1199 réponses à ce sujet

[Coachdongwiffle]

No. conventional victory would have way more casualties than any of the other endings.

[Steel Dancer]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

Because people want the option of a happy ending in a world where there too often isn't one.


For the record I don't personally believe the Reapers could be defeated via conventional forces. There are simply too many, who are too powerful, for that to happen in the ME universe as it stands.

[Aurvant]

I believe that the Reapers can be defeated through conventional methods because,  after everyone told my shepard it wasn't possible, she went on to shoot a destroyer class with a single rocket launcher type weapon and it exploded in a single hit.

Why didn't they just arm everyone with one of those?

Modifié par Aurvant, 29 juin 2012 - 04:37 .

[Temper_Graniteskul]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

Why shouldn't there be? I like happy endings. I'll put a lot of time in to make sure I get them. Players working to get a happy ending like the one described - positive with little personal in-game cost - don't detract from the endings others choose. A happy ending doesn't diminish a sad one or a bittersweet one or even a bad one simply by existing.

If nothing else, I'll point to the precendent of the first two games: people died, there was 'sacrifice' (whatever is meant by that), yet Shepard and his crew remain largely intact. The sole exception is the Virmired squadmate. Hell, ME2 was billed as a suicide mission, Shep and squaddies outmatched by their enemy and heading into a place no one had ever come back from. Yet with relatively little effort you could not only come back from the mission, you could do so with your entire crew. The endings for ME1 and 2 were 'happy' of the sort described above; a lot of elbow grease got the job done, not the choices offered by the enemy.

For the people demanding sacrifice to somehow justify any ending that stops the Reapers, I'll defer to those previously who've mentioned that Palaven, Tuchanka, Thessia and Earth (plus other named but not seen planets). Sacrifices were made. Just as they were in the other games, actually; others paid the price, and Shep batted clean-up. It's just that this time it was unilaterally decided that Shep should take it on the chin or completely screw up everything they'd worked to accomplish.

I dislike it immensely when people change the rules of engagement. This is an area where I feel like the rules got changed arbitrarily because someone(s) thought that including a happy ending was 'too cliche' or trite or something, seemingly without caring that players do enjoy them. So yeah, bring on a happy ending.

[SION Q]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

SION Q wrote...

I am totally against any sort of 'conventional' victory over the Reapers as it makes no sense. This has been evident across the whole Mass Effect Trilogy - the reason they have been so dangerous as an adversary is because we have always known when they come in numbers we would have no way of winning a conventional war. Sovereign (one reaper) stood up to an entire fleet only succumbing when Sarens death overloaded its shields. At the beginning of Mass Effect 3 they obliterate much of the Alliances fleet and land on earth with ease! They have existed for millions of years and have destroyed civilizations more advanced than us (protheans anyone?).

The whole point of ME3 is to gather enough resources for the final battle to get a shot at using the crucible which is our one hope. The fact that its successful is nothing short of a miracle. A conventional victory would be nothing short of ludicrous! But Bioware did give those of you who want that a concession with the reject ending. Our cycle perished but the knowledge learned and oases on helps destroy the Reapers in a future cycle so it wasn't all for nothing.

People like to call synthesis 'space magic' well I believe in space magic more than I believe all the ships and Krogan ground troops in the milky way would have done anything more than delay the inevitable.

Conventionnal victory makes more sense than winning with 2 deus ex machina (crucible + kids)
After Sovereign was killed, better weapons were developped, including Thanix guns. Reverse engineer the reapers, and you could get even better technology

That's a pretty thin straw your clutching at there!

Your basically saying that because the alliance and other governments had 2-3 years to study whatever debris from sovereign they could collect, they've advanced the several thousand years in technology necessary to give them victory over the reapers?!?

Eh No. The Cataylst is actually a believable enity - an extremely advanced AI built millions of years ago by a civilzation far more advanced than our own. The crucible and it's effects are actually also believable bearing in mind that they were the design of races far more advanced than anyone around in the current cycle. Stating that a race can close a technology gap of several millenia in 2-3 years after studying some wreckage, I think that's the real 'space magic'.

Seriously if it were that easy we would never have to worry about the Reapers at all as one the previous races would have beaten them a long time ago. You think more advanced races such as the Protheans wouldn't have tried to reverse engineer Reaper technology? They didn't win why would it be any different with us. If we gave a medevial army a few guns would that make them formidable enough to fight a modern force? Are they going to reverse engineer an aircraft carrier out of them? Of course not.

It's ok to want an ending were Shepard survives with his LI and the whole galaxy is saved and everythings super but there's no point trying to justify it as fitting within the logic of the established universe.

[saber00005]

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

Agreed...

[Hicks233]

As an option it'd be good and yes. I would likely make every effort while playing to attain it.

