the Shepard/crucible instamerge and I'd have believed that more than this crap they wrote. The instant changing of every beings DNA gives new meaning to "space magic". It's childish and deluded, just is the idea that "making us all the same!" brings never ending peace. 

3. The destroy and control endings are pretty much the same...unsatisfying. I've seen people say that they think BioWare was trying to push this as "the best choice" but I don't agree considering the little dig the godbrat gets in there about this only being a temporary solution. The only "real" solutions are sythesis or control, both of which are all about crushing freedom and individuality. Sure, ReaperMasterShepard might be all cool by not letting the Reapers destroy advanced civilizations, but what happens when the "created" rebel against their "creators"? How d gaining control of the Reapers really stop synthetics from ever fighting non-synthetics in an effort to get control? So now Shepard, rather than the catalyst, gets to decide when and where the Reapers harvest? Anyway...

After watching the endings, I'm still not going to finish the game. There's no point. It's still a bunch of depressing BS, and the political statement BioWare is making with this game pisses me off. I don't play games to be depressed or angry, I play them because games used to be a nice escape from the real world where I had some control over my character's destiny. I could get a nice, feel-good ending and walk away with a smile. ME3 has ruined the other two games for me and I doubt I'll ever touch any of them again. There's no point, really. It's not like ME3 brings any satisfaction at all, and it makes ME2 utterly pointless. 

I also am convinced that DA3 will suck big sweaty balls, too. No doubt it'll be some depressing crap where everyone dies or where your character has to get ass raped by a dragon to create some new dragon-human hybrid that will magically bring peace to the world.  After all, the dragons are just misunderstood...they were just killing you for your own sake! 

I'd much rather go play the Dawnguard DLC...at least I know it won't suck because Bethesda actually gives a damn about its customers and making a game people can play without feeling like they should stab themselves in the head with a firepoker once they finish it. 

[LucasShark]

LegendaryBlade wrote...

It was Bioware's form of a temper tantrum, I wont let it taint the rest of the EC if it's any good (I'm downloading it now, just watched the refusal on youtube) but that's obviously what it is. Bioware wanted to stomp their feet and make a point, fine, whatever.

It's the only ending completely unaffected by EMS, it's the shortest ending, and uses a cheap fade to black. It was something they probably threw in last minute. Still, I find it funny that so many people are choosing it. If Bioware really monitors our choices for data, i'll probably choose it two or three times.

This is what I get too: a company who talked non-stop about choice is being annoyed that we don't like the illusion of choice they are projecting for us, so they actually made a cheap one.

[cgvhjb]

LucasShark wrote...

LegendaryBlade wrote...

It was Bioware's form of a temper tantrum, I wont let it taint the rest of the EC if it's any good (I'm downloading it now, just watched the refusal on youtube) but that's obviously what it is. Bioware wanted to stomp their feet and make a point, fine, whatever.

It's the only ending completely unaffected by EMS, it's the shortest ending, and uses a cheap fade to black. It was something they probably threw in last minute. Still, I find it funny that so many people are choosing it. If Bioware really monitors our choices for data, i'll probably choose it two or three times.

This is what I get too: a company who talked non-stop about choice is being annoyed that we don't like the illusion of choice they are projecting for us, so they actually made a cheap one.

Agreed, don't care for the idea that we either bow to the stagnant thought process of the Star Child (who clearly hasn't had an original thought in thousands and thousands of years) or we lose. Why can't organic/synthetic life suprise the SC and show that they amount to more than he thinks they can be and that he's really not all that special. Stick it to him, tell him to ****** off and make it stick would have been the most statisfying ending.

He wants to remove any real choice from Shep? Show him that you're more than he thinks you are and win despite his assumptions and remove choice from him when you break the cycle on its own.

Now that would have been statisfying