If we're being advertised options and choices - what's so bad about having an admitedly cliche happy ending? Cliches work for a reason. People like them.

As long as the opposite is available and the range in between then each player can go for the ending they hope to get. This way no one is being forced to accept a particular ending and peoples efforts are fairly rewarded.

It then comes down to: Do you want the player to be able to come away from the game feeling satisfied? Or... do you have an agenda that you want to push?

[Menagra]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I could care less if he reunited.....even.when the original.endings.were what we had, it was never a reunion that was the problem...therefore the lack of one does not effect the quality of the EC....

I hated the original endings...

But I'm not going to sugar coat it....EC explained everything, and it gave closure......EC did its job superbly......people are really pathetic for saying blatant lies that the EC is bad, simply in spite of the fact that they didn't get their lame ass Cinderella ending....

Waaaaah wah waaaaah.......lil troll babies....just.complaining for the sake of complaining

Explain how anderson got to the controls for the Citadel arms before shepard and maybe I will stop whining

[K2LU533]

No.

[mrcanada]

I don't want a happy ending, I want endings that make sense within the universe and the rules that are put forth. Happy ending is impossible, millions are dying and millions more will, what's happy about that? The current endings are still terrible because they break almost every rule the series has created for almost three games.

IT was the way out and a gateway to one of the greatest endings of all time and it isn't true. We have to live with that

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Yes that is what I want.

[Kamfrenchie]

SION Q wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

SION Q wrote...

I am totally against any sort of 'conventional' victory over the Reapers as it makes no sense. This has been evident across the whole Mass Effect Trilogy - the reason they have been so dangerous as an adversary is because we have always known when they come in numbers we would have no way of winning a conventional war. Sovereign (one reaper) stood up to an entire fleet only succumbing when Sarens death overloaded its shields. At the beginning of Mass Effect 3 they obliterate much of the Alliances fleet and land on earth with ease! They have existed for millions of years and have destroyed civilizations more advanced than us (protheans anyone?).

The whole point of ME3 is to gather enough resources for the final battle to get a shot at using the crucible which is our one hope. The fact that its successful is nothing short of a miracle. A conventional victory would be nothing short of ludicrous! But Bioware did give those of you who want that a concession with the reject ending. Our cycle perished but the knowledge learned and oases on helps destroy the Reapers in a future cycle so it wasn't all for nothing.

People like to call synthesis 'space magic' well I believe in space magic more than I believe all the ships and Krogan ground troops in the milky way would have done anything more than delay the inevitable.

Conventionnal victory makes more sense than winning with 2 deus ex machina (crucible + kids)
After Sovereign was killed, better weapons were developped, including Thanix guns. Reverse engineer the reapers, and you could get even better technology

That's a pretty thin straw your clutching at there!

Your basically saying that because the alliance and other governments had 2-3 years to study whatever debris from sovereign they could collect, they've advanced the several thousand years in technology necessary to give them victory over the reapers?!?

Eh No. The Cataylst is actually a believable enity - an extremely advanced AI built millions of years ago by a civilzation far more advanced than our own. The crucible and it's effects are actually also believable bearing in mind that they were the design of races far more advanced than anyone around in the current cycle. Stating that a race can close a technology gap of several millenia in 2-3 years after studying some wreckage, I think that's the real 'space magic'.

Seriously if it were that easy we would never have to worry about the Reapers at all as one the previous races would have beaten them a long time ago. You think more advanced races such as the Protheans wouldn't have tried to reverse engineer Reaper technology? They didn't win why would it be any different with us. If we gave a medevial army a few guns would that make them formidable enough to fight a modern force? Are they going to reverse engineer an aircraft carrier out of them? Of course not.

It's ok to want an ending were Shepard survives with his LI and the whole galaxy is saved and everythings super but there's no point trying to justify it as fitting within the logic of the established universe.

Could a bunch of knight knock out several modern MBT ? No
But we kill 1 big reaper in ME1, and several others in the third.

Protheans lost because the were cut off from each other, the citadel shuting down themass relays.

And using their techs again them doesnt mea we're suddenly on the same level, but we get to fight back. If a knight pick up a gun from a dead soldier, he can kill other soldiers with it, despite no being as advanced as hi ennemies.

If th reapers ar that advanced we shouldn't be able to kill any.

1 of them get owned by a tresher maw ffs, how many tresher maws do you kils thrugh ME1 and 2 ? Several.

Th crucible is a deus ex machina. o way the reapers would have missed the the blueprints so man time, and no way we could build it without knowing how it works.
Well the game still has plenty of plotholes anyway

[Silpheed58]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm bolding the word "should" because many people are just saying "why not?"  In a completely fictional world, we could have had pink flamingos materialize doing the macarena while shooting laser beams out of their eyes as the way the game wraps up.  So yeah, they could have done it.  I'm asking why should it?

Dead serious, I would buy the DLC that added this ending to ME3.

[SeanThen1]

Great bunch of back-and-forth here in this thread. Big thanks to Allan and the constructive posters here.

[Lonsecia]

I've noticed more and more people at the bargaining stage of grief. So many people saying 'I'll even pay for a DLC that delivers a happy ending, or one I want'. I agree with others though that state it should have been an ending. I don't think I ever saw a way that my Shepard would survive, but she managed it with the now reduced EMS needed for the breath scene. It's not really what I wanted though, so I will just resign myself to the fact that ME doesn't have a satisfying ending for me.

[babachewie]

Nope boring. Go watch any summer hollywood blockbuster if you want that.

[RonnyB]

wantedman dan wrote...



I want this to be an option.

Modifié par RonnyB, 29 juin 2012 - 07:16 .

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...




This is also why I supported the fans' idea that there should be the option to refuse the Catalyst.  After the fact, I realized that providing these ethical considerations without providing the option for the player to say "I don't wish to compromise them" is less interesting.


Great question though!

But (According to Mike Gambles Twitter at least) the next cycle uses the catalyst anyway.  So space hitler still wins. He sets up 3 options, all of which are partial victories for him, and all refuse does is kick the can down the road.  I would have prefered, that with high enough EMS, this cycle was a Pyrrhic victory for the reapers, and next cycle wins conventioanlly, and never has to surrender to space brat.

[Gravbh]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Could a bunch of knight knock out several modern MBT ? No
But we kill 1 big reaper in ME1, and several others in the third.

Protheans lost because the were cut off from each other, the citadel shuting down themass relays.

And using their techs again them doesnt mea we're suddenly on the same level, but we get to fight back. If a knight pick up a gun from a dead soldier, he can kill other soldiers with it, despite no being as advanced as hi ennemies.

If th reapers ar that advanced we shouldn't be able to kill any.

1 of them get owned by a tresher maw ffs, how many tresher maws do you kils thrugh ME1 and 2 ? Several.

Th crucible is a deus ex machina. o way the reapers would have missed the the blueprints so man time, and no way we could build it without knowing how it works.
Well the game still has plenty of plotholes anyway

Knights knocking out a main battle-tank isn't a great analogy, I agree. How about this one? A squadron of P-51 Mustangs against a single F-22. That's world war 2 tech against modern day. The ww2 tech wouldn't stand a chance. Hell, a single F-22 wiped the floor with a squadron of F-15s in war games, and that's 80's tech. This is assuming the F-22 isn't grounded due to mechanical issues of course. lulz

The reapers are a bigger leap in tech over the races of Mass Effect than WW2 -> today.

[G Kevin]

babachewie wrote...

Nope boring. Go watch any summer hollywood blockbuster if you want that.

Well if it was an option for other players. then wouldn't we all be happy. You can choose youre ending, and others who want to, can choose their happy ending.

[SealKudos]

Shepard dies in every ending. The fact that we really don't get to choose to chicken out and have someone else pay the price (cough cough Dragon Age: Origins) diminishes that sacrifice. Now it's not a hero's sacrifice, but an "okay, well, I guess I have to do this no matter what".

There's no choice in dying except what color you die for, and who narrates it. How can I feel that I gave it my all when the game didn't give me another choice but to do just that?

[J5550123]

A perfect happy ending like that would have been awesome and would have made the game perfect for me.

[TreguardD]

I think the real problem, Allan, is that the Franchise is still *Torched*; especially in the Synthesis ending. We cannot have games set in the future in the Mass Effect universe; because the universe as we know it no longer exists in any of the four endings.

It is the equivalent of destroying the force, and the Jedi & Sith that go with it in Star Wars.

Despite all the evidence, I'm still a firm believer in the IT. Refusal means you are giving up.

I would love to see an X-Com style strategy game dealing with the aftermath of a "Refuse/Win" combination, though. Could be epic.

[CoolioThane]

Coachdongwiffle wrote...

No. conventional victory would have way more casualties than any of the other endings.

Dafuq?

Lots of casualties is a helluva lot less than "EVERY ONE ****ING DIES" mate.

Conventional would have the...3rd most, thus the 3rd least casualties of all 5 endings (if this were an ending)

1. Control - no real losses
2. Destroy - All reapers die
3. Conventional Victory - All reapers + a lot of allied forces
4. Refuse - Every single member of the allied force
5. Synthesis - EVERYTHING THAT EVER LIVES EVER + Synthetics

**** me, Conventional Victory would be a ****ing brilliant ending I would give my left nut for

[CaliGuy033]

No. Including that type of ending would be an absolute joke.